Latest word from Phil Boyer

Guest Discussion
1

I just saw this addition to Phil Boyer’s earlier statement on http://www.aopa.org AOPA’s web site.
Later Thursday, Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta and I spoke again. In a lengthy phone conversation, he told me about the continuing debate among the PresidentÂ’s national security team. The nation still faces serious security threats. The Capitol building was evacuated because of a suspicious package. Many airports have received bomb threats. And the three major New York airports were closed shortly after they reopened, as federal authorities detained more suspects, including one reportedly carrying false pilot credentials.
Nevertheless, Mineta convinced a meeting of the PresidentÂ’s National Security Council (which included Secretary of State Colin Powell, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller) to at least consider allowing IFR general aviation operations soon.
“But Mr. Secretary, I’m most concerned about the return of basic VFR privileges,” I said. “And this type of flying presents no security threat to the nation.”
Secretary Mineta agreed, and we spent 45 minutes discussing general aviation and the continued security threat. But he told me that the National Security Council perceives VFR flight as uncontrolled, and therefore a greater threat somehow. It became very obvious to me that the Secretary of Transportation tried his best to change that perception. He had the right arguments, he made the correct points, and he was much more eloquent than any one of us. In some cases, he even called on his primary flight training background to make points we wanted heard.
And then late Thursday evening, AOPA learned that, because of the continuing threats, the approval for Part 135 operations might be rescinded.
The bottom line is that decision-makers outside of FAA and the Department of Transportation believe the nation still faces a heightened security risk, and that general aviation might be used to attack the nation. While we all know that is pretty farfetched, the mood at the moment is to not take any risks, no matter how unlikely they might be.
AOPA is continuing to push on all fronts to get general aviation back in the air. But let me manage your expectations. When the security threats lessen, first will come the approval for Part 91 IFR flying. Then, no sooner than 48 hours later, should come the restoration of VFR privileges.

  • Mike.
2

I just saw this addition to Phil Boyer’s earlier statement on http://www.aopa.org AOPA’s web site.

*Later Thursday, Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta and I spoke again. In a lengthy phone conversation, he told me about the continuing debate among the PresidentÂ’s national security team. The nation still faces serious security threats. The Capitol building was evacuated because of a suspicious package. Many airports have received bomb threats. And the three major New York airports were closed shortly after they reopened, as federal authorities detained more suspects, including one reportedly carrying false pilot credentials.

Nevertheless, Mineta convinced a meeting of the PresidentÂ’s National Security Council (which included Secretary of State Colin Powell, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller) to at least consider allowing IFR general aviation operations soon.

“But Mr. Secretary, I’m most concerned about the return of basic VFR privileges,” I said. “And this type of flying presents no security threat to the nation.”

Secretary Mineta agreed, and we spent 45 minutes discussing general aviation and the continued security threat. But he told me that the National Security Council perceives VFR flight as uncontrolled, and therefore a greater threat somehow. It became very obvious to me that the Secretary of Transportation tried his best to change that perception. He had the right arguments, he made the correct points, and he was much more eloquent than any one of us. In some cases, he even called on his primary flight training background to make points we wanted heard.

And then late Thursday evening, AOPA learned that, because of the continuing threats, the approval for Part 135 operations might be rescinded.

The bottom line is that decision-makers outside of FAA and the Department of Transportation believe the nation still faces a heightened security risk, and that general aviation might be used to attack the nation. While we all know that is pretty farfetched, the mood at the moment is to not take any risks, no matter how unlikely they might be.

AOPA is continuing to push on all fronts to get general aviation back in the air. But let me manage your expectations. When the security threats lessen, first will come the approval for Part 91 IFR flying. Then, no sooner than 48 hours later, should come the restoration of VFR privileges.*

Reassuring to know that there is at least one sensible voice of reason among the bureaucrats–Secretary Mineta.

