Closure of Changi Road not sufficient. Or is it too extreme?
I wonder if the Straits Times will actually publish this letter that I wrote to the Forum Page?
===========================================
Just over a week ago a stretch of Changi Road was permanently closed in the name of aviation safety. I have been wondering if this latest move is merely to give travelers the impression that steps are being taken to reduce the risk of terrorist threats against aircraft flying into and out of Changi.
The Straits Times stated that the authorities are concerned about the proximity of the perimeter fence to the runway and the opportunity that this vantage point offers to terrorists as an ideal location from which to fire shoulder-launched rockets against aircraft. If this threat is real, then I propose that sections of beach along both the East Coast Parkway and Nicoll Drive be closed as well.
Proximity to the target is not an issue where these shoulder-launched missiles are concerned. The popular Stinger missile, for example, can hit a target as high as 11,000 feet and has a range of five miles. If I were a terrorist, I would not fire on an aircraft that is within the perimeter, or in the vicinity, of the airport. The aircraft will be slow and close to the ground, which means that the secondary damage and carnage will be greatly reduced. Moreover, rescue services will be quick to respond. For maximum effect, the aircraft should ideally be climbing and over water when it is brought down. The greater speed and altitude will ensure that anyone not killed from the initial missile impact will be killed in the resulting contact with the water. The fact that the aircraft is brought down over water will make it hard for rescuers to reach the wreckage expeditiously and perhaps save a few more lives. For investigators, the larger field of debris and the deep water will make retrieval of both the bodies and the debris that much more difficult than if the aircraft were brought down over land. Images of personal effects floating in the water on the nightly news and the difficulty encountered in retrieving and identifying bodies will make for a far greater tragedy. The biggest reason not to launch an attack from the perimeter fence is that the perpetrator will be close to the crash site, which could increase his risk of being apprehended.
Locations such as sections of the East Coast Parkway and Nicoll Drive are far more ideal locations from which to inflict this level of destruction than from the perimeter fence along Changi Road. The fence along Changi Coast Road is set back not that much further from the runway yet no efforts have been made to secure that part of the airport perimeter. Was any consideration given to the credibility of the threat, if any, and the impact that such a closure would have on the general public?
I perfectly understand the need for security but I ask that the authorities temper their zeal with some thought and consideration. Whist I have been shooting planes from that stretch of Changi Road for fifteen years, never have I done so for malicious reasons. From the number of photographs on airliners.net that are taken from different locations around Changi airport, one can see that there exists a community that wants nothing more than to practice and share their love for photography and planes. One complaint that many Singaporeans have about living in Singapore is the fact that there is nothing to do other than shop and eat. These harmless individuals, who make up this community of plane-spotters, were pursuing a healthy hobby but are now left without a place from which to practice their art.
Some have argued that the act of photographing the activity that goes on in Changi airport itself poses a security threat. It is naïve to think that our enemies need to take photographs of our airport and airbase operations through the fence to gather intelligence when they can view the same from the air-conditioned comfort of the viewing galleries of the terminals. If our enemies need to gather information about the aircraft we have, all they have to do is to subscribe to Jane’s Defense Weekly. Perhaps the viewing galleries at Changi should be permanently closed as well?
Now that I have highlighted more gaps in aviation security in Singapore, what are the relevant authorities going to do about it? Are they going to deem the safety of aviation more important than providing Singaporeans with a place to play, camp or have cookouts? What other hobbies are going to be quashed in the name of aviation safety? Kite flying?
Terrorism wears many masks and one of its aims is to disrupt our way of life. The fact that a small community in Singapore has had their way of life inexorably altered because of security concerns means that the terrorists have succeeded. What other freedoms, albeit few, are we going to allow these terrorists to wrest from us? This issue concerns not just the plane-spotters but also all Singaporeans. This time it is just a road. What next? Beaches? Parks? Are we going to cower and allow terrorists to dictate our way of life and curtail whatever little freedom we have left? The government has a responsibility to Singaporeans to balance the need for security with the need to preserve our way of life.
I urge the government to either reconsider their move to close Changi Road or to take steps to secure other areas from which a missile might be launched. Remembering that this could be practically anywhere on the island, I wonder how they plan on doing this? For example, someone in Marina South or in the Kaki Bukit area could easily bring down an aircraft approaching Paya Lebar and send the plane crashing into densely populated areas. The threat from missiles certainly exists, but we should not concede victory to terrorists by draping a security blanket over the entire island and its people.
