Debate over GA 'menace' comment continues
January 14, 2011, 11:44 am
The back and forth over Jeffrey Goldberg's article calling general aviation a 'menace' has returned to where it originally started, the Atlantic magazine.
This time one of Goldberg's colleagues, James Fallows, has come out in defense of general aviation, stating that he believes Goldberg's article was "completely wrongheaded."
Fallows, a general aviation pilot himself, believes that Goldberg's lack of familiarity with the field led to the assumption that there was a lack of security. However, Fallows believes that general aviation security is simply a more selective process, less set on standardized security regimens and more intelligence-based.
In his piece, Fallows notes the safety precautions that were mandated following 9/11, which have made general aviation safer than it was before. These may not be obvious to a passenger and may result in the perception that general aviation lacks security measures, Fallows says. However, he concludes that the risk of a general aviation plane being used for a terrorist attack is about the same risk that "the Ryder truck next to you will be full of explosives," or that "the person behind you on the subway stairs could have a bomb in a backpack".
Though there are a lot of security precautions in the field, pilots should also look into pilot insurance as a precaution for their families, should they be involved in a fatal crash.
Are you covered? Are you overpaying? Find out! Get a Quote Now!
| 
