|
To those who down this thread.
Something has been achieved through this thread. The fact that the thread has a thumbs down puzzles me a lot for an aviation forum where we are supposed to defend our love especially against unfair, unequal and damaging attack.
Just to tell you what has been achieved through this thread. Lembit Opik has agreed after a talk with me today to find out what Lord Carlisle is trying to achieve and to put his full efforts into defending GA from further unfounded interferance. That is all I can say for now but will report back through these forums when things become clearer. In any lengthy thread where passions are involved and where a sense of injustice comes through people will get personal. I am sure we are all big enough to see through that. Pace |
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.
:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh: And what the frak is wrong with Judy Garland then? I'm off to listen to some Bronski Beat. :) |
Qwertyplop
I can see you are a gentleman and hold your own views which are commenadable. Do you fly ? are you a pilot? do you love aviation? Part of the love of aviation is the freedom of flight and for those of us who post here freedom is important. I will use the Green issue to describe a concern and a lack of trust in the motives of the legislators. We mostly know that 38 % of global warming is created by people living in homes and working in factories. Heat coming out of homes! I could respect a government who started piling millions into making houses more efficient. A government who invested millions into encouraging people to conserve energy. What happened? The first thing Gordon Brown did was to slap a £5 Green tax on aviation. Why simply so he could claw back more revenue under the pretence that he was saving the planet and most of the moves made under the banner of Green involved taxes for extra revenue under the pretence of "its not our fault we are increasing taxes we are saving the planet." I could even respect a Government that used those taxes to plough billions into making jet engines clean but I do not respect a government who cheat to fill their coffers. In the same way I can respect a Government who identify a serious Terrorist threat and deal with it. But I do not respect a government who have one rule for one and ignore the rest and who use the blanket of terrorism to achieve some other aim which has nothing to do with terrorism? The London tubes are a major Terrorist threat but the Government ignores that as to difficult to deal with and unfairly persists in targeting Aviation. One rule for one, one rule for all and a sense of fairness is all I expect. And unlike you I do not trust the motives behind some of these ideas. Call me cynical ? ok. Probably some police chief wants 3000 new officers in a new department and the funding to create them so has to show a need? So a bit of scaremongering and targeting and the funds become available? but then I am a cynic. But anyway I am sure your motives are good and wish you all the best in New Zealand. Pace |
Daily Telegraph 1st July - Lord Stevens on: "Border Protection Service for the UK"
Quote from Lord Stevens:
There are an estimated 8,500 private aircraft and up to 500 "landing sites" in Britain. However, there is no formal vetting from security authorities about who is landing and taking off Sadly Lord Stevens seems to be clambering on to the Carlisle bandwagon - very depressing if you think about what manner of restriction regimes they are currently dreaming up. He also appears to have carried out absolutely zero research into the facts so this is becoming a cross party political torch which could have disastrous consequences for us pilots ! Below is a letter I sent back to the Telegraph which hopefully will be published. I will also be emailing AOPA to see if they can tackle Stevens direct ! Drambuster Sir, Lord Steven’s recommendations for a “Border Protection Service for the UK: Policy Proposals” is highly misleading with regard to the risk of entry into the UK by light aircraft. As a light aircraft pilot I can advise that the comments in your report that “there is no formal vetting from security authorities about who is landing and taking off” is completely inaccurate and raises the question as to how much research Lord Stevens actually carried out. The facts are that any light aircraft crossing an international boundary within Europe has to file a Flight Plan that states your point of departure and arrival. Coming into the UK, where you are being tracked by numerous radar services, you have to arrive at a “Designated” airfield which have a regime in place to cover Immigration and Customs requirements. A pilot colleague of mine who failed to stop at the stipulated destination and in fact continued to a small strip was met by a black Police helicopter and had a lot of explaining to do. In addition to the Flight Plan, the pilot in command has to file, in advance, a “General Aviation Report” which provides full details of all those on board including name, address, passport numbers, date/time/place of departure and arrival back into the UK. This report is faxed to Customs and Immigration and I would say that on around 80% of flights back to the UK we are met by an Immigration officer. There is also full cooperation between the flying clubs, the members and the authorities to the extent that any suspicious movements would be reported within minutes. These airfields are also covered with ‘plane spotters’ carrying long lens cameras and their members association has a ‘reporting agreement’ in place with Immigration and the Police. A few years ago it might have been possible to sneak into the country, but not now. So, Lord Stevens, get your facts right or these sensationalist headline grabbing proposals will end up with General Aviation being over controlled for no good reason. Presumably you will then move on to restrict the sailing fraternity to wreak havoc with another pleasurable pastime. You need to bear in mind that your over reaction is exactly what our terrorist foes are hoping to achieve. Yours sincerely, |
Whatever your views, in taking Lord Stevens to task it perhaps would have been wise to bear in mind that, aside from having been a Commissioner of Police, he is a highly experienced GA pilot with more than 2,000 hours in sailplanes, SEPs, MEPs and jets.
