For Want of a Picture

The editorial in USA Today that started the whole light plane security flap this week stated that Congress had passed a law requiring a picture I.D. on pilot’s licenses, but the rest of the aviation community had yet to catch up. What they left out of that discussion is as important as what they had to say. Once you hear the rest of it, I hope you’ll agree that the concern they’re trying to raise is about as substantive as smoke.

There is a requirement in place to require new pilot’s licenses to contain a picture i.d. What hasn’t been required was that all pilots had to go in and get a new one. The reality is that most Flight Standard District Offices where this would take place could not adequately handle the loads of such an order. A requirement to have every pilot come in and get a picture i.d., especially if the order grounded pilots until they got one, would simply ground pilots unnecessarily and cost everyone time and money. So, the requirement in place says if you’re going to get a new rating, license, or a replacement, you’ll get one with a picture of yourself on it issued by the FAA. Otherwise, a driver’s license with a picture on it serves the same purpose and must be carried with you along with your paper FAA pilot’s license when you fly. If anyone out there can tell me why having a picture i.d. physically on a pilot’s license is any better than having a paper pilot’s license but accompanied by a driver’s license with a picture, please drop me a line. In fact, I would argue that the latter is better since two government agencies “verified” your identity, even though they both probably did it the same way by referring to other government issued documentation.

The basic fallacy in all that is it all means nothing unless someone in authority looks at it. Unless we want to station TSA personnel or police at each airport and have them check your i.d. before getting in your airplane, a license as a security device means little. Licenses were not intended as security devices. They were designed to document one thing, i.e., that the owner had demonstrated the ability to perform the task he was licensed for.

When it comes to general aviation, real security lies in the pilots and aircraft owners knowing who is around and doing what they can to secure their aircraft. I keep my aircraft locked and also have a throttle lock installed that will prevent anyone from ever taking off in my airplane. Yes, someone with the right tools and knowledge can break those locks; but I maintain that if someone really wants to steal an airplane, there is little that can be done to stop them. It’s all a matter of how far they want to go.

The reality of my little Cheetah is that even if you break in and hot wire the ignition and do manage to sever the throttle lock, unless you know the quirks of my airplane, you’re not very likely to get it started. I’ve been flying the thing for a year, and I’m still trying to figure out the optimum starting techniques. Someone hopping in for the first time, even using the book technique, is likely to sit there and grind and grind and grind. There’s a trick to it, and I’m not going to say what it is.

Having a picture i.d. as a security device might mean something if each also required a background check; but considering that the government can’t even find all the folks with expired Visas in this country, how much faith do you want to put in that? Secondly, most general aviation aircraft are no more dangerous than the family car, so what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If I need a background check to fly my Cheetah, you need a background check to drive your Expedition.

We’ll see how many soccer moms put up with that!

Should all space heaters be banned from New York?

The first chills have settled into the Northeast; and with them will come the inevitable use of space heaters in many tenants and apartment buildings in New York. As I watch the media furor over the unfortunate crash of Cory Lidle in his Cirrus SR-20, I’m just waiting now for the panic to hit the streets when someone dies from their first space heater going bad. I’m waiting for the inevitable overreaction and the surrounding sensationalism to lead to the question: Should all space heaters be banned from New York?

How about any large Ryder or Hertz rental trucks? One of them was used on the first Al Quaida assault against the Twin Towers, and the other against the Murrow Building in Okalahoma City. If the public and the media really are so concerned about being safe (instead of making villains out of general aviation as they have so consistently done), then why aren’t large rental trucks being banned from streets near high rises? Or schools? Or homes? I’m waiting for someone to say “Those large rental trucks don’t belong there; Let’s outlaw them!”. The so-called “security experts”, who have never even been in a light aircraft much less behind the controls of one, are not clamoring about how a dirty bomb—a much bigger one—could be hidden in one of those. And they need to be. Why am I not hearing about how a large rental truck carrying a biological weapon can carry ten times the payload of most small aircraft? Why not?

Commercial airliners were used in the attacks in New York and could be again. Why aren’t we discussing banning the airlines from all large metropolitan areas? Could it have something to do with money? Convenience? Political expediency?

If any of those things were done, the public would raise so much hell that every politician would be afraid of office and every journalist would be run out of town. General aviation has always been an easy target to pick on. (And that’s our fault, pilots!) Despite news reports on ABC to the contrary, general aviation has had more restrictions placed on it than any other segment of the population. I’ve watched it happen for the last 20 years as both a pilot and someone’s who’s been engaged with the “system”.

I was a Naval Flight Officer in F-14 aircraft and a general aviation pilot in the San Diego, California area back in the early 80’s when the FAA, in response to the same type of public outcry fueled by a biased press and a local politician using the issue as political fodder, formed a User Group as part of the implementation of a Terminal Control Area (today’s equivalent is Class B airspace) in response the collision of a PSA airlines jet and a Cessna. I was a member of that group. In a Déjà vu of what is happening today, the FAA and the local political machine insisted the TCA was the answer to the PSA collision. Yet, the NTSB report on the accident showed that BOTH aircraft were talking to Air Traffic Control and the Cessna, though made the villain in the whole thing, was hit by the PSA jet from above and behind. I was and am convinced after studying the report that having a TCA in place the day of the accident would not have prevented it. No matter what system one has in place, a system works only as well as all parties work it.

