A student pilot hops a fence at an airport in Thunder Bay, Ontario. He finds a Cessna 172, reportedly owned by a flight school. He was reported to have found the ignition key inside the plane and presumably the plane was unlocked. The plane was also full of fuel. He has a little knowledge about flying and soon he is airborne and winging his way south.
He enters US airspace and is "intercepted" by F-16 fighters. I'm not sure how to envision this since an F-16 with gear down and full flaps must still be flying faster than the fastest cruise speed of a Cessna 172. The student pilot seems to ignore the signals of the intercepting aircraft. In a sensible display of restraint, the fighters allow the Cessna to continue flying until it runs out of fuel and lands on a dirt road in Missouri. The student pilot is apprehended and is reported to have had a history of psychological problems. This all makes sense, so far, right?
The part I don't understand is AOPA's press releases on this incident.
AOPA President Craig Fuller praised U.S. and Canadian authorities for their handling of the matter and noted that the outcome "demonstrates the effectiveness of today's security procedures."
While all of the layered security measures in place worked seamlessly and flawlessly in the theft of a Cessna airplane in Canada on Monday, these rare incidents paint general aviation in a negative light.
How can the security measures have worked if the aircraft was stolen? Seamlessly and flawlessly?
Gimme a break!
Posts
10 comments:
The CBC is reporting the details a little differently (ie, the aircraft didn't run out of fuel).
In any case, I do find it hard to believe that the aircraft was "intercepted" for the reasons you stated.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/04/07/ont-pane-theft.html
Yeah, I never thought about the fact that an F-16 would probably have a hard time going that slow.
Intercepting doesn't always mean flying at the same speed. When the speed differential is significant, it might involve a series of circuits around the target, all the while keeping it in sight (and in weapons range...) And although it's terribly inefficient, an F-16 in high alpha flight can go pretty darn slow if necessary. :)
The main issue I was raising was AOPA's non sequitur response that "... all of the layered security measures in place worked seamlessly and flawlessly in the theft of a Cessna airplane ..." How can an airplane be stolen if all the security measures worked?
AOPA's own press release goes on to encourage flight schools to follow the recommended security procedures which, correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't include leaving aircraft unlocked with the keys inside. Obviously these weren't the layers included in their leading statement.
The intercept thing: Go to Section5-6-2 of the AIM and you'll find a description that seems hard to imagine with F-16s and a Cessna 172 even with the statement "...Intercepted aircraft personnel may observe the use of different drag devices to allow for speed and position stabilization during this phase..." If the speeds of the aircraft are not somewhat matched then the intercepted pilot would have a hard time distinguishing between "follow me, you have been intercepted" and "we're not interested in you" without some sort of radio communication. And last I heard, F-16s are not equipped with VHF transceivers and most Cessna 172s are not equipped with UHF transceivers, so radio communication between wouldn't have been possible even if the Cessna pilot wanted to talk or listen.
AOPA are basically greasy government types who happen to be on our side. When some politician says something totally ridiculous about airplanes you should not expect to argue with him using logic and reason and other such devices. You may try but you will be unsuccessful if your goal is to get him to see things from any angle other than one that generates more fear and terror, and therefore votes, from the uneducated masses. The only thing you can use to fight him is something equally ridiculous, but opposite. This is the job of AOPA.
So now you see why you were wrong - the layered security approach worked, Airport Watch works, GA is not a threat, the incident went off as planned, we’re all very happy.
In a similar vein you may have heard that the FAA intends to seal its database of bird strikes. This is because there is no bird strike problem. The whole Hudson River thing was an anomaly and you don’t need to go concerning yourself with that type of stuff. If there was a problem with bird strikes the government would take care of it. If there was a problem with bird strikes do you think we would go sealing such a database ?! There is not a growing bird strike problem in the United States. Move along please, nothing to see here.
To point out the fact that F-16s did intercept the C172 is accurate at first. Then somewhere between the border and southern Missouri US Customs/Border Patrol Citation jet did intercept the aircraft. I fly over where the student finally put the aircraft down (northwest of Poplar Bluff, MO) and ATC stated that they had no idea that citations could fly soo slow. F-16s were still in the area but the primary interceptor roll was done through Citation aircraft. The student did land with about 30 minutes worth of fuel.
I talked to a pilot who was in the area at the time of the student pilot putting the aircraft on the ground and he stated that the F-16s were on VHF frequencies at the time. He heard them talk to ATC and talk about getting tanked from the USAF taker that they had brought with them.
I agree that AOPA should have come out with a better statement but the fact that the plane was stolen outside of the US may be the reason for the statement.
While I am an AOPA member, I don't consider them to an overly effective voice for general aviation. They seem to have the same fear of government that I see in the NRA. Its a fear that if they say the truth they will not be invited back to speak. They are willing to watch government take away our freedoms and applaud and pat themselves on the back when government gives back a sliver.
JMB,
A most excellent comment.
Critical thinking requires us to set our emotions aside and look beyond "their side" and "our side." It also requires us to recognize attempts to persuade us through fear, terror, and other emotional angles.
PR folks have gotten so good at telling what Samuel Clemens called "damn lies" and repeating them over and over until we find ourselves saying (and perhaps believing) the very same words. That's much easier than actually thinking about it ourselves.
So I think the core question is this: Are you going to examine the information that is available, point out irrational and illogical claims, and come to a reasoned conclusion or are you a 'pod' that consumes whatever is thrown your way?
C-172's aren't a security concern, any more than, say, a renta-a-truck which can hold a lot more bad stuff and drive to areas holding many more people. So it doesn't really matter if the keys are left in them. Although it's a lot easier to explain to your insurance agent if you don't do that. The reason TSA wants to expand their empire to cover light airplanes is because, well, they don't have any authority over renta-trucks, and the security show has got to go on.
The AOPA seems unwilling to take a hard line against the government in any matter, usually going for the political middle ground--the reasonable compromise. While compromise is known to us all as the bread-and-butter of both barter and politics, for it to work, both sides need to take something of an extreme stance and then meet in the middle. When your opponent starts out being unreasonable and you start out being reasonable, the result of meeting in the middle is half-way to unreasonable. It's not a great way to bargain for your membership. Doesn't the AOPA have enough members to not act like a mouse before a lion? Rather than meekly proclaiming that "all the layers of security worked," the AOPA should take this opportunity to remind people that small aircraft are not the security problem. Stop acting like a whipped sissy, or that's what the government, and the public, will treat you like.
Given all that, the layers of security that do matter--being in place and able to shoot down, if necessary, an aircraft that's not playing by the rules--did work just fine.
Wayne,
You're certainly entitled to your opinion about which layers of security really matter, but simply locking an aircraft and controlling access to the keys are simple, low-tech policies that would have prevented this event or at least made it much harder to carry out.
Basic physical security like this costs much less than scrambling fighter jets and evacuating the Missouri legislature. The importance of basic aircraft security is the point that AOPA finally got to, the point that will help prevent these incidents and really serve to help protect GA.
Some of the aircraft I teach in are kept in locked hangars, behind fences on airport property that is pretty darn secure. At the conclusion of each flight, guess what many pilots say to me: "We don't need to lock the aircraft door, right?" My response is "yes, we do."
I'd much rather see GA pilots focusing on basic, inexpensive security than "leaving it for the night shift." And AOPA's initial inaccurate rhetoric was not helpful.
Post a Comment