Additional Security at our airfields
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Additional Security at our airfields
Lord Carlile described airfields as the "soft underbelly" of the UK's war on terror.
He is a government adviser and prepared an independent report on anti-terrorist measures for Home Secretary David Blunkett.
With almost media paranoia over small aircraft crashes such as the recent Los Angeles crash, are we on the verge of new security measure that makes the debate over reflective jackets seem very dull.
What measure could we take to make sure private flying does not get a bad name?
He is a government adviser and prepared an independent report on anti-terrorist measures for Home Secretary David Blunkett.
With almost media paranoia over small aircraft crashes such as the recent Los Angeles crash, are we on the verge of new security measure that makes the debate over reflective jackets seem very dull.
What measure could we take to make sure private flying does not get a bad name?
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure that we need to do anything.
I was in America back in December 2001 (or was it January 2002), when I heard that a light aircraft had crashed into a tower block in Florida. My immediate thoughts were to pray that no one had been killed or badly injured. But after that, my thoughts were that it couldn't have happened at a worse time for aviation, when everyone in the US was, quite understandably, very wary about aeroplanes crashing into buildings.
What I found was quite the oposite. The fact that a small aeroplane could crash into a building without anyone being injured except for the pilot actually seemed set many people at ease. The public realised that yes, a B757 is a very dangerous weapon - but a C172 is far less dangerous.
No one likes to hear about crashes at any time. Crashes which involve the public are even worse. But the public, and even the media, do realise that light aircraft are not capable of causing another 9/11, and I don't think the media paranoia that you mention really exists.
FFF
-----------
I was in America back in December 2001 (or was it January 2002), when I heard that a light aircraft had crashed into a tower block in Florida. My immediate thoughts were to pray that no one had been killed or badly injured. But after that, my thoughts were that it couldn't have happened at a worse time for aviation, when everyone in the US was, quite understandably, very wary about aeroplanes crashing into buildings.
What I found was quite the oposite. The fact that a small aeroplane could crash into a building without anyone being injured except for the pilot actually seemed set many people at ease. The public realised that yes, a B757 is a very dangerous weapon - but a C172 is far less dangerous.
No one likes to hear about crashes at any time. Crashes which involve the public are even worse. But the public, and even the media, do realise that light aircraft are not capable of causing another 9/11, and I don't think the media paranoia that you mention really exists.
FFF
-----------
Title? What title?
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can actually think of a number of ways in which a 172 could be used as a very nasty weapon (and I will keep those to myself in case some dirty journo is looking for a front page).
I think Lord Carlise is really missing the point - they are obsessed (publically at least) with the obsession of another WTC type attack. I think some more convential type of attack would be more likely (and I will keep those thoughts to myself too).
The fact is we live in much more dangerous times and I would not be suprised to see the current 'situation' now being the norm for the forseeable future.
BTW I believe I am right in saying a DC3 crashed accidently into the Empire State building in the 40's and guess what, it didnt fall down, although that may have been because there was a 50 foot monkey up there too)
I think Lord Carlise is really missing the point - they are obsessed (publically at least) with the obsession of another WTC type attack. I think some more convential type of attack would be more likely (and I will keep those thoughts to myself too).
The fact is we live in much more dangerous times and I would not be suprised to see the current 'situation' now being the norm for the forseeable future.
BTW I believe I am right in saying a DC3 crashed accidently into the Empire State building in the 40's and guess what, it didnt fall down, although that may have been because there was a 50 foot monkey up there too)
Last edited by phnuff; 10th Jun 2003 at 16:56.
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They are obsessed (publically at least) with the obsession of another WTC type attack
a 172 could be used as a very nasty weapon
FFF
-------------
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK Work: London. Home: East Anglia
Posts: 306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BTW I believe I am right in saying a DC3 crashed accidently into the Empire State building in the 40's and guess what, it didnt fall down
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: under the stairs
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The most obvious outcome of all of this will be new rules, regulations and expense for those who operate a private aircraft with little or no benefit to the public at large.
The Goverment will do anything just to be seen to be doing something to protect the people.
As we have seen recently to members of pprune that it is us that need protection from the public not the other way around. ( refer of course to the attack at Redhill recently).
This does not absolve us of any responsibility.Simply taking the keys out of the aircraft would probably suffice.
Should one idiot (say a drunken one) get through the tight airfield security
start and crash a plane - then we will all be obliged to take the propellors off and take them home with us!
Let us be serious for a moment.If an attack does happen in the UK ( and personally I think it unlikely) it will not be by light aeroplane.It will be by a truck on Oxford street on a Saturday Afternoon or a bomb on the Undergound at rush hour. Or something equallyhorrific.The government know this but don't labour the point so as not to alarm people. So statements get made about stopping light planes crashing into Parliment - it doesn't affect many people.
BTW It seems our wonderful Scottish Parliment building is to cost a few million more (Up from 300 million!!!) to make it bomb resistant!
The Goverment will do anything just to be seen to be doing something to protect the people.
As we have seen recently to members of pprune that it is us that need protection from the public not the other way around. ( refer of course to the attack at Redhill recently).
This does not absolve us of any responsibility.Simply taking the keys out of the aircraft would probably suffice.
Should one idiot (say a drunken one) get through the tight airfield security
start and crash a plane - then we will all be obliged to take the propellors off and take them home with us! Let us be serious for a moment.If an attack does happen in the UK ( and personally I think it unlikely) it will not be by light aeroplane.It will be by a truck on Oxford street on a Saturday Afternoon or a bomb on the Undergound at rush hour. Or something equallyhorrific.The government know this but don't labour the point so as not to alarm people. So statements get made about stopping light planes crashing into Parliment - it doesn't affect many people.
BTW It seems our wonderful Scottish Parliment building is to cost a few million more (Up from 300 million!!!) to make it bomb resistant!
Last edited by GeneralMelchet; 10th Jun 2003 at 22:30.
Title? What title?
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was a B-25, actually. Presumably not bombed-up. But in any case, at a weight of, say, 25,000 lb and around 150 kt, it would have more than 20 times the impact energy of a 100 kt, 2400 lb light single.
GeneralMelchet - agree 100% with you !!
BTW, yesterday lunchtime, I happened to be on Kings Cross station when smoke started to come out of one the the underground entrances. It seems there was a fire somewhere in the tunnels on the circle line and it was venting through the station. So, there was the smoke (not a huge amount granted) ,there were staff at the entrances, there were the firemen running around from at least 2 applicances and there were members of the public . . . . . still trying to go down and argueing with the staff, all this despite Kings Cross's history of fire. !
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thing about the UK, which is almost unique ffrom anywhere else in the world, is, that we're a small and mostly highly populated island.
Accordingly, even if you are in an area of "open countryside", you're never very far away from either a major airport or an area/airfield where G/A operates - be it a microlight or herd of PA28s. The locals get used to what goes on, how, and at what times - anything outside these parameters, and they get suspicious and will tell someone, and this has been proven on many occasssions.
I accept that if someone is fanatical enough to want to cause a major incident, then it's not always possible to stop them, however, the current procedures and present vigilance of curiosity which we have in the UK is more than adequate to supplement the official laid down requirements.
Accordingly, even if you are in an area of "open countryside", you're never very far away from either a major airport or an area/airfield where G/A operates - be it a microlight or herd of PA28s. The locals get used to what goes on, how, and at what times - anything outside these parameters, and they get suspicious and will tell someone, and this has been proven on many occasssions.
I accept that if someone is fanatical enough to want to cause a major incident, then it's not always possible to stop them, however, the current procedures and present vigilance of curiosity which we have in the UK is more than adequate to supplement the official laid down requirements.
