Could GA aircraft be used as instruments of terror? An anxious US public believes they can, but industry is acting to ensure their security
Four months after the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, a young pilot in Tampa, Florida flew a stolen Cessna 172 into a downtown office building, setting off fears that there were security loopholes within the US general aviation sector. Valid or not, these fears remain in the public consciousness three years later.
In the post-11 September environment, air travellers can point to the newly tightened security measures in the commercial aviation sector. From the banning of fingernail clippers to the x-raying of shoes, enhanced airline security efforts are obvious and far-reaching. What is less clear to the public is what has been done to shore up the security of general aviation. Despite numerous improvements and procedural changes, practically all initiated by the industry itself, general aviation finds itself repeatedly defending its security record to the public, lawmakers and the media.
Whether there is a gap in security between the commercial and general aviation sectors is open to debate. Even those within the GA industry say there is room for improvement in what has been largely a self-regulated function. Others question whether the issue is simply hype fuelled by headline-hungry media and overly vigilant lawmakers pandering to a fearful public. In the meantime, the industry continues to discuss how to ensure the public's safety in a post-11 September world without impinging upon the freedoms enjoyed by the general aviation community or dampening the economic benefits this sector generates.
As an industry, general aviation responded swiftly after the 2001 terrorist attacks. The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) and other groups formed councils almost immediately to help improve security for an industry with no dedicated funding sources available for enhancements. Their task was not without challenges. General aviation encompasses more than 19,000 landing facilities and more than 200,000 aircraft responsible for 75% of all air traffic in the USA. Of the more than 630,000 certificated pilots in the USA alone, most conduct GA flight operations.
Although massive, diverse and sorely lacking in funding for such matters, the GA industry has insisted all along that security has been and remains a top priority.
Airport Watch
"AOPA has been at the forefront of the industry in advocating counter-terrorist measures, such as photo identification of pilots and AOPA's Airport Watch," says AOPA president Phil Boyer.
It was AOPA that lobbied the Federal Aviation Administration in February 2002 to require that a government-issued photo ID be carried with a pilot's certificate. Its Airport Watch, using the nation's pilots as eyes and ears for reporting suspicious activity, is one of several industry-initiated programmes for security improvement. These proposals include:
work by the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) to help aircraft sellers identify unusual financial transactions that could indicate attempts to launder money through purchasing aircraft; development by the NBAA of a proof-of-concept security protocol and help to launch a programme, the Transportation Security Administration Access Certificate, which allows operators to fly internationally without the need for a waiver; encouragement by the National Air Transportation Association's (NATA) Business Security Task Force for members to use more signage, appoint a single manager responsible for security at all locations and develop security plans; implementation by individual airports and airport tenants of measures that include installing alarm systems, controlling access to aircraft, and monitoring and improving gates, fencing and lighting.Observers have called such measures more comprehensive than regulation at the state and federal level, given that GA operators are keenly aware of the need to individually enhance the security of their operations without government regulation.
"The answer doesn't always have to be regulation," says Jens Hennig, manager of flight operations for GAMA. "The fact is that general aviation is a community. There's a lot of awareness of what looks normal at an airport, and something unusual would stand out in a community. We had that before 9/11. It's one of our strengths."
While regulation is mostly lacking, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has stepped in to provide industry guidelines, which were issued in May. Recognising that some state and local governments had begun developing their own airport-related security requirements, possibly leading to a wide variance of rules and an unnecessary cost burden upon airport owners and operators, the TSA teamed with industry to develop guidelines for the nation's private and public-use GA landing facilities.
At the same time, the TSA says it has not taken the position that general aviation airports and aircraft are a threat. However, it says: "As vulnerabilities within other areas of aviation have been reduced, GA may be perceived as a more attractive target and consequently more vulnerable to misuse by terrorists." So far, the TSA has not required general aviation airports to implement security measures, except for those located within the restricted Airspace Defense Identification Zone around Washington DC. Still, the industry has found itself at odds with the TSA at times. Most recently, it took issue with the agency's new flight training rule for non-US citizens. The new requirements expand background checks for candidates seeking flight training in aircraft weighing 5,670kg (12,500lb) or less, a weight class generally exempt from such requirements. The new rules also state that flight instructors must retain applicant records for five years and that they must go through a security awareness training programme regardless of whether they are training foreign students.
