Re: Pilot runs out of fuel waiting for security clearance

[Sydney Hoeltzli]

Jay Masino wrote:

> Bitching at our elected officials is our ONLY recourse.

I could be mistaken, but I think the previous point might have
been that bitching on USENET, while possibly therapeutic, has
no practical effect.

I agree that contacting elected officials is our only recourse.

I've been wanting to know for some time what AOPA is doing
in this fight. I'm wondering if it's time for a member barrage
of mail to congresscritters, demanding that the restrictions
be removed or that equally onerous restrictions be imposed upon
drivers and movements of trucks (a proven al-Quaida method
of bomb delivery)


> And there isn't
> another side of the debate. The government's side is baseless (atleast
> to the extent that the threat from a Ryder truck is more of a threat than
> GA).

Not to mention that it's unclear the ADIZ would prevent someone
bent on harm from violating it and completing their mission prior
to interception.

>>You mentioned that the DC-3 situation is different than what has been
>>described by the NOTAMS, by the AOPA, and in other postings. But you have
>>yet to actually make any actual statements that would demonstrate or
>>substantiate that the DC-3 pilots are not able to find a way to fly if
>>the really choose to. For example, even pilots who choose not to succumb
>>to the new security procedures, from my perception, could drive to the
>>next closest airport.

> Actually, if you want to avoid both the FRZ and the ADIZ, you'd probably
> have to drive an hour and a half to either Easton, Fredrick or Warrenton
> (depending on where you live).

I think it's worth mentioning that DC traffic, and the amount of time
it takes to get from Point A to Point B, can be unimaginable except
to people who live near LA, Seattle, NYC and Boston.

I can't quite manage any cheer on this post :(. As I see it, the
degree of inconvenience the pilots in the DC gulag suffer is pretty
much beside the point. They are being unreasononably restricted in
their right to travel, for no clear reason and no clear result.
A dangerous precedent IMO.

Sydney

[Dennis O'Connor]

There are 39 TFR's this morning at 0700 when I checked them so I could
legally go flying, with one other reported but not displayed (ahaaa, I knew
it was bound to happen - TFR incognito)....
And it is fine that they only cover some fraction of 1% of the airspace,
unless it happens to be your airspace/airport, and your business is
bankrupt, and Admiral Loy giveth not a tinkers damn...

<shamelessly cribbed from the web>
You may have seen this before. It was written by Martin Niemoller about what
happened in Germany in the 1930s.

"They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't
a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unions, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't
a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a
Protestant.
Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one to speak up."

Denny



"Sydney Hoeltzli" > wrote in message
...
> Captain Wubba wrote:
>
> > Come on Pete. As much as we complain, how much is really different
> > from September 1, 2001? Looking at a graphical TFR map of the US, it
> > appears that well over 99.9% of US airspace is *not* restricted any

[John Harlow]

> In the US the only real choices at the presidential level are
> Democrats and Republicans

Unfortunately, it only seems that way because most people don't think other
parties stand a chance. However, I think as more people get fed up with
personal liberties (and incomes) getting gobbled up by government, more will
seriously consider alternatives.

Check out www.lp.org if you have a few minutes.

[Jay Masino]

Sydney Hoeltzli > wrote:
> "Hey, doesn't affect me, bro! Why should I sweat unreasonable
> restictions on YOUR freedom, ain't bothering ME?"
> Standard reaction from non-pilots. Sad to see it from a fellow
> flier.

Actually, after listening to some of the pilots on this newsgroup, from
other parts of the country, that's actually the reaction that these
pilot's give, as long as it's not effecting THEIR part of the country.

-- Jay

__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino/ ! ! !

Checkout http://www.oc-adolfos.com/
for the best Italian food in Ocean City, MD and...
Checkout http://www.brolow.com/ for authentic Blues music on Delmarva

[Jay Masino]

Sydney Hoeltzli > wrote:
> I could be mistaken, but I think the previous point might have
> been that bitching on USENET, while possibly therapeutic, has
> no practical effect.

Yea, you're probably right, although, bitching on USENET keeps the
non-effected pilots on USENET paying attention to the problem.

-- Jay

__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino/ ! ! !

Checkout http://www.oc-adolfos.com/
for the best Italian food in Ocean City, MD and...
Checkout http://www.brolow.com/ for authentic Blues music on Delmarva

[Peter Duniho]

"Sydney Hoeltzli" > wrote in message
...
> Not to mention that it's unclear the ADIZ would prevent someone
> bent on harm from violating it and completing their mission prior
> to interception.

Well, in fact I think it's pretty clear that the ADIZ would NOT prevent
someone bent on harm from violating it and completing their missing prior to
interception. Especially if they were flying an airplane capable of actual
harm.

> I think it's worth mentioning that DC traffic, and the amount of time
> it takes to get from Point A to Point B, can be unimaginable except
> to people who live near LA, Seattle, NYC and Boston.

I have to admit that, as bad as traffic *seems* here in Seattle, driving
around here isn't anything like driving around DC, LA, NYC, or Boston. I
have the most experience in DC, but have driven in all of those metro areas.
Even without traffic, in DC it was "no big deal" to travel 45 to 60 minutes
to get somewhere (driving from one DC suburb to another one on the other
side of the Beltway), and traffic could easily add 30 to 60 minutes to that
(longer if you were dealing with construction or an accident).

Here in the Seattle area, granted we do have a high degree of congestion per
highway mile, but the truth is we're not all that spread out yet. The worst
backups add only 15-20 minutes to a trip, and we're not usually driving
45-60 minutes to get somewhere in the first place. Without traffic, a 30
minute trip is a long one, at least within the Seattle metro area.

I don't even know why I mention it, except that I feel a bit guilty allowing
us to be lumped in with the other cities that really DO have it bad.

> I can't quite manage any cheer on this post :(. As I see it, the
> degree of inconvenience the pilots in the DC gulag suffer is pretty
> much beside the point. They are being unreasononably restricted in
> their right to travel, for no clear reason and no clear result.
> A dangerous precedent IMO.

No question. IMHO, it's not just the aviation restrictions. The whole
country is being swept by a taking of rights, with a side of "if you
complain, you're un-American" to go with it. Bad news all 'round.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Captain Wubba" > wrote in message
om...
> So who *should* we vote for? Many on the left and the moderate left
> (i.e. most Democratic candidates) see GA planes as toys for the rich
> (i.e. *not* their constituency), and likely would have absolutely no
> problem doing even more against our interests. What choice do we have?

I don't know. The best I've come up with so far is to just keep the
politicians in regular rotation. The less time any individual one spends in
office, the less damage they can do. Each new president spends a lot of
their initial time in office undoing the work the previous president did, so
that helps a bit. Who knows? Maybe a new Democrat president would disband
the Department of Homeland Security out of spite? (Yeah, I know...fat
chance. I can dream though).

I agree that, with respect to aviation, I don't see the Democrats being any
different from the Republicans (nor do I see them being that much different
with respect to many other things). But I know I'm not going to vote for
the current administration, and until they fix the way we vote, that leaves
no other rational choice other than to vote for "the other guy", whoever
that winds up being.

> Come on Pete. As much as we complain, how much is really different
> from September 1, 2001? Looking at a graphical TFR map of the US, it
> appears that well over 99.9% of US airspace is *not* restricted any
> more than it was 3 years ago. Stadium TFRs? Sucks for banner
> towers....pretty meaningless for the rest of us.

I don't know how you can say that. Any TFR is an impediment to navigation,
and the stadium TFRs are going to be near metro areas that already have
plenty of other impediments to navigation to deal with anyway. Any
impediment to navigation is just that: an impediment. That's not a good
thing, and I'd hardly call it meaningless.

Beyond that, as one of the people who IS affected, I find your "it doesn't
affect me" attitude pretty asinine. I hope you remember your current
position when the current thinking continues unabated and eventually DOES
affect you. It's only a matter of time.


