TSA Considers Wiping Egg From Face Re. GA.

[Larry Dighera]

-------------------------------------------------------------------
AVflash Volume 9, Number 43a October 20, 2003
-------------------------------------------------------------------

LOY HINTS AT GA SECURITY CHANGES
The Transportation Security Administration is hinting it may relax
some of the restrictions placed on GA after 9/11. In testimony before
a House Aviation Subcommittee hearing that was supposed to deal with
airline security, TSA head Adm. James Loy said that GA was not as much
of a threat as originally thought post-9/11. In written comments he
said "more in-depth background checks" would assist in issuing waivers
for individuals such as corporate pilots into certain restricted
airspace. Loy also said, "We will advise the FAA about whether certain
airspace restrictions add real security value and we will recommend
that FAA engage in appropriate rulemaking to permanently codify those
security-based airspace restrictions that add real security value." He
said, too that the Washington ADIZ will remain for the time being.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/140-full.html#185895

--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

[Peter Duniho]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> AVflash Volume 9, Number 43a October 20, 2003
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> LOY HINTS AT GA SECURITY CHANGES

We'll see. I'm a bit worried about the "we will recommend that FAA engage
in appropriate rulemaking to permanently codify" part. I suppose it'll be
nice to have restricted airspace marked on the charts at printing time, but
I'm not really looking forward to our perma-TFRs becoming permanent.

Obviously the hope is that the perma-TFRs will actually go away. But I'm
not holding my breath.

Pete

[David H]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > AVflash Volume 9, Number 43a October 20, 2003
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > LOY HINTS AT GA SECURITY CHANGES
>
> We'll see. I'm a bit worried about the "we will recommend that FAA engage
> in appropriate rulemaking to permanently codify" part. I suppose it'll be
> nice to have restricted airspace marked on the charts at printing time, but
> I'm not really looking forward to our perma-TFRs becoming permanent.
>
> Obviously the hope is that the perma-TFRs will actually go away. But I'm
> not holding my breath.

Me neither, at least not from this initiative.

Seems to me that Loy is pretty naive about this. From what I've seen, the
person who is responsible for imposing (and eventually removing) the TFRs
(Condoleezza Rice) doesn't care one bit what anyone in the FAA or TSA or
Congress or anybody else says or thinks. Loy is certainly not the first
person in a high position in a government agency that deals with aviation and
security who has concluded that the TFRs are stupid and unnecesary. Loy can
make whatever recomendations he wants but I doubt his input carries much
weight on this issue. Maybe we'll see. But I don't think so.


David H
Boeing Field (BFI), Seattle, WA
Western Washington: TFR Capital Of America - We're Number One!!!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Visit the Pacific Northwest Flying forum:
http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/pnwflying

[Eric Pinnell]

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:59:37 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>AVflash Volume 9, Number 43a October 20, 2003
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>LOY HINTS AT GA SECURITY CHANGES
>The Transportation Security Administration is hinting it may relax
>some of the restrictions placed on GA after 9/11. In testimony before
>a House Aviation Subcommittee hearing that was supposed to deal with
>airline security, TSA head Adm. James Loy said that GA was not as much
>of a threat as originally thought post-9/11. In written comments he
>said "more in-depth background checks" would assist in issuing waivers
>for individuals such as corporate pilots into certain restricted
>airspace. Loy also said, "We will advise the FAA about whether certain
>airspace restrictions add real security value and we will recommend
>that FAA engage in appropriate rulemaking to permanently codify those
>security-based airspace restrictions that add real security value." He
>said, too that the Washington ADIZ will remain for the time being.
>http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/140-full.html#185895

Utter drivel. Hell, the FAA just decided to require people to have
pilot's licenses to drive an ultralight. What's next, boat drivers
licenses?


Eric Pinnell

(Author, "Claws of The Dragon", "The Omega File")

For a preview, see: http://www.ericpinnell.com and click on "books"

[G.R. Patterson III]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> "We will advise the FAA about whether certain
> airspace restrictions add real security value and we will recommend
> that FAA engage in appropriate rulemaking to permanently codify those
> security-based airspace restrictions that add real security value." He
> said, too that the Washington ADIZ will remain for the time being.
> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/140-full.html#185895

Sounds a lot more like they're going to make the Washington State TFRs permanent
and add some more. Doesn't sound like they think they have anything on their
faces.

