More Anti GA hysteria

[Jeremy Lew]

Courtesy of the Boston Globe:

http://snipurl.com/8oly

[Roger Long]

The key to the story is in this last line:

"Funding for the study came from many sources, including the private
transportation industry, which has worked with the center on other
research."

This has nothing, nothing, to do with terrorism and security.

--

Roger Long



"Jeremy Lew" > wrote in message
...
> Courtesy of the Boston Globe:
>
> http://snipurl.com/8oly
>
>

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Roger Long" > wrote in message
...
> The key to the story is in this last line:
>
> "Funding for the study came from many sources, including the private
> transportation industry, which has worked with the center on other
> research."
>
> This has nothing, nothing, to do with terrorism and security.
>


Sounds just like the "independent" study Microsoft funded which found Linux
to be 10 times as expensive as Windows.

[Brien K. Meehan]

"'The no-fly zones over these stadiums are loosely enforced," said
Anderson."

Oooo-kay, that's a good indication of this so-called "Center's"
credibility.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Jeremy Lew" > wrote:

> Courtesy of the Boston Globe:
>
> http://snipurl.com/8oly
>
>

The *******s are still beating the drum! It is obvious to me that
someone in TSA has a hardon for GA and doesn't care what it costs or
what other impacts it has on us. It s probably the same person or group
that came up with TFRs and the DC ADIZ.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
> The *******s are still beating the drum! It is obvious to me that
> someone in TSA has a hardon for GA and doesn't care what it costs or
> what other impacts it has on us.

Maybe so, but it's not obvious from this. What we seem to have here is a staff writer
for a local paper who writes an inflammatory article quoting a couple of bozos from a
DC organization that nobody's heard of and which is apparently not connected with the
government. The only statements from government people are individuals who simply
state that GA security hasn't changed much; none of the government workers even imply
that GA security needs to change.

Seems to me that the person with "a hardon for GA" is named Karen Schaler and works
for the Globe.

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

[Casey Wilson]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> >
> > The *******s are still beating the drum! It is obvious to me that
> > someone in TSA has a hardon for GA and doesn't care what it costs or
> > what other impacts it has on us.
>
> Maybe so, but it's not obvious from this. What we seem to have here is a
staff writer
> for a local paper who writes an inflammatory article

<<SNIP!>>

> Seems to me that the person with "a hardon for GA" is named Karen Schaler
and works
> for the Globe.

Nope, Schaler works for Channel 5, KPHO, in Phoenix, AZ. She
freelances stuff like this around the country. (Behind her Globe byline it
says coorespondent, not staff writer.) You can send her an email at:

kschaler @kpho.com

In addition to Ms Schaler, I'm going to Cc my message to:

baron @globe.com, the editor, and
hdonovan @globe.com , the executive editor, and
rgilman @globe.com , the publisher.

(Don't forget to remove the spaces in front of @ )

[Jeff Franks]

I love it! I can't find a plane that will carry my 240lb frame and my 4
family members without being over gross. They're worried that someone will
be able to pack enough into a Skyhawk to do damage from the middle of a
football stadium!??!?!?!?!

I'm *MUCH* more concerned about the gasoline trucks running up and down the
road than I am ANY airplane. Why can't these people think outside of what
has already happened? Lets see, they got us last time with an airplane, so
they're always gonna use airplanes! right?! Morons.

jf




"Jeremy Lew" > wrote in message
...
> Courtesy of the Boston Globe:
>
> http://snipurl.com/8oly
>
>

[CB]

"Jeremy Lew" > wrote in message
...
> Courtesy of the Boston Globe:
>
> http://snipurl.com/8oly
>
>

Yeh, and at the sports stadium you could also contaminate the hot dogs and
soda machines with botulism and ensure mass destruction that way too. What a
load of S**t.

[Rosspilot]

My response to the writer and editors of the Globe:

**************************************
Enough is enough! Your hysteria regarding the "threat to security" of General
Aviation is a shameful and irresponsible attack on innocent, hard-working,
tax-paying productive American citizens who earn their livelihood by flying
these aircraft.

We are among the most law-abiding and careful citizens you will find, as our
lives (and our passenger's lives) depend wholly on what we do.