> Airports? Of the
> thousands of public use airports in the US, how many have severe
> restrictions on them that were not there before President Bush took
> office? Maybe a dozen? Two dozen, at most?

First of all, I'm sure it's more than two dozen. Secondly, you are
forgetting that the airports most likely to be affected are also the most
likely to be the busiest, since the restrictions tend to appear in the more
populated areas.

> [...] So what if the stadium TFR
> doesn't really do anything? If it makes the public more comfortable,
> I'm willing to accept that.

How far are you willing to go? The public would be MOST comfortable if you
were not permitted to fly at all.

IMHO, restricting one person's freedom for the purpose of making "the
public" or any other person "more comfortable" is just plain dumb. Being
willing to accept such restrictions is also just plain dumb. Do the math.

> [...] Especially when compared to how things could *easily* be.

It can always be worse. How in the world is that in any way relevant, or
justification for the current situation?

Pete

[Ron Natalie]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message ...

> Well, in fact I think it's pretty clear that the ADIZ would NOT prevent
> someone bent on harm from violating it and completing their missing prior to
> interception. Especially if they were flying an airplane capable of actual
> harm.

Like airliners which still have relative unfettered access to the area.

> I have to admit that, as bad as traffic *seems* here in Seattle, driving
> around here isn't anything like driving around DC, LA, NYC, or Boston. I
> have the most experience in DC, but have driven in all of those metro areas.
> Even without traffic, in DC it was "no big deal" to travel 45 to 60 minutes
> to get somewhere (driving from one DC suburb to another one on the other
> side of the Beltway), and traffic could easily add 30 to 60 minutes to that
> (longer if you were dealing with construction or an accident).

The nearest ADIZ-free airports are at least an hour and a half from DC even
without traffic.

[Ash Wyllie]

Gently extracted from the mind of John Harlow;


>> In the US the only real choices at the presidential level are
>> Democrats and Republicans

>Unfortunately, it only seems that way because most people don't think other
>parties stand a chance. However, I think as more people get fed up with
>personal liberties (and incomes) getting gobbled up by government, more will
>seriously consider alternatives.

>Check out www.lp.org if you have a few minutes.

The Republicans would be in bad shape if they lost 300,000 votes to the
Libertarian Party. There is a suspision that the LP cost the GOP a couple of
senate seats in the 2002 elections.




-ash
for assistance dial MYCROFTXXX

[Peter Duniho]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> Like airliners which still have relative unfettered access to the area.

Exactly. Two years later, I still haven't gotten over the absurdity of
restricting the airplanes that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks,
while the airplanes that are the most dangerous were back up and flying
almost immediately. It makes my head hurt just thinking about it.

> The nearest ADIZ-free airports are at least an hour and a half from DC
even
> without traffic.

Well, I wasn't portraying DC's traffic with the intent to justify DC area
residents driving to peripheral, unrestricted airports. Hopefully no one
took it that way. Even if people ARE used to driving 60 to 90 minutes just
to get anywhere, that doesn't mean it's reasonable to send them that far so
they can avoid the unreasonable restrictions that exist there in DC.

Pete

[Captain Wubba]

"Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message >...
> There are 39 TFR's this morning at 0700 when I checked them so I could
> legally go flying, with one other reported but not displayed (ahaaa, I knew
> it was bound to happen - TFR incognito)....
> And it is fine that they only cover some fraction of 1% of the airspace,
> unless it happens to be your airspace/airport, and your business is
> bankrupt, and Admiral Loy giveth not a tinkers damn...
>
> <shamelessly cribbed from the web>
> You may have seen this before. It was written by Martin Niemoller about what
> happened in Germany in the 1930s.
>
> "They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't
> a Communist.
> Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
> Then they came for the trade unions, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't
> a trade unionist.
> Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a
> Protestant.
> Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one to speak up."
>
> Denny

Absolutely. But this isn't the only threat to GA. Avgas is $2.80 a
gallon! That isn't fair! We should do something about that! And
Insurance costs a fortune! And that isn't fair! We should do something
about that! And a new airplane costs $200,000! And that isn't fair! We
should do something about that! And I can't do aerobatics 3 miles from
the REILs of 36L at CVG! That isn't fair! It's a restriction on my
rights! We should do something about that!.

I'm not saying that we should simply let *everything* bad that happens
to GA go unchallenged. Don't know where you got that. But I *am*
saying we need to use discretion in what we do and what we fight for.
The scumbags on 9/11 used *airplanes* as their weapons. And fair or
not, there will be restrictions because of a public backlash against
that. No way around it. The only way to deal with it is to show (over
time) how beneficial GA is, and to attack the more egregious problems,
and pick our fights. You can't fight over everything.

It's like anyhing else. A 2% unemployment rate is fantastic...unless
you are one of that 2%. A 99% cure rate for cancer would be amazing!
Unless you are in that 1% that dies. It's unfortunate that the 0.1% of
restricted airspace affects people. But it's still 0.1% of all the
airspace we have. It's bad if the 0.5% of restricted airpors affects
you. But it's still only 0.5%. One has to keep perspective.

I'll certainly speak up..I'm not waiting until they come for me. But
speaking up against the DC-3 restrictions is different from going for
broke over the stadium TFRs. I'm picking what I want to fight for.

Cheers,

Cap


>
>
>
> "Sydney Hoeltzli" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Captain Wubba wrote:
> >
> > > Come on Pete. As much as we complain, how much is really different
> > > from September 1, 2001? Looking at a graphical TFR map of the US, it
> > > appears that well over 99.9% of US airspace is *not* restricted any

[John Harlow]

> >> In the US the only real choices at the presidential level are
> >> Democrats and Republicans
>
> >Unfortunately, it only seems that way because most people don't think
other
> >parties stand a chance. However, I think as more people get fed up with
> >personal liberties (and incomes) getting gobbled up by government, more
will
> >seriously consider alternatives.
>
> >Check out www.lp.org if you have a few minutes.
>
> The Republicans would be in bad shape if they lost 300,000 votes to the
> Libertarian Party. There is a suspision that the LP cost the GOP a couple
of
> senate seats in the 2002 elections.

Thank goodness. At least a flicker of hope exists for a rational
government.

"Two Party System: A brilliant illusion craftily manufactured to give voters
the feeling of choice; choosing between the parties is like choosing between
being slapped with the front or the back of the hand. " - Mark Driver

[Peter Duniho]

"Captain Wubba" > wrote in message
om...
> Standard emotional reaction to anything that bothers a person,
> regardless of the merits.

What merits? Placating an ignorant populus does not qualify as a "merit".

[Judah]

The merit is CRYSTAL clear to me.

If the general public is not lead to believe that they are secure, they
will demand REAL security measures to protect them from GA pilots. Perhaps
airline-style security measures (metal detectors, bomb-sniffers, etc.) at
all FBOs for Ramp Access. Or PERMANENT restrictions on flying over
populated areas.

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
:

> "Captain Wubba" > wrote in message
> om...
>> Standard emotional reaction to anything that bothers a person,
>> regardless of the merits.
>
> What merits? Placating an ignorant populus does not qualify as a
> "merit".

[Peter Duniho]

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
> The merit is CRYSTAL clear to me.

You have a funny definition of "crystal".

> If the general public is not lead to believe that they are secure, they
> will demand REAL security measures to protect them from GA pilots.

You are seriously confused. It isn't the nature of the security measures
that makes them absurd. It's the question of whether they are necessary.
GA is simply not a threat that warrants the kind of measures being
implemented. MORE security measures would be more absurd, and in any case,
the worry that those extra security measures might be implemented in no way
makes the existing ones any less absurd.

I repeat: placating an ignorant populus does not qualify as a "merit". It
is a foolish reason to implement security measures, and anyone who thinks
there's merit in security measures implemented solely to placate an ignorant
populus is a fool.