George Patterson
To a pilot, altitude is like money - it is possible that having too much
could prove embarassing, but having too little is always fatal.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 22:37:27 -0400, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>
>
>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>> "We will advise the FAA about whether certain
>> airspace restrictions add real security value and we will recommend
>> that FAA engage in appropriate rulemaking to permanently codify those
>> security-based airspace restrictions that add real security value." He
>> said, too that the Washington ADIZ will remain for the time being.
>> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/140-full.html#185895
>
>Sounds a lot more like they're going to make the Washington State TFRs permanent
>and add some more. Doesn't sound like they think they have anything on their
>faces.

I suppose the success of the changes depend on WHO asses the security
value of the airspace restrictions based on WHAT CRITERIA. But if Loy
feels that the threat from GA has been exaggerated, optimistically
some reduction in ineffective restricted airspace may result.
However, the cynic in me agrees with your assessment. On face, it
looks like a smoke screen intended to lessen alarm at permanently
grabbing security related TFRs' airspace by changing its status from
temporary to permanent.
The true Axis Of Evil in America is our genious at marketing
coupled with the stupidity of our people. -- Bill Maher

[Ace Pilot]

Eric Pinnell proclaimed:
> Utter drivel. Hell, the FAA just decided to require people to have
> pilot's licenses to drive an ultralight. What's next, boat drivers
> licenses?
>
>
> Eric Pinnell

What in the world are you talking about? When did the FAA change Part 103?

[Larry Dighera]

>Hell, the FAA just decided to require people to have
>pilot's licenses to drive an ultralight.

Due tell...

>What's next, boat drivers licenses?

Now there's an idea whose time has come.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 11:31:02 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>> AVflash Volume 9, Number 43a October 20, 2003
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> LOY HINTS AT GA SECURITY CHANGES
>
>We'll see. I'm a bit worried about the "we will recommend that FAA engage
>in appropriate rulemaking to permanently codify" part.

You'll have to speak to Ms. Rice about that. :-)

It would be nice if there were a voice that represented pilots in the
TSA group that will assess airspace restrictions for real security
value. Is it reasonable that our government should be permitted to
shut the users of the airspace out of its assessment process?
Wouldn't a reasonable person consider the fact that pilots would
likely be capable of providing valuable input? Just a thought ...

>I suppose it'll be nice to have restricted airspace marked on the charts
>at printing time, but I'm not really looking forward to our perma-TFRs
>becoming permanent.

I don't know how congested the skies are in Washington, but within 100
nm of KLAX you're getting traffic calls all along your route. I
wonder if anyone has figured out at what point the "security measures"
compress VFR traffic into such cramped quarters, that it begins to
increase the rate of mishaps? Are there any quantified limits
established, or is it a TERPS thing?

I don't know any pilots who look foreward to airspace grabs.

>Obviously the hope is that the perma-TFRs will actually go away. But I'm
>not holding my breath.

Everyone want's things to go back the way they were in kinder and
gentler times long ago; not likely, IMO. Osama's strike at the icons
of our "invincable" nation have forever done their damage in the eyes
of the people of the world. All the king's horses, and all the kings
men, ...

[As I add TSA to my spell-check dictionary, I cringe.]

[David H]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 11:31:02 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> > wrote in Message-Id:
> >:
>
> >"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> AVflash Volume 9, Number 43a October 20, 2003
> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> LOY HINTS AT GA SECURITY CHANGES

<snip>

> >Obviously the hope is that the perma-TFRs will actually go away. But I'm
> >not holding my breath.
>
> Everyone want's things to go back the way they were in kinder and
> gentler times long ago; not likely, IMO. Osama's strike at the icons
> of our "invincable" nation have forever done their damage in the eyes
> of the people of the world.

Don't blame Osama for the TFRs and other post 9/11 airspace grabs by the
Feds. Osama may have been responsible for the attacks on 9/11, but Americans
were (and continue to be) resposnible for the airspace restrictions.

