Certain lobbying groups have been banging their PR drums lately, saying that politicians should stop picking on business ownership and use of corporate aircraft. In a way they are right, but they are also wrong. These same groups have been crying like stuck pigs about proposed security rules for aircraft with MGTOW over 12,500 pounds, saying these sorts of regulations just aren't needed.
I assiduously avoid "political" topics in my blog, but these two issues have me riled. Some individuals and businesses use so-called business aircraft in an intelligent way. Others are just plain stupid, they waste money for their own amusement, and they deserve to be called on the carpet to account for their behavior. And soon they might have to take off their shoes and be subjected to physical searches before they board business jets, like the unwashed masses who fly on the airlines. Not only am I not crying about this, I confess to just a wee bit of schadenfreude.
A few years ago, while my student was refueling a Cessna 172 at the self-serve pumps at Oakland, I noticed a Boeing Business Jet (a 737 in this case) taxi behind our Cessna and park in the FBO's "hot spot." The engines were shut down, the chocks installed, and the stairway wheeled into place and we witnessed ... wait for it ... one man in a suit deplane, get into a waiting limo and speed away. I don't know how much it costs per hour to operate a BBJ, but the carbon loading on that guy's carcass had to be unbelievably high. When a friend working at the FBO told me who the BBJ belonged to, I was glad I didn't have any of their stock in my retirement portfolio.
For comparison, a relative works for a company with two business aircraft in their fleet and they apply a formula to determine if using one of the corporate aircraft is cost effective. Part of that calculation involves the number of company personnel who must travel and whether or not a better deal can be had using a commercial airline and a rental car. If the trip comes on short notice, airline seats may come at a premium and the corporate aircraft may well be cheaper. Or they may need to fly to a location where regional airline service is expensive and the business aircraft might be a cheaper choice. If there is advance notice or only a couple of employees need to make the trip, they may well end up flying on a commercial carrier. When I heard about this approach, I was glad that I had some of that company's stock in my retirement portfolio.
Proposed security changes for aircraft with a maximum gross takeoff weight exceeding 12,500 pounds also has some groups up in arms. The problem is the additional cost of providing airline-style security requirements will increase costs and reduce profits for busness, charter and fractional operations. But the security geeks may indeed have valid concerns. A Cessna 172 can't do much damage if used as a weapon, but a Gulfstream or Hawker certainly could.
I don't travel on commercial airlines often, but as an independent flight instructor I've had to shoulder my own share of the national security burden. For several years now, flight instructors have been required to be border guards. Before giving instruction in an aircraft or simulator, we must determine if the training is for an initial pilot certificate or an additional rating. If the answer is yes, the prospective student must show us their passport or other proof that they are a US citizen. If they are a US citizen, we have to give them a logbook endorsement saying they have proven that they are a US citizen. If they are a foreign national, they have to register with the TSA and request permission to train. We get notification if their request is approved or denied. We have to photograph them and send the photo to the TSA. And we need to keep copies of all these records and any TSA-related endorsements we give for 5 years, even though the FAA requires all other endorsements to be kept for just 3 years.
And consider the periodic security checks that the TSA performs on flight schools. We have to prove that as instructors, we have undergone initial TSA security awareness training and annual recurrent security awareness training and that we have given ourselves the required logbook endorsements. Yes, that's right, this is the one time instructors actually give themselves an endorsement. So when I heard that people traveling on larger business jets might have to take off their shoes and undergo security screening, my reaction was "Boohoo!"
Claiming that any company's use of corporate aircraft is beyond reproach and dismissing out of hand any additional security for a larger aircraft is silly. But the worst part is the mindless repetition of these claims, a sadly successful strategy that seems to be the latest approach to swaying public opinion. It's not lying exactly, but it certainly is not telling the whole truth.
Will smaller airports feel the economic hurt as fewer corporate aircraft hours are flown? You bet. Will some corporate pilots lose their jobs as flight department staff are reduced or eliminated entirely? Will the cost of traveling on business jets increase if these security rules are implemented? Of course. This just in: We're all feeling the pain.
So forgive me if I don't shed too many tears for the downsizing or outright elimination of corporate aircraft flight departments. And if national security really is important, we all need to shoulder some of the burden. And if I could line up the lobbying groups, PR hacks and fat cats, and talk to them directly, the words first words that come to mind are
Why I otta ...
Disclaimer: No corporate officers, politicians, lobbyists or public relations professionals were harmed in the writing of this blog.
Posts
6 comments:
John,
I generally enjoy your writing, but I have to disagree with your thoughts in this post.
I understand the need for everyone to crucify general aviation as excess. If a company is not taking government cheese, then the only people they have to answer to are their shareholders. If their shareholders (public or private company) don't like that they are using general aviation, then it's the shareholders' responsibility to vote (perhaps with their feet/wallets). If you don't like it, don't buy stock in that company--that's how our economic system is supposed to work.