Your story is an insult to us. There has never been a single incident of
terrorism using small planes--and using all the creative power I can muster, I
could not envision a scenario where my little 4 place- single engine Cessna
could do any serious damage to anything.

Your "stadium scenario" is nonsense . . . it is far more likely that any of the
millions of panel trucks, rental trucks, or other vehicles can be used for
attacks.

A single motorcycle rider with a backpack full of a nerve agent of other poison
can ride through Times Square and do a lot more damage. Even a single subway
rider with a backpack full of viral agent could infect thousands and thousands
of people. Why aren't you writing stories about UNCHECKED backpacks and
motorcycles?

It's time to stop "piling on" aviators . . . we have been scapegoated long
enough for the attack on the WTC.

Your heartless scare-tactics are simply to inflame and create more irrational
fear, and to sell more papers.

Shame on you!


Lee Ross
www.Rosspilot.com
New York


www.Rosspilot.com

[AJW]

>
>Courtesy of the Boston Globe:

The Bostom MASSACHUSETTS Globe, home of John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and the Boston
Red Sox. (The Patriots play in Focboro!), and $4 a gallon 100 octane low led
at BED.

Need I say more?

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 17:56:56 -0400, "Jeremy Lew" >
wrote in >::

>Courtesy of the Boston Globe:
>
>http://snipurl.com/8oly


Given this excerpt from the Globe article:


Phil Anderson, a senior associate at the center who specializes in
homeland security issues, said the possible scenarios include
situations in which Al Qaeda members could use a small aircraft,
such as a single-engine, four-seat Cessna 172, to cause
catastrophe. One potential target could be a stadium packed with
tens of thousands of people.

''The no-fly zones over these stadiums are loosely enforced," said
Anderson.

Despite concerns expressed about general aviation after the Sept.
11, 2001, attacks, there are still no safety restrictions on these
smaller planes, no metal detectors or screening of luggage.

Anderson said terrorists could load a plane with explosives, add
shrapnel and possibly chemical or biological materials, and then
detonate a bomb inside a stadium.

''You just roll in low and go over the top of the rim of that
stadium and you can slow it down to about 45 knots so it's very
manageable, put it on the 50-yard line, and push the button," said
Anderson.

Any stadium could be a potential target. ''Just look at the
stadium where the Washington Redskins play," he said. FedEx Field,
in Landover, Md., seats more than 90,000 people. ''There's a
flight path that runs right by it and it's just right out there in
the middle of an open area, crimson and gold, just the perfect
target."

Perhaps the most rational approach to eliminate the "threat" this
scenario may pose would be to ban large public gatherings for the
remainder of the existence of the USA. And perhaps the think-tank
members who dreamt up these scenarios and provided them to the media
for publication should be held culpable in the event that one is
carried out.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 02:58:45 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote in >::

>
>Seems to me that the person with "a hardon for GA" is named Karen Schaler and works
>for the Globe.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies
http://www.csis.org/ now says:

http://www.csis.org/press/pr04_48.pdf
WASHINGTON, Aug. 26, 2004---An article in the August 26, 2004,
edition of the Boston Globe that suggests that the Center for
Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) is scheduled to release
soon a report on aviation security that has reached conclusions
regarding the general aviation industry is incorrect. ...

[Jeremy Lew]

"AJW" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >Courtesy of the Boston Globe:
>
> The Bostom MASSACHUSETTS Globe, home of John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and the
Boston
> Red Sox. (The Patriots play in Focboro!), and $4 a gallon 100 octane low
led
> at BED.
>
> Need I say more?

Please don't, unless it's something intelligent.

[gatt]

Hey, Ross; as a former magazine editor, I applaud your article. Succinct,
to the point, and scorching. Very well done! Now, let's see if they have
the courage to print it.

