This story HAS been verified and addressed by Phil Boyer of AOPA.
Check their webpage for Phil's comment and challenge. Also, you
should email your feelings of disgust to

Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 2:41 PM
Subject: PASS THE WORD: NBC is actively trying to discredit GA


To: AAAE Transportation Security Services Committee
AAAE Non Hub/General Aviation Committee
AAAE Regulatory Membership

From: Rebecca Morrison – Staff Vice President,
Transportation Security Policy Department, AAAE

Re: Attempted Security Breach at GA Facility

Date: August 11, 2004

The following is a description of an incident that occurred today at
the St. Louis Downtown Airport, a large GA facility. We are sharing
this story with you as there are indications that it might be repeated
throughout the country. We would like to thank Bob McDaniel, the
Director at the St. Louis Downtown Airport, for sharing the details of
the incident outlined below.

Earlier today two Middle Eastern men attempted to penetrate our
security. They telephoned one of my helicopter FBOs and asked about a
charter flight. After discussion of price and directions to the
business, they arrived an hour later. When the office agent asked how
they were going to pay for the flight they produced cash. When asked
for ID, they produced driver’s licenses from two different states and
they were driving a car licensed in a third state.

Things didn’t smell right so the mechanic took them into the hangar to
see the aircraft while the office person called the FBI and local
police. The helicopter they were going to fly was blocked in by other
aircraft so the mechanic was able to stall them by having to slowly
shuffle the blocking planes. Meanwhile the two men got their
backpacks and odd-shaped luggage out of their car. Soon the local
police arrived and they were hauled off to jail in handcuffs.

After a little time behind bars, the FBI verified that the two men
were employed by NBC New York and were on assignment to get a story of
how easy it is to charter a helicopter for a terrorist attack. The
men had stayed in a local hotel and purchased box cutters, leather-man
knives, and other potential weapons at the local Wal-Mart using a
credit card. The box cutters had been hidden in the lining at the
bottom of the back packs and the other weapons were hidden throughout
their baggage. They had audiotaped the telephone conversation with
Arlene and were going to use it as part of a national news story about
how easy it is to get information and directions to the location of
the helicopter and then hijack it to commit a terrorist attack.

I doubt they will be back at our airport soon and this is a story that
will never be seen since they were caught. A very “well-done” to my
FBO and staff and the local FBI and police response forces. We have
since learned that we were the first airport where this had been
attempted and NBC planned to attempt similar penetration stories
around the country. Please help me spread the word to other airports.

This seems incredibly dangerous. A lot of pilots have made the decision to
never allow themselves to be hijacked, no matter what. So these 'reporters'
start pulling out knives or other weapons:

My instinct would be to kill them without hesitation. Nor would I believe
them if they started claiming that they were only reporters. Any hijacker
could claim that.

Man that's a good point! Never thought of that.

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 01:11:05 -0700, "C J Campbell"
> wrote:

>This seems incredibly dangerous. A lot of pilots have made the decision to
>never allow themselves to be hijacked, no matter what. So these 'reporters'
>start pulling out knives or other weapons:
>
>My instinct would be to kill them without hesitation. Nor would I believe
>them if they started claiming that they were only reporters. Any hijacker
>could claim that.
>

> My instinct would be to kill them without hesitation.

And exactly how would you do that in flight?
If memory serves well a cockpit of a GA aircraft or helicopter is not
the best of places to practice unarmed combat techniques.
Personally I have difficulties enough to (un)fold a sectional, taking
somebody out will be somewhat more challenging I suppose.

Who is talking about an unarmed fight? "Just like an NBC reporter, bringing
a Leatherman tool to a gunfight." Seriously, I would destroy the airplane
before letting a terrorist have it.

My email to NBC:
***************************

I read with disgust and contempt of your reporter's attempt to "expose"
security lapses at a St Louis airport.

The relentless and unfair "piling on" General Aviation to instill unwarranted
fear in a population that is basically ignorant about aviation is a disservice.
NBC News loses credibility when these stories are pursued for sensationalism
and ratings. Shame on you.

General Aviation had NOTHING to do with 911 or terrorism. Innocent law-abiding
pilots who earn a living flying are being unfairly scapegoated because we are a
small and un-influential constituency.

I have lost all my respect for your organization. Chet Huntley is spinning in
his grave.



Lee Ross
New York
www.Rosspilot.com

"Rosspilot" wrote:
> My email to NBC:
> ***************************
>
> I read with disgust and contempt of your reporter's attempt to
"expose"
> security lapses at a St Louis airport.
>
> The relentless and unfair "piling on" General Aviation to instill
unwarranted
> fear in a population that is basically ignorant about aviation is a
disservice.

I think it's worse than that. We have a President running for
reelection with pundits saying his best bet is to stir up this ****
even more. And the first apparent incident of attempted commandeering
of a GA aircraft is by the media, where the result could have been
stirring it up even worse. And a media they say is liberal and wants
Bush defeated. NBC's reasoning in this is baffling, or maybe a
conspiracy between the Bush campaign and NBC....?

Fred F.

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...

> This seems incredibly dangerous. A lot of pilots have made the decision to
> never allow themselves to be hijacked, no matter what. So these 'reporters'
> start pulling out knives or other weapons:
>
> My instinct would be to kill them without hesitation. Nor would I believe
> them if they started claiming that they were only reporters. Any hijacker
> could claim that.

Bloody awesome story. Great catch by the FBO team, and a reminder to
the rest of us that it's not just terrorists we need to be vigilant
against. The more we prove we can police ourselves well, the less the
public will demand government agencies to do it for us.

I strongly doubt these guys had any intention of pulling their toys
out in flight, but rather simply wanted to prove they had been able to
get them on. Even a reporter couldn't be that stupid.

-cwk.

"TaxSrv" > wrote in message
...
> "Rosspilot" wrote:
> > My email to NBC:
> > ***************************
> >
> > I read with disgust and contempt of your reporter's attempt to
> "expose"
> > security lapses at a St Louis airport.
> >
> > The relentless and unfair "piling on" General Aviation to instill
> unwarranted
> > fear in a population that is basically ignorant about aviation is a
> disservice.
>
> I think it's worse than that. We have a President running for
> reelection with pundits saying his best bet is to stir up this ****
> even more. And the first apparent incident of attempted commandeering
> of a GA aircraft is by the media, where the result could have been
> stirring it up even worse. And a media they say is liberal and wants
> Bush defeated. NBC's reasoning in this is baffling, or maybe a
> conspiracy between the Bush campaign and NBC....?

It makes a lot of sense when you consider that both the liberal media and
the Democrats have been saying that Bush is ignoring important terrorism
issues. If Kerry is elected, expect a lot more restrictions on GA.

"C Kingsbury" > wrote:
> I strongly doubt these guys had any intention of pulling their toys
> out in flight, but rather simply wanted to prove they had been able to
> get them on. Even a reporter couldn't be that stupid.

You might want to refrain from estimating the intelligence of your average
news critter. You'd be surprised how high even your lowest estimate could
be...