Pete

[Judah]

More like, "Hey - your sacrifice is allowing me to be relatively
unaffected! Thanks, bro! But don't go waking up the TSA guys or they might
make it worse for ALL of us, dude!!"

This whole thing is either going to blow over in another year or two, or
it's going to get worse. Do you think that you are going to be able to do
anything about it if the TSA decides to put in Permanent Restrictions that
ARE effective at protecting the country from a GA Suicide Bomber?

Sydney Hoeltzli > wrote in news:3F0C2462.1040103
@swbell.net:

> "Hey, doesn't affect me, bro! Why should I sweat unreasonable
> restictions on YOUR freedom, ain't bothering ME?"
>
> Standard reaction from non-pilots. Sad to see it from a fellow
> flier.
>
> Cheers,
> Sydney

[John Harlow]

> This whole thing is either going to blow over in another year or two, or
> it's going to get worse. Do you think that you are going to be able to do
> anything about it if the TSA decides to put in Permanent Restrictions that
> ARE effective at protecting the country from a GA Suicide Bomber?

You have totally missed the points.

1 - TSRs _only_ impact law abiding people. Circles on a sectional will not
stop someone out to kill themselves.
2 - GA had *nothing* to do with 9/11, and GA is the *only* group affected by
TSRs.

What "restrictions" could they possibly put in place to effectively prevent
a "GA suicide bomber" anyway? Pull a Daley and bulldoze all the grass
strips and farms in the country?

[Judah]

A suicide bomber in Jerusalem, with 30 pounds of explosives strapped to
his belt, can murder and injure dozens of innocent people in restaurants,
night clubs, markets, and bus stations. You don't believe that 500 pounds
of explosives in a suicide-bomber's Cessna is a potential security
threat?

Perhaps you don't believe that someone could fly a jet airliner into a
skyscraper and take it down completely, either.

Most people didn't, until it happened - twice. Now, most people are on a
high-security kick. You can say what you want about ignorance and
foolishness, but I think you should wake up and face reality a minute.

Absurd or not, those TFRs are probably saving you from much more serious
hassles and inconveniences.


"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
:

> "Judah" > wrote in message
> ...
>> The merit is CRYSTAL clear to me.
>
> You have a funny definition of "crystal".
>
>> If the general public is not lead to believe that they are secure,
>> they will demand REAL security measures to protect them from GA
>> pilots.
>
> You are seriously confused. It isn't the nature of the security
> measures that makes them absurd. It's the question of whether they are
> necessary. GA is simply not a threat that warrants the kind of measures
> being implemented. MORE security measures would be more absurd, and in
> any case, the worry that those extra security measures might be
> implemented in no way makes the existing ones any less absurd.
>
> I repeat: placating an ignorant populus does not qualify as a "merit".
> It is a foolish reason to implement security measures, and anyone who
> thinks there's merit in security measures implemented solely to placate
> an ignorant populus is a fool.
>
> Pete
>
>
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
> A suicide bomber in Jerusalem, with 30 pounds of explosives strapped to
> his belt, can murder and injure dozens of innocent people in restaurants,
> night clubs, markets, and bus stations. You don't believe that 500 pounds
> of explosives in a suicide-bomber's Cessna is a potential security
> threat?

I'm not arguing that potential for harm doesn't exist. But why should
aircraft be restricted when numerous other methods of delivering 500 pounds
of explosives to any crowded area still exist?

We live in a free society, and with that freedom comes some risks. People
need to come to terms with that. The solution is NOT to impose meaningless
and unfair restrictions. After all, even if the Cessna was a more
significant risk than the numerous others that exist (and it's not) the
current restrictions do nothing to address that risk.

> Perhaps you don't believe that someone could fly a jet airliner into a
> skyscraper and take it down completely, either.
>
> Most people didn't, until it happened - twice.

"Most people"? What the hell are you talking about? "Most people" didn't
even bother to think about it. Anyone who DID bother to think about it
should have recognized that that WAS a significant security risk. Even if
they didn't predict the collapse of the buildings, the potential for harm
was obvious.

> Now, most people are on a
> high-security kick. You can say what you want about ignorance and
> foolishness, but I think you should wake up and face reality a minute.

No, YOU and the other idiots who feel that these security measures make any
sense need to wake up and face reality. Not for a minute, not for an hour,
but for their entire lives. The security you apparently desire is simply
impossible to obtain, and in the process of the futile attempts to obtain
it, you are undermining the very substance of what made our country so
great.

> Absurd or not, those TFRs are probably saving you from much more serious
> hassles and inconveniences.

Again, you are full of it. All these TFRs accomplish is to move me one step
closer to "much more serious hassles and inconveniences". The camel's nose
is under the tent. You are incredibly naive if you think that imposing the
current restrictions in any way help prevent us from suffering even greater
indignities.

Pete

[Jay Masino]

Judah > wrote:
> IMHO the Ryder Truck story ain't it. If you don't believe me, next time you
> get pulled over for running a traffic light, call your governor and ask him
> to dismiss your case. After all, there is no light at the busy intersection
> a few blocks down! That's effectively the same case you are making with the
> Ryder Truck, and I think if you took a step back from your emotional
> connection to the situation, you would see it is a fairly foolish approach
> to making a case for removing the TFRs.

The "Ryder" analogy pertains to relative risk, destructive capacity, and
accessability. A truck is significantly more dangerous in all three of
those areas than a GA aircraft. In fact, the average SUV or minivan is
significantly more dangerous in all three of these areas. So, why haven't
we banned all vehicles from operating within 30 miles of any populated
area?

> The "other side of the debate" is the fact that 500 lbs of explosives in a
> Cessna is scary to the general public. The TSA seems to believe that their
> restrictions make the public feel safer (apparently, regardless of the
> ACTUAL effectiveness of the restrictions). I am not intimately familiar
> with the methods that the TSA is using to protect the general public from
> Ryder Trucks carrying thousands of pounds of explosives, but it would seem
> to me that it is only marginally relevent to the argument, and definitely
> not a strong argument on its own.

Who, exactly, are they trying to protect? If they're trying to protect
the average citizen in DC, then why aren't they protecting the average
citizen of New York, Chicago, LA, or Iowa City? If the only motive is to
protect individual elected officials, then I contend that a Cessna with
500 lbs of explosives is a very BAD weapon. The pilot would have to know
exactly where the official(s) was, and would have to get relatively close
to them (in aeronautical terms). In addition, our Constitution provides
for the replacement of elected officials in an orderly fashion. It would
be a very unfortunate terrorist attack, but it would do absolutely nothing
to unseat or disrupt our government. Finally, how much of our personal
liberties are we willing to give up for absolute security? By the nature
of living in a free society, we accept some level of risk.

-- Jay

__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino/ ! ! !

Checkout http://www.oc-adolfos.com/
for the best Italian food in Ocean City, MD and...
Checkout http://www.brolow.com/ for authentic Blues music on Delmarva

[Dennis O'Connor]

In the age of video conferencing it is high time that congress be disbursed
back their districts where they HAVE to talk to their constituents - instead
the professional procurers hanging out in the hallways...
Let the terroristas figure out how to have a mass event in hundreds of
individual districts...

Denny

>
> Who, exactly, are they trying to protect? If the only motive is to
> protect individual elected officials, then I contend that a Cessna with
> 500 lbs of explosives is a very BAD weapon. The pilot would have to know
> exactly where the official(s) was, and would have to get relatively close
> to them (in aeronautical terms). In addition, our Constitution provides
> for the replacement of elected officials in an orderly fashion.

[Dennis O'Connor]

The cynical steak in me says that the real reason for the stadiums/Orlando
TFR is so that the money men don't have to share the advertising to 50,000
people with some two bit, pilot towing an "eat at joe's" sign...

Denny

The stadium
> TFRs, however, do nothing to mitigate this security threat or provide
> additional safety to the stadium attendees. Absolutely nothing.
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message
...
> The cynical steak in me says that the real reason for the stadiums/Orlando
> TFR is so that the money men don't have to share the advertising to 50,000
> people with some two bit, pilot towing an "eat at joe's" sign...