-c

"Rosspilot" > wrote in message
...
> My response to the writer and editors of the Globe:
>
> **************************************
> Enough is enough! Your hysteria regarding the "threat to security" of
General
> Aviation is a shameful and irresponsible attack on innocent, hard-working,
> tax-paying productive American citizens who earn their livelihood by
flying
> these aircraft.
>
> We are among the most law-abiding and careful citizens you will find, as
our
> lives (and our passenger's lives) depend wholly on what we do.
>
> Your story is an insult to us. There has never been a single incident of
> terrorism using small planes--and using all the creative power I can
muster, I
> could not envision a scenario where my little 4 place- single engine
Cessna
> could do any serious damage to anything.
>
> Your "stadium scenario" is nonsense . . . it is far more likely that any
of the
> millions of panel trucks, rental trucks, or other vehicles can be used for
> attacks.
>
> A single motorcycle rider with a backpack full of a nerve agent of other
poison
> can ride through Times Square and do a lot more damage. Even a single
subway
> rider with a backpack full of viral agent could infect thousands and
thousands
> of people. Why aren't you writing stories about UNCHECKED backpacks and
> motorcycles?
>
> It's time to stop "piling on" aviators . . . we have been scapegoated long
> enough for the attack on the WTC.
>
> Your heartless scare-tactics are simply to inflame and create more
irrational
> fear, and to sell more papers.
>
> Shame on you!
>
>
> Lee Ross
> www.Rosspilot.com
> New York
>
>
> www.Rosspilot.com
>
>

[Larry Dighera]

>"Rosspilot" > wrote in message
...
>> My response to the writer and editors of the Globe:
>>
>> **************************************
>> Enough is enough! Your hysteria regarding the "threat to security" of
>General
>> Aviation is a shameful and irresponsible attack on innocent, hard-working,
>> tax-paying productive American citizens who earn their livelihood by
>flying
>> these aircraft.
>>
>> We are among the most law-abiding and careful citizens you will find, as
>our
>> lives (and our passenger's lives) depend wholly on what we do.
>>
>> Your story is an insult to us. There has never been a single incident of
>> terrorism using small planes--and using all the creative power I can
>muster, I
>> could not envision a scenario where my little 4 place- single engine
>Cessna
>> could do any serious damage to anything.
>>
>> Your "stadium scenario" is nonsense . . . it is far more likely that any
>of the
>> millions of panel trucks, rental trucks, or other vehicles can be used for
>> attacks.
>>
>> A single motorcycle rider with a backpack full of a nerve agent of other
>poison
>> can ride through Times Square and do a lot more damage. Even a single
>subway
>> rider with a backpack full of viral agent could infect thousands and
>thousands
>> of people. Why aren't you writing stories about UNCHECKED backpacks and
>> motorcycles?
>>
>> It's time to stop "piling on" aviators . . . we have been scapegoated long
>> enough for the attack on the WTC.
>>
>> Your heartless scare-tactics are simply to inflame and create more
>irrational
>> fear, and to sell more papers.
>>
>> Shame on you!
>>
>>
>> Lee Ross
>> www.Rosspilot.com
>> New York

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 10:07:05 -0700, "gatt"
> wrote in
>::
>
>Hey, Ross; as a former magazine editor, I applaud your article. Succinct,
>to the point, and scorching. Very well done! Now, let's see if they have
>the courage to print it.
>
>-c
>

When Ross wrote:

"Your heartless scare-tactics are simply to inflame and create
more irrational fear, and to sell more papers."

It struck a resonate chord in my thinking about this issue.

Unfortunately, Ross's response to the Boston Globe contains more heat
than light. It appears to attribute the "information" provided by The
Center for Strategic and International Studies employees to the author
of Globe article. Ross goes on to proclaim the law abiding
responsibleness of airmen, but that wasn't questioned in the article
and seems irrelevant; for it would be amoral criminal terrorists
perpetrating terrorist acts not regular law abiding airmen. And while
Ross confesses to being unable to imagine a scenario for the use of
light aircraft in a terrorist plot, that says more about his feeble
creative powers than it does about the unsuitability of such aircraft
for terrorist purposes.

So while I don't like the sensational spin applied by Karen Schaler to
The Center for Strategic and International Studies' information, I am
happy to be informed that such a study is under way. If I were to
take the author of the Globe article to task, I would emphasize the
lack of naming the specific organizations that funded the "research."

I have a feeling. that that information would be enlightening, and
perhaps provide a valid basis for discrediting the conclusions reached
by The Center for Strategic and International Studies.

[Rosspilot]

> Ross goes on to proclaim the law abiding
>responsibleness of airmen, but that wasn't questioned in the article
>and seems irrelevant; for it would be amoral criminal terrorists
>perpetrating terrorist acts not regular law abiding airmen.


