ShareThisWASHINGTON - While commercial airplanes and airports receive intense safety scrutiny, small private planes like the one that plowed into a Texas building Thursday operate under much less stringent oversight, say industry watchdogs and former government officials.
The nation's 5,220 public and private airports and 294,000 general aviation aircraft are not ruled by uniform federal regulations on securing planes, checking passengers or requiring flight plans, said Glen Winn, a 29-year airline industry veteran who served as head of security for United and Continental airlines.
"Many airports in the United States are extremely secure. Others are not," Winn said. "There have to be standards."
U.S. homeland security officials consider general aviation to be far less vulnerable to the threat of terrorism and, as a result, have endorsed the mostly voluntary security efforts taken by smaller airports, plane manufacturers and plane owners as sufficient.
In a May 2009 report, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Inspector General's office examined the security levels and found that general aviation "does not present a serious homeland security vulnerability" requiring tougher restrictions. Rather, the report said, the security threat is "limited and mostly hypothetical."
Even so, the Transportation Security Administration, which is part of the homeland security agency, attempted in 2008 to apply stricter oversight and higher security to larger private planes, which in many cases could cause substantial damage if used in a terror attack.
Among other things, the plan, known as the Large Aircraft Security Program, would require that private plane operators make sure passengers are not on the government's "No Fly" or terrorist watch list.
The proposal drew a hailstorm of opposition from the Airplane Owners and Pilots Association and other general aviation enthusiasts nationwide.
Earlier this month, the TSA backed off and said it would scale back the proposed program to cover fewer planes.
At issue is the weight of the aircraft. Because heavier planes are considered more dangerous, the original guideline was to apply to planes weighing 12,500 pounds. But federal officials have said in recent weeks that they intend to increase that to cover only planes weighing twice that much.
Experts say the small plane flown Thursday by a pilot identified as Joseph Stack into an Austin, Texas office building in an apparently deliberate suicide crash would not have been covered by the original or scaled back plan. The single-engine Piper Cherokee weighed about 6,000 pounds -- far less than the weight that would have required checking Stack's or any passengers' background under the original or revised TSA rule.
But the fact that the plane caused significant damage to the building -- which housed an office of the Internal Revenue Service -- illustrates not just that small planes can do substantial damage but also how much more destructive a plane twice its size could be, according to Stewart Baker, assistant secretary for policy at the Homeland Security department from 2005 to 2009 and an advocate of tighter security for general aviation.
"Small planes -- very small planes -- can do a lot of damage," Baker said. "We ought to use this opportunity to reconsider whether we want to water those rules down."
Aviation trade groups sought to portray Thursday's the incident as isolated and unpreventable. "There are no rules in place that are going to prevent someone who is bent on doing harm to themselves or others," said Chris Dancy, spokesman of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. "There's no 100 percent security guarantee."
Opponents of tighter mandated security argue that the few instances of planes crashing into buildings resulted in the deaths of only those in the planes themselves. A 2006 small plane crash in New York City killed only the pilot and his instructor. In 2002, only the young pilot perished when his plane hit an office building.
But Winn, the longtime aviation safety official, doesn't think that the TSA's proposal goes far enough. He estimates that just 450 of the nation's general aviation airports are secure, and says three precautions would substantially improve security at the others:
-- Conduct mandatory background checks on pilot
-- Set standards for securing access to airplanes and airports
-- Require pilots to file flight plans before they take off
For now, the TSA is revisiting its proposal to make sure private plane passengers aren't on a no-fly or terrorist watch list. The agency is expected to release its updated proposal later this year and it could go into effect in 2011, according to Dancy, of the aviation trade group, which has worked with the TSA on the proposal.
A DHS spokesman did not respond to an interview request Thursday.
(E-mail reporter Isaac Wolf at wolfi(at)shns.com)
(Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service, http://www.scrippsnews.com)
Another Sad Day For American Liberties
First and foremost, our thoughts should be with those who were injured and with the family of a highly-disturbed individual. This act was a terrible thing, and should be remembered as such.
That said, there is NO reason to start running for the hills and attempting to put the screws to America's Genaeral Aviation community. This is exactly how the Knee Jerks running our country strip us of the very liberties we've fought for over two centuries. There are bad people in the world; no amount of rules and restrictions will change that. There are also many good people that make very bad decisions (as I expect was the case today). Someone bent on (self) destruction cannot be stopped with anything other than a time machine...
While I must defer to Mr. Winn's expertise in the airline industry, I would invite him to comment whether he earned a private cert like most people at a local GA airport. Does he understand the already tough burdens and incredible expenses faced by the average GA pilot? Behaving as a Knee Jerk, particularly before the day of the accident has ended, serves no purpose other than to add to the sensationalism craved by the media. And, to get one's name in print. Does it not make sense to understand this incident (that's what it was, AN incident) more deeply before one attempts to 'correct' and entire system based on it?
