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

"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)

America ... The land of the free!



Unless of course you want to travel to Cuba :E

SS

My immediate family is English and Welsh, and my extended family is Irish.

I didn't know. Now I do. Thanks for sharing that.

James Madison.

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.

Bush lost the popular election, actually. He certainly wasn't elected on the basis of his "war against terror." That's something he invented, and with which few people are stupid enough to side. Were it a pure democracy, Bush wouldn't have won the election; he lost the popular vote. Mine included. I wouldn't really call the United States an uneducated country.

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.

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.

But what do you recommend we do to address that?

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?!:E

>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

The difference being that when a lawnmower is packed with explosives and set near the entrance of a mall or public area, then detonated, nobody is going to ban lawnmowers, and the lawnmower industry won't go down the tubes.

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.

Crumbs! I bet that made their eyes water.

Like how in your opinion?

Roll over and have our tummy tickled?

The terrorist threat is so incredibly small it is completely negligible. Even in aviation. It's the government/public reaction to the perceived terrorist threat that actually threatens aviation the most.

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.

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' :ugh: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.

FFS..!! :ugh:

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?

That's right, exactly what I said. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

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.

>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

I thought your post a reasonable comment unitl you said this.

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.

I am sure that the relatives of the victims in the US in the plastics factory where the guy decided to blow his boss and several of them away that was on news this morning wish you were pathetically curtailed as us at the moment!

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.

"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.

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

Have the recent verbose contributors to this thread noted it's thread rating of late(i.e. "Terrible")? The first posts were sensible and refreshing - now it's degenerated into drivel :\

Right I'll let you experts in international terrorism continue pontificating and go and play outside.:ok:

I haven't bothered to read the last two pages....;)

But regarding terrorism - I DO NOT want to live in a "locked down" country, with new anti terror laws popping up all the time, as knee jerk reactions to some perceived threat. They will NEVER catch them anyway, and all these new laws do is p*ss people off and even turn people against the country.

The invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan was a mastermind plot put together by Bush and his neo conservative buddies for no other reason than energy and hence power and he managed to sucker in Blair - now the world is a much more dangerous place, full stop. I don't blame the USA, just the Bush family and his mates.

In Britain we have had around 52 people killed by these nutters in say a decade, yet draconian new laws have been introduced. To put that in perspective, at least 31 teenagers have died in knife crime THIS YEAR and the annual murder rate runs at about 800 PA. We don't see high impact new laws introduced for these events do we?

The states is even worse, how many nutters have been into a school with an Armalite this decade? yet guns can still be bought in Walmart?

I am not anti USA at all, I love much of the stuff over there, flying in particulal. My wife is American and we live in the UK but she will not return to live in the USA until Bush and the Neo conservatives are gone for good. The UK is not much better either with TBLiars...sorry, GBrowns governement pushing through draconian laws every week. Soon they'll be able to arrest you if you write a post like this on an Internet forum.

Maybe it is time to move......

Fuji Bound

I thought your post a reasonable comment unitl you said this.

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.

It is a reasonable point, the two things can be compared for accuracy in addition to the information contained within the various logs books carried. I'd bet my mortgage there are descrepancies aplenty and omissions of information and/or forms.

But aviation has often be at the forefront of thoughts on terrorism....simply because it has been the victim of many attacks in the past. Lockerbie saw 270 people dead, 9/11 was pretty 'high profile', then we have Richard Reid, then in the summer of 2006 we are told a major disaster involving up to eight aircraft was narrowly avoided. Pop concerts, the tube or whatever have had their attacks and scares but nothing like aviation.

It is highly regrettable but really not surprising that aviation continues to be a focus.

We shouldn't forget though improvements that have been made in commercial aviation security and the overall reduction (or at least shift to other targets) in aviation related terrorism that they have brought.

David

Ok maybe some of us are letting off steam in this thread but maybe thats more indicative at the frustration experienced by people who love their aviation and can afford to fly less and less as the costs and restrictions mount by the day.

What are we supposed to do in your book "for what we are about to recieve next may the Government make us truly thankful?" I think not.

Pace

ContactTower

I take what you are saying Lockerbie and 9/11 were terrible attrocities and sensible moves need to be made to ensure that neither of those occur again.

But please do not loose the reason for the start of this thread. That was the fact that Lord Carlisle is now showing concern over a Cessna 172 taking off out of a farmers field as a weapon of mass destruction. Hardly a fully loaded 747 and the creation of 3000 extra jobs for some sort of border control When our borders have been open to anyone who cares to make a home here.
The Government dont even have a clue who has settled here.

