There are some excellent replies, so please keep reading beyond my
comments (I'll take moderator's prerogative and prepend mine).
* Many folks have pointed out, correctly, that even a Cessna 150 can
carry perhaps 200 lbs of explosives. True. All I'm arguing for is a
balance -- living in a free society means accepting some risk and taking
measured responses. Those hypothetical explosives could also be
delivered by a small fleet of radio-controlled airplanes, but we
(properly) don't require RC hobbyists to undergo DNA scans and
background checks. Similarly, why are we banning even general aviation
pilots who have undergone extensive background checks from flying out of
Reagan National? It's an unmeasured response.
* What about biological or chemical weapons? Cars and trucks can drive
within a block of the White House and Capitol buildings (Pennsylvania
Avenue is partially closed but not 15th and 17th streets, which are
major commuter arteries). An aerosol dispersal system hidden in a
"Fedex" truck that tools around the city for many hours would, I'd
wager, do a much better job than a Cessna 150 that's likely to be shot
down by F-16s anyway. Also, if the Feds were really worried about this,
they'd keep everyone indoors instead of sending them racing outside to
gulp down chlorine gas or anthrax spores.
* What about suitcase nukes? They're a real threat, especially if you
believe reports that the Russians have, ah, misplaced dozens of them.
There have been claims that al Qaida purchased 20 of them in 1998 for
$30 million. But why risk flying one in (and sending everyone to the
bunkers) when you can place it in the trunk of a Ford Taurus and drive
it within a block of the White House or the Capitol? I assume that the
Feds have radiation detectors hidden in street lamps, etc., near
sensitive locations -- but I'd also assume there are countermeasures in
terms of shielding that a resourceful adversary would employ.
* It's impossible to have perfect security in a residential area. A
cunning adversary who wanted to bring a plane into the FRZ undetected
could buy a two-seater EuroFox for $50,000, fold its wings, and conceal
it inside a U-Haul van. Park the U-Haul in Rock Creek Park three miles
north of the White House in the middle of the night, unfold the
EuroFox's wings, take off in a field and fly low along the parkway. That
attack would probably be undetected until the plane was mere blocks from
the White House, too late to ready a missile battery and shoot it down.
(http://www.rlsa.us/eurotrailer.htm) The only way to prevent such
stealth attacks would be to militarize all of the DC area (another
reason to move to San Francisco).
* Yes, the flight instructor who was with the student in the Cessna 150
probably deserves what's coming to him. I say "probably" because FAA
flight service briefers have been known to claim, incorrectly, that the
ADIZ is no longer in effect. If the flight instructor stayed above or
below Class B airspace -- which has been around forever and would have
been marked on even old charts -- and received an incorrect briefing, he
may have done nothing obviously wrong. Then again, the odds of that
happening seem slim.
Bottom line: If we wanted perfect security we could close Reagan
National and Dulles airports permanently, enact a "shoot-on-sight"
policy with no warning flares from F-16s, close all of downtown DC to
non-government vehicles, ban all non-commercial flights in the entire
mid-Atlantic region, and so on.
But this is not what we want. Living in a free society means accepting
some risk and placing curbs on the demands of security agencies. It also
means some courage on the part of our elected officials, and some sanity
on the part of our foreign policy (but that's a whole different topic).
-Declan
Previous message:
http://www.politechbot.com/2005/05/11/seater-airplane-brings/
---
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [Politech] Two-seater airplane brings government to a
halt: was alert justified?
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 21:32:23 -0500
From: marc
To: 'Declan McCullagh' <declan@private>
Declan-
I'm a commercial pilot who loves to fly the small stuff. Kinda like a
ship's captain who still loves to sail a dinghy for the challenge and
sheer fun of it.
Couldn't agree more with what might be dubbed "your paranoia". I've been
wondering when this would happen. Kind of expected it earlier, but it
seems Rove, et.al. have these kinds of hijinks down to a much finer
science than do I. I doubt it was the FAA. Or should I say, I doubt it
was the FAA without other, higher, pressures exerted.
But bravo on your take.
And best of luck as you venture forth into aviation. If you have any
questions, feel free to write.
Best regards,
Marc
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Politech] Two-seater airplane brings government to a halt: was a
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 17:52:07 -0400
From: George Smith <70743.1711@private>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private>
Hmmm. Wait for the government speculations that a Cessna could be used or
modified to distribute a biological weapon. Worst case scenarios of this
nature are part of the landscape of "theory" on terror.
