So now the NIMBYS have a new tool

[PFLsAgain]

Shropshire Star today (http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/november02/27th/airfields.asp)

Now this needs some serious thought. It looks as though the NIMBYS have the ideal tool to shut down all GA in the country if we're not careful.

How are airfields around the country responding? I have recently been appointed to the council of management at Sleap and we intend bringing in new rules as of 1st January to deal with this kind of thing. I would be very interested to hear what plans other clubs/operators have or will put in place.

:mad: :mad:

[rustle]

Yes, this story front page of the times today as well.

[sennadog]

Possibly due to the fact that Shropshire is nowhere near the sea, it seems to have escaped their attention that it would be a hell of a lot easier for bin Liner's mates to bring in nasties on a small yacht.

:rolleyes:

[long final]

The Telegraph ran it as well. The problem is that there is an argument in there. :(

LF

[Dave Gittins]

Sounds like a more practical approach by the Government would be .... instead of trying to keep tabs on every piece of grass over 200 M long - it doesn't need to be an actual airfield ...... to give London Information a super duper radar set looking low over the channel and require all of us crossing the narrow bit to keep in contact and squawk.

Would be something of an aid to safety, give me a better feeling of well being on murky days over the channel and could give a couple of lads in Tornados based at Manston something to amuse themselves, chasing those who didn't call up. After all, we all need a flight plan already, so it shouldn't cause us any problems and could only be of benefit..

Couple of million quid well spent I'd have thought.

[PFLsAgain]

And now they want locals to keep an eye on the airfield: report here (http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/november02/27th/comment.asp)

Hasn't it occurred to them that there are aircraft than can land in fields?! :rolleyes:

[StrateandLevel]

Has it not occured to them that we have an air defence system that tracks unidentified aircraft?

[Avoiding Action]

I suspect the answer to the last two questions are 'No' and 'No.'

The argument is, at best, superficial and , at worst, manipulative and facile. One can only hope that common sense will prevail if this goes any higher :rolleyes:

[rustle]

It's conceivable that the timing of this report, almost co-incident with the Mode S RFC, was planned.

If all legally flying objects have Mode S identifying who/what/where they are, anything not displaying Mode S readout is a "threat".

Problem gone, Mr/Mrs/Ms Concerned Public - almost before anyone realised there was a problem ;)

[Mr Wolfie]

Rustle - I think you may have hit the nail on the head.

Mr.W

[long final]

My reading of this story, as much as we all know journo's can spin it, is that the report looked at many ways terrorists et al could get themselves and items into the UK un-noticed. Many areas have been noted, GA airfields are just one.

Rather than go straight on the defence, and blame everyone else and all the other failings, should we actually look at what has been said? INHO it’s our job to convince others we are safe and beneficial (in many ways). Trying to blame everyone else won't work.

The report lends itself (after media adaptation?) to the fact that with co-operation from the pilot, entry from the continent via smaller (and I would add a few larger) fields, even when following ALL the necessary regulations, could give illegal access with a minimum amount of risk of detection.

I would ask how many times, as a percentage of trips, have you been met by anyone even when informing all necessary authorities and filing all necessary flight plan details? And remember you are law-abiding individuals.

A weather diversion, a tech problem on the way to the small field on route? Just a plain landing at a trusting field with a heavy wallet??

The report doesn't look good for GA in general, but we aren’t the only ones singled out. The original thread was regarding NIMBYs using this against GA - we will only be able to counter that if we accept there may just be an issue here and then maybe have some practical solutions.

Regards,
LF

[nonradio]

Dave Gittins - this has to be a Swift-esque piece of nonsense?
You can't be serious? Nah.

[stiknruda]

Here in deepest E Anglia, the local constabulary have appointed a liason officer to keep in touch with strip owners post Sep 11. As I am allegedly deemed to be an upstanding member of the local community, Plod-U-Like drops in occasionally , depletes my stock of Earl Grey and asks me about any unusual aircraft movements or strange requests for operations on the strip. So the Old Bill at least here are aware of a potential problem and are at least addressing it in a non-partisan way.

I do not hold with the suggestion that we all adopt mode S parrots. Many farm-strips are home to an eclectic mix of flying machines, many do not have any electrical systems and many do not even have a batterty operated hand-held radio. It would be a real travesty if we operators of vintage types were penalised by other fliers who, whilst defending their rights to aviate in spam-cans, denied us old fashioned folk access to our exotica!

Stik:p

[rustle]

Ananova now carrying the news about the Kenya bombing.

Eye witness statement suggests a light aircraft dropped something near the hotel reception just prior to the explosion.