The clamor now is to restrict light aircraft access to the East River and the areas of Manhattan. The reality is that Lidle was flying at such a low altitude BECAUSE of airspace restrictions that often force small aircraft to fly low, down where the skyscrapers are. That situation exists in most large cities, including here in Houston. The problem is not as bad here since the floor of most of the Class B airspace that doesn’t go to the surface is no lower than 2000 feet; but even so, there are at least five radio towers that approach or meet that altitude within miles of my airport. (That’s not going to bother anyone but me because I’m the only one to die. I’ve only got one thing to say about that: “You Selfish Bastards!”) This is one of the prime dangers of the construction of Class B airspace, i.e, the forced compression of general aviation traffic below its floors. The problem is exacerbated in the New York area because some floors are as low as 500 feet, ostensibly to allow large volumes of helicopter traffic to filter in and out without bogging down air traffic control.

I am convinced from what I know about the Lidle accident so far that having the aircraft under ATC control WOULD NOT have prevented it! No one purposely flies their airplane into a building unless they’re suicidal, no matter what the rationalization. (As they say, the problem with being the pilot is you’re always first at the accident scene.) And if you’re going to insist on restricting light aircraft from being close to skyscrapers which are ALREADY protected by regulation, I’m going to insist on denying your car or your truck access to those areas as well. After all, it certainly won’t hurt very many to have to park five or ten blocks away from a business meeting or the symphony; especially here in Houston, we can use the walk.

After watching the press react to every GA incident over twenty years, I would expect by now they would have more than a rudimentary understanding of the term “VFR” (Visual Flight Rules). Unfortunately, for me and every other pilot, the appropriate line is from the movie “The Princess Bride”: “Get used to disappointment!” While VFR does mean the pilot under most circumstances does not have to talk to air traffic control, that is not always true. Lidle and his instructor departed Tetorboro VFR but had to depart the airport under an air traffic clearance. It is true if you’re flying under Instrument Flight Rules, you must be under ATC control; but that system was designed to get pilots where they need to go in BAD WEATHER. In IFR and in some airspace under VFR, air traffic control is responsible for keeping airplanes from hitting each other.

Air Traffic Control is designed to get airplanes to their destinations using instruments and while not hitting each other; but it really IS NOT tasked with keeping airplanes out of buildings. The pilots and airspace design do that.

I’m sure there’s someone asking why it is that all aircraft don’t have to be under ATC control. Depending where they are (usually around big airports), they already do. It’s also true that if every general aviation aircraft called into ATC for every flight, the system would become rapidly overloaded. (That is a reason, of course, for the FAA to secretly want to get rid of General Aviation; and, certainly, the airlines and the military would be happy about its demise. Not saying they do, of course; but just saying the motivation is definitely there.) There are times in a small aircraft due to radar restrictions, terrain, and weather, when proceeding VFR on your own is the best and easiest thing to do.

The press is reporting that this crash raises security questions. Why? This was not a purposeful attack but a tragic accident. Did the crash in Houston the other day of a ten year old driving a van into dental office raise security questions when the van was not stolen? Are we going to ban every kid from being in a van? Did the crash of an old woman into a restaurant here a week or two ago raise security questions? These incidents raise safety questions, but they have nothing to do with security. Neither did Lidle’s accident. It’s being used as a pretext for spreading fear to get more TV watchers and sell more newspapers, and the government can use it to take more control.

I understand the initial confusion and fear about it being a terrorist attack. My bet is, though, that when they strike again, it will not be by air.

Why? For the simple reason that’s where our attention is. If we want to turn those guys off, we’ve got to take measured but sane approaches to any angle they might use and not let our fear give us myopia.

There is a VFR corridor here in Houston. I don’t use it much for the same reasons the New York folks don’t like to use theirs, i.e., it compresses traffic into a small area increasing risk. But it is sometimes the best and least intrusive way for small aircraft to transit east and west across town without intruding into the air lanes being used by airlines flying into Hobby or Intercontinental. And, yes, you can see the downtown skyscrapers from there. It’s a great view. But the only way I’m going to stop a terrorist is from crashing into them is to place restricted airspace permanently for tens of miles and to keep fighters constantly in the air. And they still might not stop him.

Air traffic control is only as good as the controllers and the pilots who respond to them. In the end, the only thing the controller has to make a pilot immediately do what he wants is a radio; and that can be ignored or turned off. The system works as well as it does because pilots and controllers work well as a team. Without pilots, ATC has no reason to exist. And the way we’re going in this country, making general aviation a scapegoat for our jealousies and our fears, they won’t have their jobs very long. And we can sell our airplanes for scrap.

Remember this, too. Every time we take away a fundamental right from any one of us because of our fear, the terrorists win.