Security at a class D tower

On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 22:18:40 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:

It might keep out bears.

In Texas we call 'em "Bars".
--
Dallas

"Dallas" wrote in message
...

In Texas we call 'em "Bars".


I like bars.

On 2007-04-07 12:07:18 -0700, Dallas said:


I assume this is all a reaction to our new terrorist threat, but I haven't
been able to come up with any reason for all that security. Let's say
some terrorists took the tower, what's the worst thing they could do?

I suppose they could steal stuff. Thieves are a more serious problem
than terrorists. A class D tower would be a very low value terrorist
target. At most, there are only a couple people in there and they
probably carry little cash.


--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On Apr 7, 10:24 pm, C J Campbell
wrote:
On 2007-04-07 12:07:18 -0700, Dallas said:



I assume this is all a reaction to our new terrorist threat, but I haven't
been able to come up with any reason for all that security. Let's say
some terrorists took the tower, what's the worst thing they could do?

I suppose they could steal stuff. Thieves are a more serious problem
than terrorists. A class D tower would be a very low value terrorist
target. At most, there are only a couple people in there and they
probably carry little cash.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

When visiting our tower here in Sacramento (contract) you have to call
up and get buzzed through a series of security doors. That's pre-911
and never made sense to me. Just down the street is the FSDO. The FSDO
is apparently #1 on the terrorist watch list. You can't even walk up
to the building w/o being approached by security. The FSDO employees
park in a specical security area just in case you considered messing
with their cars. If you do not have an appointment you are not suppose
to be anywhere near the building. Once you are in you have to get a
badge just to talk to the receiptionist. I've often had to go in there
and spent more time getting the badge than getting the task done. I
guess if the FSDO got attacked the 121 chief check pilots would
eventually lose their check priv, and soon after all airline pilots
would no longer be able to do their recurrent 121 training. Within 5
years things could get irritating if every FSDO was off line.

-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:

When visiting our tower here in Sacramento (contract) you have to call
up and get buzzed through a series of security doors. That's pre-911
and never made sense to me. Just down the street is the FSDO. The FSDO
is apparently #1 on the terrorist watch list. You can't even walk up
to the building w/o being approached by security. The FSDO employees
park in a specical security area just in case you considered messing
with their cars. If you do not have an appointment you are not suppose
to be anywhere near the building. Once you are in you have to get a
badge just to talk to the receiptionist. I've often had to go in there
and spent more time getting the badge than getting the task done. I
guess if the FSDO got attacked the 121 chief check pilots would
eventually lose their check priv, and soon after all airline pilots
would no longer be able to do their recurrent 121 training. Within 5
years things could get irritating if every FSDO was off line.

You're not in AZ are you? I thought the Scottsdale FSDO was the only one
with these ridiculously overdone security procedures. It's laughable.
What kind of damage could a terrorist do in a FSDO office??? Misfile some
documents? I suppose the whole thing is done to make FAA managers feel that
they are important in some way.

As far as the Class D tower security goes, it was probably thought up by
someone who watched that "Die Hard" movie where terrorists take over the
tower and make planes crash. Ludicrous to real pilots and controllers, but
probably a valid scenario to some know nothing bureaucrat.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

On Apr 9, 9:31 am, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:
On Apr 7, 10:24 pm, C J Campbell
wrote:





On 2007-04-07 12:07:18 -0700, Dallas said:

I assume this is all a reaction to our new terrorist threat, but I haven't
been able to come up with any reason for all that security. Let's say
some terrorists took the tower, what's the worst thing they could do?

I suppose they could steal stuff. Thieves are a more serious problem
than terrorists. A class D tower would be a very low value terrorist
target. At most, there are only a couple people in there and they
probably carry little cash.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

When visiting our tower here in Sacramento (contract) you have to call
up and get buzzed through a series of security doors. That's pre-911
and never made sense to me. Just down the street is the FSDO. The FSDO
is apparently #1 on the terrorist watch list. You can't even walk up
to the building w/o being approached by security. The FSDO employees
park in a specical security area just in case you considered messing
with their cars. If you do not have an appointment you are not suppose
to be anywhere near the building. Once you are in you have to get a
badge just to talk to the receiptionist. I've often had to go in there
and spent more time getting the badge than getting the task done. I
guess if the FSDO got attacked the 121 chief check pilots would
eventually lose their check priv, and soon after all airline pilots
would no longer be able to do their recurrent 121 training. Within 5
years things could get irritating if every FSDO was off line.

