Don't you wish that journalists had to demonstrate the same level of competency that pilots do in order to earn their certificates? If they did, we might not see the kind of errant nonsense that appeared in the NY Times (and, too frequently, elsewhere) over the weekend.

The story, "The Case for a No-Fly Zone," by Marek Fuchs repeated some of the same old (disproved) garbage about the remote threats to American nuclear facilities posed by the average GA aircraft... making a point to quote opponent(s) of the Nuke plant liberally over the course of the story.

Fuchs errantly opined that, "THE skies above the Indian Point nuclear power plant bustle with airplanes at various altitudes and in an array of directions. A map of commercial routes that fly in the vicinity of the plant, taken at a glance, resembles a tangle of spaghetti. And although pilots of private planes must operate under restrictions in the area of Indian Point, they are not specifically prohibited from flying near it.

The prospect of heavy air traffic -- or any air traffic -- around Indian Point troubles a host of people, from parents to elected officials. With maps of nuclear power plants plucked out of Al Qaeda caves and Indian Point situated as it is on the Hudson, 35 miles north of Midtown Manhattan, the plant is widely considered to be a potential terrorist target.

So why isn't there a no-fly zone over Indian Point?"

Ignoring the careful studies that have already concluded that GA poses a negligible hazard to our nuclear infrastructure, Fuchs went ahead and apparently quoted an Indian Point opponent to make sure the anti-GA message was reinforced.

"Alex Matthiessen, the executive director of Riverkeeper, a plant opponent, said that officials have misplaced confidence in airport security upgrades. 'There are still holes at the big airports,' Mr. Matthiessen said, 'and they aren't even taking into account small municipal and county airports. You don't need a Boeing 767. A smaller aircraft packed with explosives can be a potent weapon.'"

Not according to the experts, Mr. Matthiessen.

GAMA Takes This Noise On

GAMA's Ed Bolen is not one to let such inaccuracy stand without a counter point... writing the NY Times a forceful letter to let them know they blew it... again.

Mr. David Shipley, Op-Ed Editor
New York Times
229 West 43rd Street
New York, New York  10036-3959

Dear Mr. Shipley:

I am extremely disappointed by Marek Fuchs' article in the Sunday, April 20th 2003 Times entitled The Case for a No-Fly Zone.    

Numerous studies by Science's Compass, the Nuclear Energy Institute, and others have conclusively demonstrated that small airplanes do not pose a threat to nuclear power plants. Unfortunately, these scientific studies are not mentioned anywhere in the Fuchs article. 

Instead, the article quotes someone who is not a security expert but an opponent of the power plant as saying "a smaller aircraft packed with explosives can be a potent weapon." 

Publishing an article that leaves the false impression that general aviation airplanes are a threat to nuclear power plants is irresponsible and potentially very harmful to the general aviation industry.

Informed public debate promotes good public policy.  Misinformed public debate does just the opposite. Regrettably, your article misinforms and a vital national industry is now left to deal with the consequences.

Sincerely,

Edward M. Bolen, President and CEO
General Aviation Manufacturers Association

FMI: www.generalaviation.org