Russell Kent

Kees Mies wrote:

>>My instinct would be to kill them without hesitation.
>
>
> And exactly how would you do that in flight?
> If memory serves well a cockpit of a GA aircraft or helicopter is not
> the best of places to practice unarmed combat techniques.
> Personally I have difficulties enough to (un)fold a sectional, taking
> somebody out will be somewhat more challenging I suppose.


Did he say he was unarmed?


Matt

C J Campbell wrote:

> Who is talking about an unarmed fight? "Just like an NBC reporter, bringing
> a Leatherman tool to a gunfight." Seriously, I would destroy the airplane
> before letting a terrorist have it.
>
>

And I would destroy a terrorist before letting him have my airplane.


Matt

C Kingsbury wrote:

> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...
>
>
>>This seems incredibly dangerous. A lot of pilots have made the decision to
>>never allow themselves to be hijacked, no matter what. So these 'reporters'
>>start pulling out knives or other weapons:
>>
>>My instinct would be to kill them without hesitation. Nor would I believe
>>them if they started claiming that they were only reporters. Any hijacker
>>could claim that.
>
>
> Bloody awesome story. Great catch by the FBO team, and a reminder to
> the rest of us that it's not just terrorists we need to be vigilant
> against. The more we prove we can police ourselves well, the less the
> public will demand government agencies to do it for us.
>
> I strongly doubt these guys had any intention of pulling their toys
> out in flight, but rather simply wanted to prove they had been able to
> get them on. Even a reporter couldn't be that stupid.
>
> -cwk.

Don't underestimate reporters. They were stupid enough to put
explosives in a Chevy pickup and blow it up claiming it was a defective
fuel tank design.

People with brains don't go into the news reporting business.


Matt

"TaxSrv" wrote:
> And a media they say is liberal and wants
> Bush defeated. NBC's reasoning in this is baffling, or maybe a
> conspiracy between the Bush campaign and NBC....?

To buy into the right wing's propaganda media boogieman is to miss the true
nature of American media, which is cynically competitive. News media are
all about peddling ads, and whatever pandering or sensationalism will do
that is what you will see on NBC, CNN, Fox, etc. NBC doesn't give a rat's
patoot who's elected, as long as people watch.
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

> I strongly doubt these guys had any intention of pulling their toys
> out in flight, but rather simply wanted to prove they had been able to
> get them on. Even a reporter couldn't be that stupid.
>
> -cwk.

Wanna Bet?

BT

"NW_PILOT" > wrote in message
...
> You put explosives in you vehicle every time you stop at the fuel pumps
and
> fuel up!!!

An explosive is already a stoichiometric mixture of the elements or
compounds needed for the boom. With gasoline you don't have it until the
oxygen is mixed and that's not until it has passed through the carburetor,
or other mixture device, and mixed with oxygen in the air.
>

In a typical fertilizer bomb the oxygen is there and readily available in
the ammonium nitrate. Add fuel oil, which has more btu's than gasoline, at
stoichiometry and ignite and boom. DTTAH.

(Kees Mies) wrote in message >...
> > My instinct would be to kill them without hesitation.
>
> And exactly how would you do that in flight?
> If memory serves well a cockpit of a GA aircraft or helicopter is not
> the best of places to practice unarmed combat techniques.
> Personally I have difficulties enough to (un)fold a sectional, taking
> somebody out will be somewhat more challenging I suppose.

Maybe you can't fold a sectional inflight, but Alan Barklage killed a
felon with her own weapon in a helicopter flying out of the same
airport in St. Louis.

C J Campbell wrote:

>
> It makes a lot of sense when you consider that both the liberal media and
> the Democrats have been saying that Bush is ignoring important terrorism
> issues. If Kerry is elected, expect a lot more restrictions on GA.
>
>
Considering the fact that, unlike Bush, Kerry is not requesting pop-up
TFRs everywhere he campaigns, this is a pretty wrongheaded statement.

NW_PILOT wrote:

> You put explosives in you vehicle every time you stop at the fuel pumps and
> fuel up!!!

I don't. I put in gasoline which isn't an explosive. Do your homework
and then report back.


Matt

TTA Cherokee Driver wrote:

> C J Campbell wrote:
>
>>
>> It makes a lot of sense when you consider that both the liberal media and
>> the Democrats have been saying that Bush is ignoring important terrorism
>> issues. If Kerry is elected, expect a lot more restrictions on GA.
>>
>>
> Considering the fact that, unlike Bush, Kerry is not requesting pop-up
> TFRs everywhere he campaigns, this is a pretty wrongheaded statement.
>

No terrorist would want to kill Kerry so he has no reason for TFRs.
He'll be the best friend they could have if he's elected.


Matt

"TTA Cherokee Driver" > wrote in message
...
> C J Campbell wrote:
>
> >
> > It makes a lot of sense when you consider that both the liberal media
and
> > the Democrats have been saying that Bush is ignoring important terrorism
> > issues. If Kerry is elected, expect a lot more restrictions on GA.
> >
> >
> Considering the fact that, unlike Bush, Kerry is not requesting pop-up
> TFRs everywhere he campaigns, this is a pretty wrongheaded statement.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Oh, gullibility.

This is the clown that got a fire hydrant moved from in front of his house
as being "inconvenient".

On 8/13/04 6:57 PM, in article
, "Bob Miller"
> wrote:

> Maybe you can't fold a sectional inflight, but Alan Barklage killed a
> felon with her own weapon in a helicopter flying out of the same
> airport in St. Louis.


Same FBO too....

Man I miss Alan.


Eric Fletcher

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> C Kingsbury wrote:
>
> > "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
>...
> >
> >
> >>This seems incredibly dangerous. A lot of pilots have made the decision
to
> >>never allow themselves to be hijacked, no matter what. So these
'reporters'
> >>start pulling out knives or other weapons:
> >>
> >>My instinct would be to kill them without hesitation. Nor would I
believe
> >>them if they started claiming that they were only reporters. Any
hijacker
> >>could claim that.
> >
> >
> > Bloody awesome story. Great catch by the FBO team, and a reminder to
> > the rest of us that it's not just terrorists we need to be vigilant
> > against. The more we prove we can police ourselves well, the less the
> > public will demand government agencies to do it for us.
> >
> > I strongly doubt these guys had any intention of pulling their toys
> > out in flight, but rather simply wanted to prove they had been able to
> > get them on. Even a reporter couldn't be that stupid.
> >
> > -cwk.
>
> Don't underestimate reporters. They were stupid enough to put
> explosives in a Chevy pickup and blow it up claiming it was a defective
> fuel tank design.
>
> People with brains don't go into the news reporting business.

Please don't include portions of posts made by others and attribute them to
me. I did not say what your post says I said.

If NBC has any integrity, they will run the story, showing that some
people out there are awake and taking the terrorism threat seriously.

But I doubt that they will, and I will have to put them in the same
category I use for CBS - purveyors of only the news that supports their
point of view. Too bad.

