Light aircraft "could be bombs"
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SNS3Guppy
I have flown in the USA and reside in the UK. As you know I hold FAA ATP.
In many ways you are correct as flying especially GA has always been more accepted and you are not burdened by the taxation and costs that we have in the UK.
I was never a great lover of Mrs Thatcher but she did want to reduce government intervention in peoples lives and the volume of red tape and beaurocracy which was inherant from left wing policies of old.
Now we have flipped back the other way where every street is scanned by some surveillance camera, where we pay more taxes than anywhere in the world, where the transport industry is on its knees because of the massive fuel costs (mostly tax) over here.
The Government have introduced stealth taxes to such an extent that for people living in the uk cannot cope with the costs.
All the beaurocracy has been reinstated and with that beaurocracy huge costs and unproductive jobs put into place to create a big brother state.
With all that we do not get the services but we get the living costs to maintain this out of control monster.
Fuel now costs more than aircraft rental. We have landing and navigation charges which would make you go weak at the knees and the government keep examining with a microscope every angle where we can be curtailed more and taxed more.
We have a Government in power who now are so unpopular they do not know how to turn the tide against them.
That why it makes me mad when there is talk about creating a 3000 strong border patrol at whos cost and for what? and further talk about the danger of business jets and 172s being used by terrorists when there are so many more real targets for terrorists which are ignored by our clever masters.
So yes you do have greater freedoms as far as aviation is concerned GA like many areas of transport in the UK is being driven to the wall and destroyed.
Pace
I have flown in the USA and reside in the UK. As you know I hold FAA ATP.
In many ways you are correct as flying especially GA has always been more accepted and you are not burdened by the taxation and costs that we have in the UK.
I was never a great lover of Mrs Thatcher but she did want to reduce government intervention in peoples lives and the volume of red tape and beaurocracy which was inherant from left wing policies of old.
Now we have flipped back the other way where every street is scanned by some surveillance camera, where we pay more taxes than anywhere in the world, where the transport industry is on its knees because of the massive fuel costs (mostly tax) over here.
The Government have introduced stealth taxes to such an extent that for people living in the uk cannot cope with the costs.
All the beaurocracy has been reinstated and with that beaurocracy huge costs and unproductive jobs put into place to create a big brother state.
With all that we do not get the services but we get the living costs to maintain this out of control monster.
Fuel now costs more than aircraft rental. We have landing and navigation charges which would make you go weak at the knees and the government keep examining with a microscope every angle where we can be curtailed more and taxed more.
We have a Government in power who now are so unpopular they do not know how to turn the tide against them.
That why it makes me mad when there is talk about creating a 3000 strong border patrol at whos cost and for what? and further talk about the danger of business jets and 172s being used by terrorists when there are so many more real targets for terrorists which are ignored by our clever masters.
So yes you do have greater freedoms as far as aviation is concerned GA like many areas of transport in the UK is being driven to the wall and destroyed.
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 25th Jun 2008 at 21:23.
"Security"
Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature.... Life is either a daring adventure or nothing.
Helen Keller, The Open Door (1957)
US blind & deaf educator (1880 - 1968)
Helen Keller, The Open Door (1957)
US blind & deaf educator (1880 - 1968)
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guppy, you dont like Britain or us Brits much do you?
As you know I hold FAA ATP.
Talking of the American Constitution, as you were, perhaps you can tell me this. Where did most of the wording come from?
You may be referring to the English Bill of Rights...which unfortunately wasn't provided for or available in any form of freedom to the colonists who elected to reject the monarchy and embrace a democratic republic. The magna carta had certain influence...itself a document formed from uprising and change. The actions leading to the development and signing of the magna carta weren't terrorist in nature, either. The big difference was that the Barons who forced John into the signing agreed to future loyalty, whereas the uprising colonies which became the United States rejected the monarchy out of hand, without exception.
Yep, give em guns, tell them they've got a democracy & they will think they are truly free. Just make sure most of them aren't educated enough to work it out. Speaking of democracy, didn't Bush get voted in a second time on the basis of the "war against terror?"?
Gun control worked for Hitler. It worked for most of the dictators and tyrants throughout history; disarm the populace in order to control the populace. A government should never have need to fear it's own constituancy. Then again, thankfully the US was able to liberate itself from an oppresive tyranny early in the game, and that mate, was done with personal firearms. Freedom has never been purchased, but with bloodshed and the point of a spear.
SN - slightly confused, you chastise us for not taking terrorism as seriously as the USA on this issue,
As well they should, mind you. They've been driven from most corners of the world at one time or another (yes, the sun really does set on the British empire...most of the time).
