Hmm. IMO, if we're complaining about inaccuracies from the politicians, it weakens our position to deliberately misrepresent the facts ourselves.

I understand that it's not a black van - it's a Mondeo. :)

DaveW

. . . . . I didn't misrepresent the facts - I simply omitted to cover every nuance of the GAR/FP procedure, not least that I am aware the Daily Telegraph letters editor will chop my reply down to just a couple of lines so that was not the forum for a detailed analysis of the whole system !!

I just wanted to get the main point across and am happy to leave the detailed security analysis to AOPA :)

G-EMMA makes a good point that's been an issue since Roman times.

"quis custodiet ipsos custodes" is sometimes translated as "Who will watch the watchers" and sometimes "Who will protect us from the protectors!"

G-EMMA wrote.

Quote:
I'm glad someone has bothered to comment that it's the usual suspects who are incapable of sensible debate, it's put me off posting in here before now and I see nothing to change that opinion.


Perhaps it is best then not to change your post to the words of Judy Garland after someone has replied to it then proceed rant at them, not really the best way to join in on a forum debate :=

'The last word' :rolleyes:

What utter tripe G-EMMA. Continuing to attempt to discredit the person does not mitigate your rudeness to me throughout our exchanges. This has characterised our interaction.

I am happy to debate the issue at hand but with those happy to debate in a respectful manner.

Please do not respond to me if you are unable to continue in such a way. I respect your view believe it or not but you continue to make personal comments really not appropriate to such a forum. I believe you called me a 'troll' on a couple of occasions. Quite unacceptable and really not adding anything to this debate is it now?

Please desist, I'm aware of your views and you don't need to be unpleasant.

I share your bad dream and if the likes of the Police get their way, that is surely a possibility. An additional possibility is a CA 48 (or equivalent of) submission for every flight. I agree entirely about mistrust of the watchers and recorders; if not now, in the future if an even more totalitarian Government is voted in. My immediate concern, though, is more fundamental: who is going to pay for it? The Government through general taxation? No bloody chance! It will be us, the aviators.

>but tend to get passionate about things that irritate me like loss of freedom so forgive me for that also )<

G-EMMA

Never loose your passion or apologise for it. Its the people without passion in life who must have a very dull existance.

Pace

Lets get to the bones of this.

Compare a light aircraft with a white van.

The white van can be nicked from any where. None are secure, every van is vunerable. Having nicked the van there is all the time in the world to make preparations in terms of installing a bomb or other device.

An aircraft can equally be nicked, but there are some problems. There is already a greater chance someone will ask what you are doing or become suspicious. I can think of a lot of smaller airports with the A/G operator knows the voice of every owner pilot for example. Having nicked said plane if there are any preparations to be made the aircraft has to land somewhere before the "attack". The said "nicking" also requires rather more specialist knowledge than said white van.

So why would a terorists choice a light aircraft over a white van.

They both have the potential to cause chaos.

The aircraft is unlikely to cause any more chaos than the van. In fact the evidence would suggest as a delivery vehicle it is far less precise and the outcome far less predictable.

There is an exception, an obvious one concerned with aerial contamination where the light aircraft could have an "advanatge", although that advantage is not necessarily significant and is likely to be more trouble than the advantage is potentially worth.

Airports with more limited security almost without exception can handle nothing larger than a light twin. The risk associated with a larger jet is different and undoubtedly a larger jet has the ability to carry a payload significantly greater than a light twin or single. However, the security measures in place at larger airports are significanlty different to those at farm strips.

Politicians have a responsibility to deal with the evidence - if they dont they are likely to end up like Tone, fighting a war based on evidence that did not exist - hardly an accolade of which to be proud, even if it might not have been "his fault", for that he will always be remembered.

Two quotes from above:

“Perhaps time for all these organisations to talk to one another???”

“We can only wish”

They (we) do.

I could only wish that people who know little or nothing of how the various GA organisations work, how and when they work together, and why things are that way, would do a little research first instead of jumping in with both feet in ignorance.

Apart from numerous threads in the past, may I respectfully draw your attention to The General Aviation Awareness Council .

We have, by the way, been active on the brown field etc. issues, with AOPA, BGA, LAA etc. all working together.

Chris N.