The fact that The London tube has not been targeted is probably more due to luck as an equal disaster is there in the waiting with NO security checks in place to stop one and that to me is more frightening than the percieved threat of a Cessna 172 and that is where Lord Carlisle should be directing his attention and our money.

Pace

You may well (bet your mortgage), but whatever discrepancies you find whilst perhaps having something to do with pilots involved in illegal imports they will have nothing to do with a terrorist attack of the type outlined on this thread.

Do you think a terrorist is going to hire, steal or buy an aircraft in France file or not file a GAR and / or file or not file a FP, head for London and explode himself and the aircraft over the PM?

Such a terrorists would need to go back to training camp for a period of retraining.

"War on Terror"


Who says that Americans don't do irony. :D

Fuji Bound

You may well (bet your mortgage), but whatever discrepancies you find whilst perhaps having something to do with pilots involved in illegal imports they will have nothing to do with a terrorist attack of the type outlined on this thread.

Do you think a terrorist is going to hire, steal or buy an aircraft in France file or not file a GAR and / or file or not file a FP, head for London and explode himself and the aircraft over the PM?

That's the point Fuji and we've come to it in a very roundabout way, those who would do this type of thing, or indeed any type of criminal activity, would not comply or would seek to falsify records and are, therefore, easier to single out and target as a result of the review of legitimate records. We're all concentraing on the worst case scenario in terms of the utilisation of GA for such purposes but it seems to me the enemy are probing just as much as planning. It's this we need to be aware of. The top echelons of criminal enterprise have, demonstrable, links in some cases to the planning and funding of the type of activity being discussed. This is not a secret, it's a legitimate part of this debate.

Intelligence is not just about specific information, it's also about analysing basic information and records, one presumably then can identify patterns, trends and probabilities.

Perhaps.....?

When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains--however improbable--must be the truth.?

No, its not the point at all.

An aircraft used in the way suggested on here is not going to be part of any regular traffic pattern, it is not going to be involved in a number of runs to and from France filing false GARs or FPs, in short it is not going to have figured on the radar at all ever.

False GARs and FPs are used to disguise regular flights to and from the continent where the aircraft is being used for smuggling, but nothing more sinister. These records may well be used to identify traffic that conforms to such a pattern of activity.

The defence you put up of GA and the perceived right to freedom of movement is admirable Sir and I actually agree with your points in the main but I feel that you are missing the bigger picture, the potential to abuse is the issue. People are not honest, people seek to hide their intentions and people evade scrutiny wherever possible for any number of reasons.

I support the authorities on this issue and as much as you have to get off your holiday flight from Spain to show a passport and pass through any notion of a border control, why should anyone flying privately be any different?

You have failed to answer the points pertaining to activity in support of such abuses, logistics, recon, funding. It's all connected. It's why the police are out talking to schools and clubs, they are simply trying to find the wheat in amongst the chaff. This 'self policing and self regulating' stuff just does not wash with me any more. What about moving people in to do something domestically? Yes, the axle of a lorry is easier but can you catogorically state that it won't happen in GA? I suspect not.

We will have to agree to disagree.

Best, QP

Pace I completely agree with your last post....it does seem worrying that Lord Carlile is concentrating on apparently frivolous threats while there are already plenty other areas that are much more obvious to be dealt with first.

Whatever proposals come out of this though (if any) the most important thing is that measures are implemented after full consultation with representatives of General Aviation and with the broad consent of the private flying community. Something which (if the need arises) AOPA might want to take on...

I am seeing a friend who is a bit "cheeky" for a drink this weekend so will bring this up with him.

Pace

Having read Lord Carlile's report he expresses a concern about the potential risk in GA. He also indicates that operators are alive to the issue and vigilant. If we continue to be so then we may be left alone, I certainly hope so.

Qwertyplop wroteAvoiding all that airport bureaucracy is one reason why I have an aeroplane of my own. It's also why the charter and air taxi market is booming. If you knew anything about security you would know that the criminals' documentation will be in apple pie order, though completely fraudulent:ugh:

That's why vigilance and communication of intelligence is more effective and why the authorities are wise to seek co-operation from the GA community rather than impose excessive regulation which, as this thread shows all too clearly, is likely to be counterproductive.

Qwertyplop

I have to disagree with you, as you appear to be rather naive about the proposal.

I fly a very small aircraft that can carry me, fuel and a GPS, If I hit a building, I will be sitting (dead) in a pile of matchwood having bounced off the structure.

Compare this with a Cherokee jeep driving through a doorway at an airport. In fact there are a number of model aircraft that are bigger than my little aircraft and a bomber wouldn't even need to risk his own life to wreck anything

Similarly, if I were to try to blow up anything worthwhile, I would use a SAM missile at any point between Southwark to Heathrow or Heathrow to Windsor.