For your deeply educated British mind, you perhaps missed the point.
Light airplanes are an ideal terrorist weapon. That they may pose little physical danger is really quite irrelevant.
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Light airplanes are an ideal terrorist weapon. That they may pose little physical danger is really quite irrelevant.
I simply can't imagine the Government coming up with coherent, practical plans that would make GA more secure without damaging it significantly. We could have only IFR, we could have secure airsides at every airfield, etc etc....but none of that seems very practical.
Man, you are one well balanced individual, a chip on both shoulders! I'd hate to share a flightdeck with you or even worse spend a layover in a hotel bar with you! What happened, did a British chap drill your childhood sweetheart?!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>I didn't make the comparison. I did state that those who dismiss the risk of a terrorist action using light aircraft as nothing, who suggest that it's not a threat because of the lack of potential collateral damage, are naive and are certainly missing the big picture. It was others here who defensively missed the point and suggested that instead the UK has great lessons to teach the world on the subject.
As well they should, mind you. They've been driven from most corners of the world at one time or another (yes, the sun really does set on the British empire...most of the time).
For your deeply educated British mind, you perhaps missed the point.
Light airplanes are an ideal terrorist weapon. That they may pose little physical danger is really quite irrelevant.<
SNS3Guppy
Anything is a potential terrorist threat even a garden lawnmower could be loaded with explosives and you dont need much intelligence or skill to drive one of those unless you are trying to get straight lines on your lawn :-)
My arguement is that both the USA and UK seem to think that terrorism = aviation and aviation = terrorism so focus on aviation and the problem vanishes.
I used the example of the London Tube system which I use a lot. Hundreds of packed commuters swarming in masses into a packed tube train equal in numbers to any commercial airliner, but NO security! cases towed into the trains nobody checks what they contain.
No Body says sorry you cannot take more than 100 ml of fluid onto that tube train. No body scans your cases.
Why because the powers that be know that any security would cause chaos and would be unworkable so they direct their attention at poor old aviation and its our beloved aviation which suffers. A scapegoat which seems the target of security and green issues and I thought you for one would want to defend aviation not stick your boot into it too?
Pace
As well they should, mind you. They've been driven from most corners of the world at one time or another (yes, the sun really does set on the British empire...most of the time).
For your deeply educated British mind, you perhaps missed the point.
Light airplanes are an ideal terrorist weapon. That they may pose little physical danger is really quite irrelevant.<
SNS3Guppy
Anything is a potential terrorist threat even a garden lawnmower could be loaded with explosives and you dont need much intelligence or skill to drive one of those unless you are trying to get straight lines on your lawn :-)
My arguement is that both the USA and UK seem to think that terrorism = aviation and aviation = terrorism so focus on aviation and the problem vanishes.
I used the example of the London Tube system which I use a lot. Hundreds of packed commuters swarming in masses into a packed tube train equal in numbers to any commercial airliner, but NO security! cases towed into the trains nobody checks what they contain.
No Body says sorry you cannot take more than 100 ml of fluid onto that tube train. No body scans your cases.
Why because the powers that be know that any security would cause chaos and would be unworkable so they direct their attention at poor old aviation and its our beloved aviation which suffers. A scapegoat which seems the target of security and green issues and I thought you for one would want to defend aviation not stick your boot into it too?
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 25th Jun 2008 at 21:53.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anything is a potential terrorist threat even a garden lawnmower could be loaded with explosives and you dont need much intelligence or skill to drive one of those unless you are trying to get straight lines on your lawn :-)
What can be done? First of all, take it as seriously as the politicians and the uninformed public does.
In the US, the FAA has had teams that travel about the country for many years who have one job; violate secure areas. For many years, it was as simple as hopping a fence. They would then walk through hangars and secure ramps. Anyone that didn't challenge them or report them was violated. I knew of one group of workers in a hangar that shared a ten thousand dollar fine for failing to ask for ID and report them.
This sounds simple, but much like a police officer giving traffic citations, it raised awareness by enforcing basic practices. I wandered around the world's largest seaplane base a week ago, enjoyed visiting the various aircraft, took in a museum there, got a hair cut. I was there for most of the day, and was challenged by one individual who was keeping heads up and looking for those that didn't belong.
Europe is much better in this respect, and that includes the UK. Fewer airplanes, fewer flying, greater cost, smaller community, but more than you think, as great an opportunity to take an airplane or to do something with it.
