FREEPER PILOTS: CBS Hit Job on General Aviation

Tom Norton Editor: Southern Aviator Magazine ^ | 1/15/2004 | Phil Boyer, President AOPA

[Tijeras_Slim]

Andrew Heyward President, CBS News 524 W 57th St. New York, NY 10019

Dear Mr. Heyward: On behalf of more than 400,000 members of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association AOPA), the world's largest aviation organization, I am writing you to express our utter shock and dismay regarding the story about general aviation that ran on your evening news on January 14, 2004. It is disgraceful that "the news organization of Edward R. Murrow" would produce — and aggressively promote in a tabloid headline form — a segment on the prestigious CBS Evening News that was so obviously slanted, incomplete, factually erroneous and salaciously inflammatory.

Your irresponsible reporting techniques included: Failure to mention a wide range of security initiatives — developed by AOPA and other organizations in concert with the FAA and Homeland Security — that are now in practice across the country. Completely contrary to your report, much has changed since 9/11. Failure to use a credible "expert" for your interview. Peter Goetz has no credentials in GA security. He is currently a PR consultant with grief counseling experience at NTSB. Other on-camera "experts" were a Realtor and an airport manager for a highly unique airport. The total absence of any evidence that general aviation should be considered a security threat. To suggest otherwise is to be blind to an enormous body of facts that could never produce the sensationalistic sham that you deign to call a news story.

On the basis of the voluminous emails and calls we have received today I can confirm that your reporter, Bob Orr, has badly tarnished his reputation in the aviation community. Had he — or anyone — from CBS simply called we could have provided the information that the story was completely lacking. For example: The Eagle's Nest residential airpark, while not unique, is far from typical of most public-use airports. These exclusive communities are mostly privately owned, private-use airports where the community is even more closely knit than the general aviation community at large. The lack of fencing at facilities like Eagle's Nest is more than offset by the fact that the residents lock their planes next to their cars in enclosed hangars that are attached to their homes. The 5,400 public-use general aviation airports in this country have security measures appropriate to their situation. Many are fenced with controlled access; others rely less on physical security procedures than on pilot vigilance, using guidelines such as AOPA's Airport Watch program. The TSA has acknowledged that "one size does not fit all" when it comes to security at general aviation airports and will be releasing a "best practices" guide based on recommendations from the general aviation industry that will help airports adopt appropriate security measures based on their individual circumstances. The typical general aviation aircraft, when fully loaded, weighs less than an empty Honda Civic and carries about the same amount of fuel as a large SUV. By comparison, an airliner like the ones used on September 11, 2001, can weigh as much as 180 Civics and carry nearly 24 thousand gallons of fuel. In stark contrast, a general aviation aircraft has limited ability to cause damage as evidenced by the unfortunate incident in Tampa. It was an extremely rare act by a lone individual that, while horrifying to imagine much less see, caused relatively minor damage.

Since 9/11 we are all living in a world marked by a heightened state of fear. Many organizations and members like ours have worked hard to address opportunities to keep those events from being repeated. By planting deep seeds of fear that are totally without merit, your report did a major disservice not only to our members, but to the general public as well. We are outraged and you should be ashamed.

At AOPA we will continue to work on behalf of our members. We hope at CBS you will work half as hard to inform your viewers of the facts and leave sensational journalism in the grocery store racks where it belongs. In the interim, we stand ready to provide you with the facts that your report completely ignored.

Sincerely,

Phil Boyer President

USPA NEWS RELEASE

January 19, 2004

Pilots outraged, “little” airplanes under attack

Pilots nationwide are more than alarmed by CBS Evening News “Eye on America” Correspondent Bob Orr’s report last week, which described residential airpark communities and General Aviation airports as “an open invitation for terrorists.” In fact, according to Jan Hoynacki, executive director of the United States Pilots Association (USPA), aviation enthusiasts across America are themselves feeling terrorized by fear-driven security woes.

“We feel like General Aviation is under attack by a movement in this country to eliminate ‘little’ airplanes,” Hoynacki alleged. And in context of the barrage of regulatory restrictions, codicils and conventions which have been imposed upon and proposed for General Aviation since 9-11, coupled with what aviation advocates consider to be spurious fear-mongering hype by ratings-driven media, the facts supporting Hoynacki’s position certainly seem to add up.

Consider, for example, newly proposed changes to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations Part 91 which will, if adopted, so inhibit charity and sightseeing flights that, by the FAA’s own estimates, promulgation of the new protocols will put roughly 700 aviators out of work.

