PDA

View Full Version : Flying: The 9/11 Effect



Fareed Guyot
09-01-2011, 01:33 PM
As we look back 10 years to the attacks of September 11, 2011 we see the events of that day had impacts on every corner of society. Due to the mode of the attacks, aviation has been uniquely affected and each aviation professional, enthusiast, and recreational pilot has a personal story to tell about that day. EAA would like to know how the attacks on 9/11 have affected your flying in the past decade and how the perception of recreational aviation among the non-aviation people around you has changed. We ask you to leave your comments to the questions below in this thread and we’ll publish selected responses in next week’s issue of e-Hotline.

Q: In the 10 years since the 9/11 attacks, how has your flying changed or not changed?

Q: How do non-pilots or non-aviation enthusiasts view recreational flying, homebuilding, and other aviation activities now that 10 years have passed since the 9/11 attacks?

Fareed Guyot, EAA 388642
Manager, Electronic Publications
EAA - The Spirit of Aviation

steveinindy
09-01-2011, 03:05 PM
It hasn't changed. I also have not had any bad experiences with people reacting to flying other than your occasional "not in my backyard" idiot.

Antique Tower
09-01-2011, 05:33 PM
What happened to Meigs Field is my nightmare - what could happen to the entire GA community one day.

Never forget - they used terrorism as an excuse to do what they could not do otherwise.

Phil Schultz
09-01-2011, 08:41 PM
When 9/11 occured I had 50K annual travel budget, mostly airlines. Slashed it in half then to less than 5K. I now fly my own airplanes 200 to 300% more with a lot less hassell. Since non pilot types like to talk about the 9/11 issues, I use the oportunity to great advantage to promote the use and safety, utility and benefits of general aviation. I am much more active in promotion. The TSA and government seems to have lost all logic when dealing with the problems of security. General aviation will surely grow unless taxed out of existance.

cjpilot
09-01-2011, 09:32 PM
Since 9/11 my aviation experience has gone down hill. The TSA is a royal pain in the ass. No consistency in their rules, which at times are absurd. More like Gestapo than protectors. I’ve seen them terrorize and stamp over aircraft owner’s rights and access to personally owned aircraft, simply because they could. The system of TFRs and their use for every “Tom – Dick – Harry” event or VIP is to me an abuse of power and nothing more. Why for instants why is there a permanent TFR over Disney World in FL? Like "TFR" means “Temporary Flight Restriction” – no?

The general public in its general ignorance, submits to its abuse, out of propaganda of fear. The same ignorant general public that believes all aircraft are dangerous.

wa6ilt
09-02-2011, 05:11 AM
I have stopped flying internationally. Before eAPIS went into effect I had made a couple trips to Canada (Montreal and PEI). Not any more. Due to the SD for airports with scheduled air service, I avoid those airports whenever possible, even if they might be more convenient during cross-country trips.

After 9/11, our financially-pressed municipal airport had to shell out money to install higher fences with electronically controlled gates. The whole exercise was really a farce because the far side of the airport, opposite the access road is bordered by a shallow river and there is no fencing on that side.

A great deal of my time and energy has been taken up working with my congressional rep trying to get him to vote against security excesses. In general, his voting record has been good on these issues but he's out numbered.

The president's vacation TFRs at Martha's Vineyard have restricted my summer flying and no doubt will continue to do so. The general increase in the number of TFRs has been a royal pain.

I don't think the general public's view of GA hasn't changed much. Little airplanes are still incredibly dangerous and corporate jets are only for fat cats. People seem surprised that I actually have to get permission to leave the country if I wanted to fly to Canada. They also seem surprised to know that I don't have to file a flight plan and be in contact with ATC every minute. I just ask them if they need permission every time they want to drive their car or boat and that seems to make them think a little bit.

David Reinhart

A W Parshall
09-02-2011, 08:48 AM
As a passenger, not a pilot, between Milwaukee and Santa Barbara via a brief stop at Denver, the aircraft size dropped
from 100 seats to 50, with a near doubling in fare cost after 9/11/01. The same airline offered an alternate, from MKY to ORD to LAX to SBA for little more than half that, but the increased paths multiplied the possibilities of delays and cancelled flights. On a tight schedule, I opted for the more direct route, regardless of cost. When my reason for travel
passed away, and I no longer flew there constantly, after 18 months the airline played "Indian Giver" and erased all the
long earned frequent flyer miles. It is now my FORMER airline, along with all their subsidiaries.

jb92563
09-02-2011, 08:59 AM
It has not affected my flying directly at my dirt strip private airport but they have been using the 911 and security issues to do things that are not rational and have no precedent or statistics to back up their claims of increased security risks.

Attempts at restricting things like airport homes with "Through the fence access", increased regulations for flight training, background checks for student pilots, extra airport security making casual small airport access impossible for prospective interested pilots, etc.

In a free country I am willing to assume a greater security risk (not proven) rather than inhibit and stifle access to interested folks who enjoy photographing, watching and participating in airport and aviation activities.

If it comes down to it I'd rather loose a few lives, even my own, rather than make aviation inaccessible to the masses by having ridiculous measures of security at small airports.

The reaction to 911 was more of a political reaction and posturing rather than addressing appropriate sane security measures. The Feds took full advantage of a situation and used it to installed more bureaucracy.

If someone really wants to blow up things there are an infinite number of ways to do it and no amount of regulation and security
will ever be able to prevent it.

I know a lot of lives were lost in 911, but what of all the military lives we sent after them and thousands of "collateral damage" victims
in the countries we had to try and annihilate our foes in.

I guess they don't keep tabs on lives lost on foreign soil but I have been watching the monthly rates and we are loosing on average 5 brave courageous souls a day.....yes, EACH DAY! It breaks my heart, as these kind of strong Americans are needed at home to rebuild a great America and ensure our strong future.

A bit of a rant but YES 911 has affected the quality and accessibility of aviation for me and those who have yet to discover what they are missing.

Ray

luv2av8wi
09-03-2011, 12:28 PM
Out of necessity, I guess, flying has become more of a chore, less fun, more expensive and more regulated. Inevitable I suppose, but sure is taking the unfettered joy out if just getting in the bird and going flying without a concern for tfr's, adiz airspace and $6 plus avgas. If it weren't for Young Eagles I think I might have hung up my wings by now. What's the answer? Is there one?

jburwell
09-03-2011, 12:38 PM
Only just this morning, September 3, 2011 on Fox news the commentators were dramatising that even 10 years after 9/11, our security is still inadequate. They revisited the two terrorists who were living in the U.S. and who were able to enough flying lessons to enable them to fly large aircraft into the World Trade Center for example, and tople the building. They gave as a curent example, showing an FBO operator, who affirmed the fact that any licensed pilot can rent an airplane without a security check. This shows how little the non aviation media and much of the general public knows and understands General Aviation. Most pilots fly small aircraft incapable of doing much damage even if packed with explosives, but the media implies any licensed pilot can rent a 747 or other large aircraft without security clearance to repeat 9/11. I hope the EAA and AOPA will appropiately respond to Fox news trying to stir up hysteria and anti sentiment against CA among the general public.

Greg Anderson
09-04-2011, 01:16 PM
My last flight was 8/25/2001. I had just completed my 43rd hour of training towards my private. Weather in the Seattle area had been bad that summer and I couldn't get up again. After 9/11, Boeing decided to lay off 30,000 people. Afraid I might be one of them, I stopped flying to save money, thinking I'd get back to it if things worked out. Because of the layoffs, engineering groups got consolidated. My group moved north in the summer of 2002 and a year of commuting made us move in 2003. The new mortgage was higher and here I sit. I might get back into the air next year, but I said that last year too.

Thomas P. Turner
09-06-2011, 07:53 AM
Q: In the 10 years since the 9/11 attacks, how has your flying changed or not changed?

Other than the need to check for TFRs, which I think has changed my flight planning one time since 9/11/01, my flying has not changed as a result of the Sept 11th terrorist attacks.

Q: How do non-pilots or non-aviation enthusiasts view recreational flying, homebuilding, and other aviation activities now that 10 years have passed since the 9/11 attacks?

No change. The factors that color the public's perception of personal aviation are independent of the terrorist threat.

Adam Smith
09-06-2011, 11:30 AM
A plethora of security annoyances, none utterly terrible but none of them help... TFRs, more & bigger fences around GA airports, ramp access security at FBOs, much harder to cross the border in and out of Canada, harder for foreign nationals to get flight training in the USA (I am a UK citizen), aircraft re-registration, needing to know intercept procedures for real...

The main positive I can see is that GA became a more attractive proposition compared to commercial airline travel. I definitely take more GA trips now to avoid airport security.

