Kneejerk reactions

[eyeinthesky]

Can anyone explain to me what Mr Blair thinks he is achieving by banning commercial traffic from flying a normal ILS to Heathrow over London? The average religious fanatic will take no notice of such restrictions as he aims his twin- or four-engined missile at Westminster. Why disrupt normal traffic even more than it is by the situation in USA?

I have long said that allowing twin-engined aircraft with one out or those with a bomb threat should not be allowed to fly over London on their way into Heathrow, but I fail to see why hijacked airliners apparently flown by fanatics with horrific consequences should bring about this kneejerk edict from our great leader.

The banning of all private flying without an AOC is a strange one. I suppose the fear is that the same fanatic might hijack or steal a 152 and crash that into somewhere important.

My point I suppose is that I cannot see why the vast majority of normal aviation should be so severely restricted when the type of people who committed the outrage in USA would not be affected by these restrictions anyway. What is happening is just what they wanted: mass disruption of normal life. We should increase our security checks as necessary, but the rest should go on as normal.

[Lawyerboy]

To prevent panic, perhaps? How many calls to the emergency services might there have been yesterday if a/c had been allowed to carry on over the centre of London? 747s can appear awfully low and loud when turning final over the City.

[Not Long Now]

Unfortunately, 'One' has to be SEEN to be doing something, no matter how ineffectual it may be.

[Avoiding Action]

Politicians' Disease, isn't it?

"Something must be Done" -> "This is something..." -> "We'll do this!" :rolleyes:

[Aluminium Importer]

Simply to be seen doing *something* as opposed to be seen doing nothing at all.

Lawyerboy,

People are more likely to panic seeing low flying 747s etc where they don't normally see them (albeit not over Central London) as these aircraft carry out their shortened approaches.

AI

[karrank]

Looking at the graphics of the 4 US flights, none were anywhere near their targets when taken over. Once they were taken over I don't think they were taking much notice of Restricted Airspace, but were taking User Preferred Routing to new levels of personal convenience. Bastards.

Realistically, Restricted Airspace offers NO PROTECTION AT ALL TO ANYBODY. It's a fence anybody can step over if they really want to. It causes inconvenience and increases costs to those who intend no harm, and don't have any effect on those that do.

If somebody is serious about providing a "fence", they need a dog as well. How about a Phalanx on each corner of a building you really want to protect? Should do wonders for chart sales...

[NorthernSky]

The real worry is that the general public look at all of these waste-of-time ineffectual 'measures' and feel satisfied that all is well.

Locking the stable door after the horse has bolted is one thing, but pretending that the stable door is locked, pointing to it, and saying 'that's sorted that out, then', is quite another.

The rubbish I have put up with at work in the last three days has been incredible. Anyone who thinks that a single genuine step towards safety has been taken is kidding themselves.

The worst policies arise from knee-jerk reactions, and these are often the hardest to change. We have just taken another giant leap in the wrong direction.

[tired]

Yeah, it's ridiculous, isn't it! Politicians.... :mad:

Is this no-fly zone a permanent thing, then, or just UFN?

[centigrade100]

I think you are missing the point, the change in flight path will be adhered to by normal flights.
The flights that ignore the new rules are immediatly seen as suspicious.

[WetFeet]

If they are going to ignore rules they will do it, regardless of whether they are new or not. Introducing new rules increases the chances of someone not knowing, or forgetting them. I agree, the new rules are a waste of time, and could be dangerous as well!

[NorthernSky]

Centigrade100,

Once you have identified that flight as suspicious, you need time and space to challenge it, await a response, target it, and shoot it down (assuming that's your intention). BUT, you must shoot it down over an area where significant collateral damage is unlikely.

So, for London, Birmingham might just be far enough away for these procedures to work. That would mean closing all airports closer to London than Birmingham is.

That is why this will not work.

To combat this specific threat, we need flight decks which cannot be entered or tampered with from the cabin. That is, are bullet-proof and have their own air supply. We then need to ensure against the aircraft being blown up in the air by either a device on board or by SAM.

We would also need pilots who are prepared to listen to their cabin crew, on interphone, telling them the sort of appalling things which were told to flight deck crews in the US, and who are prepared to switch off the interphone and fly on to safety, their objective being to protect not those in the aircraft but those on the ground.

However, and remembering that we're discussing knee-jerk reactions, these attacks were just one means that desperate groups could use to bring devastation.

As the Concorde modification programme fixes just one of the many things 'wrong' with the aircraft, any one of which would prevent certification of it as a new aircraft now, so these new procedures eliminate a tiny proportion of an enormous risk.

The fact is, policies made in the heat of the moment are almost always flawed. You and I are going to be stuck with a whole raft of problems from here on in, without being significantly safer.

[ 14 September 2001: Message edited by: NorthernSky ]

[recommended spacing]

As has been said, it's a case of being seen to be doing something that will in someway reassure joe public, who has no knowledge of ATC.
We had countless complaints from people who were worried about a/c that were established on the ILS and happily flying down the approach, because people are genuinely scared about what happened in the US and believe (whether rightly or wrongly) that we are a target for the fanatical maniacs that have comited this atrocity.
Those of us in the know, realise that these restrictions have done nothing that would prevent a manoac from taking control of an a/c and flying it into the palace of Westminster.
A/c will never be completely impervious to terrorist attacks, the problem lies with security procedures on the ground, which again will always be flawed in one way or another.
We can only be reassured by the fact that these events are very very rare and that flying is indeed the safest form of transport.

[BuzzLightyear]

Why are you so surprised at this Government's totally ineffectual ban on flying over central London? After all they are only continuing in the fine tradition they established after another particularly sad tragedy, Dunblane. The kneejerk ban on firearms has been just as effective, hand gun related crime has risen steeply.
Guess any terrorist would be put off if we just spoke to them sternly enough. "I am instructed by Her Majesty's Government etc,etc", yeah that will really work.

[Cat.S]

How many seconds are there to react if an aircraft does deviate from the new approach and one wonders what the men in suits will do if an aircraft does overfly London? Shoot it down!! I really am getting tired of being treated like an unthinking moron by the government who think they can reassure/con us with such meaningless twaddle. Also, never did understand how it could spread foot and mouth by overflying a farm at 1000', yet it was perfectly safe to truck lorry loads of infected carcases around the country until they could find a landfill site with a conveniently high water table to bury them in! Or am I just being Mr Cynical?