Re: CAA: GA News, GA News, "Administration Considers Ways to Cut Terror Risk From Small Planes"

["John Sabatello" <flight@xxxxxx>]

Stephen,  Like many others in our industry, I am extremely concerned about
the potential political and regulatory reaction, fueled by an uninformed
media which craves any sort of sensational story, to the Tampa incident.

The mere fact that the Office of Homeland Security is urgently discussing
the reduction of the terrorism threat posed by small planes indicates that
both Washington and the media are dangerously uninformed about general
aviation.  Officials need not and must not "grope" for a way to control the
sprawling (sic) general aviation system.

The GA system in the United States represents in a single segment of a
brilliant industry, everything that is right with America.  In less than one
hundred years this nation's pioneering and engineering spirit and genius
have led the world to amazing feats and discoveries in aviation and space.
That spirit, the one we try to manifest through "discover flying" programs
all across America, is kept alive every day in general aviation.

One of the stated goals of terrorist activity is to disrupt governments and
to change the daily lives and cultures of "enemy" civilizations.  Anyone who
today thinks that the terrorists have not been at least partially successful
in achieving this goal is not paying attention.  We cannot succumb to these
attacks by unwittingly enhancing their effects through added domestic
regulation and legislation.

Consider the effect of the Homeland Security notion to "bring private
airplanes under better control" by applying that logic to other forms of
"general" transportation and recreation.  To begin with, the Tampa aircraft
incident resulted in one dead pilot, a destroyed airplane and some broken
windows.  Even packed with explosives, the mass of that airplane, it's
kinetic energy, and the unconfined location of any resulting explosion would
have been insignificant compared to a private automobile, packed with
explosives parked adjacent to that building's main entrance or worse yet,
parked in an underground parking garage.  At that location, the force of the
confined explosion would have been devastating.  So does Homeland security
then make the very public and highly inflammatory statement that "we have to
bring private automobiles under better control"?  The terrorist use of
"general automobiles" can be and has been far more devastating than any
potential terrorist use of "general aviation".  No one can forget the small
van packed with explosives that detonated in the parking garage of the World
Trade Center in 1993, or the Ryder truck filled with explosives at the
Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, or the hundreds of car bombs used
in Northern Ireland and Lebanon.  Do we "dock" all pleasure boats and
working ferries because they may be filled with explosives and rammed into
naval ships in San Diego harbor or Puget Sound, imitating the USS Cole
incident in Yemen?

This Homeland Security states that small planes represent a largely
unregulated sector of transportation.  I'm wondering if anyone there has
taken the time to read FAR Part 91, the Airman's Information Manual (AIM),
the numerous FAA Advisory Circular's or any of the myriad documents and
regulations necessary to be able to fly in the general aviation environment
in America.  Is this industry really under regulated?  Once again, consider
this notion in the context of automobiles or pleasure boats.  There are
approximately 200,000 private airplanes in the United States with a very
small and easily identifiable segment of the population qualified to fly
them.  However, there are over 800 million automobiles in the country all of
which can be driven by virtually anyone over the age of twelve.  In the year
preceding Sept 11, 2001, there were 15 aircraft stolen in the United States.
The number of stolen automobiles in the US numbered over 100,000 in the same
period.

Prior to September 11, the most often heard complaint in aviation was the
aging and inadequate air traffic control system, yet federal security
officials are considering banning all GA flight that would be made outside
the supervision of an air traffic controller.  This concept, as equally
uninformed as those above, clearly illustrates the lack of understanding
officials with regulatory power have over this vital segment of American
transportation, economy and recreation.

In short, this is already a highly regulated industry that collectively does
more to educate and police itself than any other transportation segment in
the country.  Through existing federal regulations, highly active and
responsible professional organizations such as AOPA, NBAA, NATA, and
continuing education programs, general aviation represents one of the
greatest success of the people of America.

   Post your opinion on this story in the CAA General Aviation Forum
http://www.californiaaviation.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?conf=DCConfID2

*****************************************