You might be surprised how much some of us know.

I shall be most interested to learn of the details of GASARs submission to the Minister on this issue, and also your comments on why, given such a submission was on behalf of all the representative bodies listed on your web site, AOPA choose to make their own independent submission.

Perhaps you would like to enlighten us?

To the best of my knowledge, “GASAR” is not an organisation, but an abbreviation for a study (General Aviation Small Aerodrome Research Study) carried out by Terry Lober on behalf of GAAC, funded partly by all its member bodies and partly by the government.

But as Fuji knows so much, he no doubt knew that too.

And probably why AOPA and other bodies often send their own input to Government as well as contributing to GAAC’s overview papers.

I am not going to get further into a debate – I just wish people knew (or did not write as though they don’t when they later claim they do) who does what, and why, and how organisations do cooperate as best they can under their constitutions.

Chris N.

Hi

Having read all the way through this thread on a quiet afternoon, can I restate a couple of points already made?

Our American colleague SNS3Guppy, who seems to have faded out under the weight of some fairly unsavoury anti-US posts, had one very valid point. Now that your sport / pastime / minority mode of transport has been identified as a potential terrorist threat, it is at risk. The danger is not the physical harm that can be done using a light aircraft, though even that might be more significant than you have imagined (midair with a 747 departing 09L for HK, anyone?). It is that if some incident is perpetrated, the thing that will be done to make sure it Never Happens Again is that you will be shut down by Government order - probably the next day when shock and quivering-lipped sympathy has been replaced in the House by righteous anger. And almost nobody will care. If you think that's an exaggeration, look at what happened to pistol shooting in the UK post-Dunblane (my Browning 150 went in the smelter along with about 100,000 other guns that had never seen the outside of a shooting range, but of course the Great British Public were safer thereby, and St Tony had been seen to Do Something). The time to counter this is now, before something horrible happens, and you have to do it by demonstrating how you are being active and imaginative in preventing that horrible event. Of course the politicians are wrong on this, and trying to raise a cheap headline and a bit of support from the unthinking. That's life. YOU have to counter it - nobody else cares enough.

Second, he made the point that it's all about perception. Aviation events get more news coverage. Bombs in transit vans are old hat. As an attention-seeker the IRA have done that one to death (pardon the pun). The terrorist succeeds with a new idea that catches the imagination of the news editors. To that extent, the possibility is real.

The point has also been made that an aircraft is an incredibly useful tool for evading surveillance while getting in and out of a country. Being an honest sort of chap, and not intimately involved in the Air Defence of the UK, I haven't considered it in detail, but I doubt it's very difficult if you put your mind to it, and as the politicians said, the regulation at GA fields isn't like that at a major international airport. Again, to the extent that such activity is possible, there is a real threat. And if you the GA community approach that possibility with an attitude that it's a lot less likely than several other scenarios so nothing needs to be done, then when it does happen, you will be out of runways as fast as the Government can organise it. And nobody but you will care enough to do anything about it, and it will then be too late.

It isn't fair, but it's life. Ask any ex-pistol shooter.

Sven

chrisN

I am not seeking to score cheap points - I would have thought it obvious I was referring to the GAAC - but sorry for the unintentional typo.

If you are correct (and you may well be) I am genuinely interested in a reply to my last post now we have cleared up my typographical error.

Sven, you have a well argued point, but what can be done?

One needs to assume that the terrorist is going on a suicide mission. (Hard to do any damage with a light plane without killing oneself).

Should we assume he will first learn to fly?

If so, that means vetting at the flying school - like they do in America (TSA). That's not a big deal, but obviously it will detect only individuals who are either a) known to the security services or b) have a dark skin, curly hair, a beard, and walk wrapped in a bedsheet with "Death to Britain" on it while handing out leaflets supporting Al Queda and demanding that the pretty reception desk girl should cover up her t*ts.

The American vetting system (which I have been through, well and truly, having poked my fingers up the dark orifice of every fingerprint machine at the U.S. embassy on my FAA PPL/IR/CPL stuff) relies almost totally on the assumption that no born and bred American citizen will want to hit America - something which is a fair assumption in America (99%+ of Americans are genuinely proud of their country) but certainly not in Europe where - post 1939-1945 - patriotism is equated with nationalism which is a dirty word.