Regarding LASP, it doesn't directly affect me as a private pilot flying around a 182. Yet. It's not outside of the realm of possibilities that this will be expanded to include all aircraft. Perhaps a G-V can do some damage, but most flights under part 91 are known to pilots/owner of the aircraft. Do you have to take your shoes off and have them scanned every time you want to hop in your car to go to the grocery store? I see part 91 flights as an extension of that--hopping in your private vehicle to get somewhere. Until we have to go through a magnetometer to jump in an RV (auto, not plane), or rent a U-Haul truck, I don't see why GA should be singled out.
This whole notion of "Airplanes == Evil" boggles my mind.
Paraphrasing Ben Franklin, 'Those that give up liberty to purchase safety deserve neither.'
Marc,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. A couple of observations.
You may not realize it, but security has already come to GA at many airports. Whether we like it or not, you best be wearing a SIDA badge or be escorted by someone who has a badge when exercising your PIC privileges at my airport.
As to company officials being accountable to shareholders, it's a great concept. The current economic crisis clearly illustrates the un-transparent excesses of a few. How much influence do you think you or I would have at a shareholder's meeting?
I agree with you about creeping governmental authority, but that cat has been out of the bag for several years now. Getting back it, well ...
Security theater is just that, theater. John, and people like him, have enough access to planes like Citation business jets (I would bet a few hundred bucks John could get one into the air if he had to), and that's a real threat.
With the continuing socialization of our government, controlled, to a large extent, by special interest groups, a populist uprising is really a threat to the nation's governing powers. Guys like John are exactly the people the TSA, FBI and probably CIA should be watching. Just enough skill and knowledge to be dangerous, access to planes, and idealistic enough to do something.
Imagine all the unhappy jet jockeys returning from Iraq deployment. And the barefoot CEOs getting on their bizjets are a drop in the bucket compared to the guys WE TRAINED who can hop a fence, disable a corporate pilot, and get that tanker of kerosene over a lovely target like downtown SF. Just as a reminder that we killed more of our own people in Iraq than we killed on 9.11.
And as far as the danger posed by a C182, I often fly over LAX and I wonder how much damage a well-guided C182 could do to a B737 on takeoff roll. Think it could take the elevator off as the plane is over the beach and on initial climb?
General aviation is the last frontier of true freedom in the country. KBOS put in the sort of barefoot baloney John likes right after 9.11. I don't see the statistical difference their effort has made. And the ridiculousness of having ME go through it after I entered from the AIR side is just astonishing. If I *wanted* a gun in the plane I could have flown in with it in there.
In some of my other circles ("what for you gettin' out of that perfectly good airplane?") this issue is a little bit more immediate. Many skydiving operations use aircraft with a MGTOW under 12,500 lbs -- Caravans, King Airs, Twin Otters. But some use larger aircraft, like the CASA C-212, and would be negatively impacted.
(In general, it seems really nonsensical to require skydivers to undergo security checks prior to boarding a jump aircraft. For one, almost everyone carries at least one knife....)
I guess I'd have to disagree with you as well, John. And I'm also based at a busy Class C airport (SNA) where you have to have a SIDA badge, and show government issued ID, and a pilot certificate, and have your car searched, and have a PIN code, just to go through the gate and get onto the airport.
And once on that airport, you're made to feel like you're always doing something wrong, or are a guest in the house of someone who really doesn't want you there, and why don't you just leave already and stop bothering the poor sheriffs, TSA people, and others to whom the airport REALLY belongs.
I agree with Marc, the LASP program will simply become the ASP program when it is inevitably expanded to include everything from a 747 all the way down to an ultralight. The process will be complete and successful when none of us can fly anymore.
Regarding corporate flight departments, I feel bad for a lot of these guys because the aircraft are the only sensible way of operating.
Example: I'm sure the people working at Ford or GM's flight department never thought they could lose their jobs -- after all, those companies BUILT aircraft, and take great pride in that heritage. Plus, they have design studios, parts warehouses, assembly lines, test tracks, dealerships, car shows, and conventions all over the world. They need to move parts and people quickly. Aviation is the only way to do it. Instead, they're now driving CEOs around the country in cars. It's insanity.
The schadenfreude may feel good, but it's destructive. Just because we are suffering doesn't mean we should make everyone else suffer, too. That's not the answer. The answer is to fix what's wrong, get rid of the TSA, the Department of Homeland Security, and realize that the best security is the one we had before 9/11: just knowing the people who use our airports personally.
The problem I see is that this requires the government actually trust Americans, and I have not seen them do that in my lifetime. I have only seen more power to Washington, less freedom to citizens, and until that stops, we will all continue to suffer both economically and otherwise.
Some more good comments, though I must say that Colin, your ad hominem attacks took me by surprise. I could adopt that approach with a retort like "Colin, people like you ..." but I won't.
Just to be clear, I'm not in favor of enhanced security for GA aircraft with a MGTOW of 12,500 pounds or less. And I'm certain that LASP regulations could be crafted that would still let GP and his skydiving brethren carry knives, given that most parts of of 14 CFR 43, 61, 91 ... already read like one run-on sentence with nested, dependent clauses. Nor am I saying corporate use of aircraft should be outlawed.
Perhaps my irony was too subtle ...
Post a Comment