George
====================
Senior Fellow, GlobalSecurity.Org
National Security Notes
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Politech] Two-seater airplane brings government to a halt:
was alert justified?
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 16:47:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: Grant Gross <ggross66@private>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private>
Hey, Declan
I was at the Capitol during the evacuation, and it was close to a mad
house. Capitol police were telling people to run out of the building.
I saw a pregnant woman trip and fall and at least a couple of elderly
people look in serious distress after walking fast or running for two
blocks.
I'd generally agree with your assessment of damage an average Cessna
could do. If an unaltered Cessna crashed into the Capitol building,
the damage would be pretty minimal.
However, and this is a big however, after 9/11 it's not terribly hard
to imagine a scenario where a Cessna could be altered by nefarious
dudes to cause some major damage.
Many, many years ago, I was trained by the National Guard to work
with explosives. Imagine 200 lbs of C-4 plastic explosives sitting in
a Cessna instead of a second passenger, wired to a second gas tank,
and the damage could be much more than localized. Roughly, it takes
about 10 pounds of C-4 to penetrate a two-foot-thick concrete wall.
Is that scenario likely? No, not really. But if you asked most of us
on Sept. 10, 2001, that terrorists would use large airplanes to
attack the Twin Towers, most of us would have said that's not very
likely either.
Just my two cents,
Grant
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Politech] Two-seater airplane brings government to a halt:
was alert justified?
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 16:25:29 -0700
From: Sid Karin <skarin@private>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private>
References: <4282769B.3020103@private>
Declan,
Thanks for bringing some sanity to the reporting of such
incidents. You might also point out that a 150 carries about 25 gallons
of fuel maximum.
This incident is best understood as yet another false positive in
a poorly designed security system. The more restrictive
the system becomes the more false positives we will see,
until a peak is reached and the activity itself begins a terminal
decline. Don't count on your grandchildren taking flying lessons.
The bad guys are winning.
Cheers,
........Sid
-------- Original Message --------
Declan,
Unsurprisingly many of the Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFR) post Sept
11th are of dubious value. For example, the "mickey mouse" TFR above
Anaheim, Ca bans aircraft below 3000' within 3 miles of Disneyland. The
stated purpose is to prevent terrorism but even the most underpowered
cessna could reach the park before anything could be done. I don't know
what someone would do with a cessna to cause trouble, seems a poor
choise of a tool to me.
The real reason it is there is that Disneyland didn't like airplanes
towing banners and advertising to people waiting in line for rides or to
get into the park.
If you reprint this please remove my name and address.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Politech] Two-seater airplane brings government to a
halt: was alert justified?
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 19:17:11 -0400
From: Al Cabal <al.cabal@private>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private>
Hilarious.
Roosting chickens everywhere. I predict edged weapons, blood all over the
walls, Helter-Motherfucking-Skelter, men in tassled loafers, khakis, and
polo shirts snickering over single malts in Tony Soprano houses not far from
MacLean, VA...
What would Jenna drink?
>From Hell,
Alan Cabal
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [Politech] Two-seater airplane brings government to a
halt: was alert justified?
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 21:20:04 -0500
From: mail <mailings@private>
To: 'Declan McCullagh' <declan@private>
Declan wrote: "If a Cessna 150 hit a large government building, the impact
damage would be localized."
I quip: "Yeah, localized to the airplane."
A C150 would do less damage than a moped.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Politech] Two-seater airplane brings government to a halt:
was alert justified?
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 20:03:56 -0400
From: Larry Poos <poosld@private>
Reply-To: poosld@private
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private>
References: <4282769B.3020103@private>
Declan,
I usually just read and learn but this one causes me some concern.
Though I agree that a grandstand play for the purpose of political
influence may be behind the way this incident was handled, A Cessna 150
in restricted airspace poses as much threat as a 747. Suppose the
aircraft is loaded with 100 lbs of a biological agent and one 150 lb
pilot? The aircraft could refuel and load at a remote landing area
(alfalfa field) and crash into a populated area or government center.
How much stink would be raised because it was only a 150 and not worried
about?
--
TTYL,
Larry Poos
Retired Military and current employed in the Security and Warfighting
Systems business.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [Politech] Two-seater airplane brings government to a halt:
wasalert justified?
