More Anti GA hysteria

Well I agree with Larry. Regardless of what you and I may think about what
small airplanes may or may not be able to accomplish in terms of a
terrorist
attack, it is certainly not anti-GA hysteria to discuss the possibility
and
to imagine scenarios by which a terrorist could employ a Cessna to wreak
destruction. In fact it would be irresponsible not to consider them.

The irresponsibility is in the media searching for easy ratings and the
government for poll bumps by focusing so narrowly on what gets an easy
response from the public. This deflects attention from the reality that no
one is paying attention to.

I was driving behind a big propane truck the other day. On the back is a
three inch pipe with a butterfly valve, the kind that is full open with a 90
degree turn. The pipe had a cap but it had big grips on it so it could be
easily removed. I've designed piping systems and had several miles to study
it so I could see that it would only take about 20 seconds to remove the
cap, turn the valve, and dump the tank's contents. There was no locking
device of any kind. A passerby could dump this truck.

Jump out, run up and point a gun at the driver, put him on the ground and
put a bullet in his head so he can't describe the truck, drive it somewhere
and back it up to the storm drain system the runs under a building or back
it into a mall. Light a match.

As long as we have a society that remotely resembles ours, creative and
determined people will have hundreds or even thousands of ways to create
havoc. These scare stories keep the public from realizing that. The only
safety will be in identifying the people that wish to terrorize and keeping
them out. If we focus on denying them the means, of which the GA
restrictions are only the first baby step, it will eventually be a society
none of us want to live in.

Catching terrorists is best done where they live. That requires lots of
help and cooperation from other countries which is what makes our current
"We don't need any stinkin' alliances, we call all the shots" foreign policy
such a disaster.

--

Roger Long

Bob Noel wrote:
Other than being spectacular, the use of a small
aircraft would be stupid.

I agree, but "spectacular" is the main criterion for terrorist actions.

Pick a mission/objective that you think
a small aircraft could accomplish, and I'll find a cheaper, faster,
easier way to accomplish the same objective without using a small
aircraft, with the added bonus that the terrorist would likely
survive
to attempt more evil.

Efficiency and effectiveness (in terms of numbers of casualties) aren't
usually terrorist objectives, especially at the expense of being
spectacular. Surviving the attack is seen as a negative outcome.

In article , "Brien K. Meehan"
wrote:

Other than being spectacular, the use of a small
aircraft would be stupid.

I agree, but "spectacular" is the main criterion for terrorist actions.

That depends on the terrorist's objective.

It is my understanding that some organizations are more interested
in spectacular than actual damage. However, other organizations want
to inflict damage. Do you have information to the contrary?

Pick a mission/objective that you think
a small aircraft could accomplish, and I'll find a cheaper, faster,
easier way to accomplish the same objective without using a small
aircraft, with the added bonus that the terrorist would likely
survive
to attempt more evil.

Efficiency and effectiveness (in terms of numbers of casualties) aren't
usually terrorist objectives, especially at the expense of being
spectacular. Surviving the attack is seen as a negative outcome.


based on what information?

btw - using a small aircraft isn't even particularly spectacular.

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

Bob Noel wrote:
It is my understanding that some organizations are more interested
in spectacular than actual damage. However, other organizations want
to inflict damage.

What organizations?

Do you have information to the contrary?

Decades of observation.

Efficiency and effectiveness (in terms of numbers of casualties)
aren't
usually terrorist objectives, especially at the expense of being
spectacular. Surviving the attack is seen as a negative outcome.

based on what information?

Decades of observation, and general knowledge of middle-eastern
terrorist groups' teachings and statements, which include the premise
that successful suicide missions guarantee blissful eternal afterlife.
Survival is failure. Everyone knows this.

Do you have information to the contrary?

btw - using a small aircraft isn't even particularly spectacular.

Driving a plane into something will ALWAYS be more spectacular than
driving a car or truck into something, even if it is less effective.

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 11:31:39 GMT, Bob Noel
wrote in
::

Pick a mission/objective that you think
a small aircraft could accomplish, and I'll find a cheaper, faster,
easier way to accomplish the same objective without using a small
aircraft, with the added bonus that the terrorist would likely survive
to attempt more evil.

How about this one offered by The Center for Strategic and
International Studies:

Anderson said terrorists could load a plane with explosives, add
shrapnel and possibly chemical or biological materials, and then
detonate a bomb inside a stadium.

(Keep in mind the fact that a reported 250 pound car bomb was adequate
to blow off the front of a building and kill many people in Iraq
recently.)