I have never met anybody who thinks the TSA measures actually do anything other than look like something is being done. Possibly they keep out the really obvious Muslim extremists whose money would previously have been welcome at any U.S. flying school? The TSA is completely ineffective against any American person unless he already has a record.

If OTOH we are to assume that the terrorist is not bothered about getting a PPL (easy to get airborne in a light plane if you have sim practice and some ground training) we need to look at aircraft security.

Securing airfields is impossible. Even Gatwick/Heathrow would be trivial to penetrate, in the dark, with wire cutters. It is only a fence after all. It would need to be double, electrified and have a mined strip between the fences. In any case, a vast number of people at LHR etc have airside access; many doing low grade jobs which tend to be done by foreign workers so going on "obvious appearance" gets you nowhere.

One could put locks on the planes e.g. padlocked chains over the prop. That is probably practical and is already done in the USA, I gather.

Sven

Thanks for your thoughts. While I agree with what you are saying there is another part of this equation which has to be addressed.

That is the perception that Aviation = terrorism and Terrorism =Aviation
Government has latched onto that to such an extent that to be seen to be dealing with terrorism means loading aviation even further.

They already have the infrastructure in place with aviation so its easy to carry on adding bits to that infrastructure.

That is fine if it was the case that aviation = terrorism but that is far from the truth.
I have talked about the London Tubes on numerous occasions because it horrifies me at the complete lack of security in teh tubes yet the potential is there to do equal damage as in the lockerbie disaster.
Government know that to deal with the tubes would be an impossibility and would bring London to a standstill so they close their eyes and continue with what they know and have an infrastructure well in place.

The message that has to come out is that enough is enough. Until the press start writing articles on the time bomb waiting in the tubes and deflecting attention from aviation, Government will continue taking its easy option.

I am afraid that cooperating and lying on ones back will mean we will cooperate ourselves into non existance.

Its the perception that has to change and that will only change when 200 people die in the tubes or the media start attacking all the other danger areas to security to an extent that the government are forced to redirect their attention.

That I fear is the reality

Pace

Easy.

As I said early if our representative bodies collaborated together we would have a powerful lobby.

56,000 pilots, together with all those employed in support services, is a powerful lobby group - that number can make a difference, particularly given that the population includes ahigher than average percentage of influencial people.

I might be wrong but I suspect the petty bickering that takes place between them will prevent this.

Well done to AOPA for at least getting the ball rolling but I am afraid a membership of less than 5,000 or less than 10% of the pilot community does not carry as much weight as it should.

Ok - let me be provocative.

Lets tighten up security by fitting prop locks and identity cards to gain airside access. The worst happens. What do we do now?

If we hadnt bothered we would say ah, we are going to fit prop locks and enhance airside security, everyone would be happy.

Of course it is doubtful the prop locks or enhanced security had any effect at all other than PR, but the politicians are happy we have done something in the second case. In the first case they will argue all that can be done was done so the only remaining option is to ban it altogether or insist on something totally draconian.

Are aircraft such a good way of getting in and out?

Personally I would opt for a yacht. The movement in yachts across the channel is significant - there is no paperwork trail, no FPLs and many more places to put people ashore.

I've just received a reply to my letter to the Lord Carlile.

He thanked me for writing, but still holds to his views, although he seems more bothered by the higher end of GA.

>I've just received a reply to my letter to the Lord Carlile.

He thanked me for writing, but still holds to his views, although he seems more bothered by the higher end of GA.<

Robin as I am involved in the higher end of GA It would be interesting to see the whole of his response to you? ALSO where did you send your contact letter?

Pace

if the govt. gets the notion into its head that GA is a terrorist threat, it will act.

govt. got into its head a few years ago in 2003 that IRAQ had weapons of mass destruction WMD and decided to invade.

do you think that thhe loss of GA will mean no pilots for BA or Virgin will deter the govt?

it may make them think, but I doubt it. the pilots of the future for BA will all be trained in spain, and will be based and employed in somewhere like Holland.

Oh what's that? Is this what BA are planning to do already? Is this what the BA pilots are going on strike for?

So don't hold your breath thinking that BA will help defend GA - to the contrary.