Another great article from MSN about aviation

CK

Well-Known Member
http://www.msnbc.com/news/993760.asp?vts=111820031014

This time targeting GA airplanes. ''Operators of “twelve-five” aircraft “must adopt and carry out a security program approved by TSA to ensure that passengers and their accessible property are screened prior to boarding”

That's the first time I've ever heard of that. Are we supposed to screen the passengers before we fly?
 

montanapilot

Well-Known Member
Freaking Idiots



someone could do just as much if not more damage with their Geo Metro. What are we gonna do start cracking down on cars too? give me a break. General Aviation is not a threat to national security. It has become a whipping boy in the name of national security.
 

JDMcFly

New Member
It's all one big joke.

"In May, the Department of Homeland Security issued a warning to the general aviation community that terrorists were interested in using small planes packed with explosives to attack U.S. targets...." "...The warning noted that the impact from such an explosion would be akin to “a medium-sized truck bomb.”

Wouldn't it be easier to actually use a TRUCK BOMB? Last I heard car bombs were a lot more common than Cessna172Bombs, out where terror is pie in the middleeast.

I'd be more afraid of a 18 wheeler laden with explosives than a boppity cessna. The big rig would be a hell of a lot easier to pull off as well.

So long as it's all talk, it's fine with me. Atleast AOPA has shown that they will put pressure on when the issue comes to screwing over GA pilot's rights.... sometimes
 

CK

Well-Known Member
I think the FBO might notice some one loading up one of their airplanes with bombs too. It say any one with a credit card and go out and rent an airplane. Last I checked it took a hell of a lot of bull to be able to rent an airplane now.
 

Jason

Well-Known Member
The "Twelve Five" security program is not something new. It's been out for over a year now - I forget what the madatory compliance date was.As I understand it only applies to 135 operations using airplanes 12,500lbs or more. I've been thru both the GSC and ISC training under the "Twelve Five" program and it contains what the TSA is terming "Sensitive Security Information" so I won't say anything more about it than that.

It was designed to serve a particular purpose and it's meeting that goal - it was never designed or intended to be a 'cure all' to possible terrorist activity on light aircraft.

Jason
 

Derg

Cap, Roci
Staff member
[ QUOTE ]
someone could do just as much if not more damage with their Geo Metro. What are we gonna do start cracking down on cars too? give me a break. General Aviation is not a threat to national security. It has become a whipping boy in the name of national security.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pilots are easy to pick on and Jimmy Joe Bob with the big van he drives back and forth to work feels happy and votes accordingly when it looks like people are doing "something" about his safety.

If there was a terrorist flying a Cessna 150 above my house, I might raise an eyebrow and watch from across the street as my aluminum garage door crumples up the aircraft into a neat little ball that I could roll around the cul-de-sac as I wait for the media to arrive.

But a terrorist, like McVeigh, in a rider truck is something else. But are we going to ban more obvious threats as large moving trucks?

Nope, because Billy Joe Bob would sense that snap judgements are starting to affect him beyond an occasional inconvenience at the Southwest terminal before his flight to Birmingham -- and then vote accordingly.

But remember folks, we're supposedly rich debutants flying around multi-million dollar aircraft dangerously over Joe Public's children's soccer fields, noisily buzzing their quiet 800 sqft trailer they build near the airport and as long as the wacky rule affects those slick jetsetters and not them, they could care less.
 

johnbail

New Member
the funnust part IMO was the line was them calling that building in Tampa a "Skyscraprer" give me a break.
 

tonyw

Well-Known Member
I love telling people who say, oh, those little airplanes are dangerous and terrorists can use them as weapons how little danger they really present. I tell them that it's a lot easier for a terrorist to get a hold of an SUV, which carries much more cargo than a C172, goes just as fast, and can drive right up to their office building and detonate.

I just LOVE the look on their face. I'll bet you that they start calling building security every time a FedEx or UPS truck shows up and lingers for more than two minutes!



Oh, yeah, one more thing. Citationkid, when I used to fly out of one of the DC3, whenever El Presidente decided that it was time to give us the code orange with no specific threat, we had to have someone from the TSA inspect our aircraft and bags to make sure that we didn't have anything we weren't supposed to have with us!
 

sorrygottarunway

Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
The vulnerability of general aviation stems, in large part, Berrick said, from the fact that “pilots and passengers are not screened before takeoff and the contents of general aviation planes are not screened at any point.”

[/ QUOTE ]

HAAAHAAHAAA!!!!

