kms
With great respect, this is a serious issue which must be approached in a mature way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'No-one takes the Mirror seriously' / 'Keep quiet and it will go away' :
In normal circumstances I'd entirely agree with you, but we don't live in 'normal' times. What the Mirror thinks isn't the issue. Please don't make the mistake of thinking the government isn't already looking at all aspects of security. We must ensure that our arguments are taken into consideration before the government decides what restrictions upon aviation, if any, are necessary for security reasons. Complaining afterwards will be too late.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The objective of writing to Mr Keetch (as Defence spokesman for one of the three main parties) is to try to persuade him that he was too quick to support the Mirror's 'campaign' and that, if he considers your counter arguments, he will upon calm reflection realise that the Mirror was simply scare-mongering for the sake of a story.
Most of his ideas were ill-considered. One - 'armed police or troops to be stationed on rooftops to protect sensitive buildings from an air attack' - was completely potty. But, it's more effective to suggest such a measure would be of 'limited value' than to tell him you think he's barking mad!
All that said, Mr Keetch won't be making any decisions about whether to change the rules - the government will, and it is pointless suggesting to anyone in authority that the issue isn't even worthy of consideration. There are security implications attaching to helicopters/light aircraft operations in general. If we deny that, or give the impression that we don't realise it, we lose all credibility.
The more persuasive approach is to accept that in the current climate the government has to be concerned about all aspects of security - including helicopters/light aircraft - and demonstrate by carefully reasoned, informed arguments that the theoretical risks are, in reality, so small that they don't require/justify changing the existing rules. ie A knee-jerk over-reaction to a minor risk would be wrong. The damage a light helicopter could do is minute compared with a large lorry or boat. Even if all helicopter flights over London were banned, that wouldn't stop a determined terrorist - if he's bent on a suicide mission, upsetting the CAA enforcement branch is going to be the last thing on his mind. An exclusion zone over parts of Washington DC is understandable, but are we Brits really at such risk that we're going to have fighters on standby ready to enforce it here?
In the current climate, complaining that we don't want our freedom to fly restricted won't cut any ice. We have to show there is no good reason to restrict our freedom - even in the current climate.
If that is unsuccessful, our fall-back position should be to try to ensure that if any rules are changed, or new rules introduced, they cause as little interference as possible with our present freedoms. eg If passengers on commercial helicopter flights were required by law to produce ID and/or to submit to a search with a hand-held x-ray machine, that would be a minor (and largely pointless) inconvenience - but far better than having all helicopter flights over London banned.
Don't make Mr Keetch's mistake of sounding off out before thinking through the implications of what you say. Nothing is going to happen overnight - give yourself a few days to think how best to present your arguments.
In the meantime, we can monitor what the people with power are saying.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 2nd Mar 2003 at 19:18.