Toh Yu-Ping
65 Crystal Brook Way
Marlborough, Massachusetts 01752
USA
1-508-864-0170
===========================================
Just over a week ago a stretch of Changi Road was permanently closed in the name of aviation safety. I have been wondering if this latest move is merely to give travelers the impression that steps are being taken to reduce the risk of terrorist threats against aircraft flying into and out of Changi.
The Straits Times stated that the authorities are concerned about the proximity of the perimeter fence to the runway and the opportunity that this vantage point offers to terrorists as an ideal location from which to fire shoulder-launched rockets against aircraft. If this threat is real, then I propose that sections of beach along both the East Coast Parkway and Nicoll Drive be closed as well.
Proximity to the target is not an issue where these shoulder-launched missiles are concerned. The popular Stinger missile, for example, can hit a target as high as 11,000 feet and has a range of five miles. If I were a terrorist, I would not fire on an aircraft that is within the perimeter, or in the vicinity, of the airport. The aircraft will be slow and close to the ground, which means that the secondary damage and carnage will be greatly reduced. Moreover, rescue services will be quick to respond. For maximum effect, the aircraft should ideally be climbing and over water when it is brought down. The greater speed and altitude will ensure that anyone not killed from the initial missile impact will be killed in the resulting contact with the water. The fact that the aircraft is brought down over water will make it hard for rescuers to reach the wreckage expeditiously and perhaps save a few more lives. For investigators, the larger field of debris and the deep water will make retrieval of both the bodies and the debris that much more difficult than if the aircraft were brought down over land. Images of personal effects floating in the water on the nightly news and the difficulty encountered in retrieving and identifying bodies will make for a far greater tragedy. The biggest reason not to launch an attack from the perimeter fence is that the perpetrator will be close to the crash site, which could increase his risk of being apprehended.
Locations such as sections of the East Coast Parkway and Nicoll Drive are far more ideal locations from which to inflict this level of destruction than from the perimeter fence along Changi Road. The fence along Changi Coast Road is set back not that much further from the runway yet no efforts have been made to secure that part of the airport perimeter. Was any consideration given to the credibility of the threat, if any, and the impact that such a closure would have on the general public?
I perfectly understand the need for security but I ask that the authorities temper their zeal with some thought and consideration. Whist I have been shooting planes from that stretch of Changi Road for fifteen years, never have I done so for malicious reasons. From the number of photographs on airliners.net that are taken from different locations around Changi airport, one can see that there exists a community that wants nothing more than to practice and share their love for photography and planes. One complaint that many Singaporeans have about living in Singapore is the fact that there is nothing to do other than shop and eat. These harmless individuals, who make up this community of plane-spotters, were pursuing a healthy hobby but are now left without a place from which to practice their art.
Some have argued that the act of photographing the activity that goes on in Changi airport itself poses a security threat. It is naïve to think that our enemies need to take photographs of our airport and airbase operations through the fence to gather intelligence when they can view the same from the air-conditioned comfort of the viewing galleries of the terminals. If our enemies need to gather information about the aircraft we have, all they have to do is to subscribe to Jane’s Defense Weekly. Perhaps the viewing galleries at Changi should be permanently closed as well?
Now that I have highlighted more gaps in aviation security in Singapore, what are the relevant authorities going to do about it? Are they going to deem the safety of aviation more important than providing Singaporeans with a place to play, camp or have cookouts? What other hobbies are going to be quashed in the name of aviation safety? Kite flying?
Terrorism wears many masks and one of its aims is to disrupt our way of life. The fact that a small community in Singapore has had their way of life inexorably altered because of security concerns means that the terrorists have succeeded. What other freedoms, albeit few, are we going to allow these terrorists to wrest from us? This issue concerns not just the plane-spotters but also all Singaporeans. This time it is just a road. What next? Beaches? Parks? Are we going to cower and allow terrorists to dictate our way of life and curtail whatever little freedom we have left? The government has a responsibility to Singaporeans to balance the need for security with the need to preserve our way of life.
I urge the government to either reconsider their move to close Changi Road or to take steps to secure other areas from which a missile might be launched. Remembering that this could be practically anywhere on the island, I wonder how they plan on doing this? For example, someone in Marina South or in the Kaki Bukit area could easily bring down an aircraft approaching Paya Lebar and send the plane crashing into densely populated areas. The threat from missiles certainly exists, but we should not concede victory to terrorists by draping a security blanket over the entire island and its people.
Toh Yu-Ping
65 Crystal Brook Way
Marlborough, Massachusetts 01752
USA
1-508-864-0170