Obviously a UAV could be employed instead of C-172, but the
distinction would be insignificant. What (non-aviation) "cheaper,
faster, easier" delivery method do you think might accomplish the same
objective?

The realization that is ultimately reached by anyone attempting to
implement security, be it national or computer, is, that at some point
the imposition of security measures necessary to achieve REAL security
render the system effectively unusable. At that point security
becomes a matter of degree of inconvenience weighed against degree
security provided.

The media exploits this limitation by fanning the flames of public
hysteria to elicit a visceral response in its viewers/readers, so as
to create a desire in them to consume the media product in the vein
hope of becoming informed. Such unethical Yellow Journalism tactics
committed by immoral, exploitive, ignoble and self-serving New
Journalists border on actionable libel, and are certainly a betrayal
of the public trust granted news media to impartially expose
government and corporate fraud and corruption. Such abysmal behavior
is tantamount to a religious priest sexually abusing the children of
congregation members.....

Pick a mission/objective that you think
a small aircraft could accomplish, and I'll find a cheaper, faster,
easier way to accomplish the same objective without using a small
aircraft, with the added bonus that the terrorist would likely survive
to attempt more evil.

How about this one offered by The Center for Strategic and
International Studies:

Anderson said terrorists could load a plane with explosives, add
shrapnel and possibly chemical or biological materials, and then
detonate a bomb inside a stadium.

(Keep in mind the fact that a reported 250 pound car bomb was adequate
to blow off the front of a building and kill many people in Iraq
recently.)


This idea emerged in the Thomas Harris book (and movie with Robert Shaw and
Bruce Dern) "Black Sunday" . . . from early 70s . . . an Arab terrorist plot to
blow up a special bomb suspended beneath the Goodyear Blimp at the Superbowl.
Great book and movie.


www.Rosspilot.com

Roger,
Propane trailers, as well as anhydrous ammonia trailers have what
is called an "excess flow valve" buried in the tank, unseen to the
naked eye. It works like a one way check valve but allows a
controlled amount of flow before it checks off and stops the flow.
It is there in case an unloading hose ruptures and specifically keeps
the tanks contents from "dumping".
Not to **** you or anyone else off in this group but, I will argue
that there is some irresponsibility involved in talking about of
effective means of terrorism in a public forum. Take the transponder
hijack code discussions after 9/11 that broadcast to the world
something that had been known mainly to pilots and not to the general
public until after that fateful day, for instance. Or the fact that
since the Oklahoma City bombing, the general public now knows how to
build anfo bombs. It is bad enough when law enforcement releases this
kind of information to the public. Please, lets not educate these
radicals ourselves.

Joe Schneider
8437R
Large scale chemical manufacturing industry for over 25 years.
Ammonia, methanol, ammonium nitrate, etc.

"Roger Long" wrote in message
...
snip

The irresponsibility is in the media searching for easy ratings and
the
government for poll bumps by focusing so narrowly on what gets an
easy
response from the public. This deflects attention from the reality
that no
one is paying attention to.

I was driving behind a big propane truck the other day. On the back
is a
three inch pipe with a butterfly valve, the kind that is full open
with a 90
degree turn. The pipe had a cap but it had big grips on it so it
could be
easily removed. I've designed piping systems and had several miles
to study
it so I could see that it would only take about 20 seconds to remove
the
cap, turn the valve, and dump the tank's contents. There was no
locking
device of any kind. A passerby could dump this truck.
snip

While news reporting after OKC and 9/11 may have made the "general public"
more aware of things like amfo bombs and hijack codes, I feel pretty
confident that it didn't make much difference to the "radicals" who were
already interested in such things. Thanks to the Internet information,
for good or ill, is easily found no matter what you're interests may be.
It's a genie that's out of the bottle and it's not going back.

Laws, rules and regulations serve only to help keep honest people honest.
They will *not* stop those persons who are intent on causing harm to
society.

I think that there are very few people in the GA community who think that
GA aircraft have no potential as terrorist tools. What makes me (and I
think many others) angry is how GA is singled out to the exclusion of
SUVs, RVs, limos, rental trucks and boats. Under normal circumstances it
is possible to load up a truck with an OKC-sized amfo bomb and drive it
within the blast radius of *millions* of targets worth attacking without
anybody giving the truck a second look, unless it speeds or runs a red
light. It takes no special skill, no expensive training, no risk of
stealing a vehicle or spending lots of money to buy one.