GA of my sort is not an effective threat in any conceivable way. Someone wanting to fly out of a farm strip would have to have completed the NPPL at least and then worked on strip flying for a bit - that is not the way that terrorists work.

They use low-tech tecniques and do it in the easiest possible way - forget about low end-GA. It is yet another scare story from a government who needs to keep us worried.

robin, Youve got that right.

We are all aware of the governments intelligent and extremely well thought out response to an earlier terrorist event - INVADE IRAQ :hmm:
..... that helped to calm the fanatics :rolleyes:

Why bother with a C-172 when you can do up a UAV?
 

A recent NOTAM hereabouts disclosed that a UAV 17' long with a 22' wingspan was lurking about at heights up to 700' AGL.

The computer can take care of the flying and the GPS can pinpoint delivery. Takeoff can be done from a deserted parking lot at night.

But that's too much work compared to loading up a car with explosives.

And the jihadis are not about to knock off their best recruiters; so, the occupants of 10 Downing St and the WH have no worries:}

Avoiding all that airport bureaucracy is one reason why I have an aeroplane of my own. It's also why the charter and air taxi market is booming. If you knew anything about security you would know that the criminals' documentation will be in apple pie order, though completely fraudulent

I'm not disagreeing with you but it's clear that the authorities are not going to let this continue just because the GA community says 'we're smashing chaps don't you know', you can either work with them or against them, your choice. I choose to listen and support, you may not. The parts of GA you describe have clearly been found to be lacking in oversight, what you are able to purchase to circumnavigate those processes is part of the problem identified. Unfortunate perhaps but that's the way it is, I cannot understand why it's so hard for people to get their head around the notion of potential because that's all that has been identified. No-one has addressed my points about the other aspects of this issue, the potential to traffick individuals to do harm (any harm), the potential to engage in logistical flights in support of something dastardly, recon, delivery systems, et al.

I suspect anyone working against them is simply engaging in a futile struggle that will not carry one iota of public support. Your last point about documentation is interesting however, scrutiny and credibility based questioning is the key to dealing with such issues yet everyone says here that more scrutiny is not needed. All law enforcement investigative questioning techniques are based around the notion of credibility. So, immediately, we are in conflict with conventional investigative techniques.

GA of my sort is not an effective threat in any conceivable way. Someone wanting to fly out of a farm strip would have to have completed the NPPL at least and then worked on strip flying for a bit - that is not the way that terrorists work.

But effective monitoring and engagement reveals the bad eggs, the bad eggs then can be dealt with. GA has a much responsibility here as the authorities, engaging with them is the key IMO. These issue driven agendas drive me mad because they ignore the greater principle of our responsibility to one another and the community around us. GA is a vulnerability like it or not and it's up to us to work with those charged with protecting us, in our little bit of the 'security' world, to mitigate those dangers. The key to this is that 'the powers that be' should be getting out and talking to aviators and getting them onboard. I totally support that idea and it's clearly something they try to do when the summer comes and SB's and Customs staff go out to airfields to speak with the community. Yet then they do this, the same old nonsense comes up in here that all they are doing is wasting taxpayers money on a jolly on a hot day. FFS!! Clearly not the case then as they appear to have been writing reports which were fed back to inform this current proposal.

So, we've already missed one opportunity to inform and engage it would seem.

In my opinion. :)

It seems to me that the issue is rather overblown, there is no apparent intelligence but there is a vulnerability, I think we all agree on that point. And having identified a vulnerability, it should be discussed and dealt with. How it's dealt with is the issue now. Intractability on our side will not deal with this and all that will happen is something will be imposed upon us that we had no say over. I suspect that why the proposal came up in the first place and I most certainly do not believe that now the 'cat's out of the bag' as it were, the best GA can come up with is 'leave us alone because we're self policing and self regulating and we all know each other'. This will undo GA.

As for tubes and cars, I completely agree with these points. :(

Cheers,

QP

I don't think there's any disagreement between me and qwertyplop in principle. The point is that GA needs to be vigilant and avoid the possibility of being exploited by the baddies.

For most of us the prospect of loss of licence and/or aeroplane is enough deterrent apart from any moral considerations to ensure we keep out of illicit activities. We have seen the occasional bad egg caught drug running and/or people carrying because the relationship between authority and GA is pretty good.

My point is that continued vigilance and co-operation with the authorities in supporting their need for intelligence is by far the most efficient route to dealing with the baddies. Most people in the security services would share this view I think, because they understand that the community has to be their eyes and ears if they are to be successful, simply because they can't be everywhere.

The problem comes from inexperienced ministers and (sadly these days) inexperienced Chief Constables who have a desperate urge to be seen to be doing something, but no idea of what works and what doesn't.