Hank
Henry A. Spellman
Comanche N5903P

Rosspilot wrote:
> My email to NBC:
> ***************************
>
> I read with disgust and contempt of your reporter's attempt to "expose"
> security lapses at a St Louis airport.
>
> The relentless and unfair "piling on" General Aviation to instill unwarranted
> fear in a population that is basically ignorant about aviation is a disservice.
> NBC News loses credibility when these stories are pursued for sensationalism
> and ratings. Shame on you.
>
> General Aviation had NOTHING to do with 911 or terrorism. Innocent law-abiding
> pilots who earn a living flying are being unfairly scapegoated because we are a
> small and un-influential constituency.
>
> I have lost all my respect for your organization. Chet Huntley is spinning in
> his grave.
>
>
>
> Lee Ross
> New York
> www.Rosspilot.com
>
>

In article >, TTA Cherokee Driver
> wrote:

> > If Kerry is elected, expect a lot more restrictions on GA.
> >
> Considering the fact that, unlike Bush, Kerry is not requesting pop-up
> TFRs everywhere he campaigns, this is a pretty wrongheaded statement.

I suppose that behind the scenes then lt gov Kerry was fighting
Dukakis and the NIMBY goons in an attempt convince them of the need
for 14/32 at KBOS?

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

In article <9FkTc.149574$eM2.97519@attbi_s51>, "Henry A. Spellman"
> wrote:

> If NBC has any integrity, they will run the story, showing that some
> people out there are awake and taking the terrorism threat seriously.

more likely they'll show how close they came...

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article <9FkTc.149574$eM2.97519@attbi_s51>, "Henry A. Spellman"
> > wrote:
>
> > If NBC has any integrity, they will run the story, showing that some
> > people out there are awake and taking the terrorism threat seriously.
>
> more likely they'll show how close they came...


Close? It looked like they were a country mile away from getting in.
They barely even got through the gate to the airport.

"Henry A. Spellman" > wrote in message
news:9FkTc.149574$eM2.97519@attbi_s51...
> If NBC has any integrity, they will run the story, showing that some
> people out there are awake and taking the terrorism threat seriously.
>
> But I doubt that they will, and I will have to put them in the same
> category I use for CBS - purveyors of only the news that supports their
> point of view. Too bad.

They already ran the story, as AOPA's web site has noted. Phil Boyer
remarked: "And to NBC: We appreciate that you accurately reported these
misguided escapades on tonight's network news."

--Gary

>
> Hank
> Henry A. Spellman
> Comanche N5903P
>
> Rosspilot wrote:
>> My email to NBC:
>> ***************************
>>
>> I read with disgust and contempt of your reporter's attempt to "expose"
>> security lapses at a St Louis airport.
>> The relentless and unfair "piling on" General Aviation to instill
>> unwarranted
>> fear in a population that is basically ignorant about aviation is a
>> disservice.
>> NBC News loses credibility when these stories are pursued for
>> sensationalism
>> and ratings. Shame on you. General Aviation had NOTHING to do with 911
>> or terrorism. Innocent law-abiding
>> pilots who earn a living flying are being unfairly scapegoated because we
>> are a
>> small and un-influential constituency.
>> I have lost all my respect for your organization. Chet Huntley is
>> spinning in
>> his grave.
>> Lee Ross
>> New York
>> www.Rosspilot.com
>>
>

C J Campbell wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>C Kingsbury wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
>
> >...
>
>>>
>>>>This seems incredibly dangerous. A lot of pilots have made the decision
>
> to
>
>>>>never allow themselves to be hijacked, no matter what. So these
>
> 'reporters'
>
>>>>start pulling out knives or other weapons:
>>>>
>>>>My instinct would be to kill them without hesitation. Nor would I
>
> believe
>
>>>>them if they started claiming that they were only reporters. Any
>
> hijacker
>
>>>>could claim that.
>>>
>>>
>>>Bloody awesome story. Great catch by the FBO team, and a reminder to
>>>the rest of us that it's not just terrorists we need to be vigilant
>>>against. The more we prove we can police ourselves well, the less the
>>>public will demand government agencies to do it for us.
>>>
>>>I strongly doubt these guys had any intention of pulling their toys
>>>out in flight, but rather simply wanted to prove they had been able to
>>>get them on. Even a reporter couldn't be that stupid.
>>>
>>>-cwk.
>>
>>Don't underestimate reporters. They were stupid enough to put
>>explosives in a Chevy pickup and blow it up claiming it was a defective
>>fuel tank design.
>>
>>People with brains don't go into the news reporting business.
>
>
> Please don't include portions of posts made by others and attribute them to
> me. I did not say what your post says I said.

Well, according to my newsreader, on 8/13/04 at 4:11 AM you said:

"This seems incredibly dangerous. A lot of pilots have made the decision
to never allow themselves to be hijacked, no matter what. So these
'reporters' start pulling out knives or other weapons:

My instinct would be to kill them without hesitation. Nor would I
believe them if they started claiming that they were only reporters. Any
hijacker could claim that."

This is exactly what is attributed to you above. What part do you deny
saying?


Matt

" jls" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article <9FkTc.149574$eM2.97519@attbi_s51>, "Henry A. Spellman"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > If NBC has any integrity, they will run the story, showing that some
> > > people out there are awake and taking the terrorism threat seriously.
> >
> > more likely they'll show how close they came...
>
>
> Close? It looked like they were a country mile away from getting in.
> They barely even got through the gate to the airport.

Well, that's _THE REALITY_, but not reality according to the media.

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 11:40:53 GMT, "Gary Drescher"
> wrote:

>"Henry A. Spellman" > wrote in message
>news:9FkTc.149574$eM2.97519@attbi_s51...
>> If NBC has any integrity, they will run the story, showing that some
>> people out there are awake and taking the terrorism threat seriously.
>>
>> But I doubt that they will, and I will have to put them in the same
>> category I use for CBS - purveyors of only the news that supports their
>> point of view. Too bad.
>
>They already ran the story, as AOPA's web site has noted. Phil Boyer
>remarked: "And to NBC: We appreciate that you accurately reported these
>misguided escapades on tonight's network news."



I think he's doing a great job, perhaps the best seen and I've been a
member since 1970. I'd nominate Phil Boyer for president, but then we
would lose him as the chief of AOPA

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...

>
> This is exactly what is attributed to you above. What part do you deny
> saying?

The part where you have me saying:

> Bloody awesome story. Great catch by the FBO team, and a reminder to
> the rest of us that it's not just terrorists we need to be vigilant
> against. The more we prove we can police ourselves well, the less the
> public will demand government agencies to do it for us.
>
> I strongly doubt these guys had any intention of pulling their toys
> out in flight, but rather simply wanted to prove they had been able to
> get them on. Even a reporter couldn't be that stupid.

You see, I think you don't even have to be a reporter to be that stupid. A
rock will not attempt to hijack an airplane, but apparently those reporters
were even dumber than that.

"Rosspilot" > wrote in message
...
> My email to NBC:
> ***************************
>
> I read with disgust and contempt of your reporter's attempt to "expose"
> security lapses at a St Louis airport.
>
> The relentless and unfair "piling on" General Aviation to instill
unwarranted
> fear in a population that is basically ignorant about aviation is a
disservice.
> NBC News loses credibility when these stories are pursued for
sensationalism
> and ratings. Shame on you.
>
> General Aviation had NOTHING to do with 911 or terrorism. Innocent
law-abiding
> pilots who earn a living flying are being unfairly scapegoated because we
are a
> small and un-influential constituency.
>
> I have lost all my respect for your organization. Chet Huntley is
spinning in
> his grave.