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 14:57:11 -0700
From: Scott Jordan <scott_c_jordan@private>
To: 'Declan McCullagh' <declan@private>
Declan,
A Cessna 150 may be one of the tiniest planes you can imagine, but a
passenger-seat with a few score pounds of anthrax or powdered uranium or
some vials of that flu virus that was mistakenly distributed a few weeks ago
(http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/health/3147341) could make a
significant mess.
This plane made it within 3 miles of the White House and the Capitol
Building. That's close enough to do a lot of damage even if it had been
shot down. Maybe, especially if it had been shot down.
Best regards,
--Scott Jordan
San Jose
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Politech] Two-seater airplane brings government to a halt:
was alert justified?
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 01:15:06 +0200
From: Ivo Vegter <ivo@private>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private>
References: <4282769B.3020103@private>
Declan McCullagh wrote:
> A Cessna 150 is one of the tiniest planes you can imagine: it travels at
> about 110 MPH and can carry only two people who weigh 170 lbs or less
> each. The plane itself is around 1,100 lbs with a thin aluminum shell --
> perhaps a third the weight of most cars.
>
> If a Cessna 150 hit a large government building, the impact damage would
> be localized. People who weren't near the impact site might not even
> notice. As the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association notes: "The
> suicide crash of a Cessna into a Tampa office building demonstrates the
> ineffectiveness of a general aviation aircraft as a terrorist weapon."
You're assuming that they knew it wasn't loaded with a pilot plus 170lbs
of high explosives. A car used as a weapon also does fairly little
damage, until you turn it into a car bomb.
I agree with your arguments about the restriction zones, although I
should note that when I was taking lessons in a similar aircraft, I was
pretty restricted too. I had to stay several dozen miles away from a
commercial airport and even there was restricted by a flight level
ceiling, I had to stay miles away from a nuclear facility (though I
could get a visual on it), and I wasn't allowed to fly over built-up
areas at any altitude without special clearance.
I also hear you on the other ADIZ violations that didn't prompt the same
response. But if they're not sure what is on the plane that is violating
the ADIZ, I'd rather they be safe than sorry. After all, 9/11 shouldn't
have been possible either.
(Hi from South Africa :)
--
Ivo Vegter <ivo@private> +27-84-210-2003
Cerberus Editing & Consulting
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Politech] Two-seater airplane brings government to a
halt: was alert justified?
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 17:49:36 -0500
From: Bill Davison <bill@private>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private>
References: <4282769B.3020103@private>
Well shucks, they just knew it had a huge bomb in it.
It's kinda like searching an 80 year old lady at the airport while the
borders are wide open to anyone who dares to cross.
Hmmm.......
Bill Davison
_____________________________________________
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [Politech] Two-seater airplane brings government to a halt:
wasalert justified?
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 17:02:11 -0500
From: Paul Higgins <pahiggins@private>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private>
Declan:
I'll leave the larger question of whether the alerts were justified to
others more qualified than I am. But your statement that "[t]he suicide
crash of a Cessna into a Tampa office building demonstrates the
ineffectiveness of a general aviation aircraft as a terrorist weapon" is
risible. That statement only makes sense if the aircraft in question
isn't carrying C4 or some other sort of plastic explosive on-board --
which of course couldn't be determined because the pilot wasn't
responding to hails. Small amounts of C4, say a hundred pounds, could
probably demolish a small building and do terrible damage to a
high-rise. No, it wouldn't topple a building on the order of the World
Trade Center towers -- but then, as you well know, the White House and
the Capitol are actually rather small by comparison. I for one am very
glad the AZID is still in place. And any flight instructor who plots a
course right through it without a transponder on and a flight plan on
file -- and who doesn't respond to hails -- should have his license
yanked!
Paul Higgins
Madison, Wisconsin
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Politech] Two-seater airplane brings government to a halt:
was alert justified?
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 15:29:59 -0700
From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joehall@private>
Reply-To: joehall@private
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private>
References: <4282769B.3020103@private>
On 5/11/05, Declan McCullagh <declan@private> wrote:
> A Cessna 150 is one of the tiniest planes you can imagine: it travels at
> about 110 MPH and can carry only two people who weigh 170 lbs or less
> each. The plane itself is around 1,100 lbs with a thin aluminum shell --
> perhaps a third the weight of most cars.
