GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: General aviation presents limited security threat, IG finds

• 81834
  

  Terrorists will usually take the easy path to executing their operations. A small GA aircraft, loaded with explosives, can be flown into vulnarable infracture venues and do great damage. Weaponized chemeical and biological agents, in relatively small quantities, are also a significant threat.

  It only takes one plane....

  We must maintain the most affordable and reasonable security systems, but also must acknowlege that the terrorists (domestic or foreign0 can be successful....Consequence management needs to be more in focus.

  Stuart Posted July 3, 2009 10:53 AM
• 81657
  

  I worked for the TSA for six years, and left to form a GA security surveillance company for the aerial monitoring and protection of critical infrastructure.

  TSA's constantly morphing focus (technology and proceedures)reflects the political correctness of bureaucrats attempting to justify their existence. Rather than concentrating efforts on real threats by profiling and monitoring known suspects, they insist on treating everyone as being an "equal threat." Thus the attempt to link GA to a possible 9/11 style attack which, on its face, is absurd. TSA is lead by Law Enforcement, not transportation, specialists.

  Bruce Seibert Posted June 30, 2009 11:42 AM
• 81506
  

  As a corporate executive protection officer here in Houston, Texas (20 + years) I can say from first hand experience that the Federal Government is meddling in area that needs no meddling. Private air terminals/ ramp access via these terminals are sufficently secured. Besides the aircraft are kept locked and most of the time are inside secured hangars, and with various (very effective)security measures in-place.

  A terrorist(s) does not need to access airport property to create chaos and mayhem, that can be achieved from a very safe distance, and in a variety of ways....come-on guys wake-up!

  Basilio Reyes Jr Posted June 28, 2009 11:00 AM
• 80903
  

  I agree with FedUp. One hundred percent of GA aircraft owners and pilots abide by Part 61 and 91 of the FAA FARs and Part 135 if they are a GA commercial operation. However, as FedUp stated, if a terrorist wanted to do some real damage to the US, all he'd have to do is illegally commandere a Piper AgCat or other agriculteral spraying aircraft, fill the hoppers with Anthrax or other chemical or biological agent, fly under the radar [i.e. nap of the earth VFR flying] over a populated city or town, release the agent and fly away to some remote field or road, land, get out and just walk away. Please don't think that a pilot who is a terrorist has to squawk a transponder code. He probably won't even turn the raidos on. By the time he is picked up on local or area radar it may be too late. This is analogous to the Timothy McVay scenario but using an aircraft. Most agricultural spraying aircraft are privately owned and most are kept on private airstrips near farms. The Cessna, Piper, Beechcraft, and Aerocommander GA aircraft would not be an aircraft of choice in this case. What DHS and the FAA should do is make a list of every agricultural spraying aircraft and it's owners. Attach a secretly and securely located GPS transmitter only known to the pilot, the FAA and DHS that if an agricultural aircraft is illegally commendered as soon as the engine fires up the transmitter will broadcast via satellite the exact location of the stolen aircraft and intercept it henseforth.

  A concerned pilot Posted June 22, 2009 8:36 AM
• 80864
  

  General aviation aircraft are just a toy for the terrorists, if they really want to attack us again they will probably use a cargo Boeing 727 or a cargo DC-8 full of gasoline or toxic materials.

  Jessica Posted June 19, 2009 10:51 PM
• 80846
  

  Simple way to prevent all this from being an issue (even a small one) with something that is routine in the military: Anyone ever heard of a hangar/flightline security watch?

  With a few folks doing these, they can be reasonably sure to interdict both ratings-hound reporters AND would-be intrepid evil-doers. An ounce of prevention and all that.

  Tigerhawk Posted June 19, 2009 5:01 PM
• 80812
  

  "TSA's Office of Intellegence" is an oximoron.

  Mozelle Barr Posted June 19, 2009 12:06 PM
• 80811
  

  I would disagree that GA has a similar threat level as ground transportation. A semi can hold up to 180,000 pounds, that is about two orders of magnitude bigger bomb than a Cessna. Get real, GA is not a big security threat.