It is understandable that bureaucrats, politicians, and segments of the public are jittery and in part non-rational after such an incident. However at some point such reactions must be superceded by informed rationality. National security is important, but we must also recognize that the nation’s need for a rapid return to normalcy, on both economic and morale-related grounds, is also significant. Others may differ, but I believe that time is very near.

3

Maybe we have a situation where the rationale for reinstating GA have been well articulated, and the people charged with weighing all the risks feel we should hold off.
I’m as anxious to get back in the air as anyone, and I had a business trip on my SR20 cancelled. But c’mon, this isn’t the end of the world. We live with being grounded for two weeks because of an unexpected mechanical problem and say “that’s aviation.”
My read is that our case has been made, and intelligent people that we put into office feel that GA should be grounded for now. I, for one, am uncharacteristically trying to be a big boy about it.
Andy

I just saw this addition to Phil Boyer’s earlier statement on http://www.aopa.org AOPA’s web site.

*Later Thursday, Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta and I spoke again. In a lengthy phone conversation, he told me about the continuing debate among the PresidentÂ’s national security team. The nation still faces serious security threats. The Capitol building was evacuated because of a suspicious package. Many airports have received bomb threats. And the three major New York airports were closed shortly after they reopened, as federal authorities detained more suspects, including one reportedly carrying false pilot credentials.

Nevertheless, Mineta convinced a meeting of the PresidentÂ’s National Security Council (which included Secretary of State Colin Powell, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller) to at least consider allowing IFR general aviation operations soon.

“But Mr. Secretary, I’m most concerned about the return of basic VFR privileges,” I said. “And this type of flying presents no security threat to the nation.”

Secretary Mineta agreed, and we spent 45 minutes discussing general aviation and the continued security threat. But he told me that the National Security Council perceives VFR flight as uncontrolled, and therefore a greater threat somehow. It became very obvious to me that the Secretary of Transportation tried his best to change that perception. He had the right arguments, he made the correct points, and he was much more eloquent than any one of us. In some cases, he even called on his primary flight training background to make points we wanted heard.

And then late Thursday evening, AOPA learned that, because of the continuing threats, the approval for Part 135 operations might be rescinded.

The bottom line is that decision-makers outside of FAA and the Department of Transportation believe the nation still faces a heightened security risk, and that general aviation might be used to attack the nation. While we all know that is pretty farfetched, the mood at the moment is to not take any risks, no matter how unlikely they might be.

AOPA is continuing to push on all fronts to get general aviation back in the air. But let me manage your expectations. When the security threats lessen, first will come the approval for Part 91 IFR flying. Then, no sooner than 48 hours later, should come the restoration of VFR privileges.*

  • Mike.
4

I understand their concerns that GA VFR flight is largely uncontrolled, but the real danger is not whether someone files a flight plan, or is required to walk through a metal detector…as so clearly shown this week, the real danger relates directly to the size of the plane and how much fuel it carries. Ironically, the first planes back in the air are the carriers, while someone with a Piper Cub remains grounded. I honestly have a hard time seeing how our 2,500 pound airplanes could ever represent anywhere near the threat that even one of the hundreds of carriers that flew yesterday represent. In my view, the carriers should remain grounded until they install bullet-proof, unbreakable doors on the cockpits, and planes under 4000 pounds should be allowed to fly immediately.

I just saw this addition to Phil Boyer’s earlier statement on http://www.aopa.org AOPA’s web site.

*Later Thursday, Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta and I spoke again. In a lengthy phone conversation, he told me about the continuing debate among the PresidentÂ’s national security team. The nation still faces serious security threats. The Capitol building was evacuated because of a suspicious package. Many airports have received bomb threats. And the three major New York airports were closed shortly after they reopened, as federal authorities detained more suspects, including one reportedly carrying false pilot credentials.

Nevertheless, Mineta convinced a meeting of the PresidentÂ’s National Security Council (which included Secretary of State Colin Powell, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller) to at least consider allowing IFR general aviation operations soon.

