Barely had the calendar clicked over from 2001 to 2002 when the events of 11 September were horrifically recalled by newspaper and television images of yet another aircraft embedded in a tower block. Again it was not an unfortunate accident. Again it was a deliberate act.

Only this time it was not a fuel- and passenger-laden Boeing 767, with fanatical followers of Osama Bin Laden at the controls. It was a Cessna 172, its sole occupant a suicidal high-school student. This time only the pilot died. No one in the building was killed - although an employee had recently been at his desk near the point of impact - and the damage was minimal.

But general aviation could still pay a high price for the act of a troubled teenager. Before 11 September, a 15-year-old steering a flight school-owned Cessna into a Tampa skyscraper would have focused public attention on his parents, his family and his school. That is what happened after the Columbine High School shootings in Colorado. But after the events of 11 September, the aviation system will be the first in line for blame.

The US general aviation (GA) industry had been hoping for a positive start to the new year, and to be relieved of the last lingering operating restrictions imposed after the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington DC.

With the convenience of airline travel corroded by tough new security precautions, the GA industry has seen a resurgence of interest in business and private flying. With an economic recovery in the USA expected by many experts this year, 2002 was tipped to be the year of GA.

Now the industry fears that knee-jerk restrictions imposed in the wake of the "suicide-by-Cessna" incident in Tampa could seriously impede the ability of GA to provide a feasible alternative to airline travel.

Furthermore, in addition to the checks on new students ordered after 11 September, security demands on flight schools that could follow the latest incident may strangle the supply of new, young pilots on which airlines depend.

Industry associations have moved quickly to calm public anxieties over GA, and to emphasise its importance to the US air transport system and economy. As recently as December, the associations jointly presented recommendations for improving GA security to the Federal Aviation Administration. These are intended to prevent unauthorised use of aircraft - but whether they would have prevented the Tampa incident is highly debatable.

US GA faces a watershed. It is an industry that blossomed in the 1950s and '60s, when light aircraft were a convenient way for entrepreneurs and executives to cover great distances through largely empty skies.

Since then, airline travel has become extremely common and relatively inexpensive; airspace has become increasingly controlled and congested. Recreational flying now makes up only 35% of the annual hours flown, compared with 25% for business and 20% for flight training.

The active GA fleet has fallen from its peak of 200,000 aircraft in 1984, but that still leaves 150,000 potential "weapons" - albeit low yield - occupying US airspace and threatening public buildings, nuclear power plants and military bases. At least that is how the public could end up viewing GA.

This not the first time a light aircraft has been used as a weapon, and it will almost certainly not be the last. In 1994, a stolen single-engine aircraft was crashed into the grounds of the White House, with little effect.

But that was before 11 September - before the threat of terrorist attacks on soft targets became a grim reality for US citizens. In reality, GA aircraft pose a far less destructive threat than do airliners, simply because they are smaller and carry a fraction of the fuel. But the risk cannot be eliminated.

The only defence the industry can deploy is to become more professional in every aspect of its activity, from flight training to business flying. The days of the rugged individualist climbing into his aircraft and enjoying the freedom of skies may be numbered.

While the right to bear arms is enshrined in the US constitution, the right to own and fly an aircraft is not. And with the right to the freedom of the skies comes the requirement that everyone involved should act responsibly.

It is time for the GA industry to step up to that responsibility.

see business & general aviation p30

Source: Flight International