The threat isn't to the public at large. The public couldn't care less if general aviation grinds to a standstill. The threat isn't to the man in the butcher shop or the woman in the hair salon. It's to you and I, and security, watchfulness, caution, all come on our shoulders. Not the local constabulary.
When it's among us, the flying community, that the idea isn't taken seriously or fully respected, then there's nothing else standing between public paranoia and the influence of the media to erode or remove our flying privileges or so sharply curtail them as to remove all utility and enjoyment there from. You get the picture. If it's you, the folks participating in this thread, who lightly dismiss the threat, then it's very nearly a done deal. This really is an issue of self-policing. My company; we place security personnel, do background checks, sweep the airplane, yada, yada. But the flying private public? No. I have internal security. I see to it myself as my own role in inspecting the airplane before I fly, etc. But the general aviation community? No. security and the future of general aviation really belongs to you, and it doesn't stand a prayer if you don't take it seriously in all it's forms, benefits, blessings, threats, and failures. It's all on you.
Take it seriously. Act accordingly.
A little less conversation,
a little more aviation...
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Bracknell, UK
Posts: 696
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SNS3Guppy
Anyone that didn't challenge them or report them was violated.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Take it seriously. Act accordingly.
A knee jerk reaction from the aviation community, where we voluntarily implement more security measures (most of them ineffective) to combat a virtually non-existing threat will only give the public the idea that aviation really has a problem, or even is the problem.
While if we try to put the threat in perspective, talk about it in realistic terms, show the public how safety-conscious aviation has been the last 100 years and follow the guidelines and rules that have kept aviation safe, we might just be able to convince the public and the government that aviation, and terrorism by aviation, is not the problem.
Terrorism is about perception guys, not about actual risk. What we as the aviation community do, and what the government does, shapes that perception. Far more than that it modifies the actual risk. Right now, with all the senseless and inconsistent security measures, we're heading in the wrong direction.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Manchester
Age: 40
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Missing the Point...
SNS3Guppy:
I think you may have missed the point.
I don't think there will be many people posting here that don't / won't 'Take it Seriously'. I would suspect most keep there eyes open for anything untoward going on at their home field, I know I do.
As has been said before, most of us Brits are well versed in 'Acts of Terror' and so, in my opinion, the 'fear' being felt here in the UK about terrorism by the general public is pretty flat, especially compared to the mass panic / hysteria / fear that has flooded the USA post 9/11. That much is obvious due to the total over reaction by the numpties that run the USA, the 'War On Terror'
Lets face it, the mighty USA couldn't be seen to do nothing. Ask yourself this though, what difference has it made?
You have misinterpreted what most contributors have written during this discussion, people are not down playing the current terrorist threat faced by this country, most Londoner's have experienced it first hand.
What people are trying to say is, they are totally pissed off with the current misinformed UK Government and Sensationalist UK Media and the way it USES AVIATION as a scapegoat / whipping boy in order to cause public outcry / upset and to instill the fear of God into the general populus, in order to cast a shadow on MUCH LARGER PROBLEMS. It takes the piss, Enough is Enough.
No. security and the future of general aviation really belongs to you, and it doesn't stand a prayer if you don't take it seriously in all it's forms, benefits, blessings, threats, and failures. It's all on you.
Take it seriously. Act accordingly.
Take it seriously. Act accordingly.
I don't think there will be many people posting here that don't / won't 'Take it Seriously'. I would suspect most keep there eyes open for anything untoward going on at their home field, I know I do.
As has been said before, most of us Brits are well versed in 'Acts of Terror' and so, in my opinion, the 'fear' being felt here in the UK about terrorism by the general public is pretty flat, especially compared to the mass panic / hysteria / fear that has flooded the USA post 9/11. That much is obvious due to the total over reaction by the numpties that run the USA, the 'War On Terror'
Lets face it, the mighty USA couldn't be seen to do nothing. Ask yourself this though, what difference has it made?You have misinterpreted what most contributors have written during this discussion, people are not down playing the current terrorist threat faced by this country, most Londoner's have experienced it first hand.
What people are trying to say is, they are totally pissed off with the current misinformed UK Government and Sensationalist UK Media and the way it USES AVIATION as a scapegoat / whipping boy in order to cause public outcry / upset and to instill the fear of God into the general populus, in order to cast a shadow on MUCH LARGER PROBLEMS. It takes the piss, Enough is Enough.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FFS..!!
Most of you are missing the point - the point is not that this will happen but that it might happen and to not address it before it does happen is tantamount to inviting it to happen. It's obvious, you just happen to be in a field of interest at the moment. There will be other subjects of interest on this issue no doubt but this week it's GA.