  Hans Conser Posted June 19, 2009 12:04 PM
• 80785
  

  GA aircraft are too visible and too small to be a serious threat. In most areas of the country they are observed by many radars and many eyes on the ground. There are relatively few GA aircraft in any given airspace so they are more obvious. Their behavior is constrained by numerous, complex regulations and airspace and any unusual activity is much more noticeable than ground or water vehicles. Of much more concern are large, enclosed trucks capable of carrying heavy payloads, without visual observation of their cargo, able to approach potential targets by many routes unobserved, cloaked by traffic, with few regulations to constrain their behavior. As a former federal government employee, I can tell you that government agencies often focus on hot issues in the press due to public attention. The press can be very misinformed, ignorant and innacurate since they operate on a short timeframe with limited research capability and no public oversight of their accuracy. Congress often aggravates the situation with the threat of public hearings and congressional inquiries into these "red herrings". With limited resources, we need to focus on the more severe threats. GA is not one of them.

  Andrew Meranda Posted June 19, 2009 10:03 AM
• 80750
  

  I will have to show this to the border patrol up here in NE Washington..(S23)They have issued cards to instruct citizens to use as to what to look for for suspicious aircraft..Like low flying airplanes and items being dropped from airplanes,etc.The hotline to call is 1-866-AIRBUST. These guys are spring loaded to jump on us just on a call from anyone...Very Scary..

  Tom sullivan Posted June 19, 2009 12:37 AM
• 80735
  

  GA is no more of security issue than a car, truck, or boat. However, the rules and regulations that the TSA, customs and the DHS have overbearingly singled out GA as a risk. They have ridiculous solutions for non problems.

  We need to get rid of the TSA with absolutely no accountability and no brains. They are NOT effective and have no clue what's going on.

  We should NOT give up freedoms that we and our forefathers have fought for, because of a false security promise.

  STEVE SMITH Posted June 18, 2009 7:36 PM
• 80733
  

  DHS should be more concerned with 16 wheelers carrying shipping containers or even ships themselves or perish the thought 60 foot yachts.

  R Deutch Posted June 18, 2009 7:28 PM
• 80723
  

  Lets not forget that the root of this was a "news story". (Read that as a publicity stunt for ratings) I wonder if the reporter would have posted the story had they been stopped cold at the gates, a story praising GA for their collective vigilance.

  ghostrider296 Posted June 18, 2009 4:34 PM
• 80709
  

  Finally, an intelligent and well thought comment from a Government source. The IG is correct that all of the TSA's and DHS "scare tactics" about General Aviation being a possible threat, or a possible "weapon of mass destruction", were just that: "scare tactics", possibly intended to continue the "kingdom building program" that has been rampant for the last 8 years. The main reason people say a plane smaller than an airliner could be a real threat is either sheer ignorance of the laws of Physics or Chemistry (and discounts the kinetic Energy theorems), or they are trying to scare Congress into giving them more money to build a "bigger department". Way to go for your honesty, Mr. Skinner!

  Harold Coghlan Posted June 18, 2009 3:14 PM
• 80707
  

  There's a business professor at Stanford who just wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times saying light aircraft can carry atomic bombs and therefore should be under total control. I wrote him back a rather tart critique. But, like the TV news people, this is the kind of fears that stampede governments into crazy laws and rules to show they are "doing something". Keith is right; we have to remain proactive or we'll lose it all for nothing.

  Richard Weil Posted June 18, 2009 3:00 PM
• 80701
  

  Finally, the cream has risen to the top. Mr. Skinner has looked at the claim that GA poses a security threat. He has logically investigated the FACTS and has determined GA is a limited security issue. Let's all remember that aircraft owners/pilots do not want to create any problems that affect their freedom to fly. If we keep our vigil, we shall keep our liberty !

  Keith Graham Posted June 18, 2009 2:13 PM
• 80697
  

  Regarding the Houston TV station's "expose" of the security threat that GA poses, it looks as though Melvin P. Thorpe is alive and well in TEXAS!!!

  Marv Donnaud Posted June 18, 2009 2:04 PM
• 80585
  

  The truth about GA posing a threat is that any aviation can be held as a liable threat. Let's be realistic! Current laws governing GA are just like any other law in this country. For those involved in illegal activity, laws DO NOT apply. Does our government really believe that laws prevent criminals from breaking them? Case in point, the current ADIZ surrounding the DC region is nothing more than an inconvenience for GA pilots and an added burden to an understaffed and overworked ATC system in this region. If someone wished to circumvent this system using a GA aircraft, then they would not be adhering to the transponder, discrete squawk, flight plan filing, ATC clearance, and communications requirements to fly in this airspace and would go undetected for a considerable time before being visually identified as a threat. Laws are meant for law abiding citizens, it is a false sense of security to believe that laws prevent criminals from committing crimes. If this were true, we would living in the ideal Eutopian world.

  FedUp Posted June 18, 2009 7:56 AM