“I could understand better a regulatory change if it was due to a safety or accident prevention factor to those type of operations,” said Jim Collom, a commercial-rated pilot, airpark developer and president of USPA Chapter AR01. “Yet it appears that too often, and more so since 9-11, logical thinking has not been at work in the decision making process.”

Adding formidably to the indignation, according to the 400,000-member Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), the FAA flat-out refuses to talk face-to-face with the pilots they are about to put out of business, preferring to conduct “virtual” meetings instead.

Another example of what pilots like Hoynacki and Collom see as condescending and abusive treatment of aviators, is an airspace takeover being forwarded by the United States Air Force. Given implementation, a new MOA (Military Operations Area) restriction would effectively block all non-military flight from Albuquerque through Roswell, down to Artesia and Carlsbad in New Mexico, creating 3,200 square miles of no-fly zone.

“USPA will speak against this egregious grab of more airspace at hearings being held later this month,” said USPA Vice President Steve Uslan, noting that the formal protest will be joined by the New Mexico Pilots Association and others.

“This is not a matter of patriotism,” said Hoynacki, “but rather a matter of proper access to the nation’s airspace, and specifically how this MOA will hamper General Aviation routes across the state.”

Supporting these assertions, the AOPA and the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), two of the largest member-based aviation organizations in the world, have adopted powerfully defensive positions.

Doug Mcnair, Vice President of Government Relations with EAA, publicly commented that “everyday, somewhere in the world, trucks and automobiles are used as a terrorist weapon, while general aviation aircraft have never to date been used in such a manner. Despite this, no one would contemplate draconian federal security standards on personal automobiles.”

Adding insult to injury, last week’s CBS report on airpark security, which alleged a dangerous lack thereof, has incensed aviators nationwide with repercussions reverberating on the EAA and AOPA websites, claiming that the CBS article was at best an irresponsible and sensationalistic piece which did nothing to inform viewers or resolve legitimate issues, and at worst was a slanted, incomplete, factually erroneous, and salaciously inflammatory attack.

“I was appalled by Bob Orr’s one-size-fits-all story about General Aviation Airport Security,” said Collom, whose 500-acre Holley Mountain Airpark in North Central Arkansas, though not required to, has taken substantial measures to ensure that precautions taken by the residential aviation community are what they deserve to be. “But still, the best security is what we call ‘our families caring for each other.’ Everyone knows everyone. We know when others are home, where they travel, and when they return. We know when our neighbors are ill, when they’re celebrating a birthday and if someone is in need of help. We are a family. And we understand the need for security in these times with all aspects of transportation, not just aviation, but Mr. Orr’s report might have been more accurate if he would have read it out of a crackerjack box.”

“I’m thoroughly ticked,” said Hoynacki. “CBS was wrong and misleading to the general public. There are many complex issues affecting the status of General Aviation in the United States today, and the need for a firm hand in constructive development is a given. But if the media or anyone else wants to know what’s going on in aviation, they should talk to pilots, airpark residents and aviation professionals, not real estate agents and hired help.”

For more information about this and other issues related to General Aviation, visit www.holleymountainairpark.com, www.uspilots.org, www.aopa.org, www.eaa.org

Jan Hoynacki, Executive Director United States Pilots Association 1652 Indian Point Road Branson, MO 65616 417 338-2225 Fax 417 338-8626 jan@hoynacki.com www.uspilots.org

[Tijeras_Slim]

I was alerted to this by Tom Norton, editor of the Southern Aviator Magazine, and agreed to post it. I know how much FReepers like letting CBS know what we think of them. If someone could post email links to CBS (left over from FReeping the Reagan "movie") it would be appreciated.

[Former Proud Canadian]

bump for antikev

[Tijeras_Slim]

Do you have a pilot's ping list?

[Tijeras_Slim]

Know any FReeper pilots or aviation fans?

[Starrgaizr]

I am an AOPA member, and the attacks on single-engine planes like I fly are usually preposterous. But there are some serious business jets where I fly. More important than those, however, are the foreign pilots who steer 747s around the U.S. every day.

[Tijeras_Slim]

Thanks for the bump.

[Aeronaut]

Bump. CBS is no bastion of honesty or fair reporting. The problem is the sheeple who believe their twaddle.

[Aeronaut]

I will start a pilot's ping list. Give me a hollar if you want on.