Well that's the whole point now, isn't it?

Does any critically-thinking person believe that a suicidal zealot, hell-bent
on wreaking havoc, is going to pay any attention to "no fly zones" and TFRs?
NEWS FLASH!! The planes that flew into the WTC both busted the NY Class B.
Yet it is we careful, law-abiding, rule-obeying pilots who are the recipients
of all the punitive and restrictive "security precautions" perpetrated on us.
I hope to God I am preachin' to the choir here.


And while
>Ross confesses to being unable to imagine a scenario for the use of
>light aircraft in a terrorist plot, that says more about his feeble
>creative powers than it does about the unsuitability of such aircraft
>for terrorist purposes.
>


No wonder you're so popular here, Larry.



>So while I don't like the sensational spin applied by Karen Schaler to
>The Center for Strategic and International Studies' information, I am
>happy to be informed that such a study is under way. If I were to
>take the author of the Globe article to task, I would emphasize the
>lack of naming the specific organizations that funded the "research."
>
>I have a feeling. that that information would be enlightening, and
>perhaps provide a valid basis for discrediting the conclusions reached
>by The Center for Strategic and International Studies

So write your own letter.


www.Rosspilot.com

[Mr. Smith]

"Rosspilot" > wrote in message
...
>> Ross goes on to proclaim the law abiding
>>responsibleness of airmen, but that wasn't questioned in the article
>>and seems irrelevant; for it would be amoral criminal terrorists
>>perpetrating terrorist acts not regular law abiding airmen.
>
>
> Well that's the whole point now, isn't it?
>
> Does any critically-thinking person believe that a suicidal zealot,
> hell-bent
> on wreaking havoc, is going to pay any attention to "no fly zones" and
> TFRs?
> NEWS FLASH!! The planes that flew into the WTC both busted the NY Class
> B.
> Yet it is we careful, law-abiding, rule-obeying pilots who are the
> recipients
> of all the punitive and restrictive "security precautions" perpetrated on
> us.
> I hope to God I am preachin' to the choir here.


Well I agree with Larry. Regardless of what you and I may think about what
small airplanes may or may not be able to accomplish in terms of a terrorist
attack, it is certainly not anti-GA hysteria to discuss the possibility and
to imagine scenarios by which a terrorist could employ a Cessna to wreak
destruction. In fact it would be irresponsible not to consider them. There
are a lot of advantages to using a small aircraft to transport a bomb or
poison, they can go just about anywhere, and no road or other security
measure is of much use in stopping something that flies through the air. We
may dismiss possible terrorist scenarios as the work of pin-headed
bureacrats in washington (to use everyone's favorite cliche) but I would
think that a small flying machine would offer a lot of enticing
possibilities. Maybe this is why all the interest by AlQaeda in crop dusters
a few years back.

The responses in this group are far more "knee-jerk" than anything that
appeared in the Globe article. They sound like the typical response of a
special interest group --- lets fight terrorism, but god forbid it might
impinge on my hobby.

Of course we should not let increased anti-terrorist measures erode our
personal liberties and freedoms we enjoy, including being able to fly our
own machines. Same can be said for right to privacy, freedom of speech etc.
But simply to demonize anyone who discusses the possibilities of using GA in
a terrorist attack, seems to me to be very close-minded.

-Marc

[Bob Noel]

In article <9NVXc.58769$9d6.16659@attbi_s54>, "Mr. Smith"
> wrote:

[snip]

> Regardless of what you and I may think about
> what
> small airplanes may or may not be able to accomplish in terms of a
> terrorist
> attack, it is certainly not anti-GA hysteria to discuss the possibility
> and
> to imagine scenarios by which a terrorist could employ a Cessna to wreak
> destruction. In fact it would be irresponsible not to consider them.

agree.



> There
> are a lot of advantages to using a small aircraft to transport a bomb or
> poison, they can go just about anywhere, and no road or other security
> measure is of much use in stopping something that flies through the air.
> We
> may dismiss possible terrorist scenarios as the work of pin-headed
> bureacrats in washington (to use everyone's favorite cliche) but I would
> think that a small flying machine would offer a lot of enticing
> possibilities. Maybe this is why all the interest by AlQaeda in crop
> dusters
> a few years back.