|
Islander 2 - I have to say that your reply looks a little 'defeatist' to me. If Lord Stevens is a pilot he should know better ! He has advised the general public that there is no control whatsoever on GA aircraft entering the UK which is complete tosh and the record should be corrected.
However, I don't think my voice stands for much and so I'm pleased to say that Martin Robinson of AOPA has gone into bat (see their letter below to the Home Secretary. Something similar will be on its way to Stevens pointing out the existing controls on GA movements): Dear . . . [Drambuster] Thank you for your email. Martin has asked me to send you a copy of a letter he wrote to Jacqui Smith on this subject (which I attach) . Martin will be writing to Lord Stevens today. Hope this helps!! Pam Stevenson AOPA letter to Jacqui Smith: 24th June 2008 The Rt Hon Jacqui Smith MP Secretary of State for the Home Department Globe House 6th Floor 89 Ecclestone Square London SW1V 1PN Dear Home Secretary In the UK the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association represents the interests of people who engage in flying general aviation aircraft – a role that we have fulfilled since 1965. Whilst we agree with the Government on the need for all citizens to remain vigilant, I am very concerned about some of the views currently being expressed by Lord Carlisle, and the Association of Chief Police Officers. Lord Carlisle has never taken the time to interview me or any other officer of the Association with a view to taking evidence – maybe this is because we were informed that light aircraft (less than 5700kgs) do not pose any significant threat. Since 9/11 AOPA has worked with and continues to work with Security and Customs agencies. Through the “GA excellence” group we are engaged in eBorder discussions and believe this is the right way forward. AOPA has always stated that our members need to be the eyes and ears of security, reporting anything out of the ordinary. It was poor intelligence that led to 9/11 and therefore the wider you can spread the intelligence gathering net, the better. Make the GA community part of the solution and not part of the problem. However, our concern relates to the poor coordination that exists between police forces, customs and security agencies. Whilst there has been some improvements made it is, in my view, not robust enough and further improvements are still needed. Hopefully the ACPO is addressing this issue. GA is worth £1.4billion to the UK economy annually and whilst we remain vigilant on security matters light aircraft are unlikely to be used as “vehicle bombs” any more than a Ford Transit. If the terrorists involved in 9/11, who had been learning to fly in light aircraft, believed that they could have made a big impact using such aeroplanes they would never have bothered hijacking airliners. The simple fact is that light aircraft do not have the kinetic energy. To date there has never been any specific advice from Government to our organisation. The freedom of individuals and security of the nation is important to all of us but we need to get the balance right. AOPA is committed to working with all relevant agencies to ensure we achieve the correct level of security oversight. An industry code of practice might be a good starting point I am available for discussion at your convenience. Yours sincerely Martin Robinson Chief Executive AOPA UK Deputy Regional Vice President Europe |
. . . and a further email on the matter from Martin Robinson. I suggest that anyone not already a member of AOPA should sign up !
From: Martin Robinson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 01 July 2008 12:43 To: . . . . . . Subject: RE: Lord Stevens report on terrorist threat to UK via GA Dear [Drambuster], Thank you . I have today written to Lord Steven offering him a chance to read my letter to the Home Secretary following the Telegraph article and a chance to meet . What you say in your letter is 100% correct and we must fight any over reaction by Government. Interestingly the Government has said that there is no evidence to support any significant threat coming from GA a point that we endorse. However we must make sure that the Public image of what we do in GA is not affected by outrageous comments from people who should know better. Regards Martin |
It is well known I am not a fan of AOPA, or rather that is what some have concluded! I am not picking yet another "fight" with AOPA, but since the letter has been set out here it deserves comment.
