Yes, it's close to all the landmarks. But none of the flights that were hijacked had targets in close proximity to the departure airport. Is the fear that a plane will be hijacked the moment it takes off the ground?

There is probably a fear that a place heading to DCA could be highjacked and then diverted into the White House or Capitol with less than a minute's warning.

If the new airport security measures were really safe, then National Airport would open again. Right?

Since National isn't open, I can only conclude that US officials in charge of this don't have faith in the new security measures.

Now, these are the same new security measures that are in place in hundreds of other airports around the country. These very same airports are around hundreds of important landmarks, not to mention thousands upon thousands of people. But if the measures aren't safe for National, how can they be safe for all these other airports?

Logically, the answer must be that they're not. Any minute now some crazed wine afficianado is going to smuggle a corkscrew onto their flight, and then where will be?

<Sarcasm Mode Off>

Not to make light of security issues, or the importance thereof, but really, what kind of message is this sending?

<begin sardonic observation>

The FAA is keeping DCA closed because it believes that it can't make DCA as safe and as well-protected from terrorists as, oh, let's say, Logan Airport in Boston.

<end sardonic observation>

ebell, you're quite right. If the government believed that security measures would make an airport -- any airport -- safe, then it would impose those measures at Reagan National, and the airport would reopen.

------------------
"Yes, but at least mine will be found in a first class seat." -- Peattie and Taylor

<sarcasm on>
No, the FAA is keeping DCA closed because it believes that there are terrorist targets too close to the airport, while there are none close to airports like BOS.
<sarcasm off>

Come on, folks. BOS has the whole downtown area close to the landing patterns. So do lots of other cities. But as we've seen, hijacked airplanes can be steered into targets nowhere near their routes. Even if we now say we can scramble F15s or F16s in 15 minutes and intercept in 10 more minutes, that gives a lot of target-time to a hijacker. Closing DCA is a sign that our government leaders consider themselves a more precious target than us. Same as them having a stash of gas masks but not urging the same for us.

I really don't think it is the FAA at all. This decision is the same as the decision to reopen the airports at all. It was a security decision beyond the FAA pay rate. Just as that decision was decided by the president after input from all appropriate cabinet/security positions. Reagan will only reopen when the secret service and NSC as a whole feel comfortable. I do agree that the fear is more from a last minute deversion from an aircraft on approach or while improbable a ground "hijacking" and take off of an aircraft fueled and prepped for take off. There would be almost no ability to react to a last minute deversion. There is almost no way to take down an aircraft of size over a populated area without significant damage on the ground. Not to mention the risk of accidents from the short decision cycle of an aircraft on approach, or the potential damage from the AA weapons themselves. Unfortunately many of the decisions being made seem to be for effect on the populace as a whole. Not for actual impact.
Such as the deployment of national guard MP's at airports. Other than maybe deterring attacks like the machine gun attack at Rome airport, I don't see the use. First the soldiers are not really trained in CT in general. Secondly placing troops in static low threat situations will just cause complacency and decrease training time for actual MOS related skills. Third the troops are being activated and taken out of the civilian work force causing disruptions to businesses and schooling. This will probably lead to a decrease in reenlistment over time, especially if most troops see this as a wasted exercise which the few friends I have talked to have already stated. Fourth I could understand activating them if there was credible threats to infrastructure and the troops were deployed in a constantly changing defense of critical targets. This would potentially disrupt ter. planning by changing the security profile. Airports themselves really do not present themselves as logical target. Hitting power, water, communication etc is more logical and would have the impact that will be needed to equal the last op. Finally the placement of m-16 armed troops at airports is more likely to cause nervousness among people than anything else. Think about the fear many people seem to have of automatic weapons and then do you expect them to feel comfortable when they see soldiers in full tac gear walking around as people head off to vacation?
We do need to try and track the terrorist networks and we also need to work at beefing up security procedures in general not just at airports.

------------------
Robert

DCA has been considered a hazard for years, mainly because of the likelyhood of a crash on landing on a northern approach. Furthermore, a plane destined for DCA could do a pretty much a perfect final approach, only to deviate within the last mile to mile-and-a-half to crash into a very important target, and the military would never stand a chance to intercept it. Even a plane turning suddenly from Dulles takes about 5 minutes to cover the distance from the IAD takeoff/landing path to DCA/Washington, giving the fighters at Andrews a [slight]chance. But with DCA, the time from a flight deviation to a crash is only a few seconds, and there is absolutely no chance of an intercept.

Unfortunately, it's pretty much a circular argument at this point.

The side arguing to close DCA down draws, as its argument, the fact that slight deviations in an incoming flight plan can send the plane into a number of attractive targets. And that the slight chance of intercept you get from doing this on an approach to BWI or IAD is better than the zero chance of an intercept you'd get from doing this on an approach to DCA. Implicit to this argument (I think) is the fact that DC targets differ from other city's targets because you have the potential to cripple the nation's government depending on the severity of the attacks.

The side arguing to open DCA back up draws, as its argument, the fact that the ability to hit targets in other cities is still present (as evidenced by the tragedy in NYC) and that if airline security measures are designed to be safe they should be safe everywhere, not just 'everywhere except for DCA flights'.

Now, there are some side arguments. Some argue that the airport is intrinsically unsafe even without terrorist threats. That the runways are too short and the approach is too difficult. That the accident potential is present. Others argue about the blow to the DC economy. About the potential loss in confidence that arise from having one out of hundreds of airports deemed 'unsafe' despite similar availability to security measures.

I wish Bush would have addressed the closing of DCA in his recent speech at ORD. Then again, I have a feeling he just would have noted concerns about the flight plans over the Capitol.

The Governor of Viriginia, Congress, the mayor of DC; all of these people want the airport and open now. Even the FAA wants to open the airport but not certain when it is "safe" to do so. Let's face it, it is most likely Bush not wanting the airport open because it is one a NIMBY issue- Not In My Back Yard. Everyone wants access to a highway but not by their house, etc.

Everyday DCA is closed you have less people working and are jeopordizing the well being of a good airline- USAir.

------------------
"Fly me to the moon and let me earn alot of miles."

These comments all convince me that this is not a security issue, but a political issue. National is no more safe or unsafe than other airports; the problem is that someone at a high pay level thinks that the "targets" in DC are of a "higher" value than other cities. As a federal gov't employee in DC, I can tell you all that it is no fun to realize suddenly that large commercial jets may be falling out of the sky at any moment aimed at your building or block. But I also beleive that in a democracy no government can take the position that protection of the government (or governemnt officals to get to the real issue) matters more than the protection of the public. Depotisms and tyrannies place protection of the "state" over protection of the public; and I belieive and hope that as soon as more people start criticizing the Administration for protecting itself more than it protects the people, that reason will return, National will be re-opened, and we'll all be back in the same boat, as we should be in a democracy. As for those of us who live and work in DC, the most likely next ground zero, we will prepare as best we can (thinking about escape routes is pandemic), but we will stay here at outr duty stations doing our jobs......