|
Aerobatics ServerACRO E-mail Archive Thread: [Acro] Re: Your suggested[International Aerobatic Club] [Articles etc] [Communications] [Contest and Patch Information] [Aviation Organizations] [Other Aerobatics Info] [Aerobatics Images] [Other Aerobatics Links] [Other Aviation Info (including weather)] [Search ACRO Website]Disclaimer: These aerobatics pages are developed by individual IAC members and do not represent official IAC policy or opinion. |
[Usage Statistics] |
Thread: [Acro] Re: Your suggested
Message: [Acro] Re: Your suggested
Follow-Up To: ACRO Email list (for List Members only)
From: William Halverson <William at netpros.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 16:17:47 UTC
Dear Mr. Kinney: I am one of those _over_ 200,000 pilots without an IFR license who "clog our skies and populate small, often remote, countryside airports." As a security expert, one with a degree in public accounting and not engineering, and on behalf of those +200,000 pilots that clog the skies, I have a few questions for you. I'd like you to reply to the IAC distribution list, because your quoted article in the Washington Post has caused a series of replies. Some of them are not so kind to you. Consider this as your opportunity to make your case to people who care about security of our country, but also can intelligently weigh your arguments based on their firsthand knowledge of aviation. 1. Which poses a more immediate and real threat to the security of our country, the general aviation fleet of those 25,000 multiengine airplanes, or the fleet of light trucks, heavy trucks, and SUVs, which number in the millions? 2. How much fuel does it take to collapse a steel framed, concrete reinforced, fifty story structure, each side of which is 200' wide, using the WTC tactic? How much explosives would it take to collapse it using the US Embassy bombing tactic? I ask you these two questions to make two points. First, as our English contributor below points out, if you want to kill people that are not all together in large buildings, the most effective way to do it is with car or truck bombs, not airplanes. Your 'suggestion' does not apply to this threat component at all. Second, as proven sadly with the Marine barracks and US embassy bombings, most structures don't need a 757 crashing into them to collapse them. But to collapse a major structure, like those existing in most large Amercian sities, a twin engined plane, even with its fuel and a full load of TNT, is not enough to bring the building down. You 'suggestion' does not acknowledge this fact at all, either. In fact your 'suggestion' does nothing to help increase the security of our country. Awaiting your public reply, William Halverson > Aidan Grimley wrote: > > Vehicle security is not an issue wrt terrorism. > > The biggest bomb explosions in Britain in recent years were in trucks > that had been bought with cash, stored, prepared and driven to the > destination. How can anyone tell the difference between those trucks > and every other truck on the roads? > > Guess we should all security check potential purchasers and not sell > vehicles for cash!!!! > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bob Freeman [mailto:bfreeman at dataplay.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 17:10 > To: 'Eric Rood'; IAC > Subject: [Acro] RE: Stupid newspaper article > > Phil Boyer of the AOPA has already responded to the Washington Post > regarding this inept, inaccurate article. I think this Kinney guy > might next consider banning cars and trucks. They are not very secure, are > available in high numbers, and there are millions of unrestricted > operators available. > >snip< > > Bob Freeman > > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Rood [mailto:ericrood at gcfn.org] > Sent: 26 September, 2001 9:40 AM > To: IAC > Subject: [Acro] Stupid newspaper article > > Clamp Down on General Aviation > By Joseph A. Kinney > Tuesday, September 25, 2001; Page A23 > > Since Sept. 11 much welcome discussion has been focused on ways to > increase commercial airline security, which has often been lacking. > But there is another, equally frightening problem: the small, private > aircraft that clog our skies and populate small, often remote, countryside > airports. > > General aviation, which serves business and recreational fliers, > encompasses 7,120 jets and about 25,000 multi-engine aircraft flown by > about 200,000 pilots who have instrument ratings. Each of these larger > planes could easily be transformed into a weapon of mass destruction > if it were laden with explosives. > > The sheer number of planes tells only part of the story. Anyone who > has visited a general aviation facility knows that security is often poor > or, more often, nonexistent. Most of these facilities have no aircraft > control towers or patroling security officers. Worst of all, there is no > requirement at these facilities that aircraft be locked, and many are > left open or are protected by locks that can be opened in a matter of > seconds. > > In most cases, starting a plane is easier than igniting the engine of > a stolen car. Before and after takeoff, there are few restrictions upon general > aviation. The pilots simply file a flight plan with traffic > controllers, often in distant locations, and away they go. Nothing can be done to > stop them from entering urban airspace. As any pilot knows, these small > aircraft frequently wander into restricted airspace, often jeopardizing > commercial or military aircraft. > > All aircraft should be locked and secured. Larger general aviation > airports should be fenced and have controled entry. Ignition devices > should be modified to eliminate the possibility of unauthorized use. > Airspace around larger cities should be further restricted to prohibit > entry by such aircraft. This may mean curtailing landing rights of > such aircraft at commercial airports. > > Such measures might make life more difficult for the general aviation > industry. But if security experts continue to focus strictly on > commercial aviation, we may find ourselves guilty, once again, of fighting the > last war only to see ourselves outsmarted by a more creative foe. > -- Joseph A. Kinney is a security consultant in Charlotte, N.C. > (c) 2001 The Washington Post Company > > Eric Rood > ericrood at gcfn.org
|
If you have aerobatics related information that you would like to make
available, please contact me at the email address below.
| ||
|
| ||
|
| ||
| © Dr. Günther Eichhorn | Springer 233 Spring Street New York, NY 10013 USA, Email Guenther Eichhorn | |