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_717834.html?menu=news.latestheadlines

[Hairyplane]

Hi PFL,

You have started a very interesting thread.

I have to agree that it should be fairly straightforward to land anything nasty by air - drug runners have been doing it for years (big trial in progress as we speak - albeit via a freight plane on this occasion).

It surely beggars the question - 'how is it possible to legislate for the unknown minority? '

We are all aware of the knee-jerk reaction on gun control post-Dumblaine, all because of one total nutter.

As a law abiding citizen who flies across the Channel regularly, I am aware that London Information has no radar.

So - there I am, coasting out from Cap Griz Nez for DVR, a crossing that takes 12 minutes, and - because London is busy with several a/c 'standing by' and others getting 'stepped on' - it is easy to coast in without ever having spoken to them.

Once on the other side, the desire to obtain a FIS diminishes, especially if they are so busy.

To be honest, I don't really see the point in talking to a FIS - other than cross-channel of course - unless I have a specific query.

I believe that we can do more to spot the nutters by issuing tighter directives to the AME's.

Trouble is - with the new NPPL you only need to satisfy your own GP that you are fit enough to apply for an HGV licence.

Lets grasp a nettle here. If you want to fly a small plane in from abroad and do something nasty with it - there is little to stop you - just the same as if somebody wants to fly into a London 'target' or, for that matter, drive through the Channel Tunnel. If the mindset is there, a nutter can easily do it.

However, short of Draconian measures there is little that can be doneto effectively reduce the risk of a problem arriving by small plane.

Much easier of course to cause an outrage with a vehicle.

As with guns - the vast majority of firearm permit-holders were normal, sensible people. THe laws that were introduced post-Dumblaine only skimmed off the guns held legitimately. We still have a huge number of illegally held firearms in the UK.

Legislation only works for accountable, law-abiding people. It is the 5% in this Country that causes 95% of the law and order problems.

We must fight tooth and nail to protect our hobby. This matter does have potentially serious implications.

Putting my head above the parapet here(!) - I don't have a problem if I am required to fit a transponder and make a radio call every time I fly - if this is the only price to pay.

Crazy of course to require this of microlight/ glider pilots etc.

I shall watch this thread with interest (whilst wearing a flak jacket....!!)


HP

[Whirlybird]

It wouldn't be impossible to fly below radar detection level and land in a field, particularly in a helicopter. Or, for that matter, to land a small boat, as has been mentioned. You can't legislate for 100% security.

I think this is mainly a case of journalists trying to make a story on a day they don't have one, and that it will die a natural death.

[Who has control?]

I would have thought that a light aircraft is a very inappropriate tool to use for smuggling, its noisy, you are restricted as to where you can land and the amount you can bring in is quite small.

Compare this to a yacht which can moor in any secluded creek and carry a ton or more, or any one of the thousands of vehicles that enter the country via the cross-channel ferries.

[PFLsAgain]

Hi Hairyplane

I basically agree with you. I think that a "creative" terrorist could easily get around any air defences we have (think of the chap who flew his Cessna into Red Square), or past any checks we have on airfields. Whether they would want to is another question. There have to be "better" ways to cause damage that with the limited opportunities a light aircraft give you.

The defence of civil liberties is an interesting one. Ban guns following Dunblane, then aeroplanes following 9/11, then cars following a car bomb attack?? Where do you stop? For the general public, it seems to me that the point they stop banning things is the point at which it affects them. In other words they would be happy to ban guns and light aircraft because these are things that ordinary people just don't do. However, you can't ban flying off on a jet on your holidays or driving a car, because that would affect ME. Relative safety is not the issue, otherwise none of us would ever get in our cars, we'd all go by train. Personal freedom is the issue, but it seems most people will only allow freedoms that they themselves enjoy, disregarding the freedoms of minorities. It's a classical example of what John Stuart Mill called the dictatorship of the majority. He classified mature democracies as those which specifically prevented the dictatorship of the majority and defended all minority rights so long as they did not cause harm to others. It seems to me that by this definition we are rapidly moving away from democracy.

However, returning to the subject, I agree with LF that we have to ask ourselves if there is a real issue here and do what we can to address it. Also, if NIMBYs do use it to attack GA (and the link I put up suggests that is exactly what they are doing), then to stand back and say that there is no problem is not going to satisfy the voting public, who after all have the final say. I was hoping to get some idea of how other airfields are addressing security issues because this is something we are starting to address at Sleap. I hope that we can do this in a low key (but effective) manner without affecting our good club atmosphere.

Any suggestions anyone?