Have to disagree. Other than being spectacular, the use of a small
aircraft would be stupid. Pick a mission/objective that you think
a small aircraft could accomplish, and I'll find a cheaper, faster,
easier way to accomplish the same objective without using a small
aircraft, with the added bonus that the terrorist would likely survive
to attempt more evil.

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

[Rosspilot]

>Regardless of what you and I may think about what
>small airplanes may or may not be able to accomplish in terms of a terrorist
>attack, it is certainly not anti-GA hysteria to discuss the possibility and
>to imagine scenarios by which a terrorist could employ a Cessna to wreak
>destruction. In fact it would be irresponsible not to consider them.


There is a huge difference between "discussing" them in an academic context,
rationally and analytically with a sincere desire to add a measure of security,
and the obvious media exploitation of the "aviation-phobia" for ratings and
sales revenue. Where did you see any "discussion" taking place?


There
>are a lot of advantages to using a small aircraft to transport a bomb or
>poison, they can go just about anywhere, and no road or other security
>measure is of much use in stopping something that flies through the air. We
>may dismiss possible terrorist scenarios as the work of pin-headed
>bureacrats in washington (to use everyone's favorite cliche) but I would
>think that a small flying machine would offer a lot of enticing
>possibilities. Maybe this is why all the interest by AlQaeda in crop dusters
>a few years back.
>

An idea abandoned when they themselves determined that it was impractical.
BTW, what goes on at your airport, anyway? Don't you think if someone wanted
to load up his C-172 with explosives and shrapnel or poisons someone MIGHT
notice?

>The responses in this group are far more "knee-jerk" than anything that
>appeared in the Globe article. They sound like the typical response of a
>special interest group --- lets fight terrorism, but god forbid it might
>impinge on my hobby.
>

It's a lot more than "a hobby" for me. It is how I earn my living, and how I
pursue happiness. I am a proponent of "fighting terrorism", but not of
senseless, ineffective, punitive, restrictive, life-altering and MEANINGLESS
political gestures.


>Of course we should not let increased anti-terrorist measures erode our
>personal liberties and freedoms we enjoy, including being able to fly our
>own machines. Same can be said for right to privacy, freedom of speech etc.
>But simply to demonize anyone who discusses the possibilities of using GA in
>a terrorist attack, seems to me to be very close-minded.
>

As I said, enough is enough. No new ground being covered--this has been going
on for 3 years now.


www.Rosspilot.com

[Roger Long]

> Well I agree with Larry. Regardless of what you and I may think about what
> small airplanes may or may not be able to accomplish in terms of a
terrorist
> attack, it is certainly not anti-GA hysteria to discuss the possibility
and
> to imagine scenarios by which a terrorist could employ a Cessna to wreak
> destruction. In fact it would be irresponsible not to consider them.

The irresponsibility is in the media searching for easy ratings and the
government for poll bumps by focusing so narrowly on what gets an easy
response from the public. This deflects attention from the reality that no
one is paying attention to.

I was driving behind a big propane truck the other day. On the back is a
three inch pipe with a butterfly valve, the kind that is full open with a 90
degree turn. The pipe had a cap but it had big grips on it so it could be
easily removed. I've designed piping systems and had several miles to study
it so I could see that it would only take about 20 seconds to remove the
cap, turn the valve, and dump the tank's contents. There was no locking
device of any kind. A passerby could dump this truck.

Jump out, run up and point a gun at the driver, put him on the ground and
put a bullet in his head so he can't describe the truck, drive it somewhere
and back it up to the storm drain system the runs under a building or back
it into a mall. Light a match.

As long as we have a society that remotely resembles ours, creative and
determined people will have hundreds or even thousands of ways to create
havoc. These scare stories keep the public from realizing that. The only
safety will be in identifying the people that wish to terrorize and keeping
them out. If we focus on denying them the means, of which the GA
restrictions are only the first baby step, it will eventually be a society
none of us want to live in.

Catching terrorists is best done where they live. That requires lots of
help and cooperation from other countries which is what makes our current
"We don't need any stinkin' alliances, we call all the shots" foreign policy
such a disaster.