“But Mr. Secretary, I’m most concerned about the return of basic VFR privileges,” I said. “And this type of flying presents no security threat to the nation.”

Secretary Mineta agreed, and we spent 45 minutes discussing general aviation and the continued security threat. But he told me that the National Security Council perceives VFR flight as uncontrolled, and therefore a greater threat somehow. It became very obvious to me that the Secretary of Transportation tried his best to change that perception. He had the right arguments, he made the correct points, and he was much more eloquent than any one of us. In some cases, he even called on his primary flight training background to make points we wanted heard.

And then late Thursday evening, AOPA learned that, because of the continuing threats, the approval for Part 135 operations might be rescinded.

The bottom line is that decision-makers outside of FAA and the Department of Transportation believe the nation still faces a heightened security risk, and that general aviation might be used to attack the nation. While we all know that is pretty farfetched, the mood at the moment is to not take any risks, no matter how unlikely they might be.

AOPA is continuing to push on all fronts to get general aviation back in the air. But let me manage your expectations. When the security threats lessen, first will come the approval for Part 91 IFR flying. Then, no sooner than 48 hours later, should come the restoration of VFR privileges.*

Reassuring to know that there is at least one sensible voice of reason among the bureaucrats–Secretary Mineta.

It is understandable that bureaucrats, politicians, and segments of the public are jittery and in part non-rational after such an incident. However at some point such reactions must be superceded by informed rationality. National security is important, but we must also recognize that the nation’s need for a rapid return to normalcy, on both economic and morale-related grounds, is also significant. Others may differ, but I believe that time is very near.

5

I honestly have a hard time seeing how our 2,500 pound airplanes could ever represent anywhere near the threat that even one of the hundreds of carriers that flew yesterday represent.

There are ways to make a 2.500 pound plane lethal. I was going to describe a few but I decided this is not the time to do it.
We now know that there were others prepared to board planes on Tuesday that fit the description of the hijackers. The FAA probably avoided at least one other incident by immediately shutting down the airspace on Tuesday when they did. They have enough trouble now getting the airlines going again. I think they would be justified in thinking that they don’t have time to spend on general aviation right now.

6

Let’s see… 900 lb useful load… 200 lb pilot… 33 gallons of fuel… that leaves just enough room for a 500 lb bomb…
…not to mention the possibility of the pilot-terrorists fleeing via GA.
Farfetched? True. But we’d have said the same about Tuesday’s events.
Joe

I understand their concerns that GA VFR flight is largely uncontrolled, but the real danger is not whether someone files a flight plan, or is required to walk through a metal detector…as so clearly shown this week, the real danger relates directly to the size of the plane and how much fuel it carries. Ironically, the first planes back in the air are the carriers, while someone with a Piper Cub remains grounded. I honestly have a hard time seeing how our 2,500 pound airplanes could ever represent anywhere near the threat that even one of the hundreds of carriers that flew yesterday represent. In my view, the carriers should remain grounded until they install bullet-proof, unbreakable doors on the cockpits, and planes under 4000 pounds should be allowed to fly immediately.

I just saw this addition to Phil Boyer’s earlier statement on http://www.aopa.org AOPA’s web site.

*Later Thursday, Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta and I spoke again. In a lengthy phone conversation, he told me about the continuing debate among the PresidentÂ’s national security team. The nation still faces serious security threats. The Capitol building was evacuated because of a suspicious package. Many airports have received bomb threats. And the three major New York airports were closed shortly after they reopened, as federal authorities detained more suspects, including one reportedly carrying false pilot credentials.

Nevertheless, Mineta convinced a meeting of the PresidentÂ’s National Security Council (which included Secretary of State Colin Powell, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller) to at least consider allowing IFR general aviation operations soon.

“But Mr. Secretary, I’m most concerned about the return of basic VFR privileges,” I said. “And this type of flying presents no security threat to the nation.”