[2WingsOnMyWagon]

Dont these people do any real research!!!
What the hell are AWACS for??? As already said, A more realistic threat is on the back of a truck.... Along with all the immigrants!!:mad: :mad: :mad:

[bingoboy]

Not sure if terrorists have any aircraft carriers ? I think that last time I looked at the map the majority of countries near us don't have terrorist problems (well maybe one does and we have hoops to jump through when flying to the IOM etc).

Helicopters might pose problems and whilst in paranoia mode what if those pesky chaps took a leaf out of the Japanese books and used balloons !!

Really vigilance is one thing but madness another.

[rustle]

Check out this letter from:

FELIX KARTHAUS,
Border Consultants, Woodland Place,
Belford, Northumberland NE70 7QA.

He's written to The Times, letters today

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-503259,00.html


Now the nimbys are amongst us.

Maybe he's lost his medical or something ;)


(BTW, "Border Consultants", despite their grand name, do not consult about national boundaries - they plant flowers. Hope the other readers of his letter know this...)

http://www.bordcons.demon.co.uk/page2.html

[poetpilot]

..and this one in this week's Salford Advertiser........

"BARTON TERROR WARNING - EXCLUSIVE by Allsa Cranna
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEARS that Al-Qaeda terrorists could use Barton Airport as a secret route into Britain have been firmly denied by airport bosses. Manager Kay Nugent this week told The Advertiser security was tight, with constant checks by Special Branch to prevent bombers sneaking in. And, she insisted, no overseas planes were allowed to land at the Liverpool Road- based airport without prior security checks.

Her assurances came in the wake of warnings from Lord Alex Carlisle of Berriew that terrorists could choose smaller airports to enter the UK. He argued on the Sunday TV current affairs show 'Breakfast with Frost” that smaller airports could be used to import terrorist materials into the UK. Lord Carlisle, an independent reviewer of the Terrorism Act of 2000, published his annual review of the Act last week. Speaking to The Advertiser on Tuesday, he said: "One of the elements was the possibility that small ports and airports could be used for the importation of terrorist materials into the UK. I gave as my example Kent, which has 80 small airports."

In the light of this, he urged small airports such as Barton to step up their own security immediately. However, Ms Nugent told The Advertiser that security was already at the top of their list of priorities. "We have, and have always had, a very good relationship with Special Branch," she said, "although we clearly cannot go into details. "We have equally strong links with Customs and Immigration. No-one is allowed to leave their overseas destination without filing a flight plan which will be checked by one, or all three, of these bodies. Everything that lands at Barton Airport has to have proper permission and checks.

"Lord Carlisle's remarks are fair comment but we can reassure the Salford public that we do everything we can."

Local councillor Roger Jones, added: "You don't normally associate Barton Airport with terrorist activities but we must all accept in the current climate that security is of paramount importance.

We must also remember that on September 11, 2001 the terrorists might have flown from leading airports but that they did their flight training at smaller ones.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've written a letter to the editor as follows..........

"Sir/Madam

Your headline exclusive on "Barton Terror Alert", to some extent encouraged by the views of a local councillor, raises the spectre of terrorists using Barton, Salford's own little airport, for their evil purposes.

However, we should note that Barton actually enjoys a 24-hour police presence, courtesy of the Police Helicopter Unit. I am sure that they, working in concert with the security forces, are more than capable of dealing with suspicious activities. I am also sure that pilots themselves, only too aware of security risks associated with aviation, are being extra vigilant at this time.

In my opinion, the greater danger lies in the unknown - in that terrorists can use any vehicle, (land, sea or air) at any location to prepare for or commit their crimes against humanity. We must ALL be vigilant, and try to "think outside the box" in terms of assessing suspicious activities. When or if another act occurs, it will occur with the element of surprise rather than predictability.

Lastly, we must appreciate that we will only win this war if can preserve our democracy and freedom. If we curtail our activities, then we have lost to the terrorists. "

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

If anyone else writes, please be gentle on our local newspaper - they are broadly speaking supportive (and even at worst, neutral) on Barton and its survival struggle. We dont want to make enemies of them.

www.salfordadvertiser.co.uk

[Who has control?]

From poetpilots paper :-


Kent has over 80 small airports

I'm assuming here that they are giving Varmer Giles' grass strip the same status as Manston's tarmac acres, as my half-mill only shows about 20.

If every grass strip suddenly assumes the status of 'Airport', then there is certainly no runway shortage in the South East, not with over 80 in Kent alone.

[Julian]

If they think the small strips are a problem they should check out the story in 'Rumours n news'. Pilots jailed for throwing 271kg of cocaine out of the back of a 707 onto Southend runway!!!

[ratsarrse]

One can only hope that common sense will prevail if this goes any higher

I think you could wait a long time for common sense to prevail ;)