Shoot, I lost all respect for them long before that. Virtually all network
news reporting is of the same stripe. You might recall that it was NBC that
resorted to using fireworks to make sure that a gas tank exploded when they
were doing a hit piece on trucks.

C J Campbell wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>This is exactly what is attributed to you above. What part do you deny
>>saying?
>
>
> The part where you have me saying:
>
>
>>Bloody awesome story. Great catch by the FBO team, and a reminder to
>>the rest of us that it's not just terrorists we need to be vigilant
>>against. The more we prove we can police ourselves well, the less the
>>public will demand government agencies to do it for us.

You need to learn how to read attributions. I never "had" you saying
any such thing. That is clearly atrributed to "C Kingsbury". I'm
reposting the entire message below for you to look at again. The
"carats" show the threads and who said what. When more than one person
has responded, you have to follow the carats, or bars or whatever your
reader uses.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...

>> C Kingsbury wrote:
>>
>
>>> > "C J Campbell" > wrote in
message

>...

>>> >
>>> >
>>
>>>> >>This seems incredibly dangerous. A lot of pilots have made the
decision

to

>>>> >>never allow themselves to be hijacked, no matter what. So these

'reporters'

>>>> >>start pulling out knives or other weapons:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>My instinct would be to kill them without hesitation. Nor would I

believe

>>>> >>them if they started claiming that they were only reporters. Any

hijacker

>>>> >>could claim that.
>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Bloody awesome story. Great catch by the FBO team, and a reminder to
>>> > the rest of us that it's not just terrorists we need to be vigilant
>>> > against. The more we prove we can police ourselves well, the less the
>>> > public will demand government agencies to do it for us.
>>> >
>>> > I strongly doubt these guys had any intention of pulling their toys
>>> > out in flight, but rather simply wanted to prove they had been
able to
>>> > get them on. Even a reporter couldn't be that stupid.
>>> >
>>> > -cwk.
>
>>
>> Don't underestimate reporters. They were stupid enough to put
>> explosives in a Chevy pickup and blow it up claiming it was a defective
>> fuel tank design.
>>
>> People with brains don't go into the news reporting business.


Please don't include portions of posts made by others and attribute them to
me. I did not say what your post says I said.

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:PkcTc.40042$xk.7845@fed1read01...
> > I strongly doubt these guys had any intention of pulling their toys
> > out in flight, but rather simply wanted to prove they had been able to
> > get them on. Even a reporter couldn't be that stupid.
> >
> > -cwk.
>
> Wanna Bet?
>
> BT

Perhaps the true story is that NBC were duped by a group of terrorists into
believing they were journalists and who persuaded the NBC editors to pay for
them to suss out airports in the hope of finding out which were insecure and
which were not. NBC thought this would be a good story and the terrorists
have impeccable cover.

In the event of getting caught, the reporter/terrorists just use the NBC
cover to get out of trouble.

It is perfectly feasible and can NBC fully vouch for there reporters? I
doubt it.

Matt Whiting > wrote in message >...
> C Kingsbury wrote:
>
> > I strongly doubt these guys had any intention of pulling their toys
> > out in flight, but rather simply wanted to prove they had been able to
> > get them on. Even a reporter couldn't be that stupid.
> >
> > -cwk.
>
> Don't underestimate reporters. They were stupid enough to put
> explosives in a Chevy pickup and blow it up claiming it was a defective
> fuel tank design.

That was fraud, not stupidity. They used Estes model rocket engines
IIRC and it worked great. Stupidity would be if they blew themselves
up while wiring it.

The purpose of carrying the weapons was to prove they could get them
on the helicopter. Pulling them out would serve no purpose, unless you
want to suggest that they would in fact hijack the bird "to prove it
could be done" which would be both criminal and insane. I don't think
so. They would go for the ride, see how close they could get to the
arch or some other important building, then ambush the FBO owner with
cameras when they got off and show him the bags full of box cutters.

> People with brains don't go into the news reporting business.
>

It is true that something like 90% of reporters are registered
Democrats, which might lead some to agree with your argument. Lazy,
biased, ill-informed, coffee-stained, foul-smelling, and generally
coprophagous, yes, but stupid, no.

The average journo like most people want to get the maximum bang for
the minimum buck. A cookie-cutter story (small-plane scare) with a
salacious angle (terrorism!) is every newsie's wet dream. Ideally you
sit at your desk, make a few calls, file two hours before deadline,
and head to the bar. Unless someone tells me otherwise, why should I
write this plane crash story up any differently than the last 15? It
just fell out of the sky, narrowly missing a playground at recess
time. That's what happens when the engine stalls.

Back when I worked at the Boston Herald (1999) there was a young
reporter there (Azell Cavaan IIRC) who always talked about wanting to
take flying lessons, but a cub reporter's salary in Boston won't allow
for that. I was even younger and poorer and hadn't even started taking
lessons so I couldn't help.

If you run a flight school, or are an independent CFI, drop a note to
your local news organizations and offer a free lesson/ride or two to
any interested parties. I bet you'll get takers, and do it at least
once a year. They'll get an easy feel-good story out of it they can
use anytime, and you'll go into their rolodex as a source to call when
they're doing an aviation story. Bonus points if you have a female
and/or minority CFI to hook them up with, or can show them students
who aren't 40-year-old white male stockbrokers. Take them for a walk
around the field and introduce them to the mechanic, other operators,
etc, show them how the airport creates economic activity for the
community. Introduce them to a 40yo stockbroker who flies sick kids
and their families in his Bonanza for Angel Flight. Hell, you might
even get a new student out of it.

Most reporters do not investigate, they report. A few positive hours
one afternoon will do a lot more to improve the quality of news than a
stack of angry letters. These days we need all the help we can get.

Best,
-cwk.

"Eric Fletcher S.O.C." > writes:

>On 8/13/04 6:57 PM, in article
, "Bob Miller"
> wrote:

>> Maybe you can't fold a sectional inflight, but Alan Barklage killed a
>> felon with her own weapon in a helicopter flying out of the same
>> airport in St. Louis.


>Same FBO too....

>Man I miss Alan.



Cites? I can't find this story...
--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

C Kingsbury wrote:

> Matt Whiting > wrote in message >...
>
>>C Kingsbury wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I strongly doubt these guys had any intention of pulling their toys
>>>out in flight, but rather simply wanted to prove they had been able to
>>>get them on. Even a reporter couldn't be that stupid.
>>>
>>>-cwk.
>>
>>Don't underestimate reporters. They were stupid enough to put
>>explosives in a Chevy pickup and blow it up claiming it was a defective
>>fuel tank design.
>
>
> That was fraud, not stupidity. They used Estes model rocket engines
> IIRC and it worked great. Stupidity would be if they blew themselves
> up while wiring it.

Committing fraud on camera is stupid. Getting caught is even more
stupid. They were stupid from any angle you look at it.


Matt

"Henry A. Spellman" wrote:
>
> If NBC has any integrity, they will run the story, showing that some
> people out there are awake and taking the terrorism threat seriously.

According to AOPA, they did. "And to NBC: We appreciate that you accurately reported
these misguided escapades on tonight's network news. And we hope this gives you — and
the other media who make a living by generating unnecessary fear — ample reason to
stop making GA a security scapegoat."

