Indochine wrote:
He was found guilty, and fined 2x £1,700.
PC-12 and £3400? I think it is like 2 hours of flying or something in the ballpark…
It is not a fine then, just an out of hours fee. :)
Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but I remember reading this thread some time ago and wondering what happened to the pilot, if anything, especially given the comments above that the CAA was unlikely to be interested. This evening, I happened to be browsing the CAA website and turns out the pilot was prosecuted by the CAA in 2021 for 2 counts of flying within an ATZ without permission. He was found guilty, and fined 2x £1,700.
I guess the relevant NOTAM did not deactivate the ATZ (which you sometimes see when airfields temporarily close).
Seems there were no consequences vis-a-vis the MoD (e.g. being sued for tresspass) and interesting the CAA chose to prosecute the ATZ busts (presumably felt that they had to be seen to be doing something).
Capitaine wrote:
I think we’re very lucky in GA that no-one has loaded a Skyhawk with fertiliser.
On the other hand, it’s not so much luck as practicality: as Timothy McVeigh demonstrated, it’s about 1000 times easier and 1000 times more effective to load a 7.5 tonne truck with fertiliser. Same thing with the Troubles in Northern Ireland: no aeroplane bombs but an awful lot of car bombs.
@Peter – I didnt say you deleted it…perhaps the original poster did? Maybe I just couldnt find it… 
In fact Edit: I have found it, I just couldnt find it right above my own last post…
@skydriller almost nothing is deleted on EuroGA. Only personal attacks and a few other “predictably inflammatory in certain specific countries” things. I think I did a count some time ago and it was of the order of 0.1%, and nearly all of that was from a very small number of “regulars” 
Nowadays it will be well below 0.1%.
To find a particular post (and this is same with google searches for an article containing specific words) just search for a phrase in quotes
“when flying hijacked airliners”
Maoraigh wrote:
“Sure, but historically military installations have not figured as terrorist attack targets.”
I can remember when flying hijacked airliners into skyscrapers historically had not figured as terrorist attack targets.
I cant find that quoted post anymore, I think its been deleted. But would like to point out that the IRA actively attacked UK military personnel the world over during “the troubles” and it was only this last 10 years that soldiers have been allowed to wear uniforms again outside of military bases off duty.
Regards, SD..
lionel wrote:
Historically, hijacking airliners was not a terrorist attack target at all, and then the spread, and democratisation, of airline travel made it an attractive target
Hijacking has been a part of terrorism since the 1970ties when Black September happened. During that time, several hijacks took place, started by an EL AL Flight and the attack on an EL AL airplane, which got a number of terrorists in European custody which were then pressed free by a multiple hijack of 4 airplanes in a short time, (Pan Am, TWA, Swissair and BOAC) all of which got destroyed in Egypt (Pan Am) and Jordan (Dawson field)
What changed with 9-11 was the suicide aspect. Up to then, hijacks were always conducted in a way that the terrorists expected to survive it. Using airliners as weapons was new since the folied AF plot and did not succeed until 9-11.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Also, I wrote that “the terrorist strategy […] is to spread fear by attacking unsuspecting civilians.” Flying airliners into skyscrapers certainly falls into that category.
Yes. Terrorists strategy is to terrorize, to spread fear into populations by random attacks and waging war against civilians to pressure them and the states attacked to change their policy on their political goals or suffer the consequences. Terrorist organisations are not big enough to wage convenional warfare but they can reach their objective by attacks as 9-11 or similar. Nevertheless, 9-11 more or less also did away with “normal” hijackings as most passengers and crews these days in the memory of this won’t just sit there quietly and wait for a plane to land somewhere and negotiations beginning. So in a way, 9-11 pretty much stopped hijacking as a “conventional” means of terrorism.
Maoraigh wrote:
I can remember when flying hijacked airliners into skyscrapers historically had not figured as terrorist attack targets.
Everything has to start sometime. Historically, hijacking airliners was not a terrorist attack target at all, and then the spread, and democratisation, of airline travel made it an attractive target. In terms of flying hijacked airliners into a city’s iconic high-rise structure (skyscraper for New York), I wish to stress that the 11 September 2001 event was not novel in this regard. The Air France 8969 hijackers had the same plan for Paris, only in this case the plane was stormed by the French GIGN at the fuel stop in Marseilles, and they never reached Paris.
Maoraigh wrote:
I can remember when flying hijacked airliners into skyscrapers historically had not figured as terrorist attack targets.
With that reasoning we shouldn’t permit any GA flights at all. Come to think of it, we shouldn’t allow people to drive cars either.
Also, I wrote that “the terrorist strategy […] is to spread fear by attacking unsuspecting civilians.” Flying airliners into skyscrapers certainly falls into that category.