Ozzie
09-07-2011, 04:05 AM
I was working for a small but extremely busy airport in North Queensland Australia ten years ago. The security changes where almost immeadiate. Did not take long to work out that it was time to change jobs. Flying from an airport especially one with RPT services is a nightmare now. Wear your 200 dollar ASIC card on the lanyard around your neck (not clipped to your pocket thank you) or get smacked with a huge fine/jail. Forget to fit your throttle padlock or leave your empty hanger unlocked while you nip around the block and huge fine my friend. It goes on and on and on. Then quite a few country airports have a 'you beaut' 8 foot high chain link frontage complete with pin locked gate. If you can't remember the PAL frequency for the pin code and Mobil haven't ripped out the fuel farm yet, you can use the garnett card to slip the catch. (just like the hijack proof cockpit doors on %$^.'s B737s.) Or you can just walk a hundred yards to where the chain link fence ends and step around it. Most of the security is more of a worry than the percieved threat when it comes to the average 'weekend warrior'.
But when it comes to travelling in big jets i appreciate the attempt to make my trip as safe as possible. I don't mind the X ray and scans. It has it's faults and maybe some of the staff could do with some attitude adjustment. Maybe in a couple of years with all the high tech stuff coming out we'll be dealing with a machine rather than some individual that would rather be at the beach than dealing with me. Hopefully security will become relatively seamless. I'm just glad i fly a little ultralight from a private property. I left that cool job in paradise a month after 9/11. It only took a day or so for it to really sink in that it all had changed for ever.
Can't wait for the planned visit of President Obama later this year. This is going to close a 200mile radius of airspace around Sydney. Oh and yippee his 3 day visit covers a weekend. The skydiving centre and flying schools will be happy. Oh well hope the weather is tops for his harbour cruise.

Joe LaMantia
09-07-2011, 07:49 AM
Interesting discussion, as far as my own flying is concerned 9/11 hasn't had any significant impact. I was in the process of getting a tail wheel endorsement when 9/11 occurred and the shut down that followed ended my attempt. I am in agreement with jb92563 and will add that what I notice most is the reaction of the general public to the loss of 5 KIA per day. During the Viet Nam we lost 100 per week killed and about 300 per week wounded, there are over 50 thousand names of those killed in that war on the "wall" in Washington. We had a draft in those days and we had a melt down on support for that war which cost LBJ his presidency. What we have today is a lack of perspective on the true impact of 9/11. We have 315 million citizens and lost roughly 4500 on 9/11 that is .0000142% of our population, we lose about 50 thousand a year to traffic accidents! What we have today is a public run by fear allowing politicians to exploit that fear with over spending on security and freedom restricting rules to "keep us safe". We get some goofy ideas and just plain miss-informed folks out there as a result of all the fear mongering. The gentlemen who equates the Meigs mess with terrorism is a bit off base. While I am more that PO'd at Mayor Daily's heavy handed tactics, that issue had nothing to do with terrorism. There was a strong movement to convert that property to a lakefront park. If you travel along the shores of Lake Michigan around Ill, Wis, Mich, and In you will see lakefront parks in most towns and cities. Chicago is the largest city on that Lake with over 6 million people, and that property is being developed for their use. As a member of the aviation community I regret the loss of that high profile airport, but as a former lakeshore resident I think the general public is better served with a park.

Antique Tower
09-07-2011, 12:27 PM
You missed my point. Mayor Daley was legally prohibited from destroying Meigs. He did it anyway - at 4 in the morning - by using terrorism as an excuse. He said that there was a risk that terrorists would fly off Meigs and crash into buildings.

Government misdeeds justified by the terrorist threat. That was my point.

Joe LaMantia
09-08-2011, 07:28 AM
Yes your are correct, politicians have used 9/11 as an excuse to accomplish things that they may not have been able to do easily. My point was that Meigs was in the crosshairs long before Daley acted, he was building a case to close the airport to "protect" the Sears tower after 9/11, before that event there had been long discussions on the Lakefront airport with the regional planning commission. There was even a proposal to build a replacement airport offshore. A really bad idea given the winter weather and the need to get all the arrivals off an island and downtown. I think we are in agreement that the country over reacted to 9/11, the folks in govt. have used fear as a political tactic to miss lead the public. While this happened during a Republican administration, the Democrats haven't made any attempt to repeal it either.