-Robert- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Maybe the FSDO is more afraid of pilots than they are of terrorists.

Dallas wrote:
I toured the new state of the art tower at Addison airport last week
and was struck by all the security measures they employed. [...]
I assume this is all a reaction to our new terrorist threat, but I
haven't been able to come up with any reason for all that security.
Let's say some terrorists took the tower, what's the worst thing
they could do?

They could hijack it and crash it into a 182!

Seriously... I've only thought of three things that you probably couldn't
easily do some other way.

The first one has already been mentioned - clear more than one aircraft
to land at once, or similar. This probably wouldn't work too well in
day VFR, but at night or in bad weather, it might work.

The second one would be to flood the internal comm links with bogus
traffic. My assumption here is that towers have land lines (or equal),
which aren't connected to the public telephone network, that go to other
towers, centers, etc. You could keep at least a few people at some of
those other facilities busy for a little while with lots of bogus calls,
but it probably wouldn't take long for the other facilities to figure
out that the tower at KXYZ isn't on their side anymore. (If a
"hijacked" tower is an actual concern, do the other facilities have
"isolate" switches on the comm links, so they can cut KXYZ out of the
network if it's misbehaving?)

The third one would be to shut off the landing lights, ILS, beacon, etc.
I realize you can't "adjust" the ILS to tell a plane that the runway is
ten feet lower than it is (like in the movies), but you _might_ be able
to shut it off entirely. Again, in day VFR, or if the incoming planes
are far off, this wouldn't do much. At night or in bad weather, it
might be a little more interesting.

Matt Roberds

wrote in message
...

They could hijack it and crash it into a 182!

Seriously... I've only thought of three things that you probably couldn't
easily do some other way.

The first one has already been mentioned - clear more than one aircraft
to land at once, or similar. This probably wouldn't work too well in
day VFR, but at night or in bad weather, it might work.


If VFR both pilots would have to miss the landing clearance issued to the
other aircraft. If IFR it's unlikely there'd be two aircraft in position to
land at the same time.



The second one would be to flood the internal comm links with bogus
traffic. My assumption here is that towers have land lines (or equal),
which aren't connected to the public telephone network, that go to other
towers, centers, etc. You could keep at least a few people at some of
those other facilities busy for a little while with lots of bogus calls,
but it probably wouldn't take long for the other facilities to figure
out that the tower at KXYZ isn't on their side anymore. (If a
"hijacked" tower is an actual concern, do the other facilities have
"isolate" switches on the comm links, so they can cut KXYZ out of the
network if it's misbehaving?)


Yes.



The third one would be to shut off the landing lights, ILS, beacon, etc.
I realize you can't "adjust" the ILS to tell a plane that the runway is
ten feet lower than it is (like in the movies), but you _might_ be able
to shut it off entirely. Again, in day VFR, or if the incoming planes
are far off, this wouldn't do much. At night or in bad weather, it
might be a little more interesting.


They could turn lights off, but not an ILS.

On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 12:00:10 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

They could turn lights off, but not an ILS.

Why not? A friend had an emergency a while back that required landing
against traffic in IMC. The tower told him they were "spooling up" (yes,
that was the phrase; I don't know why {8^) the ILS for the runway in the
direction he was to be using. I presume that they also shut down the
other side, and that they swapped back after my friend landed (which he
did quite successfully, I'm pleased to add).

Admittedly, this was not a class D but a class B. Why, if so, would that
make a difference?

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
news

Why not? A friend had an emergency a while back that required landing
against traffic in IMC. The tower told him they were "spooling up" (yes,
that was the phrase; I don't know why {8^) the ILS for the runway in the
direction he was to be using. I presume that they also shut down the
other side, and that they swapped back after my friend landed (which he
did quite successfully, I'm pleased to add).

Admittedly, this was not a class D but a class B. Why, if so, would that
make a difference?


Who would you expect would have control of the approach, the tower or
approach control?