Secretary Mineta agreed, and we spent 45 minutes discussing general aviation and the continued security threat. But he told me that the National Security Council perceives VFR flight as uncontrolled, and therefore a greater threat somehow. It became very obvious to me that the Secretary of Transportation tried his best to change that perception. He had the right arguments, he made the correct points, and he was much more eloquent than any one of us. In some cases, he even called on his primary flight training background to make points we wanted heard.

And then late Thursday evening, AOPA learned that, because of the continuing threats, the approval for Part 135 operations might be rescinded.

The bottom line is that decision-makers outside of FAA and the Department of Transportation believe the nation still faces a heightened security risk, and that general aviation might be used to attack the nation. While we all know that is pretty farfetched, the mood at the moment is to not take any risks, no matter how unlikely they might be.

AOPA is continuing to push on all fronts to get general aviation back in the air. But let me manage your expectations. When the security threats lessen, first will come the approval for Part 91 IFR flying. Then, no sooner than 48 hours later, should come the restoration of VFR privileges.*

Reassuring to know that there is at least one sensible voice of reason among the bureaucrats–Secretary Mineta.

It is understandable that bureaucrats, politicians, and segments of the public are jittery and in part non-rational after such an incident. However at some point such reactions must be superceded by informed rationality. National security is important, but we must also recognize that the nation’s need for a rapid return to normalcy, on both economic and morale-related grounds, is also significant. Others may differ, but I believe that time is very near.

7

I understand their concerns that GA VFR flight
is largely uncontrolled, but the real danger is
not whether someone files a flight plan, or is
required to walk through a metal detector…as
so clearly shown this week, the real danger
relates directly to the size of the plane and
how much fuel it carries. Ironically, the first
planes back in the air are the carriers, while
someone with a Piper Cub remains grounded. I
honestly have a hard time seeing how our 2,500
pound airplanes could ever represent anywhere
near the threat that even one of the hundreds of
carriers that flew yesterday represent. In my
view, the carriers should remain grounded until

they install bullet-proof, unbreakable doors on
the cockpits, and planes under 4000 pounds
should be allowed to fly immediately.

Exactly my viewpoint. Single-engine propeller planes should be allowed to fly immediatedly because they pose no significant threat.

However, I fail to see how a big general aviation

jet like a Gulfstream V can be considered safe even on an IFR flightplan. Many approaches to major airports go directly over the city, for instance SJC or LAX. If such a plane makes a seemlingly normal approach, only to veer off into a building in the last few seconds, no F-16 fighter jet will be able to prevent that.

8

There are ways to make a 2.500 pound plane
lethal. I was going to describe a few but I
decided this is not the time to do it.

Well, one method was shown in a Hollywood movie: Turn an airplane into a giant Claymore mine and fly it over a stadium packed with 60,000 sports fans. (In the movie they used a blimp, not an airplane.)
However, with just the few hundred pounds of payload that a single-engine propeller plane has, a gang of terrorists would probably be able to kill more people by bringing in AK-47s into the
stadium and strafing the crowd. Or by packing a minivan full of explosives and detonating it in the parking lot when the game is over. Or both.

The point is, there is no absolute defense against suicide terrorists. Why should general aviation be singled out? It does not make sense. Who stops terrorists from packing a big rig with 40 tons of explosive and detonating it near an open-air concert? Are we going to “ground stop” trucks as well? But no, by the weird logic of these DOT officials they would probably just “ground stop” the smallest sedans and motorcycles and let the biggest trucks roll, bomb-laden or not.

9

There are ways to make a 2.500 pound plane
lethal. I was going to describe a few but I
decided this is not the time to do it.

Well, one method was shown in a Hollywood movie: Turn an airplane into a giant Claymore mine and fly it over a stadium packed with 60,000 sports fans. (In the movie they used a blimp, not an airplane.)
However, with just the few hundred pounds of payload that a single-engine propeller plane has, a gang of terrorists would probably be able to kill more people by bringing in AK-47s into the
stadium and strafing the crowd. Or by packing a minivan full of explosives and detonating it in the parking lot when the game is over. Or both.