I can just see it now:

TSA: "uhhh whats this..."
Student Pilot: "its my fuel tester..."
TSA: "it has a screwdriver on it though"
SP: "yeah, in case I need to tighten the rivets on the cowling..."
TSA: "you aren't PIC..."
SP: "uhhh, this is my flight lesson..."
TSA: "thats a weapon!"

Interestingly enough, when I was flight training in Worcester, we had a little hand-held metal detector that we supposedly had to use on each other everytime we went onto the field. Trust me, it was only the plaything and whacking-tool of the insructors, nothing more...
 

kellwolf

Piece of Trash
[ QUOTE ]
TSA: "uhhh whats this..."
Student Pilot: "its my fuel tester..."
TSA: "it has a screwdriver on it though"
SP: "yeah, in case I need to tighten the rivets on the cowling..."
TSA: "you aren't PIC..."
SP: "uhhh, this is my flight lesson..."
TSA: "thats a weapon!"


[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like the conversation I have going through security at MCO at least 4 times in a 6 month period. SWA issues us these little tools that slip into holes in the back of the cargo bin doors. Their whole purpose is to keep the door from unlatching, thus clocking us squarely on the head. From experience, this HURTS....a lot. It's happened to me twice, and both times I saw stars and got tunnel vision. One guy was knocked out cold. But, I digress....

So, this pin is L-shaped, with a key chain on one end. It's made of metal and very, very rounded at the tip. (tried to find a picture, but they aparently don't exist). TSA for some reason sees these as a threat to aircraft safety. How, I don't know. It's not like I can hold up the airplane with it. At best, I could gouge someone's eyes out in a matter of hours. They always have these serious face when they have to check your bag b/c the person watching the screen was confused. They pull it out, and say in a conspiritorial voice, 'What's this?.' I want to say 'You know damn well what it is. Every ramper that works at SWA has one. Delta and United probably use them, too. I work here, and I'm running late.' I could say that, but then the mean man would take my pilot's license and not give it back. So, I calmly explain what it is and what I use it for. Then I get the 'confused disbelief' face and an 'Uh, okay.' I finally get to go onto work after being detained for about 5 minutes. I get on the tram (those of you who have been to MCO know what I'm talking about) with my friend who was behind me. He then puts his hand in his pocket, gets this look on his face, and says 'Hey, I forgot I had this in my pocket.' Then he pulls out a box cutter. Yeah, real good TSA.

Sorry, I have a bit of a chip on my shoulder when it comes to them.....
 

xdashdriver

Well-Known Member
My wife found the article for me, and in the empassioned heat of the moment I fired off a response to the reporter. Only took about 15 minutes for him to respond. He says to blame the GAO, because it was their testimony he was reporting on and that he reported it accurately and in an impartial and fair manner. YEAH RIGHT!!. He did not answer any of my questions, the great many of which I have seen posted in this thread. He put the usual anti-GA spin on the story.

I told him he had not done his research and was basically trying to sensationlize a bunch of bureaucratic nonsense (I mean let's face it, since when does the GAO know ANYTHING about aviation security??) to sell a story. Needless to say he took offense.

Ray
 

johnbail

New Member
here is some info to send him. from AOPA

Since the September 11 attacks, no segment of aviation has been under more scrutiny than general aviation. After grounding all aviation in September 2001, the federal government then incrementally restored flight operations after careful security review. The White House Office of Homeland Security (predecessor of today's cabinet-level Homeland Security Department), the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the Department of Defense, the National Security Council, the Secret Service, the FBI, the Department of Transportation, the FAA and other agencies have specifically examined general aviation flight operations in all parts of the nation and have sanctioned continued GA flight under current regulations.
 

ready2fly

Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
the funnust part IMO was the line was them calling that building in Tampa a "Skyscraprer" give me a break.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well.... seeing how the building in the below picture is 42 stories and the largest one IN Tampa - that pretty much qualifies as a "skyscraper" to me.

Dunno though - we can't all be from NY or Chi-town.




Incidently, my office is in this building about 10 floors below and on the other side of the building where Bishop's plane hit.

The window directly to the left of the plane is the office of a very good friend of mine.

He said it STILL stinks like AvGas.
 

mrivc211

Well-Known Member
I was thinking about something while in NYC last week, since planes still fly over manhattan, wouldn't it be a possibility that someone could fly over Manhattan on an IFR flight plan somehow, and drop some type of dirty bomb? Maybe thats what they(the gov't) are refering too?

My idea is that they wouldn't actually use the plane to kill, but to rather transport the bomb?

I better not get a call from the FBI today! Heheheheh!
 
Top