TSA changes twelve-five rule!

[Capt.Doug]

The TSA has changed the wording in it's regs to reflect reality. Once in a
while a smart person infiltrates Washington DC. I hope they don't catch the
perp.

After 9/11, any operator with aircraft of 12,500 pounds or more had to
comply with a burdensome security program. Many, many aircraft have a MGTOW
of 12,500 pounds as that is the limit for not having type-ratings, certain
performance requirements, and certain maintenance requirements.

The TSA finally changed the wording so that only aircraft 'over' 12,500 had
to comply. That alleviates quite a lot of hardship for many smaller
operators.

Smart person, wherever you are hiding, I salute you!

D.

[Big John]

Not on thread but let me add the following to this post vs opening a
new thread.

Saw yesterday on the 'Telly' that analysis of the WTC buildings
collapses was not caused by the aircraft impact or the fuel on the
aircraft.

The ensuing fires were fueled by the mountains of paper work and plush
furnishings in the offices that burned and softened the steel beams to
where they collapsed. The fuel all burned in a minute or two according
the report and stucture held. From report, I got the idea that office
furnishings in the future in WTC type of tall buildings would have
restrictions on flammability.

If this it true does any one think that TSA will take these facts into
account and remove some of the existing draconian rules they have????

Big John
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 02:52:26 GMT, "Capt.Doug" >
wrote:

>The TSA has changed the wording in it's regs to reflect reality. Once in a
>while a smart person infiltrates Washington DC. I hope they don't catch the
>perp.
>
>After 9/11, any operator with aircraft of 12,500 pounds or more had to
>comply with a burdensome security program. Many, many aircraft have a MGTOW
>of 12,500 pounds as that is the limit for not having type-ratings, certain
>performance requirements, and certain maintenance requirements.
>
>The TSA finally changed the wording so that only aircraft 'over' 12,500 had
>to comply. That alleviates quite a lot of hardship for many smaller
>operators.
>
>Smart person, wherever you are hiding, I salute you!
>
>D.
>

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 15:44:06 -0500, Big John wrote:

>Not on thread but let me add the following to this post vs opening a
>new thread.
>
>Saw yesterday on the 'Telly' that analysis of the WTC buildings
>collapses was not caused by the aircraft impact or the fuel on the
>aircraft.
>
>The ensuing fires were fueled by the mountains of paper work and plush
>furnishings in the offices that burned and softened the steel beams to
>where they collapsed. The fuel all burned in a minute or two according
>the report and stucture held. From report, I got the idea that office
>furnishings in the future in WTC type of tall buildings would have
>restrictions on flammability.
>
>If this it true does any one think that TSA will take these facts into
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>account and remove some of the existing draconian rules they have????


Well, this story is now more than one year old. At least here (Europe) we
had TV documentations with interviews of the architect (his office) of the
WTC, tests in labs, etc.

So yes, it is true and it is old news, at least here.

>Big John

#m
--
Secret World of U.S. Interrogation:
Long History of Tactics in Overseas Prisons Is Coming to Light
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15981-2004May10.html

[G.R. Patterson III]

Big John wrote:
>
> The ensuing fires were fueled by the mountains of paper work and plush
> furnishings in the offices that burned and softened the steel beams to
> where they collapsed.

This was published in the Atlantic about a year ago in one of Langeswieche's
articles, so it was public knowledge before that.

> If this it true does any one think that TSA will take these facts into
> account and remove some of the existing draconian rules they have????

Not a chance.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

[Big John]

Martin

1. Had not seen before.

2. Was presented as new news.

3. Sorry to rehash old news.

Big John
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 21:04:11 GMT, Martin Hotze >
wrote:

>On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 15:44:06 -0500, Big John wrote:
>
>>Not on thread but let me add the following to this post vs opening a
>>new thread.
>>
>>Saw yesterday on the 'Telly' that analysis of the WTC buildings
>>collapses was not caused by the aircraft impact or the fuel on the
>>aircraft.
>>
>>The ensuing fires were fueled by the mountains of paper work and plush
>>furnishings in the offices that burned and softened the steel beams to
>>where they collapsed. The fuel all burned in a minute or two according
>>the report and stucture held. From report, I got the idea that office
>>furnishings in the future in WTC type of tall buildings would have
>>restrictions on flammability.
>>
>>If this it true does any one think that TSA will take these facts into
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>account and remove some of the existing draconian rules they have????
>
>
>Well, this story is now more than one year old. At least here (Europe) we
>had TV documentations with interviews of the architect (his office) of the
>WTC, tests in labs, etc.
>
>So yes, it is true and it is old news, at least here.
>
>>Big John
>
>#m