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Rosspilot" > wrote in message
> ...
> > My email to NBC:
> > ***************************
> >
> > I read with disgust and contempt of your reporter's attempt to "expose"
> > security lapses at a St Louis airport.
> >
> > The relentless and unfair "piling on" General Aviation to instill
> unwarranted
> > fear in a population that is basically ignorant about aviation is a
> disservice.
> > NBC News loses credibility when these stories are pursued for
> sensationalism
> > and ratings. Shame on you.
> >
> > General Aviation had NOTHING to do with 911 or terrorism. Innocent
> law-abiding
> > pilots who earn a living flying are being unfairly scapegoated because
we
> are a
> > small and un-influential constituency.
> >
> > I have lost all my respect for your organization. Chet Huntley is
> spinning in
> > his grave.
>
> Shoot, I lost all respect for them long before that. Virtually all network
> news reporting is of the same stripe. You might recall that it was NBC
that
> resorted to using fireworks to make sure that a gas tank exploded when
they
> were doing a hit piece on trucks.

Read the book "Airframe" by Michael Crichton...the whole book is the crap
the media plays with the aviation industries (carriers and manufacturers).

"C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
om...
> Matt Whiting > wrote in message
>...
> > C Kingsbury wrote:
> >
> > > I strongly doubt these guys had any intention of pulling their toys
> > > out in flight, but rather simply wanted to prove they had been able to
> > > get them on. Even a reporter couldn't be that stupid.
> > >
> > > -cwk.
> >
> > Don't underestimate reporters. They were stupid enough to put
> > explosives in a Chevy pickup and blow it up claiming it was a defective
> > fuel tank design.
>
> That was fraud, not stupidity. They used Estes model rocket engines
> IIRC and it worked great. Stupidity would be if they blew themselves
> up while wiring it.

No...that would be "blessed".

"Al Marzo" > wrote in message
...
> This story HAS been verified and addressed by Phil Boyer of AOPA.
> Check their webpage for Phil's comment and challenge. Also, you
> should email your feelings of disgust to

In spite of getting caught with their hands in the proverbial cookie jar, NBC
still felt the need to stir the pot. See their Aug. 13 article here titled:
"FBI: Al-Qaida could use helicopters, limos"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5626850/ .

Which offers the following flight of fancy: "...Helicopters might also be used
to spread chemical or biological agents in the ventilation systems of high-rise
buildings..."

They did not have the professional ethics or common decency to bother
mentioning the 100% relevant fact that they had tried to penetrate a helicopter
operation and failed miserably.

No polite term could possible describe my feelings for NBC right now. I
guess I will just have to settle for "****ing Lying Scumbags".

Vaughn

> No polite term could possible describe my feelings for NBC right now.

I think AOPA should organize a huge protest and demonstration against the "War
on General Aviation" being conducted by the media and by the ignoramus
politicians.





www.Rosspilot.com

Personally I think you have made valid and thoughtful points with some of
your suggestions here. Sure we can all agree this wasn't the brightest thing
for these two to do, but let's look further into your comments to find a
solution. I'm not saying your solution will end all of this GA animosity we
seem to be facing, but it sure could go a long way.

--
Jim Carter
"C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
om...
>
> <clipped for brevity>
>
>
> If you run a flight school, or are an independent CFI, drop a note to
> your local news organizations and offer a free lesson/ride or two to
> any interested parties. I bet you'll get takers, and do it at least
> once a year. They'll get an easy feel-good story out of it they can
> use anytime, and you'll go into their rolodex as a source to call when
> they're doing an aviation story. Bonus points if you have a female
> and/or minority CFI to hook them up with, or can show them students
> who aren't 40-year-old white male stockbrokers. Take them for a walk
> around the field and introduce them to the mechanic, other operators,
> etc, show them how the airport creates economic activity for the
> community. Introduce them to a 40yo stockbroker who flies sick kids
> and their families in his Bonanza for Angel Flight. Hell, you might
> even get a new student out of it.
>
> Most reporters do not investigate, they report. A few positive hours
> one afternoon will do a lot more to improve the quality of news than a
> stack of angry letters. These days we need all the help we can get.
>
> Best,
> -cwk.

Are TFR's requested by the individual or are they a matter of policy when
the President is in place? I thought they were a matter of policy and not
his personal choice.

--
Jim Carter
"TTA Cherokee Driver" > wrote in message
...
> C J Campbell wrote:
>
> >
> > It makes a lot of sense when you consider that both the liberal media
and
> > the Democrats have been saying that Bush is ignoring important terrorism
> > issues. If Kerry is elected, expect a lot more restrictions on GA.
> >
> >
> Considering the fact that, unlike Bush, Kerry is not requesting pop-up
> TFRs everywhere he campaigns, this is a pretty wrongheaded statement.
>

If you or I attempted a similar stunt, we would still be locked up.

Charge them with at least wasting police time.

Ardna


"Vaughn" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Al Marzo" > wrote in message
> ...
> > This story HAS been verified and addressed by Phil Boyer of AOPA.
> > Check their webpage for Phil's comment and challenge. Also, you
> > should email your feelings of disgust to
>
> In spite of getting caught with their hands in the proverbial cookie jar,
NBC
> still felt the need to stir the pot. See their Aug. 13 article here
titled:
> "FBI: Al-Qaida could use helicopters, limos"
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5626850/ .
>
> Which offers the following flight of fancy: "...Helicopters might also be
used
> to spread chemical or biological agents in the ventilation systems of
high-rise
> buildings..."
>
> They did not have the professional ethics or common decency to bother
> mentioning the 100% relevant fact that they had tried to penetrate a
helicopter
> operation and failed miserably.
>
> No polite term could possible describe my feelings for NBC right now.
I
> guess I will just have to settle for "****ing Lying Scumbags".
>
> Vaughn
>
>
>

"MyWay" > screamed in message
news:ijUTc.46170$Uh.16612@fed1read02...
> If you or I attempted a similar stunt, we would still be locked up.
>
> Charge them with at least wasting police time.
>
> Ardna

E-mail NBC's advertisers and tell them you are angry and you aren't buying
any more of their cereal or viagra or soap suds because you are disgusted
with the disgusting cussable SOB's.

Politicians seeking re-election are not nearly so frightened of the majority
as they are of angry minorities who have the politician in their crosshairs.
>
>
> "Vaughn" > fumed in message
> ...
> >
> > "Al Marzo" > howled in message
> > ...
> > > This story HAS been verified and addressed by Phil Boyer of AOPA.
> > > Check their webpage for Phil's comment and challenge. Also, you
> >

Jim Carter wrote:
>
> Are TFR's requested by the individual or are they a matter of policy when
> the President is in place? I thought they were a matter of policy and not
> his personal choice.

As far as the president is concerned, they are set by policy of the Secret Service.
There is some feeling that the president could order the SS to reduce the size of the
TFRs, but I don't know if that's true. In the case of other candidates (such as
Kerry), they are entitled to the same protection as the president after nomination if
they request it. So far, Kerry has not done so, so TFRs are not being provided for
him. I don't know how far this sort of thing applies to third-party candidates (such
as Nader).