[Tijeras_Slim]

Thanks for the bump. Between trial lawyers and the media, things are looking grim.

[theDentist]

Well, "little planes" are simply toys for the rich, and the pilots are often the rich themselves. {/sarcasm}

[C210N]

As a pilot and AOPA member up here in MA, I see every airport I visit since 9/11 with security improvements: security fences, electricly coded gates, security-minded airport personell, etc. Then there is the extreme: BED, a nearby airport, where the security measures have gone so "extreme" that some based pilots have fled - e.g. where an aircraft cannot be left untended without a special propellor lock, even for an instant.

Thanks for this heads-up... as I havn't watched C-BS for years now.

[FireTrack]

Include me please.

Thanks!

[Tijeras_Slim]

Thanks for the bump

[razorback-bert]

a new MOA (Military Operations Area) restriction would effectively block all non-military flight from Albuquerque through Roswell, down to Artesia and Carlsbad in New Mexico, creating 3,200 square miles of no-fly zone.

First I have heard about this.

[Aeronaut]

Done.

[Pukin Dog]

Thanks for the ping.

[Tijeras_Slim]

Same here.

[Pukin Dog]

Count me in, please.

[Aeronaut]

You are in.

[Elle Bee]

please include me from the southernmost airfield

.

[Aeronaut]

You are included.

[Tijeras_Slim]

Aeronaut, I copied these names from a thread about the Widder Carnahan's lawsuit. They are potential candidates for a ping list.

Any of you folks want on an aviation ping list, please let Aeronaut know.

[B Knotts]

Sad. It seems that some people can't understand that there will always be some risk, living in a free society.

[B Knotts]

Please add me, too.

I'm too poor to get my ticket; I only did my written. I still like to read up on this stuff, though.

Maybe someday... :-)

[citabria]

Me too, please.

[Aeronaut]

You're in.

[Aeronaut]

Done.

[RckyRaCoCo]

count me in also

[Travis McGee]

BTTT

[Aeronaut]

Gotcha!

[Tijeras_Slim]

Thanks for the bump Travis

[Tijeras_Slim]

BTTT

[Wright is right!]

Add me, too.

This is situation normal at See BS. This AOPA guy is only aware of it because See BS did a report about something he's familiar with. The rest of their reporting is in areas he's not so close to, but it's just as falacious. They do the same thing with every story subject. For "experts," they call someone in the producer's Rolodex whom they can "get." A "get" is an agreement with a party for an on-camera interview. The "gets" go to people they know, people they can count on to reliably say what the producer wants them to say - which is not necessarily the truth from someone who is not necessarily a real expert.

Truth - a lot of times, the subject shown in a story is often someone provided to the networks by the DNC. The networks decide to do a story on, say, who's hurt by a Bush initiative. The producer calls her chum at the DNC and says, "We need a nice good-looking family we can paint as being hurt by Bush's (fill in the blanks) initiative. I've got cameras in St. Louis, Tampa, Phoenix and LA." The DNC goon says "Give me 15 minutes."

Fifteen minutes later, the DNC goon calls back with a name, number, and address. The network sends a crew out, asks the producer's questions, then goes back to the affiliate and birdfeed's the footage back to new yawk. The producer and reporter then put the story together with the manufactured footage, which - of course - always comes out exactly the way they planned the story in the first place.

It's not REAL news - it's manufactured news. And all the nets do it.

Michael

[nathanbedford]

As a private pilot who has been involved in litigation over the relative safety of general aviation as compared to commercial aviation, I can assert that there exists a large segment of the general populace, judges not excluded, who regard small planes much the way liberals view guns: as dangerous instrumentalities with limited utility.

CBS knows it can exploit this ignorance for ratings.

[bootless]

I'd like on the list, please. Thanks for doing this. I had thought about it, but it's pretty busy right now.

[bootless]

Thanks for posting Phil's responses, as well as the others. There was quite a discussion over on Avsig.com of this story.

Highly irresponsible of CBS. They used to have a good news department.

[lmailbvmbipfwedu]

Wait till these folks see SP/LSA. Coming sometime before March?

[bootless]

Aviation ping! Aeronaut is putting a ping list together.

[HairOfTheDog]

I would like to be on the list...

I would also like to know what the CBS report said.... Do we have anything?

[Aeronaut]

You're on the list.

[Aeronaut]

You are on.

[Aeronaut]

I would also like to know what the CBS report said.... Do we have anything?

