Airspace limits hurt flight schools
Local aviation chafes under Logan restrictions

By Kathy McCabe, Globe Correspondent, 10/21/2001

Severe restrictions on airspace within 20 miles of Logan Airport have
crippled flight schools, fuel suppliers, and other small aviation businesses
at Beverly Municipal Airport and Hanscom Field in Bedford.

The restrictions, put in place after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, also
have grounded most recreational pilots, who fly under so-called ''visual
flight rules,'' meaning they do not use instruments to fly a plane.

Only instrument-trained pilots may fly within the 20-mile restricted
airspace. Everyone else must be accompanied by a flight instructor,
according to the Federal Aviation Administration.

The restrictions also apply to Norwood Memorial Airport in the south
suburbs, but not to Lawrence Municipal Airport and the Plum Island Airfield
in Newbury, which lie outside the 20-mile limit.

For aviation businesses in Beverly and Bedford, the sudden change has
resulted in huge losses, forced layoffs, and grounded millions of dollars'
worth of aircraft during peak flying season.

''The whole flight industry in Beverly is now a joke,'' said Victor Capozzi,
owner of General Aviation Inc., where business has dropped 90 percent.
''September and October is peak time for my flying school. What I make
during that time, I use to keep me going in the winter.''

''Everyone in New England flies in fall and spring,'' said Michael Goulian,
owner of Executive Flyers Aviation at Hanscom Field. ''Much of what we do is
train people to fly. We can take them up with an instructor, but there is no
soloing. Our business is down 80 percent.''

The National Security Council ordered the airspace restrictions around 30
major airports across the country immediately following the Sept. 11
attacks. Since then, the restrictions have been either lifted or eased in
several major markets.

In Boston, although the restricted airspace was reduced to 20 from 30 miles,
the new rules are not likely to be eased further anytime soon. ''The
restrictions remain in place indefinitely,'' said Jim Peters, an FAA
spokesman in New York. ''I can only make the assumption that [federal
intelligence officials] have information that warrants these restrictions be
kept in place.''

Although supportive of national security, local aviation business owners
said the rules make little sense, especially since airliners are allowed to
fly. Most small airports serve customers who fly single-engine planes, which
pose little security risks, they said.

''These aren't airliners, they're light, aluminum aircraft,'' said Mark
Holzwarth, owner of East Coast Aero Club at Hanscom. ''I have $1 million
worth of aircraft. My business is running at 20 or 30 percent, and they
won't tell us what the threat is.''

''I don't think the government understands this segment of the aviation
industry,'' said Ken Robinson, owner of North Atlantic Aviation at Beverly
Airport, where business is off 60 percent. ''We're as entitled to be in the
air just as much as a major airliner.''

Others said the nation's $20 billion general aviation industry won't likely
recover anytime soon. The industry consists mostly of small mechanic shops,
flight schools, and fuel suppliers, which lack capital to absorb big losses.

''Our fuel sales are way off,'' said John Regan, manager of Mercury Air
Center at Hanscom. ''They were already slowing down, because of the economy.
Sept. 11 hasn't helped.''

What's more, proposed new security measures at general aviation airports
also will likely bring more costly changes to the industry, an observer
said.

''Going forward, airport security is going to be a major issue,'' said
Warren Morningstar, spokesman for the Aircraft Owners and Pilots
Association, the nation's largest aviation trade group. ''Of immediate
concern, however, is the economic losses.''

The trade group estimates that the industry lost $400 million in the first
two weeks following the attacks. Since then, the losses have only mounted,
as private planes remain grounded and business travel declines.

''So many businesses involved in general aviation are small businesses that
don't have huge capital reserves. Some have already closed up shop, and
others are just barely hanging on,'' Morningstar said.

General aviation businesses may get some financial help from the federal
government, though it most certainly won't compare to the $15 billion
bailout given to major airlines.

A bill filed last week in Congress would authorize the US Small Business
Administration to provide $500 million in grants and no-interest loans to
small aviation businesses directly impacted by national security measures.

A spokeswoman for US Representative John F. Tierney, whose district includes
Beverly and Bedford, said he is reviewing the bill. ''We're evaluating the
language to make sure it does impact those who it is intended to help,''
said spokeswoman Carolyn Stewart.

US Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, a Democrat who is chairman of the
Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, filed a bill that
would provide low-interest or no-cost recovery loans to help a variety of
businesses impacted by the closed airports and security restrictions. No
hearing date has been set for the bill, a Kerry spokesman said.

Just last week, Senator Thomas Harkins, an Iowa Democrat, cosponsored a bill
that also would increase aid to small businesses impacted by the new ground
rules. For some, the help can't come too soon.

''We need to be declared a disaster area,'' said Capozzi at General Aviation
in Beverly. ''We don't need the $15 billion they gave the airlines, but we
at least deserve zero-interest loans to keep us going.''