Further, Mr. Winn's proposals also lack, at least as described in the article, any basis to prove how, or if, they would work:
Mandatory Background Check - Useless. Find your spouse in bed with your best friend. A BC is gonna predict your reaction to that? I don't think so. At best, BCs keep the obvious idiots out of the system.
Access Security Standards - Can't argue that one on the surface. But who sets those standards? The GA community, or someone in DC that never flys anything less than first class commercial or private jet? Such standards would very likely lead to more unfunded government mandates, scuttling many airports completely. Again, such standards would not have prevented today's mishap.
Mandatory Flight Plans - This one gets filed under 'WTF?'. It's not as though someone couldn't deviate from a filed plan. Would that give the military more warning? Absolutely. However, under such a system, they are much more likely to become Knee Jerks themselves and shoot down a GA pilot who is genuinely in distress with a radio out. Does Mr. Winn advocate mandatory triptiks from AAA every time a driver climbs behind the wheel?
Let us please wait, analyze, understand, and act with with clear heads and clearer intentions. Life in a 'free' society entails certain risks. Knee Jerks cannot simply legislate those risks out existence equally damaging our rights and liberties. That's just the way it is.
Another Sad Day for American Liberties
Mandatory background checks for pilots: Will cost thousands of dollars to find legitimate and legal pilots. Joseph A. Stack by all standards would have passed as legal and sane. One day he decided to something illegal.
Security Standards are never standard
File flight plans being mandatory would clog the overburdened ATC system and cause massive delays. The airlines would be screaming and passengers would be screaming because of longer delays and higher ticket prices.
Inept recommendations from wannabe reporter
-- Conduct mandatory background checks on pilot
Great. As long as they are as stringent as the background checks to buys guns.
-- Set standards for securing access to airplanes and airports
How about parking structures, bus depots, railroad stations ... All these places have equipment that is potentially significantly more lethal than a light airplane.
-- Require pilots to file flight plans before they take off
Right. That would of course prevent this suicide and any other similar intentional acts.
Why is it that people who have no clue what they talk about feel compelled to publish they inept opinions?
-- Conduct mandatory
-- Conduct mandatory background checks on pilot
-- Set standards for securing access to airplanes and airports
-- Require pilots to file flight plans before they take off
Not a single one of these things would have prevented what happened today.
And, neither would have all
And, neither would have all three of them combined...
Mr. Winn promoting his self-interests...Again!
Mr. Wolf,
With all due respect, you are giving Mr. Winn a platform for his poorly thought out suggestions that stand to directly benefit him at the expense of taxpayers and the aviation industry. As other commenters point out, Mr. Winn's suggestions would have done nothing to stop todays tragic incident in Austin.
Per statemaster.com, there are 19,565 public and private use airports, heliports, STOLports and seaplane bases in the U.S. I'm sure Mr. Winn salivates at the prospect of scaring Americans into demanding tougher standards at thousands of additional airports. He runs www.condor-avsec.com which, among other things, provides audits of airport security. Of course he would like to see every airport locked down so that he can generate more security audit business for himself. As commenters pointed out, his proposals would not improve security but would simply burden the fragile aviation industry (or more likely, taxpayers) with billions of dollars of extra cost. Just 10 days ago, he was quoted as saying "With the current threat environment ... I find it rather shocking that they would retreat" when the TSA announced they'd be backing off on the scope of their widely opposed Large Aircraft Security Program. http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20100208/NEWS03/302089952/1066/NEWS03
Please don't provide a platform for self-serving consultants pandering to the fears of the public with absurd solutions that would feather their own nests at the expense of the public and/or the aviation industry while providing little or no increase in security.
GA security article comment
Disgusted,
Thought you provided an excellent response. Really liked your results of your "show me the money trail" mini-investigation linking Mr. Winn to condor-avsec. While I can't begrudge his use of the media to pump up his customer base, I find put this particular "plug" in the same self serving category as advertisements by "class action attorneys".
A GA pilot
-- Conduct mandatory
-- Conduct mandatory background checks on pilot
-- Set standards for securing access to airplanes and airports
-- Require pilots to file flight plans before they take off
==================================================================
None of these 'solutions'would have had an impact.
Obviously not a critical thinker.
Mandatory restrictions
Thanx for pointing out that the kneejerker with the mandatory security, background check, and flight plan rules is a consultant who stands to make big bucks from such trashing of our basic freedoms.
I don't mind the security fences--they make it slightly less likely that someone will steal my aircraft radios. Background checks? Anybody who likes to fly his own plane and not be strip searched by the TSA must be a nutcase? So I'm a nutcase.
I file my flight plans with my sweet wife. Nobody else cares or matters.
We can' prevent things like this.
Once again, history has repeated itself and shown that we can neither individually or collectively protect ourselves from the determined actions of a NUT. Pursuit of "security" from such bad actors is futile and should NOT be an excuse to surrender any of our liberties now.