Lyle Peterson
09-08-2011, 06:30 PM
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin, just before February 17, 1775 as part of his notes for a proposition at the Pennsylvania Assembly.

spungey
09-10-2011, 03:48 PM
I got my private in 1992. The FAR/AIM at that point in time was about 300 pages total. By 1995, when FEMA got involved it was over 800. It's even larger now (with the help of Homeland Security.) Last week Homeland Security issued a press release or "advisory" warning everyone in the country that small planes make great weapons (and terrorists will use them! Be afraid!)

Has the flying changed? Yes, it's harder. It takes longer to fly commercially and costs far more to fly privately. I can scratch even the idea of a photo flight over NYC or Washington DC now.

How do we save our freedom to fly where and when we want, when the FAA still pushes for their 19th-century mandate for "railways in the sky" (think "hub and spoke" or "primary and reliever") and HS wants to put everyone on the ground? Here's two ideas someone with connections can ship to the guys inside the beltway:

1. Move the cockpit door for airliners to the outside of the airframe ... NO connection with the passenger compartment. Ergo, no hijacking.

2. Do reasonable background checks for anyone starting flight training. Another form, like the medical perhaps. It shouldn't be the responsibility of the FOB's to figure out who is and who is not on the "watch list." Then Homeland Security can feel better about letting us fly in peace.

More ideas if those are well-received.

bliddel
09-10-2011, 06:18 PM
I remember the "good old days" when we were more likely to kill ourselves than to be shot out of the sky by our own military. The terrorists won, and our own government made darn sure of it.

First it was Richards Gebaur airport, then the one in New Jersey, then Meigs Field...

From "endoftheamericandream-dot-com": "The sad truth is that America is not a better place after 9/11. We have betrayed our founding fathers and we have cast aside many of our liberties and freedoms because we are so afraid that we can't even see straight.

"Fortunately, a growing number of Americans is actually waking up. More Americans than ever are tired of being treated like garbage and this is starting to be reflected in recent polling. For example, according to a new Gallup poll an all-time record 63 percent of Americans have a negative view of the federal government.

"Hopefully we will start to see a cultural shift back in the direction of increased liberty and freedom.

"If not, we are in for a total nightmare. If we continue on the path that we are on, this nation is going to become an absolutely horrific place in which to live.

"A totalitarian police state is not going to keep you safe, but it will make your life a living hell."

nfdlpilot
10-21-2011, 12:27 PM
On September 10, 2001, after work, I went from Oshkosh to Shawano in my club's 172 for the proverbial "$100 hamburger" with a couple buddies from work. I remember the evening flight back as one that was particularly smooth, and we were all quiet, soaking in the wonder of being able to partake in this wonderful activity called recreation flight. The next morning as I worked in the call center that is my job, we started to get an inkling of the days events after a few interesting calls from customers in Manhattan. At lunch, it was hard to believe what my eyes were seeing on the news. Over the next few days, as it became apparent that life had changed for us pilots forever, I realized, how far we are willing to go for a little perceived security. I also have felt that something fundemental has changed in our society, and it is not for the better. Still, I am not one to lay down and give up. Freedom isn't free. We must fight to keep our freedoms, and get them back in some cases. (unnecessary and costly TFR"s for instance, an overbearing TSA for another) I don't want to be the one to have let the terrorists win. We need to remove obstacles to flight, not put more in the way of it.

Stan
10-21-2011, 02:17 PM
As an airline pilot flying the B-777 at the time, my flying changed drastically. The incident eliminated anymore successful hijackings. Previously the hijackers could threaten to kill someone in order to take control of the aircraft and the pilots would take them where they wanted to go. After 9/11 they could never get the pilots to give them control because the pilot knew that everyone on board was going to die as well as the people in the target area.
The TSA is only useful to try to prevent bombs on board. The TSA only needs to verify the pilots not the passengers. Weapons on board are useless because the pilots cannot be successfully threatened to give up the cockpit. Their is no point in changing any rules about general aviation because only the very large aircraft can do the damage that the terrorists desire.

billvt
10-21-2011, 04:24 PM
I live and fly in northern Vermont close to the Canadian border.

Before 9/11 I would often fly into Canada for some sightseeing and then back to the U.S. (No landing as that would require customs inspections)

Now the border crossing requires a process know as eAPIS (Electronic Advance Passenger Information System)

Took the fun out of those spontaneous flights in and out of Canada that we used to do.