David H
Boeing Field (BFI), Seattle, WA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Visit the Pacific Northwest Flying forum:
http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/pnwflying

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:27:34 -0700, David H >
wrote in Message-Id: >:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 11:31:02 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
>> > wrote in Message-Id:
>> >:
>>
>> >"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>
>> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> AVflash Volume 9, Number 43a October 20, 2003
>> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>
>> >> LOY HINTS AT GA SECURITY CHANGES
>
><snip>
>
>> >Obviously the hope is that the perma-TFRs will actually go away. But I'm
>> >not holding my breath.
>>
>> Everyone want's things to go back the way they were in kinder and
>> gentler times long ago; not likely, IMO. Osama's strike at the icons
>> of our "invincable" nation have forever done their damage in the eyes
>> of the people of the world.
>
>Don't blame Osama for the TFRs and other post 9/11 airspace grabs by the
>Feds. Osama may have been responsible for the attacks on 9/11, but Americans
>were (and continue to be) resposnible for the airspace restrictions.

I blame Osama only for opening the eyes of the American people and the
world to the vulnerability to significant hostile attack of our
historically strategically isolated nation.

I see the (largely ineffective, inappropriately implemented) security
related Temporary Flight Restrictions as a poorly conceived,
unilateral reaction, by the elected and appointed representatives of
the people of this nation, to the collective realization of the
startling fact, that the USA is immanently vulnerable to vicious
attack from well financed and zealously determined fanatics. I do not
see those TFRs to be directly mandated by the American people.

Presumably, the purpose of the airspace security restrictions
implemented by the TSA, with the help of the US Congress, NSA, CIA,
DHS, DOD, DOT, FAA, NORAD, ..., are to provide a volume of airspace
that exclusively contains aircraft identified as friendly (from a
security standpoint) and to provide adequate time for the aerial
interception of any potentially hostilely piloted, unidentified
aircraft before they reach their targets. Because of the physical
limitations of time and space, the cost of operating aerial
interception patrols, and past inadequacy of planning for domestic
aerial threats, the ridiculous pseudo-security-TFRs were created as a
desperate response to the hysterical demand that those agencies "do
something." What the TSA et al fails to recognize is that the
airliners commandeered by the September 11, 2001 terrorists are no
different from those currently freely permitted to operate with
impunity within the security-TFRs! To date, the security-TFRs have
only succeeded in placing the nation's federally certificated airmen
in jeopardy of being shot down and losing their certification, not
deterring hostile attacks. The nation's noble airmen have become the
expendable "kick dog" of the ineffective, bungling, bureaucratic
agencies charged with this nation's security in their pathetic attempt
to be seen as fulfilling their stated purpose.

It's time the people of this nation cry, "The king has no clothes" at
the largely theatrical pseudo-security TFRs. The TFRs over stadiums
only prevent lawful aviation operators from overflights, not
terrorists. The obviously politically motivated TFR over Disneyland
is so ineffectual at deflecting aerial terrorist attacks as to be
patently absurd. The grief inflicted on this nation's airmen by the
frequent and routinely sudden (and inadequately publicized) appearance
of presidential and vice presidential TFRs in excess of 3,000 square
miles in area extending from the surface to a height of over 3 miles
is such an onerous fiat as to be characterized as despotism, given the
hastily enacted power authorizing the shooting down of all intruder
aircraft, and the revocation of airman certificates without due
process nor recourse. The TFRs implemented over nuclear waste
facilities only point the way to the nation's soft underbelly; they
are not temporary, and they only serve to disrupt the National
Airspace System, not thwart determined aerial terrorists.

It appears that the governmental agencies tasked with securing the
nation against hostile attacks is far better at their marketing effort
of projecting false perceptions than actually implementing solidly
conceived effective security measures. I submit, that the total
abolishment of all security related TFRs is eminently preferable to
the tyrrany of the embarrassing, unconstitutional sham currently being
falsely perpetrated upon the nation's airmen and public at large in
the name of security.


--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

[Teacherjh]

>>
I blame Osama only for opening the eyes of the American people and the
world to the vulnerability to significant hostile attack of our
historically strategically isolated nation.
<<

It is the fundamental nature of an open society that it is vulnerable. The
alternative (a closed society) is not acceptable, and there is no "middle
ground" unless you can find a number that is greater than six and less than
four.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Larry Dighera]

On 27 Oct 2003 14:55:34 GMT, (Teacherjh)
wrote in Message-Id: >:

>>>
>I blame Osama only for opening the eyes of the American people and the
>world to the vulnerability to significant hostile attack of our
>historically strategically isolated nation.
><<
>
>It is the fundamental nature of an open society that it is vulnerable. The
>alternative (a closed society) is not acceptable, and there is no "middle
>ground" unless you can find a number that is greater than six and less than
>four.