And some of you will go on missing the point up until the point that some legislation is introduced to force you to comply. Take the opportunity to have a debate about it now and not descend into the usual slanging match about nothing in particular.
Remember all this before you fail to file FP's and GAR's correctly with all the details that are required, remember that it's the accuracy of such administration that allows the powers that be to do their job discreetly and without bother to us all.
Why is this so hard?
Most of you are missing the point - the point is not that this will happen but that it might happen and to not address it before it does happen is tantamount to inviting it to happen. It's obvious, you just happen to be in a field of interest at the moment. There will be other subjects of interest on this issue no doubt but this week it's GA.
And some of you will go on missing the point up until the point that some legislation is introduced to force you to comply. Take the opportunity to have a debate about it now and not descend into the usual slanging match about nothing in particular.
Remember all this before you fail to file FP's and GAR's correctly with all the details that are required, remember that it's the accuracy of such administration that allows the powers that be to do their job discreetly and without bother to us all.
Why is this so hard?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 752hPa
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
After all, the United States were founded by a terrorist insurrection against the legitimate authority. One man's terrorist is the next man's freedom fighter.
After all, the United States were founded by a terrorist insurrection against the legitimate authority. One man's terrorist is the next man's freedom fighter.
Not quite. In the United States, we defeated a tyrant and rejected the king. Hardly terrorist. We simply soundly defeated an undesireable oppressive force and chose freedom over subservient domination. A terrorist wages a campain of fear against the general populace. In the United States we simply kicked mother Britain's butt. There is a certain distinction, with no bearing on the activities of Sinn Fein, the IRA, or Al Qaeda, for that matter.
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Talking about the American public's response to terror, I can remember the near total halt in US tourism to Europe after the US bombed Libya in 1986. Nothing had changed in Europe, of course, but suddenly it was perceived as a dangerous place.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>Most of you are missing the point - the point is not that this will happen but that it might happen and to not address it before it does happen is tantamount to inviting it to happen.<
Life is a risk. If we were all paranoid about what if then none of us would aviate in the first place. We would never set foot in a car or go anywhere. We would stay at home tucked up in bed but even then we might smother in our beds.
Fear can be a terrible thing as people usually do not make rational descisions when motivated by fear and fear has been the basis of many anti terrorist legislations.
Of course there have to be precautions taken to safeguard people from terrorism but my arguement and I am sure the arguement of most here is that Aviation has been made the scapegoat totally out of proportion to equal threat areas.
Any place where there are a gathering of people holds a potential terrorist threat whether that be the London Tube, Pop concerts, ships, Hotels etc etc etc.
Where we see aviation targeted in an unbalanced way is not only unfair to aviation and unfairly loads massive costs on aviation but actually increases the threat of terrorism.
Why? because it takes the attention away from equal threat areas and leads the population into falsely believing that the threat has been dealt with.
Should there ever be another mass terrorist attack and lets pray that never happens then I am sure aviation will NOT be the target as there are so many easier targets which are largely ignored by government or Government closes a blind eye because those potential targets would cause chaos.
Before the attrocities of 9/11 I used to show my CPL and spent hours up front on the flight deck. We can all remember when in the cruise families and their kids were invited to the flight deck to chat to the pilots and this went on for decades.
Now if I travel from London to Paris I take the Eurostar as it takes me 2.5 hrs door to door while using aviation looses me several hours of my day and gets me there frustrated and tired with all the security hassle and crowds.
Pace
Life is a risk. If we were all paranoid about what if then none of us would aviate in the first place. We would never set foot in a car or go anywhere. We would stay at home tucked up in bed but even then we might smother in our beds.
Fear can be a terrible thing as people usually do not make rational descisions when motivated by fear and fear has been the basis of many anti terrorist legislations.
Of course there have to be precautions taken to safeguard people from terrorism but my arguement and I am sure the arguement of most here is that Aviation has been made the scapegoat totally out of proportion to equal threat areas.
Any place where there are a gathering of people holds a potential terrorist threat whether that be the London Tube, Pop concerts, ships, Hotels etc etc etc.
Where we see aviation targeted in an unbalanced way is not only unfair to aviation and unfairly loads massive costs on aviation but actually increases the threat of terrorism.
Why? because it takes the attention away from equal threat areas and leads the population into falsely believing that the threat has been dealt with.
Should there ever be another mass terrorist attack and lets pray that never happens then I am sure aviation will NOT be the target as there are so many easier targets which are largely ignored by government or Government closes a blind eye because those potential targets would cause chaos.