--

Roger Long

[Brien K. Meehan]

Bob Noel wrote:
> Other than being spectacular, the use of a small
> aircraft would be stupid.

I agree, but "spectacular" is the main criterion for terrorist actions.

> Pick a mission/objective that you think
> a small aircraft could accomplish, and I'll find a cheaper, faster,
> easier way to accomplish the same objective without using a small
> aircraft, with the added bonus that the terrorist would likely
survive
> to attempt more evil.

Efficiency and effectiveness (in terms of numbers of casualties) aren't
usually terrorist objectives, especially at the expense of being
spectacular. Surviving the attack is seen as a negative outcome.

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "Brien K. Meehan"
> wrote:

> > Other than being spectacular, the use of a small
> > aircraft would be stupid.
>
> I agree, but "spectacular" is the main criterion for terrorist actions.

That depends on the terrorist's objective.

It is my understanding that some organizations are more interested
in spectacular than actual damage. However, other organizations want
to inflict damage. Do you have information to the contrary?

> > Pick a mission/objective that you think
> > a small aircraft could accomplish, and I'll find a cheaper, faster,
> > easier way to accomplish the same objective without using a small
> > aircraft, with the added bonus that the terrorist would likely
> survive
> > to attempt more evil.
>
> Efficiency and effectiveness (in terms of numbers of casualties) aren't
> usually terrorist objectives, especially at the expense of being
> spectacular. Surviving the attack is seen as a negative outcome.


based on what information?

btw - using a small aircraft isn't even particularly spectacular.

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

[Brien K. Meehan]

Bob Noel wrote:
> It is my understanding that some organizations are more interested
> in spectacular than actual damage. However, other organizations want
> to inflict damage.

What organizations?

> Do you have information to the contrary?

Decades of observation.

> > Efficiency and effectiveness (in terms of numbers of casualties)
aren't
> > usually terrorist objectives, especially at the expense of being
> > spectacular. Surviving the attack is seen as a negative outcome.
>
> based on what information?

Decades of observation, and general knowledge of middle-eastern
terrorist groups' teachings and statements, which include the premise
that successful suicide missions guarantee blissful eternal afterlife.
Survival is failure. Everyone knows this.

Do you have information to the contrary?

> btw - using a small aircraft isn't even particularly spectacular.

Driving a plane into something will ALWAYS be more spectacular than
driving a car or truck into something, even if it is less effective.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 11:31:39 GMT, Bob Noel
> wrote in
>::

>Pick a mission/objective that you think
>a small aircraft could accomplish, and I'll find a cheaper, faster,
>easier way to accomplish the same objective without using a small
>aircraft, with the added bonus that the terrorist would likely survive
>to attempt more evil.

How about this one offered by The Center for Strategic and
International Studies:

Anderson said terrorists could load a plane with explosives, add
shrapnel and possibly chemical or biological materials, and then
detonate a bomb inside a stadium.

(Keep in mind the fact that a reported 250 pound car bomb was adequate
to blow off the front of a building and kill many people in Iraq
recently.)

Obviously a UAV could be employed instead of C-172, but the
distinction would be insignificant. What (non-aviation) "cheaper,
faster, easier" delivery method do you think might accomplish the same
objective?

The realization that is ultimately reached by anyone attempting to
implement security, be it national or computer, is, that at some point
the imposition of security measures necessary to achieve REAL security
render the system effectively unusable. At that point security
becomes a matter of degree of inconvenience weighed against degree
security provided.

The media exploits this limitation by fanning the flames of public
hysteria to elicit a visceral response in its viewers/readers, so as
to create a desire in them to consume the media product in the vein
hope of becoming informed. Such unethical Yellow Journalism tactics
committed by immoral, exploitive, ignoble and self-serving New
Journalists border on actionable libel, and are certainly a betrayal
of the public trust granted news media to impartially expose
government and corporate fraud and corruption. Such abysmal behavior
is tantamount to a religious priest sexually abusing the children of
congregation members.....