The point is, there is no absolute defense against suicide terrorists. Why should general aviation be singled out? It does not make sense. Who stops terrorists from packing a big rig with 40 tons of explosive and detonating it near an open-air concert? Are we going to “ground stop” trucks as well? But no, by the weird logic of these DOT officials they would probably just “ground stop” the smallest sedans and motorcycles and let the biggest trucks roll, bomb-laden or not.

Totally agree.

myers

10

Well, one method was shown in a Hollywood movie: Turn an airplane into a giant Claymore mine and fly it over a stadium packed with 60,000 sports fans. (In the movie they used a blimp, not an airplane.)
However, with just the few hundred pounds of payload that a single-engine propeller plane has, a gang of terrorists would probably be able to kill more people by bringing in AK-47s into the
stadium and strafing the crowd…

The difference is with a plane I don’t need a whole gang of terrorists. If I do have a whole gang then using small planes I can hit a number of stadiums at the same time. Explosives in the parking lot would not be nearly as effective. You don’t have the concentration of bodies that you get in a crowded stadium. If I can think of this I suspect the secruity experts have thought of it also and that is one reason I don’t expect to be flying anytime soon.

11

There are ways to make a 2.500 pound plane
lethal. I was going to describe a few but I
decided this is not the time to do it.

Well, one method was shown in a Hollywood movie: Turn an airplane into a giant Claymore mine and fly it over a stadium packed with 60,000 sports fans. (In the movie they used a blimp, not an airplane.)
However, with just the few hundred pounds of payload that a single-engine propeller plane has, a gang of terrorists would probably be able to kill more people by bringing in AK-47s into the
stadium and strafing the crowd. Or by packing a minivan full of explosives and detonating it in the parking lot when the game is over. Or both.

The point is, there is no absolute defense against suicide terrorists. Why should general aviation be singled out? It does not make sense. Who stops terrorists from packing a big rig with 40 tons of explosive and detonating it near an open-air concert? Are we going to “ground stop” trucks as well? But no, by the weird logic of these DOT officials they would probably just “ground stop” the smallest sedans and motorcycles and let the biggest trucks roll, bomb-laden or not.

Totally agree.

myers

Agree with Greg. The scenarios are endless. How about C-4 in lunch boxes at school or a trashcan rocket into Disney World. The point as I took it was that general avaition is no more of a threat than any other means of inflicting carnage.

The only posible reason I can come up with is to decrease the number of transponder returns until ATC has developed a plan to deal those not on a “fright plan” (sorry, I couldn’t resist). Anyway, hopefully we should be back in the air soon with only a few extra notams when around certain types of airspace.

myers

12

All the examples above just show how to kill a lot of people. What the FAA and Secret Service are concerned about are that a small airplane can be used to crash directly into the oval office or the U.S. Capitol. You can’t get a truck or a lunch box in there but they have no defense against a low flying small plane. Their only defense was to ground all planes.

13

All the examples above just show how to kill a
lot of people. What the FAA and Secret Service
are concerned about are that a small airplane
can be used to crash directly into the oval
office or the U.S. Capitol. You can’t get a
truck or a lunch box in there but they have no
defense against a low flying small plane. Their
only defense was to ground all planes.

Two words: Gatling gun.

14

Another concern might be the ability to monitor air traffic well enough to discern when aircraft deviate from flight plans. I imagine ATC’s workload is increased right now with heightened vigilence. They may be concerned about the total workload.

-Curt

15

An optimistic viewpoint: Perhaps the FAA will be funded to INCREASE staffing and IMPROVE their level of service to VFR aircraft? Not because they care about our safety and pointing out hazards in our flight path, but because they really do want to watch what we’re DOING up there!

(Spoken as a guy who has had 2 near misses while receiving flight following.)

Another concern might be the ability to monitor air traffic well enough to discern when aircraft deviate from flight plans. I imagine ATC’s workload is increased right now with heightened vigilence. They may be concerned about the total workload.

-Curt