AOPA article on 9/11 attacks

There is one thing about the 911 aftermath that puzzles me, and this might be an oversimplification, but all the 911 attacks involved commercial airlines, not GA aircraft, so why are the majority of TFR and SFRA restrictions aimed at GA aircraft instead of commercial arurcraft? The Washington flight restricted zone applies to GA aircraft not commercial aircraft. GA aircraft may not enter the FRZ, but commercial aircraft do so all the time. Since no GA aircraft were involved in the 911 attacks you would think it would be the other way around.
 
Last edited:
William Pete Hodges said:
There is one thing about the 911 aftermath that puzzles me, and this might be an oversimplification, but all the 911 attacks involved commercial airlines, not GA aircraft, so why are the majority if TFR and SFRA restrictions aimed at GA aircraft instead of commercial arurcraft? The Washington flight restricted zone applies to GA aircraft not commercial aircraft. GA aircraft may not enter the FRZ, but commercial aircraft do so all the time. Since no GA aircraft were involved in the 911 attacks you would think it would be the other way around.
Click to expand...

Always pick on the least able to defend themselves? How much grease does AOPA/NAFI/EAA/etc spread around to the bottom dwellers in congress as opposed to Delta, American, United, Boeing, Lockheed, ALPA, etc? It's easier to smack the little guy in the ongoing security kabuki theater than it is to actually address the structural issues that allowed it to happen in the first place.
 
William Pete Hodges said:
There is one thing about the 911 aftermath that puzzles me, and this might be an oversimplification, but all the 911 attacks involved commercial airlines, not GA aircraft, so why are the majority if TFR and SFRA restrictions aimed at GA aircraft instead of commercial arurcraft? The Washington flight restricted zone applies to GA aircraft not commercial aircraft. GA aircraft may not enter the FRZ, but commercial aircraft do so all the time. Since no GA aircraft were involved in the 911 attacks you would think it would be the other way around.
Click to expand...

I presume the logic is that with all the other “security” measures put in place with commercial aviation (TSA, cockpit door security etc) that commercial aviation has been made “safe” from 9/11 style attacks. None of that can exist for GA so hence the SFRA. Given my heavy use of quotes I imagine you can surmise my thoughts on the efficacy of such “security” measures…
 
AKiss20 said:
I presume the logic is that with all the other “security” measures put in place with commercial aviation (TSA, cockpit door security etc) that commercial aviation has been made “safe” from 9/11 style attacks. None of that can exist for GA so hence the SFRA. Given my heavy use of quotes I imagine you can surmise my thoughts on the efficacy of such “security” measures…
Click to expand...

Just to play devil’s advocate… you can technically fly a 737 under Part 91 without all the upgraded security stuff (TSA, armored flight deck doors, etc..).
 
BryanAV8R said:
Always pick on the least able to defend themselves? How much grease does AOPA/NAFI/EAA/etc spread around to the bottom dwellers in congress as opposed to Delta, American, United, Boeing, Lockheed, ALPA, etc? It's easier to smack the little guy in the ongoing security kabuki theater than it is to actually address the structural issues that allowed it to happen in the first place.
Click to expand...

I don't believe it is corporate lobbying as much as public opinion. People are familair with airlines, so despite the destruction they caused on 9/11, they are willing to accept the risk instead of giving up the convenience of taking a flight to their favorite destination. But they feel like someone ought to pay for this. If you have no friends or relatives who fly small airplanes, that becomes an easy target. Many are opportunistic, and they used 9/11 to achieve what they always wanted to do, like the illegal takeover of Meigs field. Many Chicagoans applauded that. There was no corporate lobbying there. It was just a sinister move with public support.
 
Follow the money.
 
sarangan said:
I don't believe it is corporate lobbying as much as public opinion. People are familair with airlines, so despite the destruction they caused on 9/11, they are willing to accept the risk instead of giving up the convenience of taking a flight to their favorite destination. But they feel like someone ought to pay for this. If you have no friends or relatives who fly small airplanes, that becomes an easy target. Many are opportunistic, and they used 9/11 to achieve what they always wanted to do, like the illegal takeover of Meigs field. Many Chicagoans applauded that. There was no corporate lobbying there. It was just a sinister move with public support.
Click to expand...
Daley used the guise of security to get rid of Meigs. Something he had been trying to do for a decade. Now we can fly the lakefront without having to talk to anyone. Yep, that's safer.
 
I was wondering yesterday what it was like flying GA during the attacks? Was anyone up and flying that day? Did ATC start broadcasting on guard telling folks to land?
 
jaxcessnadriver said:
I was wondering yesterday what it was like flying GA during the attacks? Was anyone up and flying that day? Did ATC start broadcasting on guard telling folks to land?
Click to expand...
I was. I was the FO in a Lear 35 on the way to KSUN (Sun Valley) from KAPA (Denver Centennial). When we were about a half hour out of KSUN, the controller (I think Salt Lake Center) asked us if we had an outbound flight plan. I told him we did. Then he said we wouldn't be able to use it because there was a ground stop in the entire country. When I asked why, he said, "Terrorism on the East Coast".

Don't remember where I got this but...

2001-09-11 at 00-00-00.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top