If the government required background checks for everybody who wants to
rent a truck from U-Haul, or demanded that RV passengers and cargo be
screened by police before every trip, or that the Coast Guard search every
BayLiner and O'Day sailboat, the outcry would be deafening. We in
aviation are simply too few in number to be paid much attention to. Our
only salvation is that we are relatively "high value" compared to our size
and we can use economic arguments in our favor. Close down flight
schools? More than 50% of airline pilots are now civilian trained. Where
will new ones come from? Halt ag operations? The cost of food to the
consumer will skyrocket. Shut down little airports? The cumulative
economic loss will be in the billions of dollars. Those are the kinds of
cards we need to continue to play with the government and the public.

Dave Reinhart




JJS wrote:

Roger,
Propane trailers, as well as anhydrous ammonia trailers have what
is called an "excess flow valve" buried in the tank, unseen to the
naked eye. It works like a one way check valve but allows a
controlled amount of flow before it checks off and stops the flow.
It is there in case an unloading hose ruptures and specifically keeps
the tanks contents from "dumping".
Not to **** you or anyone else off in this group but, I will argue
that there is some irresponsibility involved in talking about of
effective means of terrorism in a public forum. Take the transponder
hijack code discussions after 9/11 that broadcast to the world
something that had been known mainly to pilots and not to the general
public until after that fateful day, for instance. Or the fact that
since the Oklahoma City bombing, the general public now knows how to
build anfo bombs. It is bad enough when law enforcement releases this
kind of information to the public. Please, lets not educate these
radicals ourselves.

Joe Schneider
8437R
Large scale chemical manufacturing industry for over 25 years.
Ammonia, methanol, ammonium nitrate, etc.

"Roger Long" wrote in message
...
snip

The irresponsibility is in the media searching for easy ratings and
the
government for poll bumps by focusing so narrowly on what gets an
easy
response from the public. This deflects attention from the reality
that no
one is paying attention to.

I was driving behind a big propane truck the other day. On the back
is a
three inch pipe with a butterfly valve, the kind that is full open
with a 90
degree turn. The pipe had a cap but it had big grips on it so it
could be
easily removed. I've designed piping systems and had several miles
to study
it so I could see that it would only take about 20 seconds to remove
the
cap, turn the valve, and dump the tank's contents. There was no
locking
device of any kind. A passerby could dump this truck.
snip

Laws, rules and regulations serve only to help keep honest people honest.
They will *not* stop those persons who are intent on causing harm to
society.

I think that there are very few people in the GA community who think that
GA aircraft have no potential as terrorist tools. What makes me (and I
think many others) angry is how GA is singled out to the exclusion of
SUVs, RVs, limos, rental trucks and boats.


OK--I agree with this in spite of my earlier contention that I could not
imagine a scenario where my little Skyhawk could be used in an attack. Of
course I can, as much as I don't want to.

www.Rosspilot.com

From AOPA:

SOURCE DISPUTES ALARMIST STORY ON GA "THREAT"...
A story in Thursday's Boston Globe that warned in great detail of a
neglected "small-plane terrorism threat" has drawn a response from the
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) -- the
Washington think tank whose staff is quoted in the Globe as the basis
for the story. "The Globe story is incomplete and does not take into
account a broad range of findings that are still under development,"
CSIS spokesman Jay Farrar said in a statement posted on the CSIS Web
site. The CSIS said its report is not yet finished, and "personal
statements made before a study's completion ... do not place into
context the full range of threats against the transportation system of
the United States."
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#188032

....CITING "DIRTY BOMBS" AND STADIUM TARGETS...
The Globe story quoted CSIS staff who said that Al Qaeda is known to
have considered the use of small aircraft and helicopters for attacks
on U.S. soil, and that sports stadiums are a "perfect target" for a
Cessna 172 loaded with radiological material and explosives. "The
no-fly zones over these stadiums are loosely enforced," the story
says, quoting a CSIS staffer. An FAA official quoted in the story said
that GA security efforts were dropped because they "would have cost
too much." A TSA spokesman said, "These [small] planes aren't a focus
for us. .... We don't have unlimited funds to deal with everything."
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#188033

....AND AOPA RESPONDS
AOPA was quick to dash off a letter to The Boston Globe's editors,
denouncing the story as "irresponsible," and noting that numerous GA
security programs have been implemented since 9/11. Next time the
Globe reports about GA issues, it should consult AOPA, the letter
said. AOPA President Phil Boyer also responded to the story in an
interview on a Washington, D.C., radio station, WTOP. Boyer told
listeners that that most GA aircraft are operated in much the same way
as other forms of personal transportation, like cars. "There's the
general aviation airplane in which the pilot and the passengers know
each other," Boyer said. "That's the norm."
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#188034

www.Rosspilot.com