donndawn

06-17-2004, 2:54 PM

As the wife of a career Pilot flying Learjets and Commercial Helicopters, I will tell you first hand that I feel much safer in a small airport.

Small airports are like families and everyone knows everyone and notices things that are not quite right. They may sound polite when they ask "may I help you" but in reality they are questioning who you are and why are you there.

Are people aware of the Homeland Security training that a Pilot must go through? They are trained by the TSA and are responsible for their passengers. It does not matter how much money you have, you still have to be identified and supply the proper documention including your name, birthdate etc. You can't just hop into a plane without being accountable for your identity. My husband is one Pilot I can guarantee will make sure you comply. Why would he want to risk a career he has put over 25 years into? Not only that but he too is flying in that plane.

I won't say that they are 100% safe because nothing is and anyone that thinks that things are all covered are fooling themselves. But in a large airport there is so much activity that anything can get by. It doesn't mean that people are not doing their job but only that there is just too much activity.

One other thing that really gets me about larger airports is all the carry on luggage that is still allowed on no matter how large or what it is. Do I feel safe flying a large commercial airline............not really!!!! I was sitting on a commercial jet one evening and was the only one that did not get off the plane during a brief stop in Atlanta. Suddenly the rear of the plane opened and a group of people dressed mainly in muslim garb marched into the plane and never said a word as they cleaned up the plane a bit and fluffed pillows etc. I was the ONLY person on that plane at the time. Am I crazy or is that a bit scary sounding? Granted it was before Sept 11th but still..........is it any wonder that what happened managed to happen?

I think that the airlines feel threatened by the smaller companies and charter companies and the fact more people are buying planes rather than dealing with cancellations, delays, hard to get flights and rudeness. A businessman's time is money and as an article in one of my husband's magazines states, "no plane......no gain". With a private plane whether chartered or owned, the person makes their own schedule. One executive I know of stated that he did in ten days what would have taken a month flying on a commercial airline. I feel that this fuss was created to make people feel insure about smaller airports. I don't know who started it but I feel that it is a money issue behind the accusations and rumors.

So..........stop picking on smaller airports and trying to scare people unless you have FACTS...........then show me that the same incidents do not or have not happened at large airports.

PS........smaller planes carry less fuel also than a large jet.........they have enough to get you where you need to go safely but not enough to do what the ones on 9-11 managed to do. Hmmm what plane do you think a terrorist would prefer?

Dawn Donovan Sanford, FL

dhwilcox

05-21-2004, 2:52 PM

There is one point everyone has failed to make. The aircraft mentioned at the beginning of the story was stolen from Embry-Riddle Univeristy. How is it a school thats deems itself the "world's preeminent aeronautical degree program" doesn't have a system in place to ensure the security of their aircraft. They even have a non-degree program in Aviation Safety/Security Certificate, yet they can't maintain security of the 101 aircraft they operate. If WESH wanted a story, they should have used talked about ERU and lack of security for their aircraft.

fremgens

05-18-2004, 1:49 PM

In your article, you said: "experts said a pilot could just remove all of the seats and have storage all the way back into the tail. Besides the pilot, there's enough room to hold 500 to 600 more pounds."

WHAT EXPERTS?? Experts in brassiere design??

You cannot cram more of anything (except perhaps styrofoam) behind the end of the cabin/baggage compartment for a reason... it puts the plane outside of the weight and balance envelope, and the plane becomes uncontrollable in the air. A Cessna 172 would have the tail skid dragging on the ground with even a hundred pounds back in the tail cone... which is empty except for a few cables for that specific reason.

If you are going to quote experts, find real experts in the field.. not student pilots!

Your reporting is inaccurate and irresponsible. Your management should be very, VERY ashamed!

S M Fremgen

TV_Bus

05-16-2004, 3:23 PM

The comments regarding this topic, small airport security, remind me of the theme of Ted Koppel's (ABC Nightline) keynote address to the 1990 convention in Orlando of the RTNDA, Radio and Television News Directors Association. He said schools of journalism should be abolished because they graduate near-empty heads who know nothing except how to read and write, yet those so-called skills nead to be relearned when they get a job. They learn nothing in school about politics, science, business, government, economics, etc., etc, so the schools are of no use. Shoddy, uneducated and unresearched reporting is one of the reasons our once wonderful broadcast industry is on a slide downward.

For more on this subject by Ted Koppel, see www.rtnda.org/resources/speeches/koppel.shtml.

Jim Moneyhun Gainesville

jonimfishe

05-16-2004, 1:32 PM

Timothy McVeigh proved that airplanes are not the only means terrorists can use to transport explosives and the average van has a larger payload than most small airplanes, so perhaps we should get tougher on truck rentals, vans and moving companies. Why presume that terrorists will use the same methods as previous terrorists? Boats could be the next handy weapon....

Joni M. Fisher

kdwilkes

05-15-2004, 4:35 PM

Your news story was sensationalized to the highest degree. I am a Commercial Pilot that spent the last three years flying out of Orlando Executive, one of the small general aviation airports in the U.S. I was a flight instructor there as well, and not once did I see something that appeared to be a breach of security or even a threat. Did the reporter that did the story miss the large placard in the baggage compartment of the Cessna 172 that states: "Maximum 120 pounds of baggage."? If you loaded 500-600 pounds of explosives in the back of a Cessna 172, your center of gravity would be so far rearward that upon liftoff (rotation) your plane would pitch up, stall and crash on the runway.