Is that a sirloin or filet? :)

Seriously though, I don't think you're being all that cynical at all. IMHO,
much of the aftermath of 9/11 has been politically and economically
motivated, with very little concern at all for genuine security issues.
Chalk it up to human nature, or whatever, but plenty of people jumped to
take advantage of the situation.

It's not a stretch at all to think that people with a vested interest in
advertising revenue for sporting events took advantage and lobbied for the
restriction of advertisers that don't cut them in.

Pete

[Paul Baechler]

In article >,
Judah > wrote:

>A suicide bomber in Jerusalem, with 30 pounds of explosives strapped to
>his belt, can murder and injure dozens of innocent people in restaurants,
>night clubs, markets, and bus stations. You don't believe that 500 pounds
>of explosives in a suicide-bomber's Cessna is a potential security
>threat?

500 pounds of explosives in a suicide-bomber's Cessna is a potential
security threat, but so is 30 pounds of explosives strapped to a belt.
Are you advocating we strip-search every person entering a public
building? If not, why single out the Cessna?

--
Paul Baechler

[Jay Masino]

Captain Wubba > wrote:
> I don't think they will stand the test of time either. But that is
> partly a point I was trying to make earlier. It takes time for
> 'appropriate' meausres to weed themselves out from the bogus ones. But
> I disagree that GA is being 'unfairly' singled out. The last
> significant attack on the US came from aviation. So it is quite
> natural that the government will react *against* aviation. Just like
> if the scumbags had destoyed the WTC with a bunch of rented U-Hauls,
> we'd be seeing restrictions on renting U-Hauls. <snip>

There weren't any unusual restrictions against rental trucks imposed after
Oklahoma City.

> mistaken as that appearance might be). So, over time, we show how GA
> benefits people. We do Angel Flights, and Young Eagle Flights, and
> people will see that there isn't a threat from my Cessna 172. And the
> reluctance to eliminate silly TFRs will eventually disappear.

Realistically speaking, the average citizen doesn't pay any attention to
Angel Flights or Young Eagle flights. Those sort of things reach out to a
relatively small group (as compared to the population of the country). I
doubt that the "average" person will ever stop think of us as a threat.


> But the reality is that planes were used to murder 3000 people. And an
> airplane was stolen by a kid and flown into a skycraper. <snip>

Big ass airliners killed 3000 people, not 2500 lb. Cessnas.

> We simply must pick our battles.

I suspect you aren't living in the Washington FRZ/ADIZ or underneath one
of the other TFRs.

-- Jay

__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino/ ! ! !

Checkout http://www.oc-adolfos.com/
for the best Italian food in Ocean City, MD and...
Checkout http://www.brolow.com/ for authentic Blues music on Delmarva

[David Reinhart]

Where I come from we sell that kind of stuff by the truckload for fertilizer.

What types of aircraft were involved in the 9/11 attacks? Airliners. What were the first aircraft back into
the air after 9/11? Airliners. Are there any airports in the U.S. today closed to airline traffic? No, only
GA. Do the presidential TFRs exclude airliners? No, only Part 91 & 135 aircraft. Did GA get any monetary
compensation from the government for losses as a result of post-9/11 restrictions? No, only the airlines.

Anybody who thinks GA hasn't been unfairly hit since 9/11 is living in a fantasy world.

Dave Reinhart


Captain Wubba wrote:

> I don't think they will stand the test of time either. But that is
> partly a point I was trying to make earlier. It takes time for
> 'appropriate' meausres to weed themselves out from the bogus ones. But
> I disagree that GA is being 'unfairly' singled out. The last
> significant attack on the US came from aviation. So it is quite
> natural that the government will react *against* aviation. Just like
> if the scumbags had destoyed the WTC with a bunch of rented U-Hauls,
> we'd be seeing restrictions on renting U-Hauls. You'd go in to rent
> one, and you'd need to prove you were an American citizen, provide 3
> forms of picture ID, have a background check, etc. You can't protect
> against every possible threat. But the natural human reaction is to
> protect against *demonstrated* threats. And, like it or not, it has
> been very clearly demonstrated that airplanes can be used to do great
> harm. So the government over-reacted in certain ways. Over time, we
> will get them to loosen those restrictions. But screaming 'That's not
> fair! That's not fair! I want to be able to fly over the stadiums
> again!' doesn't help our cause. It makes us look like we are more
> concerned with our own toys than withe the security of the US (as
> mistaken as that appearance might be). So, over time, we show how GA
> benefits people. We do Angel Flights, and Young Eagle Flights, and
> people will see that there isn't a threat from my Cessna 172. And the
> reluctance to eliminate silly TFRs will eventually disappear.
>
> But the reality is that planes were used to murder 3000 people. And an
> airplane was stolen by a kid and flown into a skycraper. And people
> are afraid. And when people are afraid, their repsentatives do what it
> takes to help calm them. And if that somewhat infringes on our
> *privilege* (note not 'right', but 'privilege') to fly how we want,
> then the best way to fix that is to show over time how mistaken it is.
> We simply must pick our battles.
>
> Cap
>
>
> (John) wrote in message >...
> > Judah > wrote in message >...
> > > A suicide bomber in Jerusalem, with 30 pounds of explosives strapped to
> > > his belt, can murder and injure dozens of innocent people in restaurants,
> > > night clubs, markets, and bus stations. You don't believe that 500 pounds
> > > of explosives in a suicide-bomber's Cessna is a potential security
> > > threat?
> >
> >
> > It is a security threat, as you rightly point out. The stadium
> > TFRs, however, do nothing to mitigate this security threat or provide
> > additional safety to the stadium attendees. Absolutely nothing.
> >
> > You might argue that the general public feels "better" and "more
> > secure" with these restrictions in place. It saves them, for example,
> > of having to listen to the sound of a small airplane close by and
> > letting their imaginations take over. i.e. - they can enjoy their
> > event in peace without being reminded of the terrible possibilities a
> > crazy person can inflict.
> >
> > I believe this unfairly singles out GA as a risk factor, as other more
> > likely ways exist for a terrorist to deliver an explosive device. I
> > also believe that the government felt they "had to do something" to
> > protect the population, and "had to be seen" doing something regarding
> > the perceived aircraft threat - hence, the TFRs. This is a terrible
> > precedent or reason for a government restriction - an ineffective one
> > that is in place only because the government felt they had to do
> > something.
> >
> > I don't think the stadium TFRs will stand the test of time, or an
> > objective review. I am just not sure when that review will take
> > place.

[Sydney Hoeltzli]

Judah wrote:

> IMHO the Ryder Truck story ain't it. If you don't believe me, next time you
> get pulled over for running a traffic light, call your governor and ask him
> to dismiss your case. After all, there is no light at the busy intersection
> a few blocks down!

Non sequitor.

> That's effectively the same case you are making with the
> Ryder Truck

I don't think so.

The point is: in an open society, there is the need to assess risk
accurately, in order to balance freedom and risk. There is also
a need for accountability, to demand that the effort and expense
put into security measures be properly directed to reduce risk
effectively.

IMO, the TFR and the Washington ADIZ fail both tests. That is the
point of bringing up the physical and economic damage a Ryder truck
full of explosives in the right place could do: we know this is a
method these groups might consider, because they've used truck bombs
in the past. Yet we've changed absolutely nothing in the truck
rental process. Driver's license, credit card, here's the keys,
there's the truck.

> The "other side of the debate" is the fact that 500 lbs of
> explosives in a Cessna is scary to the general public.

And why do you feel is this the case?

