A student pilot hops a fence at an airport in Thunder Bay, Ontario. He finds a Cessna 172, reportedly owned by a flight school. He was reported to have found the ignition key inside the plane and presumably the plane was unlocked. The plane was also full of fuel. He has a little knowledge about flying and soon he is airborne and winging his way south.
He enters US airspace and is "intercepted" by F-16 fighters. I'm not sure how to envision this since an F-16 with gear down and full flaps must still be flying faster than the fastest cruise speed of a Cessna 172. The student pilot seems to ignore the signals of the intercepting aircraft. In a sensible display of restraint, the fighters allow the Cessna to continue flying until it runs out of fuel and lands on a dirt road in Missouri. The student pilot is apprehended and is reported to have had a history of psychological problems. This all makes sense, so far, right?
The part I don't understand is AOPA's press releases on this incident.
AOPA President Craig Fuller praised U.S. and Canadian authorities for their handling of the matter and noted that the outcome "demonstrates the effectiveness of today's security procedures."
While all of the layered security measures in place worked seamlessly and flawlessly in the theft of a Cessna airplane in Canada on Monday, these rare incidents paint general aviation in a negative light.
How can the security measures have worked if the aircraft was stolen? Seamlessly and flawlessly?
Gimme a break!