Link to CBS story.

[Hunble]

a new MOA (Military Operations Area) restriction would effectively block all non-military flight from Albuquerque through Roswell, down to Artesia and Carlsbad in New Mexico, creating 3,200 square miles of no-fly zone.

That MOA has been around for a long time and civilian aircraft can operate in it. You need to keep an eye out for military aircraft flying fast and low, but it is not much of a problem.

I am not sure what he is talking about. Unless the FAA is declaring MOAs as off-limits to general aviation, this is no big deal.

[HairOfTheDog]

I can assert that there exists a large segment of the general populace, judges not excluded, who regard small planes much the way liberals view guns: as dangerous instrumentalities with limited utility.

Yes. And FReepers can't be excluded from that mindset either.... We need to help educate our own, too.

[HairOfTheDog]

Any reason it can't be posted?

CBS News | Air Security Not Airtight | January 18, 2004 10:49:11

Air Security Not Airtight

WASHINGTON, Jan. 15, 2004

(Photo: CBS/AP) "Our goal is to target the risk long before any passenger goes through security and board an aircraft." Homeland spokesman Brian Roehrkasse

(CBS/AP) U.S. and Canadian military aircraft have scrambled nearly 1,700 times to intercept or divert suspicious aircraft since Sept. 11, but routine drills illustrate how terrorists could penetrate the airspace around the nation's capital.

"We do these tests to push the system, find holes, and when we find holes we correct them," said Canadian Army Maj. Douglas Martin of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD).

"Every time we do a test, or an evaluation or exercise, we're getting better at defending the national capital region," he said.

Officials said the exercises conducted in early- and mid-December are the latest to show that the best prevention against another terror tragedy in the skies is thorough pre-emptive intelligence and screening, not a last-minute intercept or shootdown of a hijacked commercial airliner.

Those officials talked to The Associated Press about the classified results of the drills only on condition of anonymity. They said U.S. military officials have concluded it would be very difficult to intercept a hijacked plane within a certain radius of major cities like Washington unless fighter jets were already airborne.

Possible airline hijackings were a major concern around the New Year's holiday, when nervous U.S. officials caused a number of international flights to or from Washington and Los Angeles to be canceled or severely delayed. F-16 fighter jets reportedly escorted some flights as they approached U.S. airports.

In some of the tests in December, officials withheld fighter jets in order to check other last-resort defenses around the capital such as ground-to-air missiles and artillery, Secret Service protection and Federal Aviation Administration communications, the officials said.

The officials declined to provide more specific details about the drills except to say that under some circumstances Homeland Security planes posing as mock terrorists were able to penetrate protected air space.

The officials declined to define the zone in which scrambling military jets become ineffective although they noted the government typically creates a buffer of just over 30 miles when setting up temporary protected air space around special events or presidential locations.

Homeland Security officials said there have been numerous tests of the air defense system nationwide since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and areas for improvement have been identified and addressed.

"Since Sept. 11, Homeland Security and the Department of Defense have vastly improved the coordination response capacity of the nation's air defenses, and we are continually exercising and training to ensure we have the right assets in place to address any threats," Homeland spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said.

"Our goal is to target the risk long before any passenger goes through security and board an aircraft," he said, citing a litany of preventative measures from air marshals and armed pilots to improved passenger screening and reinforced cockpit doors.

Securing America's air space poses an immense challenge. According to the Department of Transportation, U.S. airports handled nearly 6 million flights bearing some 454 million passengers. Foreign airports sent another 56 million people here.

In addition to some 600 airports that handle flights carrying 30 people or more, there are 19,000 smaller general aviation airports in the United States. Most have a single landing strip. At many, there are no fences, no gates and no security systems, CBS News Correspondent Bob Orr reports.

Officials said there were two tests in the Washington area — one in early December known as a "tabletop exercise" because it was simulated, and another Dec. 13-16 when live aircraft were used in mock terrorist plots.

Officials said the conditions often were made extreme to test the outer limits of air defense capabilities, and that some penetrations or failures were intentional.

For instance, fighter jets failed to intercept enemy aircraft, and other times they did so to see how other air defenses would respond, officials said.

Overall, the nation's air safety net is getting improved marks with each test. And officials point to the fact that nearly 1,700 times since Sept. 11, fighter jets have successfully been scrambled to intercept or escort suspicious planes.