Sydney

[Judah]

"John Harlow" > wrote in
:

>
>> This whole thing is either going to blow over in another year or two,
>> or it's going to get worse. Do you think that you are going to be able
>> to do anything about it if the TSA decides to put in Permanent
>> Restrictions that ARE effective at protecting the country from a GA
>> Suicide Bomber?
>
> You have totally missed the points.
>
> 1 - TSRs _only_ impact law abiding people. Circles on a sectional will
> not stop someone out to kill themselves.

True for small TFRs like the stadium TFRs. But not true for the ADIZ and
larger TFRs (like 30NM Presidential ones). If a controller sees a 1200
squawk within 30NM of Washington, DC, what do you think happens next?

> 2 - GA had *nothing* to do with 9/11, and GA is the *only* group
> affected by TSRs.

GA is what the people are afraid of because the TSA has been able to
convince people that waving a metal detector wand in front of all the
passengers on airlines and taking away tweasers is security enough to
cover them, and now they are safe. "But what about those little planes
who don't go through security?" people ask. So the TSA's answer is, "We
put restrictions on them, and now you are safe again."

> What "restrictions" could they possibly put in place to effectively
> prevent a "GA suicide bomber" anyway? Pull a Daley and bulldoze all
> the grass strips and farms in the country?

How about metal detectors and airline-style security systems in all
airports? Or Permanent Flight Restrictions in the areas that are now
Temporary, or more ADIZ Zones preventing GA pilots from flying over
populated areas without discrete transponder codes and two-way
communication with ATC?

[Pete Zaitcev]

On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 11:04:33 -0400, John Harlow wrote:

>> In the US the only real choices at the presidential level are Democrats
>> and Republicans
>
> Unfortunately, it only seems that way because most people don't think
> other parties stand a chance. However, I think as more people get fed up
> with personal liberties (and incomes) getting gobbled up by government,
> more will seriously consider alternatives.
>
> Check out www.lp.org if you have a few minutes.

Have you ever heard about Harry Browne? The same dick who grabbed
control of Libertarian party and turned it into his pocket toy.
It has nothing to with libertarians now.

The most important thing about alternative parties you should know
is that they are populated with and governed by political rejects who
have a lot of ambition but no ability to make it in life (that is,
in the two majors). This is the reason they keep losing, BTW.

-- Pete

[John Harlow]

> > 1 - TSRs _only_ impact law abiding people. Circles on a sectional will
> > not stop someone out to kill themselves.
>
> True for small TFRs like the stadium TFRs. But not true for the ADIZ and
> larger TFRs (like 30NM Presidential ones). If a controller sees a 1200
> squawk within 30NM of Washington, DC, what do you think happens next?

Well, it has happend many times so far and I've seen no action taken (i.e.
blowing them out of the sky) which would have stopped a suicide bomber. So,
how have TSRs been effective? None whatsoever. They're just a nusiance.

> > 2 - GA had *nothing* to do with 9/11, and GA is the *only* group
> > affected by TSRs.
>
> GA is what the people are afraid of

Where do you get THIS from?

>because the TSA has been able to
> convince people that waving a metal detector wand in front of all the
> passengers on airlines and taking away tweasers is security enough to
> cover them, and now they are safe. "But what about those little planes
> who don't go through security?" people ask.

What people? What is your source for such statements?

> So the TSA's answer is, "We
> put restrictions on them, and now you are safe again."

Take the kid who crashed into the Bank Of America building in florida. No
TSR would have stopped that, BTW. And actually it showed how little
capacity a small plane has for destruction. I believe a person's window and
desk was demolished. Frankly, it was good for GA.

> > What "restrictions" could they possibly put in place to effectively
> > prevent a "GA suicide bomber" anyway? Pull a Daley and bulldoze all
> > the grass strips and farms in the country?
>
> How about metal detectors and airline-style security systems in all
> airports? Or Permanent Flight Restrictions in the areas that are now
> Temporary, or more ADIZ Zones preventing GA pilots from flying over
> populated areas without discrete transponder codes and two-way
> communication with ATC?

Yes. This would definitely stop all law abiding suicide bombers.

Bottom line is: the only *real* way to prevent this is to ground all
aircraft and shoot down any which may get in the air.

[Sydney Hoeltzli]

Captain Wubba wrote:
> I don't think they will stand the test of time either. But that is
> partly a point I was trying to make earlier. It takes time for
> 'appropriate' meausres to weed themselves out from the bogus ones. But
> I disagree that GA is being 'unfairly' singled out. The last
> significant attack on the US came from aviation. So it is quite
> natural that the government will react *against* aviation. Just like
> if the scumbags had destoyed the WTC with a bunch of rented U-Hauls,
> we'd be seeing restrictions on renting U-Hauls.

Would we?

The Murra building was destroyed by a rented truck.

A previous attack on the WTC involved a rented truck.

Two US Embassies and a marine barracks were taken out by trucks
(I hope you agree that's an attack on the US, even if it took
place overseas)

Since 9/11, several additional terrorist attacks using ground
vehicles have taken place.

See any restrictions on renting or purchasing trucks after
these events?

> You can't protect against every possible threat. But the natural human
> reaction is to protect against *demonstrated* threats.

Yep, looks to me as though using rented trucks to blow up buildings
is a demonstrated threat.

Where is the "natural human reaction" protecting against this
demonstrated threat?

> So, over time, we show how GA
> benefits people. We do Angel Flights, and Young Eagle Flights, and
> people will see that there isn't a threat from my Cessna 172. And the
> reluctance to eliminate silly TFRs will eventually disappear.

I hope you are right but I fear you are naive.

Sydney

[Sydney Hoeltzli]

John Galban wrote:

> Cap'n, you might disagree that GA is being unfairly singled out, but
> you just proved it.
>
> Terrorists attacked the WTC in '93 using a rental truck. The OKC
> federal building was destroyed by a large fertilizer bomb in a rental
> truck (both Ryder IIRC). None of the things you say above happened.
> Why? Because a lot of people rent these trucks and it would have an
> impact on a fairly large part of the population. Politically
> speaking, it's not smart to **** off that many people. Pilots, on
> the other hand, are a very small segment of the population. Most
> people don't know much about what we do, therefore the government can
> look like it's doing something, while only offending an insignificant
> percentage of the electorate. While that's a smart move politically,
> it's hardly what I would call "fair".

Pre-cisely.

And while it is a smart move politically, it is not an effective
security improvement. Effective security improvements must be based
on realistic and rational assessment of *demonstrated threats*,
regardless of who and how many are "****ed off".

Cheers,
Sydney

[Sydney Hoeltzli]

Paul Baechler wrote:

> Bull****. We've had one partially successful attack on the WTC and one
> very successful attack on the Murrah Building using rented trucks.

You're forgetting the US marines killed in the Khobar Towers truck
bombing and the US public servants killed in the African embassy
bombings (I hope no one would argue these were not attacks against
the US)

> There's been no restriction on truck rentals.

Exactly.

Sydney

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Sydney Hoeltzli
> wrote:

> Class B and other restricted airspace (and the TCAs which preceded
> them) were developed on very rational grounds, using objective
> criteria: air traffic volume.

in addition, before 9/11flying thru Class B airspace often was not
much of a problem (with a few exception, like BOS TRACON controllers
not being particularly acommodating)

>
> > *Is* a stadium TFR an 'unreasonable restriction on somebody's
> > freedom'? Depends. If you ask the pilots here, they will say 'Sure!
> > It's terrible!
>
> The stadium TFRs are objectionable in my view not because they
> are unreasonable per se,

A question for you: do you actually think that stadium TFRs
are effective?

--
Bob Noel

[Sydney Hoeltzli]

Judah wrote:
> More like, "Hey - your sacrifice is allowing me to be relatively
> unaffected! Thanks, bro! But don't go waking up the TSA guys or they might
> make it worse for ALL of us, dude!!"

Well, this comes down to a disagreement in viewpoint.

Your viewpoint seems to be "don't complain about small restrictions,
your complaints will make big restrictions more likely to be imposed."

My viewpoint is "if we don't complain about small arbitrary
restrictions imposed for no clear reason, we open the door
and enable the easier imposition of big restrictions".

