Perils of private jets

A Boston Globe Editorial, 10/17/2001

IMMEDIATELY after the Sept. 11 hijackings of commercial airliners, aviation
and security officials around the country focused worried attention on the
thousands of smaller corporate, charter, and individually owned airplanes
that could also be turned into fuel-laden missiles. The concern in
Washington is so great that such planes are still banned from Reagan
National Airport.

There are several grim scenarios. Terrorists could simply buy an airplane -
there is no criminal background check or waiting period as there is when
buying a firearm - and train one of their number to fly it. Or, they could
charter a flight with a pilot and take over the cockpit, as terrorists did
with commercial pilots Sept. 11.

At many airports general aviation owners or customers face little if any
security screening. This is distressing because, according to one estimate,
a fully fueled Gulfstream Aerospace business jet weighing 50,000 pounds and
flying at 300 miles per hour could explode with the force of 141 tons of
TNT. The Federal Aviation Administration should act quickly to address
security threats that no one even imagined before Sept. 11.

At Logan Airport, which is even closer to a densely built-up area than
Washington's National, officials have worked to improve security by
subjecting general aviation crews and passengers to the same screening that
commercial passengers face. The private company in charge of small airplane
operations at Logan is supposed to ensure that anyone landing at Logan in a
general aviation plane has faced the same screening at the departing
airport. Massport should monitor this process carefully and, if it finds
that thorough screening of crews and passengers is not taking place, waste
no time in suspending general aviation operations at Logan.

That would still leave the state's small airports, most of which lack
fencing or guards and still maintain a welcoming friendliness that dates
back to barnstorming days.

On Oct. 2, the Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission directed the 41 fields
under its purview to undertake 14 costly measures, including perimeter
fencing and 24-hour armed guards. But the owners of the fields protested,
saying that the costs would be prohibitive.

Last week, the commission backed away from its directives. Acting Governor
Jane Swift had offered grants totaling $3 million to help the fields meet
the standards, but money would go only to those that maintained permanent,
armed security personnel - something that few small airports can afford.
Clearly, improved security measures will require more money, which could
come from an earmarked state tax on the fuel sold at airports.

While it is encouraging to see the state aeronautics commission tackling
this problem, the threat is a national one that requires prompt attention
from the FAA.

This story ran on page A14 of the Boston Globe on 10/17/2001.
© 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.**
==========