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jim Carter wrote:
> >
> > Are TFR's requested by the individual or are they a matter of policy
when
> > the President is in place? I thought they were a matter of policy and
not
> > his personal choice.
>
> As far as the president is concerned, they are set by policy of the Secret
Service.
> There is some feeling that the president could order the SS to reduce the
size of the
> TFRs, but I don't know if that's true.

Why wouldn't it be? The President is their boss. He hired them. He can fire
them. In fact, some Presidents have made a habit of it. Roosevelt, for
example, was greatly entertained by making his escort run along behind his
wheelchair. He even interfered with Secret Service dress codes in Key West.

If the President didn't like what the Secret Service was doing, he could
simply change it with an executive order. The current President does not
care and probably does not even know how disruptive his security is, or he
would change it. Unfortunately, the only thing about security that he knows
is what his own security advisors tell him, and these people are selected on
the basis of their paranoia.

Nah. They should call Fox News or CNN and get them to blow the whistle on
NBC.

To Fox, it will seem like they are discrediting the competition.

To the rest of the world it will be that GA is OK after all...



(Rosspilot) wrote in
:

>> No polite term could possible describe my feelings for NBC right now.
>
> I think AOPA should organize a huge protest and demonstration against
> the "War on General Aviation" being conducted by the media and by the
> ignoramus politicians.
>
>
>
>
>
> www.Rosspilot.com
>
>
>

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:

> As far as the president is concerned, they are set by policy of the
Secret Service.
> There is some feeling that the president could order the SS to
reduce the size of the
> TFRs, but I don't know if that's true.

I'm sure it's true, but not realistic. An example is the closing of
Pennsylvania Ave., which many powerful people there don't like. Yet
the SS view still prevails. In the case of the President, the
managers of the SS are human, and since they firmly believe the
airspace security is necessary, they don't want to potentially be in a
situation where if something happened they would feel they failed to
be persuasive enough.

I doubt either they ever discussed it with the President, and SS is
now under Homeland Security.
SS was previously under Treasury, so presidential protection probably
operated fairly independently. Now the Secretary (Ridge) of DHS
intervenes between SS and the Prez. So part of the problem seems
political, since if airspace protection were to be greatly relaxed,
and then some wacky thing were to happen which media could interpret
as serious, the overall effectiveness and judgment of Homeland
Security could be called into question by the media, to scare the
populace some more. And in fact Kerry, compared to Bush, would be
more aware that the actual number of pilots seriously affected by
these TFR's is very small. Once President, politics tends to trump
everything. If it citizen concerns over security are politically
sensitive, then the Prez has to consider letting the DHS Sec'y do his
job and not force him to reverse decisions of the SS, which can create
counterproductive conflicts within the Dep't. Dunno for sure, but
sound good?

F--

"TaxSrv" > wrote in message
...
> "G.R. Patterson III" wrote:
>
>
> I doubt either they ever discussed it with the President, and SS is
> now under Homeland Security.
> SS was previously under Treasury, so presidential protection probably
> operated fairly independently. Now the Secretary (Ridge) of DHS
> intervenes between SS and the Prez. So part of the problem seems
> political, since if airspace protection were to be greatly relaxed,
> and then some wacky thing were to happen which media could interpret
> as serious, the overall effectiveness and judgment of Homeland
> Security could be called into question by the media, to scare the
> populace some more. And in fact Kerry, compared to Bush, would be
> more aware that the actual number of pilots seriously affected by
> these TFR's is very small. Once President, politics tends to trump
> everything. If it citizen concerns over security are politically
> sensitive, then the Prez has to consider letting the DHS Sec'y do his
> job and not force him to reverse decisions of the SS, which can create
> counterproductive conflicts within the Dep't. Dunno for sure, but
> sound good?
>

Probably true, but at some point the President is going to have to put some
adults in charge. Some parts of Washington are so restricted that businesses
can't even bring in panel trucks or vans. Supplies have to be transferred to
handcarts and carried several blocks to the business. Many businesses have
lost more than 50% of their sales volume.

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "TaxSrv" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "G.R. Patterson III" wrote:
> >
> >
> > I doubt either they ever discussed it with the President, and SS is
> > now under Homeland Security.
> > SS was previously under Treasury, so presidential protection probably
> > operated fairly independently. Now the Secretary (Ridge) of DHS
> > intervenes between SS and the Prez. So part of the problem seems
> > political, since if airspace protection were to be greatly relaxed,
> > and then some wacky thing were to happen which media could interpret
> > as serious, the overall effectiveness and judgment of Homeland
> > Security could be called into question by the media, to scare the
> > populace some more. And in fact Kerry, compared to Bush, would be
> > more aware that the actual number of pilots seriously affected by
> > these TFR's is very small. Once President, politics tends to trump
> > everything. If it citizen concerns over security are politically
> > sensitive, then the Prez has to consider letting the DHS Sec'y do his
> > job and not force him to reverse decisions of the SS, which can create
> > counterproductive conflicts within the Dep't. Dunno for sure, but
> > sound good?
> >
>
> Probably true, but at some point the President is going to have to put
some
> adults in charge. Some parts of Washington are so restricted that
businesses
> can't even bring in panel trucks or vans. Supplies have to be transferred
to
> handcarts and carried several blocks to the business. Many businesses have
> lost more than 50% of their sales volume.
>
>

Just like when any city closes a street and converts it to a pedestrian
mall. If what CJ says is true, "...carried several blocks to the business.
Many businesses have lost more than 50% of their sales..." then why are we
seeing some documentary evidence in the media. NFIB and NASE are pretty
strong lobbies to start with and the media would most likely air the story,
but where is it?

CJ, can you cite some specific examples of this 50% loss in sales that is
directly attributable to the closing of the street? I would expect most of
any loss to be attributed to the retraction in the economy we are just now
coming out of.
--
Jim Carter

Jim Carter wrote:
>
> If what CJ says is true, "...carried several blocks to the business.
> Many businesses have lost more than 50% of their sales..." then why are we
> seeing some documentary evidence in the media.

AP carried that story last week. The mayor of the District registered an official
complaint with the Feds about it.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

"C J Campbell" wrote:
> Probably true, but at some point the President is going to have to
put some
> adults in charge.

But it takes an adult to know an adult. I'll propose that both
Clinton and Bush have exhibited character traits inconsistent with
holding the office of Chief Adult of the U.S.

Actually I think the problem boils down to politics of fear. Whether
soccer mom's actually crouch and shelter the kids in the basement when
Ridge does a terror alert presser. Or it's just the pols keeping the
anxiety high, since personal and family saferty is such a gut issue.
And unless terrorists completely go away, this could go on for years.
And if there's no terrorist attack since 9/11 by, say, 2007, by golly
our gov't is shining light of security effectiveness. Unassailable
proof of that.

Israelis have lived under this stuff for many years in a very serious
way and still ride public busses. I've come accross few credible
analyses which say they're more freaked out than we are, or pols seem
to think we are.

Fred F.

"Jim Carter" > wrote in message
m...
>
>
> Just like when any city closes a street and converts it to a pedestrian
> mall. If what CJ says is true, "...carried several blocks to the business.
> Many businesses have lost more than 50% of their sales..." then why are we
> seeing some documentary evidence in the media. NFIB and NASE are pretty
> strong lobbies to start with and the media would most likely air the
story,
> but where is it?