I believe the latter viewpoint to be more readily supportable
by extensive historical precedent, but I don't wish to engage in
extended historical debate.

So I'll leave it at, we disagree, and probably mutually find
each other's viewpoints unfortunate.

Sydney

[Sydney Hoeltzli]

Judah wrote:

>>1 - TSRs _only_ impact law abiding people. Circles on a sectional will
>>not stop someone out to kill themselves.

> True for small TFRs like the stadium TFRs. But not true for the ADIZ and
> larger TFRs (like 30NM Presidential ones). If a controller sees a 1200
> squawk within 30NM of Washington, DC, what do you think happens next?

Why do you believe that someone bent on harm would be dutifully
activating their transponder and squawking 1200, flying a plane
with a large primary radar footprint, or flying in a manner which
would make them straightforward to intercept in less than 10
minutes?

>>What "restrictions" could they possibly put in place to effectively
>>prevent a "GA suicide bomber" anyway?

> How about metal detectors and airline-style security systems in all
> airports? Or Permanent Flight Restrictions in the areas that are now
> Temporary, or more ADIZ Zones preventing GA pilots from flying over
> populated areas without discrete transponder codes and two-way
> communication with ATC?

These are examples of more restrictions which would impact only law
abiding people without effectively deterring someone bent on harm.

Cheers,
Sydney

[G.R. Patterson III]

Sydney Hoeltzli wrote:
>
> My viewpoint is "if we don't complain about small arbitrary
> restrictions imposed for no clear reason, we open the door
> and enable the easier imposition of big restrictions".

Absolutely. Anyone who doesn't believe this knows nothing about the NRA.

George Patterson
The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist is afraid that he's correct.
James Branch Cavel

[Captain Wubba]

Paul Baechler > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> (Captain Wubba) wrote:
>
> >Just like
> >if the scumbags had destoyed the WTC with a bunch of rented U-Hauls,
> >we'd be seeing restrictions on renting U-Hauls. You'd go in to rent
> >one, and you'd need to prove you were an American citizen, provide 3
> >forms of picture ID, have a background check, etc.
>
> Bull****. We've had one partially successful attack on the WTC and one
> very successful attack on the Murrah Building using rented trucks.
> There's been no restriction on truck rentals.

BS right back at you. We had plenty of hijackings, and no meaningful
security was taken - no real rstrictions on planes. We had a nutjob
pilot try to hijack a FedEx DC-10 and try to do exactly what the
scumbags at the WTC did. Nothing was done - no real rstrictions on air
travel. We had one relatively trivial attack, and one attack on the
Murah building that didn't kill 1/10th of what the plans at the WTC
did. And little was done. The WTC was different. It *changed*
everything....Murrah didn't, the USS Cole didn't, the Embassy Bombings
didn't. The WTC did.

Whatever had been used at the WTC would have received a backlash. Had
rental trucks been used for that, there would now be restrictions on
rental trucks. Had a tanker truck been hijacked and blown up
destroying the buildings, there would be massive restrictions on
tanker trucks right now. That's just human nature. You restrict what's
been *shown* to be a threat. And those dirtbags prved quite well that
plans can be a threat. It's the sheer scope of the WTC that initiated
a backlash. The costs associated with the changes mandated since the
WTC (and ancillary actions) are in the hundreds of billions of
dollars. And what have we to complain about? 1/10th of 1% of US
airspace has some restrictions on it, and 1/2 of 1% of US public use
airports have some restrictions on them. You think *that* is a
backlash?

A backlash would be having to file flightplans a day in advance for
any flight. A backlash would be having all GA airports locked down
behind barbed-wire fences with 24/7 security. A backlash would be *no*
GA flights at all within 25 miles of a major city, with F-18s flying
around with shotdown orders. That would be a backlash.

And that is the kind of stuff we need to fight. We don't have some
constitutionally-granted right to pilot our planes. Flying is a
privilege...the courts are quite clear on this. And tings could easily
be much, much worse than they are now. Part of the reason they are not
s because groups like the AOPA know what to fight, and what not to.

What can't 99% of GA pilots do that hey could do before 9/11? What
*exactly* have we lost? I live in a Class B area...I fly all over the
country. I've had to alter a few plans, and avoid the stadiums near my
home airport. Yes, it would suck to be based at one of the DC-3, and
that is worth working on. But honestly...for all the b*tching and
moaning about how our rights have been trampled on and how this is the
beginning of a new fascism...what exactly is different for the average
GA pliot? Very little. And it won't help GA to go whinging about how
terribly we have been mistreated. Many folks already think of us
(wrongly) as rich folks playing with their toys. If we don't want
rstrictions that *do* dramaticaly affect our flying, then we need to
pick and choose our fights, and show the public over time how valuable
we are. And that won't happen by whining about 'poor me' bacause I
have to fly an 5000 feet above a stadium rather than 2000 feet.

Cap

[Sydney Hoeltzli]

Paul Baechler wrote:

> I didn't forget about them, or about the Marines killed in Beirut. But I
> don't see the relevance of these attacks; if the possession of any
> vehicle larger than a Vespa was completely banned in the US it would
> have no effect on an attack carried out in Kenya.

My point was they are further demonstration of the interest
and capability these scum-balls have in using ground vehicles
to attack US interests and kill US citizens; further evidence
that the focus upon planes, and GA planes especially, as
security threats, is misguided.

:(
Sydney

[Sydney Hoeltzli]

Bob Noel wrote:
> In article >, Sydney Hoeltzli
> > wrote:
>>The stadium TFRs are objectionable in my view not because they
>>are unreasonable per se,

> A question for you: do you actually think that stadium TFRs
> are effective?

No, of course not. Like other TFRs, they inconvenience law-
abiding folks without posing any effective deterrant to someone
bent upon destruction.

However, I would have to agree that unlike the DC gulag, they
don't pose a particularly onorous burden or restriction upon GA
pilots...PROVIDED information about where the durn things are
and when the TFR is in effect were properly disseminated, instead
of placing the burden of determining this upon the pilot. "You
must follow the rules or you will be punished" "OK, what are the
rules?" "I can't tell you that, you must determine them for
yourself" Aack!

Cheers,
Sydney

[Judah]

No. Not at all. Of course, I don't advocate that we strip-search every
private pilot before they get on their airplane.

I was merely responding to Mr. Dunihos statement that I was a jerk and an
idiot for believing that GA could pose a threat.


Paul Baechler > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> Judah > wrote:
>
>>A suicide bomber in Jerusalem, with 30 pounds of explosives strapped to
>>his belt, can murder and injure dozens of innocent people in
>>restaurants, night clubs, markets, and bus stations. You don't believe
>>that 500 pounds of explosives in a suicide-bomber's Cessna is a
>>potential security threat?
>
> 500 pounds of explosives in a suicide-bomber's Cessna is a potential
> security threat, but so is 30 pounds of explosives strapped to a belt.
> Are you advocating we strip-search every person entering a public
> building? If not, why single out the Cessna?
>

[Judah]

So you are saying there have been no changes in commercial (airline)
aviation since 9/11?

Have you flown on an Airline recently? Ever get an *S* stamped on your
ticket? Notice that the lines seem to take longer, and some people even
take off their shoes to go through security now?

Planes don't kill people, people kill people. The government has found a
way to secure the airline industry by putting security checkpoints in the
airports. Do you want to have security checkpoints at your local FBO?