One such intercept of a wayward plane occurred over the White House late last year. At least 12 aircraft were escorted or intercepted after unintentionally invading the protected air space over the Winter Olympics in Utah in 2002.

Officials agreed to discuss the results of air defense drills in broad terms to highlight that, with intelligence pointing toward al Qaeda's continued determination to conduct more terror attacks through the air, the best prevention is through pre-emptive screening and detailed intelligence.

The officials stressed the December air tests played no role in the decision Dec. 21 to raise the nation's terror alert to the second highest color, orange, for the holidays because of threats to airliners. The test had been planned long before the alert was raised.

That decision was based on detailed intelligence that suggested al Qaeda was interested in exploiting more lax security overseas and hijacking a foreign airliner that was passing through American skies.

The FBI, CIA and Homeland Security Department used the intelligence to scour airplane manifests on the most likely air routes to look for any passengers whose names closely resembled those in terrorist watch lists.

In one case, an Air France flight to Washington was canceled because a half dozen passenger names were close enough to those of a suspected terrorists on watch lists. At least one passenger turned out to be a youth and none were deemed terrorists.

©MMIV, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

[HairOfTheDog]

That story doesn't speak to General Aviation.... Maybe this is the story the hoopla is about...

Are Small Airports Terror Targets?

WAYNESBORO, Va., Jan. 14, 2004

(Photo: AP) There are 19,000 general aviation airports in the United States, and most are like Eagle's Nest, with just a single landing strip. There are no fences, no gates, no security systems and no federal requirements to have them.

(CBS) They are a soaring real estate trend: fly-in communities called air parks.

"Every house has a paved taxiway to the runway," says Lesley Hock, an Eagle's Nest Air Park realtor.

Amenities include your very own community airstrip, your own personal hanger and the freedom to come and go as you please.

"There's really no security in regards to living with your airplane," says Hock.

And, as CBS News Correspondent Bob Orr reports, that's the fear. These general aviation airstrips, like the one in Eagle's Nest in western Virginia, are an open invitation for terrorists.

"I think it's a real concern," says airport manager John Trissel. "I think it's a possibility."

There are 19,000 general aviation airports in the United States, and most are like Eagle's Nest, with just a single landing strip. There are no fences, no gates, no security systems and no federal requirements to have them.

Since Sept.11, 2001, the government has not ordered Trissel to make any security changes at his airport.

Would-be passengers and luggage are not screened, says Trissel.

"We haven't really implemented the razor wire, the big tall fences, the security gates," says Trissel.

Trissel says he tries to keep a close watch on the planes and strangers, but former National Transportation and Safety Board managing director Peter Goelz says, that's not security.

"Homeland Security has to make general aviation and business aviation a priority," says Goelz. "They've got to develop a program, and they're going to have to spend some money on it."

He says terrorists are well aware of these small insecure airports.

"That's where they learned to fly," says Goelz. "We know the terrorists trained at small aviation systems.

"We know that two of the Sept. 11 terrorists left a plane on the runway at a Florida airport."

Some argue that there's no need to worry because these are small aircraft. But packed with explosives, small planes could be devastating bombs.

"A small plane taking off from a remote airport is going to be virtually untrackable and will suddenly appear into a restricted area - into a high population area, and there's going to be nothing we can do about it," says Goelz.

After Sept. 11, a student pilot in Florida stole a small plane and crashed it into a Tampa skyscraper. Authorities tracked the flight on radar but were powerless to stop it.

But two years later, there've been no mandated security changes.

"We need to make it a real concern and deal with it and try as best we can so that it will never happen," says Trissell.

Until then, vulnerability will be the price for general aviations freedom.

© MMIV, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.

[Uncle Fud]

Prior to 9-11 I was in the market for a nice used C-182 or Cherokee 235. No way now! All it would take would be ONE GA aircraft used in anything that even smacked of a terrorist attack, and the Department of Homeland Anxiety would turn that bird into a $65,000 paperweight, within days.

[superfries]

A quick call to Kirtland AFB flight ops should help clear up the MOA question. Lots of SO MC-130's up there doing training from what I recall. Between WSMR doing the THAAD testing and whatever is flying out of Biggs AAF in El Paso and Holloman AFB (sp?) it wouldn't suprise me if this area was NOTAM'd out for civilian use but you would think that would have been old news if it correct at all.

[pabianice]

Thanks. Sent to the 100+ pilots on my aviation distribution list.

[SCDogPapa]

You can include me on the ping list. Thanks