A Boston Globe editorial
Wednesday, January 09, 2002

Security for small planes

A part of the American lifestyle jeopardized by Sept. 11 is the freedom to come and go at the thousands of small airfields that dot the country. Department of Transportation officials have properly focused on improving security at the big commercial airports, but the sad incident Saturday in which a 15-year-old boy killed himself by flying a Cessna into a Tampa building is a reminder that there are dangers of terrorism or criminal misuse at all levels of the aviation industry.

"Target-rich" is the term that security experts apply to a country like the United States. Accustomed to decades of homefront peace and the relative lack of terrorism on these shores, the country has developed a panoply of hard-to-protect facilities for transportation, energy, and public works.

In the case of Charles Bishop, the gap in security at his flight school was the brief interval in which he did pre-flight checks by himself in the Cessna. Fortunately, the small plane lacked the size or fuel to do much damage, but if the youth had directed it at a different target with more people, the outcome could have been calamitous.

There are many other scenarios for the use of general aviation planes to wreak havoc. It is easier for a terrorist to buy a small plane than a weapon, since no criminal background check or waiting period is required. A fully fueled corporate jet flying at its top speed is a devastating missile.

The FAA acknowledged the hazard after Sept. 11 by temporarily banning small planes at several commercial airports, and it still bans them at Reagan National Airport in Washington. Logan now subjects general aviation crews and passengers to the same screening that commercial passengers must go through.

But Massachusetts alone has more than 40 other fields, most of which lack perimeter fencing or 24-hour armed guards. Back in October, the Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission tried to order the fields to make security improvements, but the field owners refused, saying they would be prohibitively costly, and the commission relented.

Last month, the Department of Transportation reported to Congress on the small-plane security problem and some options for addressing it, including bans on flights within certain areas. The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association has its own, less restrictive suggestions.

Faced with the Jan. 18 deadline for examining all checked baggage on commercial airliners, DOT is in no immediate position to set general aviation security standards. But Massachusetts' difficulty in enforcing more security shows the need for leadership from Washington. Meanwhile, airfield owners have to look at all their operations, from flight schools to charters, with an acute awareness of how easily their planes can become destructive weapons.

This story ran on page A16 of the Boston Globe on Wednesday, January 09, 2002. © Copyright 2002 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.** ==========