Paul Baechler > wrote in news:pbaechle-
:

> In article >,
> (Captain Wubba) wrote:
>
>>Whatever had been used at the WTC would have received a backlash. Had
>>rental trucks been used for that, there would now be restrictions on
>>rental trucks. Had a tanker truck been hijacked and blown up
>>destroying the buildings, there would be massive restrictions on
>>tanker trucks right now. That's just human nature. You restrict what's
>>been *shown* to be a threat.
>
> "What"s been *shown* to be a threat" is long-range commercial airliners.
> Your choices now are to list the "massive restrictions" on commercial
> airliners or to admit your argument is false.
>

[Jonathan Birge]

"Tom Fleischman" > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
> In article >, Rosspilot
> > wrote:
>
> > >I would go so far as to say that he personally may not be aware of
> > >any of these restrictions at all.
> >
> > That's why I think 300,000 letters sent to the White House bitching
about it
> > might make an impression. He might actually direct the Secret Service
to back
> > off on it a little . . .
>
> You don't really think that bozo would actually read those 300,000
> letters himself do you? Or even be told about them by his staff if they
> were to arrive there? I'd be suprised if he was able to read at all.

Tom and Ross:

That moron made it through Yale and Harvard business school (the fact that
he got in off his surname notwithstanding). He's not as dumb as he appears
to be, nor are his detractors as smart as they believe they are.

-Jonathan

[Jonathan Birge]

"Rosspilot" > wrote in message
...
> >>I'd be suprised if he was able to read at all.
> >
> >His record of flying a jet fighter is ample proof that he can read - and
> >perform...
>
> his record is that he has the attention span of a gnat.

I'll give you that. So what does it say about the state of the polical left
today that a man with an obvious learning disability and the attention span
of your average second-grader is more popular than a man who was a Rhodes
scholar?

[Peter Duniho]

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
> Have you flown on an Airline recently? Ever get an *S* stamped on your
> ticket? Notice that the lines seem to take longer, and some people even
> take off their shoes to go through security now?

Your naivete continues to abound (and astound). You don't really think that
all that security is actually making it impossible, or even significantly
harder, for a terrorist to take over an airliner, do you?

All it's accomplished is ensuring that the law-abiding passengers are now
unarmed (and ungroomed).

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
> I was merely responding to Mr. Dunihos statement that I was a jerk and an
> idiot for believing that GA could pose a threat.

I don't think I ever used the word "jerk".

[Peter Duniho]

"Jonathan Birge" > wrote in message
...
> I'll give you that. So what does it say about the state of the polical
left
> today that a man with an obvious learning disability and the attention
span
> of your average second-grader is more popular than a man who was a Rhodes
> scholar?

IMHO, it says as much about the voting public as it says about the
politicians involved.

[Judah]

No, I don't. Again, I am simply responding with facts. My opinion on the
effectiveness of the security measures is irrelevant.

The fact of the matter is that the reason that the airlines will never have
another attack similar to 9/11 is because the crew and passengers will
handle a hijacking properly this time. The fact that the people won't be
able to use their tweezers to defend themselves is not, in my opinion, a
very impressive security measure.

But in response to your point, why do you complain so bitterly about GA
security, but I haven't heard you mention how people's rights are violated
when they fly commercially at all! Clearly, that's unfair also, isn't it?

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
:

> "Judah" > wrote in message
> ...
> Your naivete continues to abound (and astound). You don't really think
> that all that security is actually making it impossible, or even
> significantly harder, for a terrorist to take over an airliner, do you?
>
> All it's accomplished is ensuring that the law-abiding passengers are
> now unarmed (and ungroomed).
>
> Pete

[Judah]

Sure you did. Earlier on in the thread...

> It's unfortunate your mother didn't raise you any better, but since she
> apparently didn't, it's clear we need laws to prevent jerks like you from
> failing to dispose of your trash properly.

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl667392307d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8
&oe=UTF-8&selm=vgbdsv11p5nle9%40corp.supernews.com

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
:

> "Judah" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I was merely responding to Mr. Dunihos statement that I was a jerk and
>> an idiot for believing that GA could pose a threat.
>
> I don't think I ever used the word "jerk".
>
>

[Judah]

It was all the cocaine he did afterward that rotted his brains...


"Jonathan Birge" > wrote in
:

> Tom and Ross:
>
> That moron made it through Yale and Harvard business school (the fact
> that he got in off his surname notwithstanding). He's not as dumb as he
> appears to be, nor are his detractors as smart as they believe they
> are.
>
> -Jonathan

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Judah
> wrote:

> So you are saying there have been no changes in commercial (airline)
> aviation since 9/11?

there have been changes, which primarily affect the passengers.
But there are no massive restrictions on commercial airliners,
especially in terms of when and where they fly.

--
Bob Noel

[Peter Duniho]

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
> But in response to your point, why do you complain so bitterly about GA
> security, but I haven't heard you mention how people's rights are violated
> when they fly commercially at all! Clearly, that's unfair also, isn't it?

There are any number of restrictions imposed on us that I think are unfair,
including the additional security measures in place at commercial airports.
However, the topic at hand is the flight restrictions affecting general
aviation.

In case you hadn't noticed.

Surely you're not suggesting that, in order for one's point to be valid,
they must comment on every single similar situation that exists? No
wait...I suppose you might actually be saying that. After all, it's no more
absurd a position than your other comments exhibit.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
> > I don't think I ever used the word "jerk".
>
> Sure you did. Earlier on in the thread...

Ahhh, yes, you're right. I forgot that the idiot who thinks that we ought
to just accept the TFR's is the same jerk who needs a law to tell him to not
throw trash out the window of his car.

Thanks for reminding me...

[Judah]

Because the security measures were implemented at the terminals before the
passengers and crew board the planes.

If you'd prefer, I am sure the TSA could arrange it to require private
pilots to stand in line at metal detecting and bag-searching security
stations at local FBOs so they can collect all of your tweezers and protect
the airways that way. Then they wouldn't need to put restrictions on our
flying, since we will be secured from the ground. Of course, all FBOs would
be required to comply, and to come up with the cash to purchase the
equipment, just like the larger airports were made to do.

Frankly, I prefer a few bullsh*t stadium TFRs.

Ideally, I would prefer pre-9/11 procedures, but pragmatically speaking, I
think it will take more time.


Bob Noel > wrote in news:ihatessppaamm-
:

> In article >, Judah
> > wrote:
>
>> So you are saying there have been no changes in commercial (airline)
>> aviation since 9/11?
>
> there have been changes, which primarily affect the passengers.
> But there are no massive restrictions on commercial airliners,
> especially in terms of when and where they fly.
>

[Ron Lee]

Judah > wrote:

>No, I don't. Again, I am simply responding with facts. My opinion on the
>effectiveness of the security measures is irrelevant.
>
>The fact of the matter is that the reason that the airlines will never have
>another attack similar to 9/11 is because the crew and passengers will
>handle a hijacking properly this time.

Absolutely. I started preparing for defensive/offensive options
before 9/11 since even before then some lunatics tried to break into
cockpits.

Ron Lee

[Judah]

Actually, the topic at hand was a pilot who mismanaged fuel. Since neither
of us has been talking about that topic for a very long time, I guess we
don't belong on this thread.

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
:
> There are any number of restrictions imposed on us that I think are
> unfair, including the additional security measures in place at
> commercial airports. However, the topic at hand is the flight
> restrictions affecting general aviation.
>
> In case you hadn't noticed.
>

[Margy Natalie]

No, the topic is about how the flight restrictions are affecting GA. The
pilot had more than enough fuel for his INTENDED flight. He did not expect
having to circle for an hour while ATC found his ADIZ flight plan that had
been lost in the system. His fuel mismanagement started when he expected them
to resolve the issue in short order and he got sucked into the "they will find
in any minute" syndrome. Yes, the pilot should have left his entry position
and gone off to get fuel (and gotten on a land line to clear up the mess), but
had it not been for the restrictions he wouldn't have gotten into the mess in
the first place.