To quote Will Rogers, "All I know is what I read in the papers." Which is
kind of scary, when you think about it. Nevertheless, it was widely reported
in AP.

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20040814_448.html

is the ABC version, but you can find the article in many local newspapers.

Thanks for the link, I hadn't seen this story.

On the other hand, in reviewing the story in the link, there is no reference to a 50% loss of business. There is a reference to about city officials complaining:
City officials have complained for a decade about "security creep" restricting access and especially since Sept. 11, 2001, when the terror attacks prompted agencies' security directors to put up more concrete barriers around federal buildings. (para. 2)

The story also reports that trucks are being randomly searched, but it did not say they were not being allowed into the area. (Except for the street immediately adjacent to the White House). The story also reported that vendors were to make appointments to make deliveries and they would be permitted through the barricades, unless they missed their appointment.

It seems to me that 1) there is an increased level of security, 2) it has been there in one form or another for over a decade, 3) they are trying to work with the city, and 4) the city/federal commission working the problem is not too dissatisfied with the situation (they want to change the barricades to something more esthetically pleasing).

Based on the ABCNEWS.com link, where have I gone wrong here?



--
Jim Carter
"C J Campbell" > wrote in message ...
>
> "Jim Carter" > wrote in message
> m...
> >
> >
> > Just like when any city closes a street and converts it to a pedestrian
> > mall. If what CJ says is true, "...carried several blocks to the business.
> > Many businesses have lost more than 50% of their sales..." then why are we
> > seeing some documentary evidence in the media. NFIB and NASE are pretty
> > strong lobbies to start with and the media would most likely air the
> story,
> > but where is it?
>
> To quote Will Rogers, "All I know is what I read in the papers." Which is
> kind of scary, when you think about it. Nevertheless, it was widely reported
> in AP.
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20040814_448.html
>
> is the ABC version, but you can find the article in many local newspapers.
>
>

"Jim Carter" > wrote in message
...
Thanks for the link, I hadn't seen this story.

On the other hand, in reviewing the story in the link, there is no reference
to a 50% loss of business. There is a reference to about city officials
complaining:
City officials have complained for a decade about "security creep"
restricting access and especially since Sept. 11, 2001, when the terror
attacks prompted agencies' security directors to put up more concrete
barriers around federal buildings. (para. 2)

The story also reports that trucks are being randomly searched, but it did
not say they were not being allowed into the area. (Except for the street
immediately adjacent to the White House). The story also reported that
vendors were to make appointments to make deliveries and they would be
permitted through the barricades, unless they missed their appointment.

It seems to me that 1) there is an increased level of security, 2) it has
been there in one form or another for over a decade, 3) they are trying to
work with the city, and 4) the city/federal commission working the problem
is not too dissatisfied with the situation (they want to change the
barricades to something more esthetically pleasing).

Based on the ABCNEWS.com link, where have I gone wrong here?
----------------------

"But when the Homeland Security Department raised the terror alert warning
level for high-profile financial targets on Aug. 1, and new roadblocks and
checkpoints were put up near the Capitol shortly afterward, District of
Columbia officials reacted with an unprecedented level of outrage."

Sounds like major dissatisfaction to me. It also sounds like they are mostly
concerned about changes made since Aug. 1, not those of the last 10 years,
also they are also unhappy with those.

"On streets immediately adjacent to the White House, the situation is even
more restrictive. Shipments of food, office supplies and other goods now
must be loaded onto handcarts and hauled into areas where trucks and panel
vans are no longer allowed."

You must have missed that paragraph, eh?

"Driss Benjelloun, a Moroccan-born street vendor who sells jewelry two
blocks from the White House, says tourists and commuters who used to walk by
his table now avoid the area, reducing his sales by half. "Sometimes the
streets are closed and you have to go around many blocks just to get over
here," he said."

You must have missed that one, too.

"While previous closures have prompted loose commitments to consult with the
city beforehand, federal officials concede that has rarely occurred. The
dispute over the new Capitol roadblocks prompted an Aug. 9 meeting that
produced an agreement for monthly meetings to discuss street-level security
concerns and Capitol police agreed to allow city emergency vehicles to
proceed through their checkpoints.

White House homeland security adviser Frances Fragos Townsend said recently
that city officials are being consulted. But few are satisfied.

"This is a living city, and it simply cannot move if we have as many
checkpoints and street closings as they have foisted on us," said Eleanor
Holmes Norton, the district's nonvoting representative to Congress.

Norton and others worry that when congressional staffers and large numbers
of federal employees return to regular commuting in September, after the
traditional August vacation, the city will face traffic gridlock."

You must have missed these paragraphs as well, as they indicate that the
Federal government has promised to work with the city, but has reneged on
those promises. Now, why are you apologizing for this?

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
>> "Jim Carter" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Thanks for the link, I hadn't seen this story.
>>
>> On the other hand, in reviewing the story in the link, there is no
reference
>> to a 50% loss of business. There is a reference to about city officials
>> complaining:
>> City officials have complained for a decade about "security creep"
>> restricting access and especially since Sept. 11, 2001, when the terror
>> attacks prompted agencies' security directors to put up more concrete
>> barriers around federal buildings. (para. 2)
>>
>> The story also reports that trucks are being randomly searched, but it
did
>> not say they were not being allowed into the area. (Except for the street
>> immediately adjacent to the White House). The story also reported that
>> vendors were to make appointments to make deliveries and they would be
>> permitted through the barricades, unless they missed their appointment.
>>
>> It seems to me that 1) there is an increased level of security, 2) it has
>> been there in one form or another for over a decade, 3) they are trying
to
>> work with the city, and 4) the city/federal commission working the
problem
>> is not too dissatisfied with the situation (they want to change the
>> barricades to something more esthetically pleasing).
>>
>> Based on the ABCNEWS.com link, where have I gone wrong here?
> ----------------------
>
> "But when the Homeland Security Department raised the terror alert warning
> level for high-profile financial targets on Aug. 1, and new roadblocks and
> checkpoints were put up near the Capitol shortly afterward, District of
> Columbia officials reacted with an unprecedented level of outrage."
>
> Sounds like major dissatisfaction to me. It also sounds like they are
mostly
> concerned about changes made since Aug. 1, not those of the last 10 years,
> also they are also unhappy with those.
>
> "On streets immediately adjacent to the White House, the situation is even
> more restrictive. Shipments of food, office supplies and other goods now
> must be loaded onto handcarts and hauled into areas where trucks and panel
> vans are no longer allowed."
>
> You must have missed that paragraph, eh?

Nope, didn't miss that paragraph - see my original comments and you will
find that I mentioned the streets adjacent to the White House were an
exception.

>
> "Driss Benjelloun, a Moroccan-born street vendor who sells jewelry two
> blocks from the White House, says tourists and commuters who used to walk
by
> his table now avoid the area, reducing his sales by half. "Sometimes the
> streets are closed and you have to go around many blocks just to get over
> here," he said."
>
> You must have missed that one, too.
>

Yes, I did miss that comment from the street vendor. Even so however, I
don't consider one comment from a source so susceptible to the vagaries of
weather, traffic, season, economy, and the number of visitors to the city
(not just his block) as something to base a judgment on that could apply to
the entire city.