Firstly I am pleased to see that AOPA are involved in this issue and Marin has taken the trouble to write. However, and as ever, I think it is vital letters such as this should be factually correct. It is not true to say that AOPA represents the interests of people involved in GA flying. AOPA is one of a number of representative bodies and at that in terms of the number of members by far and away not the largest. On an issue such as this I would have thought a joint response from the major representative bodies would have been useful and more importantly would have carried far greater weight. Why is it that our representative bodies appear to strive to bat on their own wicket on matters that are of vital interest to everyone involved with private aviation? I cannot imagine why a "select committee" drawn from all the major players could not be established that would be briefed with dealing with issues such as this where I imagine their would be a single common goal. The letter implies there is a lack of co-ordination between the Customs, police force and security agencies. Whilst I have no idea whether or not that statement is true, it seems a dangerous allegation to lay at the Governments door unless you are able to give some examples, in which case the letter should do so. I wonder why the letter ends with "I am available for discussions etc". This in itself is defeatists. I would far rather something more positive and pro-active. I could comment further. Never the less well done for writing in the first place. |
>It is well known I am not a fan of AOPA, or rather that is what some have concluded! I am not picking yet another "fight" with AOPA, but since the letter has been set out here it deserves comment.<
Who are the other organisations who have defended aviation issues with the success of AOPA ? Pace |
Fuji
While AOPA may not be perfect, I think they do a pretty good job for the resources available. They were quick to respond to Lord Stevens article in the Telegraph today and, for all we know, Martin Robinson may well be in contact with the private jet brigade (whoever their body is) to cover a joint approach. However, the target that I think Stevens and Carlisle are lining up are the Headcorns, Pophams, White Walthams etc. Not Farnborough, Biggin Hill and the like as they are already well covered with security. Whatever your differences may have been with them in the past, I believe now is the time for the GA fraternity to throw their weight behind AOPA as this can only strengthen our position (more revenue will deliver more resource as the high pressure workload on MR's shoulders never ceases to amaze me - another couple of aviation activists on their payroll means a bigger voice!) One of the reasons I am becoming increasingly concerned is that I have just returned from a GA trip to Denmark and Sweden (I can highly recommend Gotland, by the way!) and have become convinced of a long term anti-GA trend. While at Bromma airport (the second main Stockholm airport) I was advised that ALL airfields around their capital are to be shut in the next few months with the exception of Bromma (their Biggin Hill) and Arlanda (their Heathrow). All the lovely grass GA strips are to be the casualty of political pressure and the locals can't wait to see them gone ! Quite simply GA in Sweden just lost its voice and they have now reached a tipping point. (all GA is going to be based at Bromma which is far from ideal as this will have to mix in with business jets which will take priority). We therefore must pull together and tackle the 'security' and 'green' brigades with a strong GA voice - and I believe AOPA are the best people to carry this torch ! |
>Can someone wake me up when this is over, please.... <
Drambuster the above snippet was from someone bored with the discussions here. Maybe he should have added "when I do wake up there will be no GA"? I agree with your sentiments and feel that we have reached a point where enough is enough. If we do not stand up but lie on our backs and say "do what you will", then aviation or rather GA will be driven out of existance. AOPA and certain aviation friendly politicians are our best bet at stopping this madness Pace |
Drambuster
I am sorry to learn of your experiences in Denmark and Sweden. The LAA (formerly the PFA) represents a great many pilots. I suspect their representation will grow as the aircraft owners that they in particular represent grow in numbers. The General Aviation Alliance are very active in this arena. The PPL/IR org are most certainly concerned with GAs right to roam in Europe. There are others. There are some powerful alliances to be forged here. I cannot help think such alliances are even more important than AOPA bating their own wicket - a wicket on which they cannot claim to even represent a majority of UK pilots. It is all to easy to appear to be be "doing something" and yet to completely miss the wider picture. Politicians are very good at side stepping anyone who is not representative or where the representation is fragmented. I therefore agree that on issues of this type it is vital that the GA fraternity is united - I guess that is my point - asking pilots to unite behind AOPA will just increase the divisions that already exist between an already fragmented representation which historically is clearly unable to work together. Moreover AOPA has proven singularly unable to increase its membership so (sadly) one has to doubt that unless they adopt a new (and better initiative) they are unlikely to make the progress that we would all wish for. |
Fuji,
Out of interest, I actually had very positive experiences in Sweden - it is a great place for GA touring. I was just commenting on the mounting anti-GA political pressures they have out there and the complete failure to mount a GA counter-attack ! I would have thought that the LAA and PPL/IR org are really technical rather than political organisations and therefore might not be best placed to argue our case with politicians and security services on airfield restrictions. I'm just about to join the LAA so will soon find out if that is a misguided comment, or not ! I have vaguely heard of the General Aviation Alliance but they don't seem to come up on radar very often so I can't imagine them having much impact. When we had the issue over the Planning status of airfields being re-desigated into 'brown field' sites the real noise came from AOPA and Loop (plus the GA mags) - not the PPL/IR, LAA or GAA ! I still believe AOPA are the best way ahead for us - but if they team up with the others then all the better. Pace: AOPA and certain aviation friendly politicians are our best bet at stopping this madness Drambuster |
I seem to remember a government minister remarking a few years ago that it would be great if GA spoke with "fewer voices", and reading some of the above goes to reaffirm the truth in her remark.