Margy

Judah wrote:

> Actually, the topic at hand was a pilot who mismanaged fuel. Since neither
> of us has been talking about that topic for a very long time, I guess we
> don't belong on this thread.
>
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in
> :
> > There are any number of restrictions imposed on us that I think are
> > unfair, including the additional security measures in place at
> > commercial airports. However, the topic at hand is the flight
> > restrictions affecting general aviation.
> >
> > In case you hadn't noticed.
> >

[Paul Baechler]

In article >,
Sydney Hoeltzli > wrote:

>My point was they are further demonstration of the interest
>and capability these scum-balls have in using ground vehicles
>to attack US interests and kill US citizens; further evidence
>that the focus upon planes, and GA planes especially, as
>security threats, is misguided.

They don't demonstrate that there's no interest in using aircraft;
general aviation was non-existent in Lebanon in 1981, and is for all
practical purposes non-existent in Saudi Arabia. You can't reasonably
argue that failure to use a non-obtainable weapon is evidence that
there's no interest in using it. And the question is really the focus on
GA planes; airliners were used in 20% of the attacks attributed to
al-Qaeda.

--
Paul Baechler

[Sydney Hoeltzli]

Paul Baechler wrote:

> They don't demonstrate that there's no interest in using aircraft;
> general aviation was non-existent in Lebanon in 1981, and is for all
> practical purposes non-existent in Saudi Arabia. You can't reasonably
> argue that failure to use a non-obtainable weapon is evidence that
> there's no interest in using it.

I'm not trying to make the above argument. Where and why did
you get the impression I had?

The point is, this is a group which has demonstrated an interest
in using car and truck bombs.

So if the real issue is security, why the focus on GA, a minor
part of the threat picture? Why not impose restrictions on
all vehicles, ground and air, commensurate with the demonstrated
and potential threat?

OTOH, if the real issue is political: creating an appearance
that action has been taken, while focusing on actions which
impact only a numerically small group of people, rather than
the large numbers of people who make daily use of cars and
trucks, focus on GA makes sense (from the viewpoint of strictly
the most politically beneficial action)

Cheers,
Sydney

[pac plyer]

Sydney Hoeltzli > wrote in message >...
> Captain Wubba wrote:
>
> > Sydney, it's simply reality.
>
> Wubba, despite my tender concern for inducing pac player's
> migraines (duly reported on his medical application, no doubt *g*)
> I decided I had to answer this.
>
> Many things are and have been "reality", which are not morally,
> ethically, or rationally defensible.
>
> Do you truly find it persuasive that one should not argue
> against something which falls into one or more of these
> indefensible categories, simply because it is current "reality"? <snip good stuff>

Sydney, an excellent post. You dids left out nothin' ;-) No
sarcasm, no emotionalism; all things considered a very well reasoned
perspective. Although I also like certain elements of Captain Wubba's
position, I must agree especially with your assertion that the
existence of TFR's are not "rationally" disseminated. Thank you, my
migraine has gone away.

Cheers,

pacplyer

[Paul Baechler]

In article >,
Sydney Hoeltzli > wrote:

>Paul Baechler wrote:
>
>> They don't demonstrate that there's no interest in using aircraft;
>> general aviation was non-existent in Lebanon in 1981, and is for all
>> practical purposes non-existent in Saudi Arabia. You can't reasonably
>> argue that failure to use a non-obtainable weapon is evidence that
>> there's no interest in using it.
>
>I'm not trying to make the above argument. Where and why did
>you get the impression I had?

It's the argument you're effectively making when you drag the foreign
bombings in.

>The point is, this is a group which has demonstrated an interest
>in using car and truck bombs.

It's a group which has demonstrated a willingness to use truck bombs
when aircraft aren't available. If you limit your argument to al-Qaida
attacks within the US they used commercial airliners (i.e., airplanes)
50% of the time (assuming both WTC attacks were made by al-Qaida).

--
Paul Baechler

[Peter Duniho]

"Paul Baechler" > wrote in message
...
> It's a group which has demonstrated a willingness to use truck bombs
> when aircraft aren't available. If you limit your argument to al-Qaida
> attacks within the US they used commercial airliners (i.e., airplanes)
> 50% of the time (assuming both WTC attacks were made by al-Qaida).

Even using your own screwed up logic, 50% of the attacks in the US were done
using something OTHER than airplanes. Seems to me, by your own line of
reasoning, trucks should be subject to at least as much restrictions as
airplanes.

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "Casey Wilson"
> wrote:

> Aren't they? How close can you get a vehicle to the White House or
> Capitol
> buildings?

right next to them.

> Maybe the radius isn't 30 miles, but the restrictions are
> reasonably equivalent.

not hardly.

>On the local military base, you can't park even a
> motorcycle within 200 feet of any building.

what FPCON is that base operating at?

--
Bob Noel

[Dennis O'Connor]

I feel your pain!

Denny

"Casey Wilson" > wrote in Let me tell ya, that's a real
> pain to have to walk that extra distance to gym too. :)
>
>

[Ron Natalie]

"Judah" > wrote in message ...
> Because the security measures were implemented at the terminals before the
> passengers and crew board the planes.
>
Bull****. Airline security is still a massive joke. It's still set up to prevent the
"hijack to Cuba" scenario and doesn't really protect much against that.

[Ron Natalie]

> Aren't they? How close can you get a vehicle to the White House or Capitol
> buildings? Maybe the radius isn't 30 miles, but the restrictions are
> reasonably equivalent. On the local military base, you can't park even a
> motorcycle within 200 feet of any building. Let me tell ya, that's a real
> pain to have to walk that extra distance to gym too. :)

They try to keep trucks about four blocks away, but they don't do a very good
job. If someone is determined to die for the cause they can certainly do there
by the time the Keystone Capitol Cops chase them down (got caught in a
traffic jam last year when some happless office furniture delivery truck managed
to blunder through the "no truck" zone. He'd have blown off the Senate wing if
he had a mind too...

You can still drive right up to the House/Senate office buildings. You can bet about
2 blocks from the White House itself.

[Big John]

Sidney

You are reading too much media hype.

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:32:22 GMT, Sydney Hoeltzli

----clip----

>Why do you believe that someone bent on harm would be dutifully
>activating their transponder and squawking 1200, flying a plane
>with a large primary radar footprint, or flying in a manner which
>would make them straightforward to

************* intercept in less than 10 minutes?*************

Impossible in todays world with the ROE in effect and status and
location of Interceptors.

I spent 15 years intercepting 'unknown' aircraft and we sat on 5
minute alert 7/24.

Todays aircraft have been cut back from 9/11 status and are unable to
react soonest and in no way can meet your "10 minutes"

Sorry about that.


Big John

[Snowbird]

Big John > wrote in message >...
> Sidney
>
> You are reading too much media hype.

Big John,

I think you're misreading my post.

> On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:32:22 GMT, Sydney Hoeltzli
>
> ----clip----
>
> >Why do you believe that someone bent on harm would be dutifully
> >activating their transponder and squawking 1200, flying a plane
> >with a large primary radar footprint, or flying in a manner which
> >would make them straightforward to
>
> ************* intercept in less than 10 minutes?*************
>
> Impossible in todays world with the ROE in effect and status and
> location of Interceptors.


That was my SWAG.

No need to be sorry; you just helped me make my point.

Sydney

[Big John]

Sidney

Sorry bout that.

Measured once and cut twice.............................or some such.

Big John


On 18 Jul 2003 22:07:21 -0700, (Snowbird)
wrote:

>Big John > wrote in message >...
>> Sidney
>>
>> You are reading too much media hype.
>
>Big John,
>
>I think you're misreading my post.
>
>> On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:32:22 GMT, Sydney Hoeltzli
>>
>> ----clip----
>>
>> >Why do you believe that someone bent on harm would be dutifully
>> >activating their transponder and squawking 1200, flying a plane
>> >with a large primary radar footprint, or flying in a manner which
>> >would make them straightforward to
>>
>> ************* intercept in less than 10 minutes?*************
>>
>> Impossible in todays world with the ROE in effect and status and
>> location of Interceptors.
>
>
>That was my SWAG.
>
>No need to be sorry; you just helped me make my point.
>
>Sydney