Light Airplanes and Security: Absurd Fears Even from Experts

As a country, how far have we come since September 11th, 2001, in our concern over the potential role of small airplanes in launching terrorist attacks?

Sadly, not far at all.

A recent op ed piece in the New York Times by Lawrence M. Wein, a professor of management science at the Stanford Graduate School of Business, underscores the ignorance prevalent among people who fancy themselves expert at national security. 

In his piece (A Threat in Every Port) , Wein evaluates in flow chart fashion the routes that terrorists could use in getting a nuclear weapon to the United States and the ways that weapon could then be delivered to its target.

His ideas about how to stop delivery of a weapon by a vehicle--a 20 year old minivan has many times the payload capacity of my Cirrus, by the way--were vague, talking about "creating a detection architecture that cannot be easily be bypassed by a vehicle." Given the number of potential targets and routes to them--the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, for instance, was at the top of nobody's list--it's hard to take this suggestion as anything more than hopeful rambling. It is in no way a plan, that's for sure.

"What about attack by a small plane?" Wein asks. He exposes his ignorance further, saying "Given the impracticality of shooting down a tiny aircraft before it could detonate a bomb from the air, the best approach is to begin screening all domestic departures of small airplanes." What utter nonsense. There are thousands of small airports in the United States. Who would "screen" all of these flights? And even if that were possible and affordable and workable, and it is not, what would prevent a terrorist from simply bypassing the "screening" process that we'd spent, presumably, billions to develop. Moreover, when the target is the middle of any good-sized city, the use of an airplane to deliver a nuclear device on target is needlessly complicated. A Dodge Caravan will do.

I wonder if Mr. Wein has ever visited a small airport, if he's ever given the subject of airport security more than a passing thought, and if he's ever tried to determine just how many dollars it would take to implement these plans he so recklessly proposes.

It is the nature of flying, I suppose, to live among people who just don't get what we do. It is a complicated and, therefore, misunderstood activity. And because it's so mysterious, it's also scary to many people. The job of every pilot is to do whatever we can whenever the opportunity arises to set the record straight so that people like Mr. Wein will think twice before uttering such nonsense.

Robert Goyer

Comments

[Dave Leonard]

Right on! Does Mr. Wein propose to screen each and every "departure" of minivans?? I think not! Yet so far that seems to be the delivery method of choice for the terrorist (Domestic or Foreign). And finally, in what feild is Mr. Wein supposedly an expert?

[Robert Price]

As a Private Pilot and EMS provider it never fails to amuse me how people with lots of education can be so totally out of touch with reality. No matter what field you happen to look at there are always those who claim to be experts but know nothing about what they are talking about. Security of our airports has nothing to do with terrorism. Just he thought that they may use small planes against us is enough to make us look up everytime a plane comes overhead. Our airports are not the problem. Our people in charge of out-thinking Those who would do us harm is the problem. Remember "If it's not broken don't fix it." The definition of terrorism is to make your enemy chase his own shadow. I think they have accomplished that very well indeed. But then common sense never was something in abundance in Washington, D.C.

[Bill Ross]

Your response, Mr. Goyer, must, as you pointed out in your conclusion be addressed to those not familiar with general aviation. You're preaching to the choir. Wein's not so reckless proposal needs to be countered with facts that are understandable, supportable and professional. This issue demands dialog.

I sure as hell don"t see AOPA, EAA or the other alphabet groups out talking to the Chambers of Commerce, the JC's, the City Councils and the other potential stakeholders to explain who we are, what we do and how we contribute. It took our Airport Board a few years to understand that we have to involve all facets of our city in the operation of our airport.

Invite the professor over, bring the media along and have a discussion with the intent to first understand and then be understood.

Thanks

[Stan Simms]

I agree with the Bill Ross comment about AOPA, EAA, etc not doing the job of promoting and explaining what General Aviation is to the world-at-large.
What about User Fees!
According to their financial statements, AOPA has investment assets totalling tens of millions of dollars! How about taking some of that money and spending it for the good of our community!
If there was ever a time it is needed -it is now.

[Chris Doyle]

AOPA and other organizations have formed the "GA Serves America" campaign. Harrison Ford is one of the leading spokesman in the ads. The ads are aimed at general news media.

[Herb Jacobs]

Lawrence Wein is a moron. Professor of what? Total lack of common sense, just as the professors whom I had when in college. Not one success among them. Wasted four years with other morons who taught.
Those who can, do. Those who cannot, teach.

[A. Dayton]

Thank you, Mr. Goyer. But as the first commenter noted, we pilots already know this. Unfortunately, in the 8 years since 9/11, we have yet to successfully explain aviation to the media and the general population. Meanwhile, our rights and freedoms as pilots are continually eroded. The job of the news reporter is to research and learn the story so that the truth can be discovered and the media are clearly failing in this regard. It is therefore up to all of us to do everything we can to set the record straight.

[jackson maddux]

Someone needs to start a fund for these type of people to give them flying lessons/GA trips. Call it the "ignoramus fund" or some such thing.