I attach this by way of an analogy.... YouTube - The People's Front Personally, I think that AOPA UK do a pretty good job given how small they are compared to AOPA in the US of A. Perhaps once the PFA/LAA have decided whether they want to join forces with the BMAA they will look like a united front to be reckoned with. As an IMC holder, I share many of the aims of PPL IR, and if sure that they are a terrific organisation but, in the wider political world, an organisation with 328 members in the UK will appear at best to be a "niche" pressure group, rather than a credible body. Perhaps time for all these organisations to talk to one another??? |
Perhaps time for all these organisations to talk to one another??? The point I was seeking to make is some issues one can understand may be specific to individual organiations, however there are an increasing number of issues were it would seem there should be a great deal of common ground. A "select committee" brings together the considerable expertise from all these organsiations (for example whilst the PPL/IR may be small group, they have some technically very able individuals) and perhaps more importantly I bet that committee could rightly claim to represent more than a majoirty of UK pilots. As it is AOPA has around 4,500 members out of a UK pilot populaton reported to be 54,000 - less than 10%. |
Islander 2 - I have to say that your reply looks a little 'defeatist' to me. My only point is that, combining (as he does) truly substantial experience in policing and in GA flying, Lord Stevens is a highly credible protagonist for the anti-libertarian cause. Seeking to combat his proposals by arguing that he doesn't know what he is talking about is rather naive and doomed to failure. |
If Stevens really knows how GA works (the GAR requirements, etc) then why does he write this nonsense?
|
Islander2:
Seeking to combat his proposals by arguing that he doesn't know what he is talking about is rather naive and doomed to failure. The fact of the matter is he is now taking the King's shilling from Cameron and will deliver up whatever his master tells him to. His credibility is shot to pieces by ignoring procedures of which he is fully aware (GAR reports, Flight Plans etc) just to come up with a sensationalist report to match Labour's Carlisle. By penning this rubbish Stevens has lost his credibility so please don't waste further time on lecturing me on what a wonderfully talented and experienced bloke he is . . . . . . |
Originally Posted by drambuster
Coming into the UK, where you are being tracked by numerous radar services, you have to arrive at a “Designated” airfield which have a regime in place to cover Immigration and Customs requirements.
A return to a private strip in the UK from an EU country can be legally made with 4 hours notice - Note 3 on page 3 of the GAR form refers. I've done this many times - and long may it continue. |
. . . .. . DaveW - that is a quote from my letter to the Telegraph, addressed to the general public (i.e not pilots), which was meant to counteract the rubbish being put about by Lord Stevens (that there is no control or involvement by the authorities on GA flights into and out of the UK). I therefore admit to a bit of positive 'spin' of my own in that I didn't cover every option under the GAR procedure such as the one you outline.
My main purpose was to make the point that there IS a procedure and that Joe Public doesn't have to lie awake at night worrying about GA as a threat. In your case there is a possibility that the 'boys in the black van' will be waiting at your strip for a friendly inspection on a return flight sometime. If Stevens gets his way (on instructions from his paymasters) then your private strip concession will be the first to go - that is why we should back AOPA wholeheartedly to fight this on our behalf. Drambuster |
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. |
Originally Posted by G-EMMA
I'm also having bad dreams of arriving at the club to find a little hut at the entrance with a security guard who wants to search my vehicle and capture my departure on CCTV for the national database. |
>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. |
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. 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 |
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. Sven, you have a well argued point, but what can be done? 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. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 06:20. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.