''They've opened the airspace for the major airlines, but not us,'' said
Goulian at Executive Flyers Aviation at Hanscom. ''It would be nice if they
gave some help to the flight schools.''

This story ran on page 1 of the Boston Globe's North Weekly section on
10/21/2001.
© Copyright 2001 Globe Newspaper Company.
======================================================

For some, ban doesn't fly
Aviators question US prohibition of flights

By Raphael Lewis, Globe Staff, 10/23/2001
Until Sept. 11, Alex Skrabut was feeling pretty good about the flight school
he opened at Beverly Municipal Airport on Aug. 18. Students were signing up
in droves, 40 showed up regularly, and it required four planes to
accommodate them.

But because Boston is one of three cities nationwide where general aviation
traffic is still banned indefinitely as a result of the terrorist attacks,
Skrabut has begun to question his choice - and his luck.

The phone no longer rings. A lone Piper Warrior sits idle on the tarmac. And
even though his 10 remaining students are now allowed to take off, they may
not fly solo, which means they cannot obtain a pilot's license.

''We were going gangbusters before all this,'' the 21-year-old entrepreneur
said. ''Now we're twiddling our thumbs.''

On Sunday, the Federal Aviation Administration announced that it would open
the skies to general aviation flights in 12 of 15 American cities where they
were banned. By tomorrow, pilots in cities including Chicago, Philadelphia,
San Francisco, Orlando, Fla., Los Angeles, and Denver will at last get
clearance to take off in single-engine planes, as long as they stay away
from reservoirs, dams, nuclear plants, and large gatherings of people.

But in Boston, New York, and Washington, there is no sign that the ban will
be lifted. That means airfields in Beverly, Bedford, and Norwood, normally
abuzz with general aviation operations, will remain all but shut down
because they sit within 15 nautical miles of Logan Airport, where such
flights remain prohibited.

Business at the three facilities has dropped significantly, officials
report. Many operators are questioning the federal ban, saying that they are
being indirectly punished for acts of terrorism committed on massive,
commercial jetliners.
Bill Shumann, a spokesman for the FAA, said the ban on general aviation
operations in Boston, Washington, and New York is ''for continuing reasons
of national security,'' but would not elaborate. He added that no timetable
has been set to change that situation.

''The FAA continues to work with other federal agencies, and the goal is to
restore the aviation system to what it was before Sept. 11,'' Shumann said.

The hijackers who commandeered four jets on Sept. 11 did so on flights that
departed from Boston's Logan Airport, Newark Airport outside New York, and
Dulles Airport near Washington. Most of the suspects were trained as general
aviation pilots, and one, Mohamed Atta, apparently took an interest in
crop-duster planes.

But investigators have yet to present evidence that the suspects or their
sympathizers had any concrete plans to utilize small aircraft.

Richard Walsh, a community affairs representative at Hanscom Field in
Bedford, says the airport is just a shadow of its former self, as the ban
continues. Usually, 82 percent of air traffic at the facility is made up of
general aviation fliers, pilots who commute to the Boston area from Cape
Cod, New Hampshire, and beyond, he said.

''There are a lot of small businesses at the airfield that are close to
closing up shop for good,'' said Walsh, an employee of the Massachusetts
Port Authority, which operates Hanscom.

Some in general aviation circles question why small planes are still
considered a threat in Boston, but not in Philadelphia, which is closer to
so-called sensitive targets in New York and Washington. They also wonder why
small aircraft are banned, but not the large airliners that were targeted.

''In the abstract, the situation makes sense because we're all concerned
about security,'' said Warren Morningstar, a spokesman for the Aircraft
Owners and Pilots Association, a Washington-based group with more than
375,000 pilots as members. ''But when you get to the specifics and see
what's allowed and what's not, it's tough to make sense of this.''

The decision to lift flight bans has rested solely with the National
Security Council the president's principal forum for considering national
security matters, and the Department of Defense. It was those departments
that insisted on keeping Reagan National Airport in Washington shuttered
until plans could be made to ensure that the White House and the Pentagon
could be protected.

Skrabut says he has no problem with the ban, but criticized the lack of
information from the government. If he knew that the grounding would last
until January, he said, he would close the school, Aviators of New England,
until then and save money on electricity and other costs.

''Maybe we could help solve the problem if they told us what it is,''
Skrabut, of Beverly, said. ''The big airlines were directly involved in this
thing, and they got a $15 billion bailout and were back in air almost
immediately. We have nothing to do with any of this, and we're still sitting
on our butts.''

This story ran on page B1 of the Boston Globe on 10/23/2001.
© Copyright 2001 Globe Newspaper Company.
==========
**NOTICE: In accordance with 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.**
==========