I understand that there are now services where one can travel in a
privately owned jet (or one owned by a large company). One advantage
of this service is that you can forego all the frustrating security
checks which people traveling on normal commercial airlines have to
put up with. Of course the fare is usually more expensive.

My question  Why would it be that people who use these services be
less likely to be terrorists?  And is there any reason why
private/executive jets are more
difficult to hijack  (and fly into skyscrapers) than normal commercial aeroplanes?

Regards

Mongolia-ga

Mongolia,

This search has been an eye-opening (and hair-raising) project. I've
gathered some more links for you on the subject of private jets'
security (or lack of same). I've begun by reposting the links from my
earlier comments. Some of the information I've found is quite
disturbing.

EzineArticles: UK Worried About Private Jets and International Terrorism
http://ezinearticles.com/?UK-Worried-About-Private-Jets-and-International-Terrorism&id=294279

Financial Times: Private jets could be used in terror raids
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/7c783698-ffd3-11da-93a0-0000779e2340.html

Blog of Nigel Hastilow: The rich are different 
http://nigelhastilow.blogspot.com/2006/09/rich-are-different.html

DynRec: Are Our Airports Secure? And does anyone care?
http://www.dynrec.com/airportsecurity.html

Guardian Unlimited: Hire firms boom as executive jets take the strain
out of travel
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1844829,00.html

Guardian Unlimited: Terror law watchdog warns of executive jet risk 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1801265,00.html

from The Wall Street Journal: Travelers Rush to Private Planes
http://www.bluestarjets.com/news_wsj_01_10_05.html

Financial Times: Executive jets seen to pose terror risk
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/e56c0370-fff9-11da-93a0-0000779e2340.html

MSN Money: Air travel chaos could boost exec jets demand
http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.asp?Feed=OBR&Date=20060811&ID=5941539

Lord Carlile's report is mentioned in several of the articles linked
above. In case you are interested in reading the report, the full
document may be downloaded in .pdf format here:

Home Office Security: Report on the operation in 2005 of the Terrorism
Act 2000 by Lord Carlile of Berriew Q.C.
http://security.homeoffice.gov.uk/news-and-publications1/publication-search/independent-reviews/tact-2005-review

My Google search strategy:

Google Web Search: "private OR executive jets" terrorists OR terrorism security
://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22private+OR+executive+jets%22+terrorists+OR+terrorism+security

Thanks for a fascinating question. I wish I could answer the "why." I
hope this will not be one of those cases in which the stable door is
locked after the horses have been stolen.

Best regards,
pinkfreud

Pink

Apologies for the late rating. My simple motivation in posing this
question was an article I had read that after the "soap Opera" at
British Airports with the increased security where mny passengers were
using te services of Private Jets. As well as avoiding line ups , I
read somewhere that one could forego the normal security checks.

Your links have astounded me and it appears there is a huge security
hole with privately owned aeroplanes.

Kind regards

Mongolia

There is some concern that private jets might be used by terrorists:

http://ezinearticles.com/?UK-Worried-About-Private-Jets-and-International-Terrorism&id=294279

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/7c783698-ffd3-11da-93a0-0000779e2340.html

Hmmm Very interesting references Pink.

I still understand that people who use these services do NOT go
through the normal security checks.

Mongolia

This may interest you:

http://nigelhastilow.blogspot.com/2006/09/rich-are-different.html

I must say i sort of asked this question totally on a whim. Your last
link has only confirmed my worst fears. if you are rich you do not
have to worry about
security.

But then terrorist organisations are not exactly poor either (and i am
pretty sure they do not care what class they fly, what type of
aeroplane it might be
or for that matter the company they are flying with)

Very Kind Regards

Mongolia

Mongolia,

I find this subject quite interesting, and would be glad to gather
more links for you, but I really don't think I can answer the "why"
portion of your original question. How would you like to proceed?

~Pink

Pink 
I did not expect such relevent links. Please do proceed.

Many Thanks

Mongolia

Okay, the risk is there, of course.  But even a large private jet is
not the "bomb" that a medium sized, fully fueled commercial jet is.

Private jet services and charterers don't have to accept anyone who
calls.  They have their own best interests at heart, as do the flight
personnel.  Commercial airlines accept anyone who can pay, hence the
boarding controls.

Not just anyone can buy a plane (another suggestion).  It is common
that planes registered in a country must be majority owned by
nationals, individuals or locally registered corporations.  Sure, this
can be gotten around by straw men/firms or native born terrorists, but
they would be leaving a long trail, and there would be a some time
between the purchase and the flight.  And again, the pilots would have
their own best interests at heart.

The article(s?) decrying that there was also no security check after
landing are alarmist.  There are NO security checks of this type for
commercial passengers.  Maybe their baggage is controlled for
importing illegal items, sniffed for drugs, but worries about bombs
are no longer the concern.  We're talking about 9/11 type incidents.

I am NOT saying that there is no risk from general aviation flights. 
The recent accident in Brazil shows that a private plane can cause a
commercial airliner to crash and still survive itself.  But that is
not 9/11, unfortunate as the accident was.

I do believe, however, that there are personal interest and other
controls that make the possibility of terrorist efforts in this area
very much less likely than the articles would like to suggest.

Myoarin

Terrorists want to kill as many people as possible, so a private jet
would not be suitable.

From what I have read, I believe a major concern about private jets is
not that they would be used as weapons in 9/11 fashion, but that they
might be vehicles for transporting dirty bombs or other devices of
mass destruction.

Mongolia,

Thank you very much for the five stars and the lavish tip! And thanks
for providing one of the most interesting research projects I've had
on GA. As my grandmother used to say, "This scared the bejingo out of
me."

~Pink

The idea that a terrorist would not use a smaller plane because it
will kill fewer people or not be as effective when crashing into a
building is in my opinion simply ludicrous.

Of course everything comes down to a matter of risk and so I pose the
following question

Which scenario would you be most worried about

- You hire the services of a private Jet where you discover that
neither your stored luggage or your carry your luggage is searced. The
same goes for your fellow passengers (who are of course total
strangers to you)
This scenario is confired by some of Pinkfreuds excellant links.

- You travel by a normal commercial airline which goes through all the
normal rigourous checks except that they forget to ask you to throw
out your toothpaste,Mouth Wash,Skin cream and Bottled water. You get
somewhat worried that someone on the aeroplane will spent half an hour
in the Bathroom constructing a bomb out of these materials.

Sincerely Mongolia