Next time you try to run a story on the dangers of general aviation to this country, at least report relevant facts that are in fact, true. General aviation airplanes pose little threat to this country. One of your news vans loaded with explosives is much more dangerous.

Kevin Wilkes Orlando, Florida

pilot9999

05-15-2004, 3:40 PM

As an experienced GA pilot, I applaud WESH for running this story, even though there are some minor technical mistakes. Small GA aircraft ARE a serious terrorist threat when flown into actual soft targets like crowds of people in the open - in stadiums, at parades, outdoor concerts, or NASCAR events. Buildings are NOT soft targets, and the insistence of AOPA and other pilots repeatedly returning to this bogus strawman argument shows that they do not understand the threat. A thousand pounds of explosive flown into a football stadium packed with 70,000 people could easily result in several thousand deaths and injuries. With a chemical or biological weapon, it could be even worse. The argument that trucks and cars carry more explosives is true but irrelevant. You can put up barriers and checkpoints to control where vehicles and boats go. You cannot do that with planes - you can't put up big nets in the sky. The sad reality is that once airborne in the hands a suicide pilot, nothing is going to stop that plane from flying into a crowd in a stadium. Moreover, the pilot only needs training to the first solo level and maybe a few hours more (15 to 20 hours total). In short, no big deal to train a suicide pilot for this mission.

Another point. The AOPA "Airport Watch" that Phil Boyer always points to is a ridiculous joke. I fly to airports all over the west coast and have never been challenged or questioned anywhere.

A final point. Who needs an airport? There are millions of acres of farmland and rangeland in this country that are flat enough to support the operations of small GA aircraft, not to mentioned thousands of private airstrips. Same point, once airborne from a farm field or private strip, nothing is going to stop a suicide pilot from reaching the target.

I am amazed at the ignorance of the responses on this board, many of them obviously coming from pilots. And I have to share airspace with these morons? I know everybody is trying to protect their hobby (or business) but the best way to do that is honestly acknowledge the realities of the threat and design procedures to address them instead of hiding their heads in the sand as many GA pilots (and the AOPA) are doing.

locascio

05-15-2004, 8:46 AM

No, they are not too vulnerable. One of your reporters was able to drive onto the tarmac of a small airport and suddenly small airports are too vulnerable. When this same reporter goes to the shopping mall or train station he/she can drive by a larger number of cars & trucks, some left unlocked; where's the investigative report asking if parking lots are too vulnerable?

Your thinking sounds alot like a jack*ss Chicago mayor who requested temporary flight restrictions over downtown Chicago on several occasions, and ultimtely shut the airport down, because he feared aerial threats on the city from planes arriving/departing nearby Meigs airfield. There were no substantiated aerial threats. In fact most Chicagoans are more fearsome of a bomb-delivery mechanism that doesn't stand-out from the rest such as a small aircraft would. A car or truck bomb could very easily slide into the heart of the city unnoticed by authorities, and can certainly hold a heck of a lot more explosives than a Cessna 172!

By the way, I think the same reporter should do a follow-up report showing how he can load and fly a Cessna 172 with 500 lbs of "false explosives" (bricks or sandbags) into the cabin and tail of a Cessna 172. The human gene pool will benefit from this report..

tcbetka

05-15-2004, 7:48 AM

As someone who has been involved with General Aviation for over 20 years, I was deeply disappointed by this recent story. As so many have pointed out before me; these facts reported are simply inaccurate.

However, I am very pleased to read the posts of the previous flyers who have taken the time to voice their concerns. Unfortunately, I fear much of the damage has been done, as we are unlikely to see any "on-air" piece to mitigate this damage. Thank God that someone had the sense to include AOPA while gathering the "facts" pertinent to this issue.

I would point out one final thought: If GA aircraft are such dangerous terrorist weapons, and so many of the 9-11 terrorists trained to become pilots right here in United States...

...why didn't they simply use the GA aircraft they trained in as missiles?

Thanks again to all who've posted before me.

Tom Betka, MD, CFII, A&P Titusville, FL 1967 PA23-250C Aztec

stevecorun

05-15-2004, 7:31 AM

I rely on your station daily to inform me of the news as I reside within the Orlando DMA. I have found your newscasters to be quite professional and have come to feel that I know them personally. I am also a private pilot, and have enjoyed flying in the Central Florida area for the last 5 years. Imagine my disappointment when I learned of your story on the potential threat of general aviation aircraft. My experience with the local aviation community is an entirely different one than your story portrayed. I have seen men and women in their 80's introducing children to the joys of flight. I have witnessed local businessmen (pilots) donating their time and aircraft to help cancer patients get to a hospital hundreds of miles away. The Civil Air Patrol, an organization of local volunteers, assists law enforcement hundreds of times each year in search and rescue operations. General Aviation deserves a better write up than you have given it, and your viewers deserve a better understanding of the G.A. community

Sincerely,

Steve Corun