Drop In Vs Airport Watch

[RiverAux]

A poster in another thread recently compared the negative reaction among the general aviation community to the old CAP "Drop In" program to a possible change in view among folks about CAP were we able to participate to a greater extent in assisting law enforcement agencies.

I think this is a poor comparison.  The Drop In program involved CAP members going to airports, looking for airplanes showing indications of possible use in the drug trade, recording their tail numbers and other information and reporting that to the FAA.   

Now, believe it or not, AOPA actually sponsors a program that asks all private pilots to do something somewhat similar.  The AOPA Airport Watch program  (http://www.aopa.org/airportwatch/.  They encourage pilots and others around airports to be on the lookout for suspicious activity including loading possibly dangerous cargoes on planes, people, etc and that these be reported (including N-numbers) to the authorities. 

If DHS or the FAA today proposed using CAP for an Operation Drop In style program aimed at terrorism as well as narcotics, I suspect that AOPA would support it as a way to show that general aviation is working to keep planes secure and as a way to fend off putting real restrictions on GA. 

Obviously, things have changed since the 1997-98 period when Drop In was controversial.

Now, lets turn to comparing Drop In to expanding use of CAP's airplanes to support law enforcement.  I also don't see a comparison there.  With Drop In, CAP members with no real supervision by law enforcement were actively going out looking for law breakers.  With almost any potential law enforcement mission we've discussed, CAP planes would probably either have an officer on board or would be coordinating with law enforcement agencies while in the air.  Very little chance for CAP to go cowboy off on its own.  Lack of supervision was one of the reasons AOPA didn't like the Drop In program -- a survey showed a majority of members actually supported the sort of activity CAP was doing, they just didn't like unsupervised CAP members doing it. 

[lordmonar]

They did not like to be spied on. 

Sure no one is going to say they don't like the cops watching for drug activity....but CAP doing that is like a member of the flying club being asked to spy on his buds.....cops of course are considered outsiders.


The "supervision" thing was just a convenient handle to use.

[Major Carrales]

Airport Watch, in my opinion, takes another approach.  it is the GA version of "Neighborhood watch."



Instead of the seemingly "GESTAPO" tactics that DROP IN was seen as, Airport Watch is community centered.  Small airports looking out for themselves.

There is an element of deterrence, if your fellow aviators are looking out for suspicious behavior...a criminal is likely to move on. 


Seriously, the only way for neighborhoods to throw out crime/gangs is for the people there to take ownership of their community.  I see it the same for GA, the only way to prevent terrorism and criminality and preserve the freedom of GA is for its aviators to "take ownership" of their aviation community.  That how I see it.

[wingnut]

In my younger days when I was A cop I remember how people reacted to me on a social level, often they were negative and resented me being around. Fast forward to last year. I was looking for an ELT on the Airport after flying in with a crew. I ran into several very 'Unfriendly" characters who were very irritated because of our "Official" presence. I used the utmost of professional courtesy and avoided these people as much as possible. Several were drunk sitting on a couch in their open hanger at 12:30am. Now, to make a long story short;  As CAP we represent the "MAN" good bad or indifferent we are an arm of the US Government while on an AFAM, but most people don't know if we are just hanging out or on a mission, what they see is the Uniform, USAF Auxiliary on the plane, so having us be extra aware of safety and security issues just makes good sense. In my opinion People who are up to no good, are often the ones who object to having any authority around