So now the NIMBYS have a new tool
Resident Brewer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: .
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So now the NIMBYS have a new tool
Shropshire Star today
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: www.tiovicente.com
Age: 44
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Keep an eye out
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.
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.
Resident Brewer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: .
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And now they want locals to keep an eye on the airfield: report here
Hasn't it occurred to them that there are aircraft than can land in fields?!
Hasn't it occurred to them that there are aircraft than can land in fields?!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: North of the Wall
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...atestheadlines
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...atestheadlines
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Midlands
Age: 71
Posts: 605
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anti terrorist
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
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
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: North Weald, UK
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Resident Brewer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: .
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!!
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!!
Last edited by 2WingsOnMyWagon; 28th Nov 2002 at 15:15.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: the north
Posts: 253
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.