FREE E-Newsletter
Wings Magazine
Subscribe
  ABOUT US   |   CONTACT US   |   SUBSCRIPTION CENTRE   |   ADVERTISE   |   SITEMAP
MAGAZINE
Current Issue
Past Issues
News Archives
Web Exclusives
Video
Photo Gallery
 
MARKETPLACE
Aviation Books
Job Board
Classifieds
New Products
COMMUNITY
Events
AME Hall of Fame
100th Anniversary
Aviation Quiz
Association News
 
RESOURCES
A-List
E-Newsletter
Links
Sitemap
Careers in Aviation
Publications
Helicopters Magazine Careers in Aviation
Rob Seaman Seaman: Who's Driving Our National Policies?

Discussion about FBO and Airport Security is heating up

Written by Rob Seaman   
Sitting at the Great War Flying Museum the other evening, I was but a few feet from open access to the taxiway and adjoining runway. No fence. No cameras. No barrier at all. As I sat there with a friend, I commented on how nice it was to just sit and take in the serenity of the surrounding area. But one has to wonder just how much longer a place like the Brampton Flying Club can keep its quaint and open ambiance? The unfortunate answer is: probably not much longer.

There is no secret that what we once considered normal and acceptable around any airport has changed and will be changing over the coming months and years. The recent series of ‘discussions’ held by Transport Canada in various locations across the country have made many realize this bitter truth. Simply put, what we once valued as part of being Canadian – our peaceful openness, acceptance of others and helpful demeanor on a global scale – has to change in recognition of global politics. Unfortunately, it has become clear that we are being viewed as too soft and too easy for exploitation by both those who consider us as friend – and those who would use us to help them harm others.

Like it or not, aircraft are now considered to be potential weapons when in the hands of those who choose to use them as such. And while this does drive the need for change to aviation and air base security, there can be no one all-encompassing solution that fits each and every facility and site. A border airport does provide the potential for exploitation as a means to launch an attack against many major U.S. sites that have been identified as targets by that nation’s guardians. Accordingly, we must share our responsibility in helping to make sure that does not happen. However, an airport in northern Saskatchewan does not provide the same risk. Distance is one consideration and type and size of aircraft are another.

Under the current TC discussions, we looking at setting rules – and associated costs – for equipment and physical changes to buildings, facilities and ramps. In many cases, these changes may never be tested or used in the manner intended. Most small airfields and FBOs, if faced with the potential for new fencing, security cameras and passenger screening/scanning plus extensive external ramp lighting systems – will simply fold and go. They can never recoup the cost in a reasonable time and do not have the pockets required to front the associated outlay in the first place. And quite frankly, by their business model it may not even be needed.

Some observers have offered that all this is being driven by U.S. interests and paranoia. They may be right. We certainly hear enough political rhetoric in the media from ill-informed U.S. Congress members who seem to think we have terrorists behind every tree (right next to all that snow we live with all year round and our igloos). But then again, our domestic masters also see the need to try and get more control of our airports too – which is interesting in itself since they sold them all off to private interests back in the ‘90s under the National Airports Policy. So they don’t want to own them – but they still want to run them as they see fit. As usual when you mix politics and aviation – it is about as clear as mud!

So what should we do? We need to make out feelings and opinions well known in this discussion. Do not sit back and wait for decisions that will affect how we conduct our business and recreational flight activities.

And just in case you are thinking that this is not of concern to you and is in good hands, please ponder on this. When I was invited to one of the regional discovery sessions, I asked if I might bring a visiting corporate aviation official from overseas to observe. The reply from the Transport Canada event coordinator – whose title was ‘Analyst’ – was “we are not discussing corporate aviation security at this time – just FBOs, airports and passenger screening – so we see no reason to extend an invitation to the person you wish to bring.” Last time I checked, corporate aviation is very much a part of this discussion. So is that enough reason to want to get involved? Everyone really needs to be involved in this one.