>
> If a Cessna 150 hit a large government building, the impact damage would
> be localized. People who weren't near the impact site might not even
> notice. As the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association notes: "The
> suicide crash of a Cessna into a Tampa office building demonstrates the
> ineffectiveness of a general aviation aircraft as a terrorist weapon."
(Playing the devil's advocate): What if one of the 170-lb. weight
allocations was a dirty nuclear device or biological weapon? That
would seem to change things considerably and would warrant evasive
action, no?
-Joe
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Politech] Two-seater airplane brings government to a
halt: was alert jus...
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 18:16:33 EDT
From: Majstoll@private
To: declan@private
Declan,
This might be of collective interest:
As many folks might vaguely recall, the White House was previously
attacked by a Cessna on Sept. 12th, 1994. According to the "PUBLIC
REPORT OF THE WHITE HOUSE SECURITY REVIEW at
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/ustreas/usss/t1pubrpt.html, "There was
minimal damage to the Mansion."
And also from this report, "On February 17, 1974, Robert Preston, a
private in the Army, stole an Army helicopter from Fort Meade, Maryland,
and flew it to the White House Complex....[MD State Police Helicopter
pilot reports that] After a brief dog fight around the Washington
Monument, the rogue Helicopter flew toward the White House, over the
fence and on to the White House lawn. It was at this time that the
Maryland State Police Helicopter took a position between the rogue
Helicopter and the White House in an attempt to keep the Rogue
Helicopter from harming the White House. It was at this time that the
Secret Service fired {with shotgun and submachine gunfire] on the Rogue
Helicopter, forcing it to the ground. Robert Preston, pilot of the rogue
Helicopter, exited the aircraft and ran toward the White House. I exited
the State Police Helicopter, and along with the Secret Service Officers,
subdued Preston after a short foot chase."
Mike Stollenwerk
----------------
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Politech] Two-seater airplane brings government to a halt:
wasalert justified?
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 18:03:40 -0400
From: Danny Yavuzkurt <ayavuzk@private>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private>
References: <4282769B.3020103@private>
Weeeell.. it may be a long shot, but given one pilot, another 170 lbs is
enough for quite a few dangerous pieces of "carryon luggage"... like a lot
of botulinum toxin, anthrax, or even (a remote but real possibility) a
"suitcase nuke" - according to the Trinity and Beyond/High Energy Weapons
Archive site, there have been corroborated reports of Russian
mini-demolition nukes going missing - moreover, given the nuclear materials
needed (say, the pit from a decomissioned nuclear warhead - there are
thousands in the Eastern European and former USSR nations), the specialized
high-voltage synchronized detonation electronics, and a neutron booster
source, it's trivial for anyone with a well-appointed machine shop to put
together the explosives and wiring needed to construct a man-portable
mini-nuke with a yield from 50-100 tons (in the smallest, worst-constructed
range) to a kiloton or so (if it was put together just right).
The point is, if it was just the plane they were concerned about, they were
idiots. But given the possibility that something bad could be *in* the
plane, perhaps it was justified...
-Danny
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Politech] Two-seater airplane brings government to a halt:
was alert justified?
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 20:20:51 -0400
From: Brian Carnell <brian@private>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private>
References: <4282769B.3020103@private>
Declan McCullagh wrote:
> A Cessna 150 is one of the tiniest planes you can imagine: it travels
> at about 110 MPH and can carry only two people who weigh 170 lbs or
> less each. The plane itself is around 1,100 lbs with a thin aluminum
> shell -- perhaps a third the weight of most cars.
>
> If a Cessna 150 hit a large government building, the impact damage
> would be localized. People who weren't near the impact site might not
> even notice. As the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association notes: "The
> suicide crash of a Cessna into a Tampa office building demonstrates
> the ineffectiveness of a general aviation aircraft as a terrorist
> weapon."
True, as far as it goes, Declan, but what if the Cessna 150 is loaded
with explosives?
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Politech] Two-seater airplane brings govern
=?utf-8?Q?ment_to_a_halt:_was=09alert_justified??=
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 21:03:44 -0400
From: Carl Silverstein <carl@sme-technologies.com>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private>
Declan,
I too am a pilot in training (about 60 hours and my FAA test under my
belt), as you know the maps are updated every six months and they
clearly show the restricted area. According to the press reports, the
plane contained a student pilot and a flight instructor. No excuse. They
should have known.