I am sure that if a local pilot took the good professor on a quick trip with an angel flight or organ donor flight, then he could see for himself that GA serves a useful purpose as well as the fact that GA is already well-monitored.

Stick a headset on him and let him listen to how ATC guides planes around his neighborhood and he just might learn a thing or two as he comes down from his ivory tower.

[Wyatt Bell]

The only way to accomplish complete security is prohibiting anyone from being outside their room without a permit, monitoring device, armed escort and interrogation by authorities.

We're getting there! I can hardly wait!!

[Joe Harper]

Where the flying community really fell down was in allowing all this security nonsense ab initio. Otherwise sensible people bought into the law and order lunacy lockstep without question. Law enforcement people in general are not good public policy makers. For example, law enforcement here in Michigan was furious in the 1990s when the government proposed allowing highway speeds to jump back up on freeways to 70mph. Law enforcement trotted out all the phony terribles. Guess what, none of the terribles materialized and 70 mph is back. Law enforcement was furious when Michigan relaxed gun laws. More terribles trotted out. Armageddon never happened. Now is the time for the aviation community to put a stop to so-called "airport security". Even Scientific American, a respected scientific journal, chuckled about the nonsense of airport security. We have spent millions in taxpayer money supporting a concept touted as airport security completely devoid of substance and utterly divorced from reality.

[Tim Sheffer]

I want to know when a background check and security clearance are going to be required to rent a cargo truck, buy fuel oil and fertilizer. As Mr. Goyer points out ordinary materials and vehicles that anyone can obtain at anytime pose a much more serious threat than a small plane ever could.

The original article just shows that the majority of Americans don't understand GA.

[Mike F.]

We largely brought down the old Soviet Union by scaring them into overspending on a supposed defense system they never needed. These new Muslim terrorists have learned that lesson well and are now employing the same tactic towards us. I hate to say it, but it's working.

They needed only one big event, 9/11/2001, and the rest of the terrorism was done for them by the US government against its own citizens. They insist on scaring people into submission and spending furiously in reaction to their own fears. So now a third of a billion people are over-taxed and scared because of a small handful of folks across the ocean who are just kicking back and laughing as we undo ourselves.

Small airplanes are no more a threat than the Honda Civics we drive to the airport. Sure, either could be used in a bad way, but it's of no use banning either. We need to be smart and covert and show the rest of the world that our system works and our freedoms can not be so easily lost.

[Reuben T.]

Once again, a professor is out of touch with reality. Shocking.

[Peter]

Mr.Wein is possibly learned person, but definitely not wise.

I would recommend that Flying Mag contacts him through your own Lane Wallace and take him to PAO (Palo Alto airport) just mere four miles down the road from Stanford. He needs to really understand the reality.

By using the same logic I can make the twisted case that he, as a professor from (in)famous university is more likely to commit an attack than general populace is, since academia is more likely to employ various "revolutionary" thinking.

Mr. Goyer, great comment. Ask Mrs.Wallace to follow up on it. We can't be passive anymore, otherwise this government will eat us alive.

[C Fred Crawmer]

...and then there are three times I entered U.S. ports from a foreign country (okay, so it was just the Bahamas} only to have to call the U.S. Customs folks on my cell phone & schedule a meeting with them (@ their location no less?!) Betchya a 40' sailboat or trawler can carry more than a few illicit W80 or equivalent WMDs into any of our major seaports & get a pass from Homeland Security. Now my Cherokee carries 800lbs on a good day, Geez!! Sure would be nice if subject matter experts cheched with other subject matter experts before raising the flag.

[Peter]

Nice update from EAA:

http://www.eaa.org/news/2009/2009-06-18_security.asp

Hopefully it puts an end to this government employees' stupidity.

I just hate to keep seeing how all these menacing people hide behind non-descriptive term 'government'. No! They are specific government employees who aim to do harm to our liberties. Let's call them their right names.

[David Price]

As a pilot, I have found that there are only two opinions on flying. One perspective is, it is utterly marvelous. The other is that it is a form of unnecessary risk. The latter I suppose is due to the sensational aspect associated with aviation accidents. But, both Lawrence Wein (Prof of Mngmt. Sci. AT STANFORD BUSINESS SCHOOL) and our one sided, myopic and sensationalistic media espouse the latter.......Sensationalism, it doesn't require proof.
Defense does!
Thankfully, the TSA itself has issued a report that GA does not pose any serious risks. Occasionally the system does work!

[Trevor Evans]

Just went through a briefing from Nav Canada about the Winter Olympic Games here in Vancouver...F/A 18s orbiting 24 hours a day, Air to air refueling tankers, AWACs...orange zones..red zones..black zones..SAM sights..for nearly three months! This is some of the busiest airspace in Canada and involves thousands of aircraft, numbers of airports, airfields and airparks..no non-commercial flying allowed, flight screening for everyone, feeder airports for screening passengers..the cost to the taxpayers of Canada is enormous, the cost to the GA community is outragious. It happens here too.