Facts, not fear-mongering, drive airport concerns
August 10, 2005

If Alan Matson believes that Flying Cloud Airport in Eden Prairie is not a security risk, as he stated in his guest column of July 27, he is living in a dream world. Here are the facts.
After Sept. 11, authority over airport security was taken from the Federal Aviation Administration and given to the Transportation Security Administration. The TSA implemented many security requirements at commercial airports, some of which travelers have witnessed firsthand. However, since Sept. 11, the TSA has not implemented regulations for general aviation (GA) airports. It has printed voluntary security guidelines without any requirement for security measures, except for those facilities located within the Washington DC Airspace Defense Identification Zone Flight Restricted Zone. (TSA's Security Guidelines for General Aviation Airports, May 2004, page 4).
Flying Cloud is on the high end of the terrorist risk spectrum for GA airports according to the TSA's Airport Characteristics Measurement Tool (Guidelines at Appendix A). It's in a highly populated area and within 30 nautical miles of the Mall of America, Koch refinery, and the nuclear plant in Monticello. Flying Cloud is a "public" airport where flight instruction and rental aircraft are available. Given the types and numbers of aircraft operations, including aircraft over 12,500 pounds, and its runway length, it falls within a range in which it should have maximum "security enhancements" on a voluntary level.
Security not in place
Contrary to Matson's article, I am familiar enough with Flying Cloud to know that maximum "security enhancements" have not been implemented. A fence and gates are useless unless they are locked. There are no closed-circuit television cameras, no intrusion detection systems, no special personnel or vehicle identification systems, and no security guards. Unlike commercial flights, there is no screening equipment for luggage or passengers and no background checks on those who work at the airport. There is no legal requirement for operators to lock their aircraft at Flying Cloud, just as there is no legal requirement for us to lock our cars. Flying Cloud, in fact, has dozens of planes that are not locked in hangers or chained to the ground.
If GA operators are so concerned about security, why have voluntary measures not been implemented? The answer is money: the costs of installing security and the perceived loss of revenue once security measures are in place. The Star Tribune reported, for instance, in an article last Oct. 14: "Nancy Olson, who owns Thunderbird Aviation flight-training schools at Flying Cloud and Crystal, said that she favors installing fences and gates but that she does not favor closing the gates during business hours because customers might be discouraged from entering the airport." The public has a right to know that since Sept. 11, pro-aviation lobbyists have fought adamantly and successfully against proposed mandatory security regulations for GA.
Aircraft thefts
Are voluntary security measures enough to secure GA? I say the answer is no. Just this past June, there were two separate thefts of GA aircraft from the GA airports at Danbury, Conn., and Huntsville, Ala. In both cases the occupants went for a joyride in the stolen aircraft, one being a drunken man and the other a 14-year-old boy, respectively. In 2002, there was the 15-year old who crashed a stolen Cessna into a building in St. Petersburg, Fla. If a drunken man and two children can steal aircraft, why can't terrorists? In fact, the U.S. Stolen Aircraft Recovery Systems (USSARS) lists over half a dozen GA aircraft that have been stolen since Sept. 11 and not recovered.
Congress is asking the same questions I am. See the pending bills regarding GA security: H.R. 2649, H.R. 4138, and H.R. 3397. In an appropriations bill for Homeland Security that the Senate passed in July, H.R. 2360 EAS (amendment SA 1106), the Senate requires an investigation and report on the following:

• The vulnerability posed to high risk areas and facilities from GA aircraft that could be stolen or used as a weapon or armed with a weapon.
  
• The security vulnerabilities existing at GA airports that would permit GA aircraft to be stolen.
  
• Low-cost, high-performance technology that could be used to easily track GA aircraft that could otherwise fly undetected.
• The feasibility of implementing security measures that would disable GA aircraft while on the ground and parked to prevent theft.
  
• The feasibility of performing requisite background checks on individuals working at GA airports who have access to aircraft or flight line activities.
  
• An assessment of the threat posed to high population areas, nuclear facilities, key infrastructure, military bases and transportation infrastructure by stolen or hijacked GA aircraft, especially if they are armed with weapons or explosives.
  
• An assessment of existing security precautions in place at GA airports to prevent breaches of the flight line and perimeter.
  
• An assessment of whether unmanned air traffic control towers provide a security or alert weakness to the security of GA aircraft.
  
• An assessment of the additional measures that should be adopted to ensure the security of GA aircraft and to scrutinize security at GA airports.
  
  I would ask Alan Matson: Are our senators and representatives "fear-mongers" too?
  Mandatory security requirements at certain GA airports, such as Flying Cloud, are necessary. Withholding federal funds for expansion or improvements until airports demonstrate security is a reasonable approach. Some federal money could be designated for payment of security costs before any remainder is applied to GA airport improvements.
  All of us commercial fliers are already paying for Flying Cloud by the money we pay for parking, concessions and airport user fees and taxes at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. If I'm already paying for the operations at Flying Cloud, then I want my money to be spent on protection, and GA operators need to pay their share, too.
  
  Laura Neuman is a resident of Eden Prairie and served on the city of Eden Prairie's Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission.