Anyone see the CBS piece on General Aviation?

Just curious what the thoughts of the general public are.

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/home/main100.shtml It's under the
terrorism targets link.

There's a fair amount of outrage in the pilot community about this but
we have a vested interest in the matter. What do you travellers think?

Just curious what the thoughts of the general public are.

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/home/main100.shtml It's under the
terrorism targets link.

There's a fair amount of outrage in the pilot community about this but
we have a vested interest in the matter. What do you travellers think?


it's a bunch of crap. Why would someone go through flight training
to fly a light aircraft with a effective cargo of 800-900 pounds
that includes the pilot (and others) AND fuel (so at most maybe 500 lbs)
and go to an airport where they have to have access to a plane when they
can get a truck much more easily without any training and drive
12000 pounds to their target with a lot less headach and cheaper.
Hell they can hold up a gasoline truck and do more damage.

Gerald

"Jordan" wrote in message
...
Just curious what the thoughts of the general public are.


I can recall 3 incidents that involved GA aircraft being deliberately flown
into buildings. A light plane was flown into a highrise in Florida, another
was flown into an office building in Milan, and a Cessna 150 was flown into
the White House. Very little damage was done outside of the immediate
impact area. Single engine light aircraft weights range from a larger
Harley up to a full-size sedan. I don't hear CBS, "all the news that's fit
to invent", creating fear around motor vehicles. Anyone in the Middle East
or Oklahoma City can attest to the death and destruction a car or truck can
cause.

Ken Ishiguro

"[SNIP]
it's a bunch of crap. Why would someone go through flight training
to fly a light aircraft with a effective cargo of 800-900 pounds
that includes the pilot (and others) AND fuel (so at most maybe 500 lbs)
and go to an airport where they have to have access to a plane when they
can get a truck much more easily without any training and drive
12000 pounds to their target with a lot less headach and cheaper.
Hell they can hold up a gasoline truck and do more damage.
[SNIP]

With the right "small" amount [say 250 kg.] of biological agent or HE +/-
radiological materials, a small plane flown into, say Times Square on New
Years Eve would be a nightmare. To dismiss it is dangerous.

and to spend a large amount of time worrying about it is worthless.

worry about issues that have larger potential

"RWEmerson" wrote in message
...

"[SNIP]
it's a bunch of crap. Why would someone go through flight training
to fly a light aircraft with a effective cargo of 800-900 pounds
that includes the pilot (and others) AND fuel (so at most maybe 500 lbs)
and go to an airport where they have to have access to a plane when they
can get a truck much more easily without any training and drive
12000 pounds to their target with a lot less headach and cheaper.
Hell they can hold up a gasoline truck and do more damage.
[SNIP]

With the right "small" amount [say 250 kg.] of biological agent or HE +/-
radiological materials, a small plane flown into, say Times Square on New
Years Eve would be a nightmare. To dismiss it is dangerous.

As a pilot and airplane owner, I certainly don't want my airplane
touched by anyone but me. See
http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html#security . Nevertheless, I believe
the CBS piece was sensationalism and exagerated the problem. We saw a
while back when the teenager flew a Cessna into a building in Florida
that very little damage was done, except to the airplane and pilot.
Most aircraft that are still parked in unsecured areas are of the
smallest variety and private aircraft are not carrying strangers as
passengers.
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.


Jordan wrote in message . ..
Just curious what the thoughts of the general public are.

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/home/main100.shtml It's under the
terrorism targets link.

There's a fair amount of outrage in the pilot community about this but
we have a vested interest in the matter. What do you travellers think?

In article , Gene Seibel wrote:

We saw a while back when the teenager flew a Cessna into a building
in Florida that very little damage was done, except to the airplane
and pilot.

I'd not be in the least bit concerned about private aircraft loaded with
explosives being intentionally flown into buildings or other obstructions
on the ground. Trucks work much better for that sort of thing. I'd be
worried about private aircraft loaded with (or without) explosives being
intentionally flown into commercial aircraft during a vunerable time of
the flight, such as while passing through class ? airspace after takeoff
or before landing. Actually, what really scares the heck out of me
more than anything else is takeoffs and landings in poor weather.

- Dan

Having flown my small plane in the vicinity of large ones, it seems
very unlikely that at 100 mph I could purposely position myself to
collide with a 300 mph jet.
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.




wrote in message ...
In article , Gene Seibel wrote:

We saw a while back when the teenager flew a Cessna into a building
in Florida that very little damage was done, except to the airplane
and pilot.

I'd not be in the least bit concerned about private aircraft loaded with
explosives being intentionally flown into buildings or other obstructions
on the ground. Trucks work much better for that sort of thing. I'd be
worried about private aircraft loaded with (or without) explosives being
intentionally flown into commercial aircraft during a vunerable time of
the flight, such as while passing through class ? airspace after takeoff
or before landing. Actually, what really scares the heck out of me
more than anything else is takeoffs and landings in poor weather.

- Dan

Gene Seibel wrote:
Having flown my small plane in the vicinity of large ones, it seems
very unlikely that at 100 mph I could purposely position myself to
collide with a 300 mph jet.


All other factors aside, flight paths of the jet would be very
predictable and the speed would be slowest at take off and landing.
I suspect that if there was nothing to interfere, it doesn't seem
unlikely a small plane could intercept one of the many planes lined up
to land at a major airport. The slower plane wouldn't have to match the
speed of the faster plane as it could be coming from somewhere other
than to the rear of the faster plane. Of course, I think it would be
more damage might be done by colliding with an large athletic or concert
venue. Do I worry about this? Not much. I feel I am in far more danger
while driving on the highway.

I'm sure a small aircraft straying anywhere close to landing and
takeoff corridors these days would raise alarms with ATC long before
they were close enough to get into position. As a pilot, I think it
would be very, very difficult. Suicide terrorists usually want to be
pretty well sure of success.
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.




mrraveltay wrote in message . com...
Gene Seibel wrote:
Having flown my small plane in the vicinity of large ones, it seems
very unlikely that at 100 mph I could purposely position myself to
collide with a 300 mph jet.


All other factors aside, flight paths of the jet would be very
predictable and the speed would be slowest at take off and landing.
I suspect that if there was nothing to interfere, it doesn't seem
unlikely a small plane could intercept one of the many planes lined up
to land at a major airport. The slower plane wouldn't have to match the
speed of the faster plane as it could be coming from somewhere other
than to the rear of the faster plane. Of course, I think it would be
more damage might be done by colliding with an large athletic or concert
venue. Do I worry about this? Not much. I feel I am in far more danger
while driving on the highway.