"The flight training system should be off limits to anyone who might try to use general aviation to harm the American people," says AOPA's Boyer. "But based on our initial review of the rule, it applies unnecessary training and burdensome record-keeping requirements to every flight school and every single flight instructor, whether or not they're training foreign students. If that's really TSA's intent, they've gone too far."
Not enough
But there are still those who say the industry's self-policing efforts, while admirable, do not go far enough to address public safety. "There's a huge gap in the levels of security between GA and commercial aviation. There's no question in my mind," says Quentin Brasie, president of ACI Aviation Consulting in Washington DC.
This perception played out last summer after a Boston Globe article created a firestorm of publicity. Headlined "Analysts warn of small-plane terrorism threat", the story highlighted the fact that bags are not fully screened on GA flights and metal detectors are not in use. Although the think-tank that was used as the story's source largely withdrew its statements later, the story fuelled the impression that general aviation can be used as a terrorist tool, says Boyer.
GA safety came under fire again last month as New York Congressman Anthony Weiner sought legislation to require the same level of screening for passengers and bags carried on general aviation aircraft as that provided for airliners. His proposal would also have required continuous contact with the FAA for every general aviation flight. GA industry groups lobbied hard against it, saying that airline-style security screening would cripple the industry. "NBAA believes that if enacted, this legislation would destroy the business aviation community," says NBAA president and chief executive Ed Bolen. According to AOPA, Weiner has now agreed not to target fixed-wing general aviation, but will further study helicopter operations in New York.
Meanwhile, fighting the perception of security lapses has brought an unexpected boon for suppliers that offer aviation security services. Many, such as Air Security International in Houston, have reported a surge in demand as corporate aviation departments and operators work to keep security tight.
"It used to be that security would just take care of the executives," says Darlene Radloff, director of security training at ASI. "Now we work with the entire flight operations team emphasising that everyone who touches the aircraft needs to be involved, from maintenance to catering to the FBO [fixed-base operation] staff. We're finding that corporate and business aviation thoroughly understands what's at stake."
Many industry members maintain that general aviation is being unfairly targeted both by the media and by lawmakers. After all, no general aviation event has come close to causing the catastrophic damage to life or property that terrorism on commercial aviation has. Practically speaking, the vast majority of general aviation aircraft weigh far less and are thus capable of far less destruction than a commercial airliner, they say.
Rules exist, including the Twelve-Five and Private Charter regulations, that provide a level of security equivalent to that of scheduled airlines for Part 121 and 135 operators. The industry is also keeping a close watch on Congress as it considers new aviation security legislation that could have a negative impact on general aviation, both operationally and economically. Several industry groups publicly praised the fact that House legislation aiming to impose airline-style screening is now unlikely to pass.
There was similar praise this month when proposed Senate legislation was amended to include provisions making background checks optional, not mandatory, for first-time customers of aircraft charter and rental companies. Under the amendment, charter operators and aircraft rental companies would have the option of contacting the TSA before passengers board an aircraft. The TSA would then compare passenger names against a consolidated terrorist watch list. Early drafts of the legislation would have made such screenings mandatory, even for repeat customers. "The approved legislation enables aircraft charter and rental operators to work with the TSA to improve the security of their operations without having unnecessary and burdensome restrictions placed on their businesses," says James Coyne, NATA president.
The industry also remains vigilant in challenging unfunded mandates to airports, general aviation businesses and pilots, and is consistent in its call for additional resources to improve security efforts where needed. Calls for direct federal assistance are echoed by the TSA itself, which says it would like its security guidelines to be federally enforced to avoid a hotch-potch of state and local guidelines.
Campaign issue
With a US presidential election looming, general aviation security has become a campaign issue for both sides. Both candidates have flying experience and seem to understand the stakes, says AOPA's Boyer. General aviation is a $20 billion a year industry in terms of earnings and accounts for more than 1.3 million jobs. Its direct and indirect economic impact surpasses $102 billion a year, the industry calculates.
Most agree that more needs to be done to improve aviation security across the board, including the commercial sector, which has received the vast majority of funding for such efforts. "Everyone in the industry is doing everything they can. No one is being derelict," says ACI's Brasie. "The reality is, who is going to pay for implementation if security reforms are mandated? I don't think anyone's in the position to start requiring more-stringent security requirements because it's going to be costly."
REBECCA RAYKO / WASHINGTON DC
Source: Flight International