Weight of Piper PA-28
The severity of the threat posed by a small airplane is determined by its weight, yes, and also the target chosen (for example, any small aircraft would be pulverized with only insignificant damage to the feet- thick re-enforced concrete dome of a commercial nuclear reactor containment vessel, if the pilot could find it amongst the other buildings in the plant), the pilot's flying ability, and even a little bit on good or bad luck.
But what inspired me to write is the misinformation in this article about Stack's airplane's WEIGHT. It has been reported differently in many newspapers (3000 lbs according to the USA today). I am a private pilot, and I own two airplanes. One is about the same size as Stack's - its max gross weight (full seats, full fuel, max certified) is 1800 lbs. My twin-engined Cessna, twice the size of Stack's has a gross weight of 5200 lbs. According to reports I have read, Stack was flying a Cherokee PA-28 which has a max gross weight of 2400 lbs (if it is new enough, otherwise, less). He was in it alone, so even if the fuel tanks were full, the airplane could not have weighed is maximum amount, it was short three people and baggage. So it probably weighed 2000 lbs, not 3000, and certainly not 6000. That's physically impossible, and I wish reporters would get their facts right before publishing materials that will inflame people who do not know much about private airplanes and motivate them to try to infringe even more on my right to access an airport and fly my own airplanes in public airspace without informing the government, unless I want to, where I am going.
Attack on federal building
A Piper PA-28 weighs about 3,000 maximim overloaded. The author of the article says about 6,000 pounds. With information available at the speed of light why do you reporters publish so many errors? Is it stark laziness or is it to scare as many people as possible? Why not speculate how many gasoline tanker truck drivers may be ready to lose their cool over social policies and drive their trucks into school buildings or government offices? Their are thousands of chemical trucks and trains which are more effective than a 3,000 pound plane if you are crazy and trying to make a statement.
This sort of event is tragic
This sort of event is tragic and terrifying. Nonetheless it is important to distinguish effective responses from those that merely provide the illusion of action. Oklahoma City and the first World Trade Center attack were committed with rented trucks. The Texas Governors house was set on fire by someone on foot (?) in a car (?)in person. The California State House was attacked by a guy in an 18 wheeler. A couple years back there was a guy in a tanker truck that went berserk and careened down the Hollywood Freeway. Proposing controls over private aircraft would not have prevented any of these, nor the present occasion. Unless we can prevent the loons from going off the deep end, we will be faced with these situation in the future.
This article
You cannot stop someone from trading their life for others. You cannot protect everyone from every possible danger and hope to remain a free society. This guy was unbalanced and did a horrible thing. I wish it were an isolated incident, but people have been doing horrible things forever. How about Oklahoma City? Did we stop everyone from renting trucks after that? So popular to beat up on general aviation with the assumption that all airplane owners are rich (I am not for sure and if it gets too much harder - I will be an Ex airplane owner).
And homeland security which exists to overreach is going to have a field day with this - all supported by politicians dying for a sound bite. I keep my plane well secured in a well secured airport. If you own a plane and don't - then you are a fool. Any of these suggestions would not have stopped this from happening. All three of the planes that crashed on 911 HAD flight plans - so that won't help a bit. A flight plan is a plan and can be deviated from. VFR pilots don't need them (although if I am going anywhere of import - I always file). If we as a society continue to panic about any and all dangers - real or imagined - then the terrorists will have won.
Supra Shoes
With the high-tech Supra Shoes technology and unique colorways design, it can make you more special in the crowd. Now you can choose whatever you like on our Supra Footwear shop. Supra Skytop, the colorway of shoes is just right, which can stimulate your passion for sport availably. Those great quality but Supra TK Society are waiting for you right now. There will always be one pair of shoes appropriated for you on our Supra Sneakers store.
Christian Louboutin
It is named Christian Louboutin for the reason that man who create Christian Louboutin shoes. At the same time, it's helpful to reduce the risk of injury for the player. If you think your feet should be protected well during the strenuous exercise, the Christian Louboutin Pumps are the right choice for you.
There are many Cheap Christian Louboutin Heels from our shop. If you want to learn more informations of those Christian Louboutin Boots, please visite our website www.louboutinshopsale.com. Are you looking for a comfortable shoes? We are ready for you to give you great discount Christian Louboutin Sandals and best service.
UGG Boots
If you are looking for a pair of pretty UGG Boots, you shouldn't miss this chance for purchasing UGG Classic Cardy Boots this season in our shop. Ugg Bailey Button would give people such a deep impression. UGG Classic Short Boots appreciate it not only by the high quality with steady innovations but also by its stylish designs. There is no doubt that it could go well with you casual outfits. There are many kinds of UGG Classic Tall Boots for different ages and tastes online. So pick up your own UGG Sandals now.
yu
wholesale new era hats represents the culture, but ability of anniversary era features a red bull hats. Evolution for the present, hat into the absolute needs or will yield centermost on important occasions. In fact, no matter whether you stay away from its cultural existence, aloof no matter whether it?s with remarkable moments over whether or not the ? ?, behindhand of any causes, has gone from alternative accessories, hats turn out to be an basal accomplice in life.