And your point is?

[Teacherjh]

>>
>>>
>I blame Osama only for opening the eyes [...] to the vulnerability...
><<
>
>It is the fundamental nature of an open society that it is vulnerable....

And your point is?
<<

My point is that "opening our eyes" to the vulnerability is not much of an
accomplishment, any more than throwing somebody out a forty ninth story window
"opens our eyes" to the vulnerability of high apartments with glass windows.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Larry Dighera]

On 27 Oct 2003 19:11:51 GMT, (Teacherjh)
wrote in Message-Id: >:

>>>
>>>>
>>I blame Osama only for opening the eyes [...] to the vulnerability...
>><<
>>
>>It is the fundamental nature of an open society that it is vulnerable....
>
>And your point is?
><<
>
>My point is that "opening our eyes" to the vulnerability is not much of an
>accomplishment, any more than throwing somebody out a forty ninth story window
>"opens our eyes" to the vulnerability of high apartments with glass windows.

So you're saying the vulnerability of an open society is obvious to
ALL the people of the world? Doubtful. I believe we were perceived
by the people of the world as mighty and all powerful.

Now it has become apparent that a band of bedouin thugs can kill
thousands and inflict hundreds of millions of dollars in damages in
the US through will and planning alone.

If the vulnerability had been obvious, one would think that those
government agencies charged with the nation's safety would have taken
steps to prevent the type of terrorist attacks we witnessed on
September 11, 2001. You know, little things like having a plan of
action when an airliner deviates from its flight plan after disabling
transponder squawking, air martials, armed airline staff, ... Now
that our vulnerability can no longer be denied, (inappropriate?) steps
are being taken to attempt to close the gaps in our security. But as
you assert, it is virtually impossible in an open society.

You have failed to convince me that the US did not lose a lot of
stature in the eyes of the world as a result of the attacks.


[Nowhere did I use the words "opening our eyes" as you have. What I
said in Message-ID: > was,
"Osama's strike at the icons of our "invincible" nation have forever
done their damage in the eyes of the people of the world."]

[Teacherjh]

>>
So you're saying the vulnerability of an open society is obvious to
ALL the people of the world?
<<

Well, I'm saying it's pretty obvious to anybody who has lived in an open
society and has taken some time to think about it. It's also obvous to anyone
who has thought about how to attack an open society.

>>
If the vulnerability had been obvious, one would think that [...]
government [...] would have taken steps to prevent...
<<

It did. It missed one. Total security is not possible in an open society,
much as "the people" might want to be led otherwise. Airports are vulnerable,
no matter how many fences we put up and no matter how many locks we have to put
on our aircraft. Cities are vulnerable to air attack no matter how many TFRs
go up, unless all aircraft are dismantled and pounded into the ground.

>>
You have failed to convince me that the US did not lose a lot of
stature in the eyes of the world as a result of the attacks.
<<

I wasn't trying to. I wasn't even addressing "stature". I was addressing the
point that the 9/11 attacks somehow revealed something to us.

>>
[Nowhere did I use the words "opening our eyes" as you have.
<<

in message id: you
(Larry Dighera
Date: 10/27/03 9:33 AM Eastern Standard Time) said:
(after quoting people)
>>
I blame Osama only for opening the eyes of the American people and the
world to the vulnerability to significant hostile attack of our
historically strategically isolated nation.
<<

I agree with your sentiment, and go further.

Osama and his gang is responsible for killing thousands of people and
destroying parts of lower Manhattan.
WE are responsible for our reaction to it:

Jose



--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Larry Dighera]

On 27 Oct 2003 21:56:06 GMT, (Teacherjh)
wrote in Message-Id: >:


>Total security is not possible in an open society,...

Agreed.

>Osama and his gang is responsible for killing thousands of people and
>destroying parts of lower Manhattan. WE are responsible for our reaction to it:

That seems reasonable.