> "While previous closures have prompted loose commitments to consult with
the
> city beforehand, federal officials concede that has rarely occurred. The
> dispute over the new Capitol roadblocks prompted an Aug. 9 meeting that
> produced an agreement for monthly meetings to discuss street-level
security
> concerns and Capitol police agreed to allow city emergency vehicles to
> proceed through their checkpoints.
>
> White House homeland security adviser Frances Fragos Townsend said
recently
> that city officials are being consulted. But few are satisfied.
>
> "This is a living city, and it simply cannot move if we have as many
> checkpoints and street closings as they have foisted on us," said Eleanor
> Holmes Norton, the district's nonvoting representative to Congress.
>
> Norton and others worry that when congressional staffers and large numbers
> of federal employees return to regular commuting in September, after the
> traditional August vacation, the city will face traffic gridlock."
>
> You must have missed these paragraphs as well, as they indicate that the
> Federal government has promised to work with the city, but has reneged on
> those promises. Now, why are you apologizing for this?
>
>

Nope, didn't miss those paragraphs either. But then I also read the
paragraph about the joint commission set up to work out the problems and
that so far its only recommendation is to trade-out the concrete barriers
for more esthetically pleasing trees, news-stands, etc. Yes, security has
been increased since the September 11th tragedy, and yes the city and the
federal governments didn't have anything in place to address the issues that
really worked before then, but now they do. Apparently some people in D.C.
don't agree with what their joint commission is doing and are still unhappy.
Maybe that can't be helped.

I guess my original concern that prompted my responding to these posts is
that knowing the tendency of the press to exaggerate and sensationalize, we
should understand we can't take what they write at face value. We need to
critically review their writing and consider their comments from both the
positive and negative points of view.

I'm not trying to apologize for anything or to any one. Sure C.J., there
are some things that could be done differently, but no matter what is done
about a problem, not everyone will be happy or satisfied. In a
representative government like ours, just because I'm not particularly
satisfied about a solution doesn't mean that it was the wrong thing to do. I
think way too many people are losing touch with that concept.

--
Jim Carter

"Jim Carter" > wrote in message
m...
>
> I'm not trying to apologize for anything or to any one. Sure C.J., there
> are some things that could be done differently, but no matter what is done
> about a problem, not everyone will be happy or satisfied. In a
> representative government like ours, just because I'm not particularly
> satisfied about a solution doesn't mean that it was the wrong thing to do.
I
> think way too many people are losing touch with that concept.

I think the point is that in Washington DC there is no representative
government. It appears that Federal security agencies are simply doing
whatever they like without considering the consequences to the local
populace. After all, who represents the residents of Washington?

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Carter" > wrote in message
> m...
> >
> > I'm not trying to apologize for anything or to any one. Sure C.J.,
there
> > are some things that could be done differently, but no matter what is
done
> > about a problem, not everyone will be happy or satisfied. In a
> > representative government like ours, just because I'm not particularly
> > satisfied about a solution doesn't mean that it was the wrong thing to
do.
> I
> > think way too many people are losing touch with that concept.
>
> I think the point is that in Washington DC there is no representative
> government. It appears that Federal security agencies are simply doing
> whatever they like without considering the consequences to the local
> populace. After all, who represents the residents of Washington?


It's kinda like the idiotic TFRs the same people pop up with no regard for
reality or reason.

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
...
>
<clipped for brevity>
>
> It's kinda like the idiotic TFRs the same people pop up with no regard for
> reality or reason.
>

Such as where? TFRs have to have some justification or they don't exist. We
may not think the reason is good enough, but there's lots of decisions made
in this world I don't agree with. I don't believe the FAA sets up TFRs just
to keep their controllers busy.


--
Jim Carter

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> I think the point is that in Washington DC there is no representative
> government. It appears that Federal security agencies are simply doing
> whatever they like without considering the consequences to the local
> populace. After all, who represents the residents of Washington?
>
>

Good question C.J. I am probably wrong, but I think I learned that D.C. was
a federalized district with a mayoral form of supervision. Of course this
was way-back in the mid-60s in Civics and Economics, so I may be mistaken.
If I'm not wrong however, then the federal authorities have the right and
responsibility to administer the district as they see fit to ensure the
safety of the federal government. I think the district has some special,
non-voting congressional representation, so they should have some input at
that level also.

It is an interesting question you bring up. What is more important, the
safety of the federal government or the living conditions of the private
citizens who happen to live near it?

--
Jim Carter

In article >, "Jim
Carter" > wrote:

> > It's kinda like the idiotic TFRs the same people pop up with no regard
> > for reality or reason.
>
> Such as where?

such as any TFR over major sporting events.

> TFRs have to have some justification or they don't exist.

<sigh>

[smip]
> I don't believe the FAA sets up TFRs just to keep their
> controllers busy.

Does the FAA have any control wrt establishing TFRs?

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 05:37:16 GMT, "Jim Carter" >
wrote:

>"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I think the point is that in Washington DC there is no representative
>> government. It appears that Federal security agencies are simply doing
>> whatever they like without considering the consequences to the local
>> populace. After all, who represents the residents of Washington?
>>
>>
>
>Good question C.J. I am probably wrong, but I think I learned that D.C. was
>a federalized district with a mayoral form of supervision. Of course this
>was way-back in the mid-60s in Civics and Economics, so I may be mistaken.
>If I'm not wrong however, then the federal authorities have the right and
>responsibility to administer the district as they see fit to ensure the
>safety of the federal government. I think the district has some special,
>non-voting congressional representation, so they should have some input at
>that level also.
>
>It is an interesting question you bring up. What is more important, the
>safety of the federal government or the living conditions of the private
>citizens who happen to live near it?
]
The answer to this question should be self evident. The TFR's are
setup by the burrowcrats to protect the burrowcrats, of which 99% do
NOT have pilots licenses and most have NEVER been in one of those
"dangerous little planes". They do not pay attention to or even
care if 1% of the population (pilots) has a problem with the
bureaucrat's methods of protecting themselves.

It amazes me what the general view of the majority of non pilots are
about general aviation. I have taken many non pilots up for their
first general aviation flight and almost all ask me "who do I call to
get PERMISSION to take off". ( I fly from the back yard airport. ) I
used to say I don't have to call anybody which leads to the next
question "Is this not dangerous you could run into someone". Now I
answer the question by asking them "Did you call up the highway patrol
and get permission to drive over here today? After this there is
generally a period of silence followed by "OH".

John

"Jim Carter" > wrote in message
...
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> <clipped for brevity>
> >
> > It's kinda like the idiotic TFRs the same people pop up with no regard
for
> > reality or reason.
> >
>
> Such as where?

Such as TFRs over moving busses that change destinations at will with no way
for the pilot to be notified. There are hundreds of other examples also.

>TFRs have to have some justification or they don't exist.

And pigs fly to the moon everynight at 11:30.

>We
> may not think the reason is good enough, but there's lots of decisions
made
> in this world I don't agree with. I don't believe the FAA sets up TFRs
just
> to keep their controllers busy.
>
>
> --
> Jim Carter
>
>