With that said, everything you say is correct. A 150 will bounce off a
wall. It's a toy. However the government must keep folks in a continual
state of fear to keep the money and laws coming.
Good luck on your flight training!
carl silverstein
carl@private
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Politech] Two-seater airplane brings government to a halt:
was alert justified?
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 21:23:51 -0500 (CDT)
From: odlyzko@private (Andrew Odlyzko)
To: declan@private
Declan,
If a Cessna 150 hit a large government building BY ITSELF,
the impact damage would be localized, yes. But what if
this plane were carrying not two people, but a pilot and
170 lbs of high explosive?
Andrew
P.S. I agree with much of what you write, but in addition
to the danger of an explosive-laden plane, there is also
the fact that on a radar, it might not have been clear
what kind of a plane this was.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [Politech] Two-seater airplane brings government to a halt:
wasalert justified?
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 21:31:16 -0400
From: Tom Ucko <tomucko@private>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private>
>
> If a Cessna 150 hit a large government building, the impact damage would
> be localized. People who weren't near the impact site might not even
> notice. As the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association notes: "The
> suicide crash of a Cessna into a Tampa office building demonstrates the
> ineffectiveness of a general aviation aircraft as a terrorist weapon."
>
But couldn't it be packed with high explosives? That would actually seem a
pretty good ploy - pack an innocent looking plane with high explosives.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Politech] Two-seater airplane brings government to a halt:
was alert justified?
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 21:16:59 -0400
From:[name deleted]
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private>
References: <4282769B.3020103@private>
Potentially slightly unrelated, but while I was serving at Andrews,
there is at lease one memorable incident of a cessna flying directly
overhead the Air Force 1 hangar. That caused a small stir, the AF sent
up a couple F-16s, I don't think anyone was even arrested over that.
THere was a brilliant report on Fox about this today (I was somewhat
forced into watching Fox while waiting at an INS office to get re-finger
printed. Did you know that fingerprints "expire" ?) in which bimbo A
asks bimbo B "don't planes have a little box inside that beeps when they
cross into restricted airspace?" Oh, to have the brains of a Fox
reporter... I didn't know you were taking flying lessons. SOunds like
fun :)
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [Politech] Two-seater airplane brings government to a halt:
wasalert justified?
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 15:13:05 -0700
From: Brock Meeks <Brock.Meeks@private>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private>
Here's another take from my own reporting today:
By Brock N. Meeks
Federal sources told MSNBC.com Wednesday that Air and Marine Operations
(AMO) Black Hawk crew members received a specific code-word at 12:06
p.m. today telling the helicopter to get out of the area as fast as they
could, as F-16s moved in to intercept the errant Cessna 150 heading
toward the White House. MSNBC.com has been asked not to reveal the code
word for security purposes.
This is the first time since 9/11 that the code word has been used,
sources confirmed.
A federal agent with intimate knowledge of the Black Hawk protocols in
D.C. tells MSNBC.com that the code word was worked out a year ago; it is
the agent's understanding that the order means "get the hell out there,
we're getting ready to shoot."
However, in interviews with other federal officials, the exact meaning
and protocol behind emergency code word is a bit murky.
The Black Hawk crew "did receive the [the code word] call," a federal
official with knowledge of the case told MSNBC.com. "That doesn't they
were ready to pull the trigger, it means they were engaging to lock on
the target," the federal official said. "Doesn't mean they are ready to
pull the trigger, but it does mean they [the F-16s] are taking over the
intercept," the source said.
The Black Hawks moved away from the plane and when it turned west and
the Air Force determined it was not longer a threat, the Black Hawk
re-engaged and followed the plane to the ground.
When MSNBC.com pressed the federal official about the meaning of the
code word call and what "locking on the target" actually meant, the
official said he couldn't say it meant the F-16s were ready to shoot.
"I can say there were in position to lock on the target," he said.
Another federal official with knowledge of the air defense protocols
tells MSNBC.com that if the code word command was issued: "I can tell
you pretty conclusively, obviously if [the code word] was said, this guy
[in the small plane] was in serious danger whether he knows it or not.
If it got to [the code word] they were getting the air craft out and
they [the F-16s] were getting ready to take action."
_______________________________________________
Politech mailing list
Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Wed May 11 2005 - 20:39:18 PDT