曝光臺(tái) 注意防騙 網(wǎng)曝天貓店富美金盛家居專營(yíng)店坑蒙拐騙欺詐消費(fèi)者

In the case of GA, a systematic examination of security risk has not been completed.  However, many experts acknowledge that various security vulnerabilities and threats exist.  An analysis of GA security by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) concluded, “[t]he challenge of designing general aviation security measures focuses on the need to thoroughly define the threat.  Before security standards can be developed, there must be a clear picture of the problem.”48
One challenge often cited and already noted in this report is the diversity of GA airports. In many respects, the characteristics of GA airports are much more diverse than those of commercial passenger airports.  Yet recognition of this diversity is not always acknowledged in discussions of GA security risk.  In contrast, commercial passenger airports are stratified in a tiered system based on their security needs: commercial airports are placed into one of five categories (Category X, I, II, III, IV) based on factors such as the volume of passengers, the level of international operations, and the proximity to critical locations like Washington, DC.  A similar model could be adopted to categorize GA airports based on their security risks and the particular security needs of certain classes of GA airports, or in some cases for specific operators of large fleets of GA aircraft.  Toward this goal, the TSA provided as part of its security guidelines for GA airports an airport characteristics measurement tool where airports are scored based on a variety of factors including their proximity to metropolitan areas and sensitive sites; surrounding airspace; the number of based aircraft; runway lengths; the numbers and types of flight operations; and the presence of maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) facilities.49  Using this tool, airports are scored on a scale ranging from 0 to 64. Based on the scoring, airports will fall within one of four bands, and the TSA has provided suggested security enhancements for each of the four bands.  However, because use of this assessment tool is voluntary, and because the process is relatively generic and does not consider site-specific factors, it provides only a rudimentary risk assessment tool and process for GA airport operators.
While the requirement established under the FY2006 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-90) mandates a broad examination of the security threat posed by GA, more detailed security risk assessments can be done either at the airport level or, for some larger operators, such as fractional-ownership fleets, at the operator level.  Due to the diversity of GA airports and the kinds of operations that they accommodate, the risk picture is likely to vary widely.  For example, some small airports in mid-western and mountain states might have few security measures in place and therefore may be considered vulnerable.  However because of their remote location – away from major population centers –  these airports may pose little threat.  On closer examination, it may be found that such airports may not be particularly vulnerable to terrorist infiltration based on several factors.  For example, a remote location away from any high-profile sites or densely populated areas might not be particularly attractive to terrorists, and the close-knit community of airport users in small, rural communities may be more likely to spot outsiders and detect suspicious activity.  On the other hand, a busy GA reliever airport near a major metropolitan airport may pose a greater risk.  Even if such an airport has implemented various security measures to mitigate risk, it may still be regarded as more vulnerable than a rural airport because terrorists may be able to more easily blend in with large numbers of individuals accessing the airfield, and
　
中國(guó)航空網(wǎng) m.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：Securing General Aviation(20)