Before the attrocities of 9/11 I used to show my CPL and spent hours up front on the flight deck. We can all remember when in the cruise families and their kids were invited to the flight deck to chat to the pilots and this went on for decades.
Now if I travel from London to Paris I take the Eurostar as it takes me 2.5 hrs door to door while using aviation looses me several hours of my day and gets me there frustrated and tired with all the security hassle and crowds.
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 26th Jun 2008 at 09:51.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remember all this before you fail to file FP's and GAR's correctly with all the details that are required, remember that it's the accuracy of such administration that allows the powers that be to do their job discreetly and without bother to us all.
VFR FPs have nothing to do with the prevention of terrorism. GAR reports are concerned amoung other issues with monitoring the pattern and frequency of traffic movement but provide no protection at all against a light aircraft being used in the way envisaged by the original poster.
As I commented earlier you need to understand that aircraft present a different threat to other conventional means of delivering a weapon. The real concern is an air born weapon which could cause wide spread "damage".
As always we need to weigh in the balance the loss of liberty against the effectiveness of any legislation introduced to curtail this risk.
I am not convinced in that balancing act it is sufficient to claim that there is no historical evidence to suggest x or y necessarily passes muster, in the way that was used in the recent debate of the detention of terrorists. However it is vitally important to demonstrate that any measures introduced will, beyond reasonable doubt, reduce the risk.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your ability to own firearms, what we call a constitutional right, is so severely curtailed it's pathetic
Unfortunately with our media at the moment, if we could all carry firearms then I am sure they would see that as an even greater threat as not only are we all flying round in bombs but now we would have the ability to defend ourselves should someone try to stop us in our evil mission!!!!!
J.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: london
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Light airplanes are an ideal terrorist weapon. That they may pose little physical danger is really quite irrelevant."
No they're not, and yes it is relevant.
This is about a balanced attitude to risk; It is far easier and more effective to drive a car full of explosives into a shopping precinct and detonate it, or jump on to a crowded underground with a phial of sarin gas, than it is to find a qualified pilot, recruit him, steal an aircraft and then to navigate to somewhere - undetected - to work one's mischief. Surely this report was written by the same people who have driven the campaign for high vis vests - trying to legislate for an event which is highly unlikely, and producing a solution that is highly unsuitable...
Of course as a community we have to be vigilent of suspicious activity, but lets get real here, one form of terrorism is easy to perpetrate almost impossible to prevent and the other is, by comparison, difficult and conspicuous; as a terrorist, which would you go for?
Actually, It's almost possible to start to feel a degree of nostalgia for the IRA - and least, for the most part, they 'phoned up to say that a bomb was about to go off! In retrospect, that seems almost seems civilised.
No they're not, and yes it is relevant.
This is about a balanced attitude to risk; It is far easier and more effective to drive a car full of explosives into a shopping precinct and detonate it, or jump on to a crowded underground with a phial of sarin gas, than it is to find a qualified pilot, recruit him, steal an aircraft and then to navigate to somewhere - undetected - to work one's mischief. Surely this report was written by the same people who have driven the campaign for high vis vests - trying to legislate for an event which is highly unlikely, and producing a solution that is highly unsuitable...
Of course as a community we have to be vigilent of suspicious activity, but lets get real here, one form of terrorism is easy to perpetrate almost impossible to prevent and the other is, by comparison, difficult and conspicuous; as a terrorist, which would you go for?
Actually, It's almost possible to start to feel a degree of nostalgia for the IRA - and least, for the most part, they 'phoned up to say that a bomb was about to go off! In retrospect, that seems almost seems civilised.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qwertplop
>you just happen to be in a field of interest at the moment<
This is just the statement that says it all.
I have no qualms with Aviation being the anti terrorism field of interest this week.
As long as next week its Football stadiums
The week after its the London Tube
The week after Its pop concerts
The week after its ????
But its not its only AVIATION AVIATION AVIATION. That is where this whole thing is wrong and where our industry is being loaded with unfair costs and slowly destroyed.
That is the message Aviation should put out Get off our backs and look at equal terrorist threat targets
Pace
>you just happen to be in a field of interest at the moment<
This is just the statement that says it all.
I have no qualms with Aviation being the anti terrorism field of interest this week.
As long as next week its Football stadiums
The week after its the London Tube
The week after Its pop concerts
The week after its ????
But its not its only AVIATION AVIATION AVIATION. That is where this whole thing is wrong and where our industry is being loaded with unfair costs and slowly destroyed.
That is the message Aviation should put out Get off our backs and look at equal terrorist threat targets
Pace