[Rosspilot]

>
>>Pick a mission/objective that you think
>>a small aircraft could accomplish, and I'll find a cheaper, faster,
>>easier way to accomplish the same objective without using a small
>>aircraft, with the added bonus that the terrorist would likely survive
>>to attempt more evil.
>
>How about this one offered by The Center for Strategic and
>International Studies:
>
> Anderson said terrorists could load a plane with explosives, add
> shrapnel and possibly chemical or biological materials, and then
> detonate a bomb inside a stadium.
>
>(Keep in mind the fact that a reported 250 pound car bomb was adequate
>to blow off the front of a building and kill many people in Iraq
>recently.)
>

This idea emerged in the Thomas Harris book (and movie with Robert Shaw and
Bruce Dern) "Black Sunday" . . . from early 70s . . . an Arab terrorist plot to
blow up a special bomb suspended beneath the Goodyear Blimp at the Superbowl.
Great book and movie.


www.Rosspilot.com

[JJS]

Roger,
Propane trailers, as well as anhydrous ammonia trailers have what
is called an "excess flow valve" buried in the tank, unseen to the
naked eye. It works like a one way check valve but allows a
controlled amount of flow before it checks off and stops the flow.
It is there in case an unloading hose ruptures and specifically keeps
the tanks contents from "dumping".
Not to **** you or anyone else off in this group but, I will argue
that there is some irresponsibility involved in talking about of
effective means of terrorism in a public forum. Take the transponder
hijack code discussions after 9/11 that broadcast to the world
something that had been known mainly to pilots and not to the general
public until after that fateful day, for instance. Or the fact that
since the Oklahoma City bombing, the general public now knows how to
build anfo bombs. It is bad enough when law enforcement releases this
kind of information to the public. Please, lets not educate these
radicals ourselves.

Joe Schneider
8437R
Large scale chemical manufacturing industry for over 25 years.
Ammonia, methanol, ammonium nitrate, etc.

"Roger Long" > wrote in message
...
snip

> The irresponsibility is in the media searching for easy ratings and
the
> government for poll bumps by focusing so narrowly on what gets an
easy
> response from the public. This deflects attention from the reality
that no
> one is paying attention to.
>
> I was driving behind a big propane truck the other day. On the back
is a
> three inch pipe with a butterfly valve, the kind that is full open
with a 90
> degree turn. The pipe had a cap but it had big grips on it so it
could be
> easily removed. I've designed piping systems and had several miles
to study
> it so I could see that it would only take about 20 seconds to remove
the
> cap, turn the valve, and dump the tank's contents. There was no
locking
> device of any kind. A passerby could dump this truck.
snip

[David Reinhart]

While news reporting after OKC and 9/11 may have made the "general public"
more aware of things like amfo bombs and hijack codes, I feel pretty
confident that it didn't make much difference to the "radicals" who were
already interested in such things. Thanks to the Internet information,
for good or ill, is easily found no matter what you're interests may be.
It's a genie that's out of the bottle and it's not going back.

Laws, rules and regulations serve only to help keep honest people honest.
They will *not* stop those persons who are intent on causing harm to
society.

I think that there are very few people in the GA community who think that
GA aircraft have no potential as terrorist tools. What makes me (and I
think many others) angry is how GA is singled out to the exclusion of
SUVs, RVs, limos, rental trucks and boats. Under normal circumstances it
is possible to load up a truck with an OKC-sized amfo bomb and drive it
within the blast radius of *millions* of targets worth attacking without
anybody giving the truck a second look, unless it speeds or runs a red
light. It takes no special skill, no expensive training, no risk of
stealing a vehicle or spending lots of money to buy one.

If the government required background checks for everybody who wants to
rent a truck from U-Haul, or demanded that RV passengers and cargo be
screened by police before every trip, or that the Coast Guard search every
BayLiner and O'Day sailboat, the outcry would be deafening. We in
aviation are simply too few in number to be paid much attention to. Our
only salvation is that we are relatively "high value" compared to our size
and we can use economic arguments in our favor. Close down flight
schools? More than 50% of airline pilots are now civilian trained. Where
will new ones come from? Halt ag operations? The cost of food to the
consumer will skyrocket. Shut down little airports? The cumulative
economic loss will be in the billions of dollars. Those are the kinds of
cards we need to continue to play with the government and the public.

Dave Reinhart




JJS wrote:

> Roger,
> Propane trailers, as well as anhydrous ammonia trailers have what
> is called an "excess flow valve" buried in the tank, unseen to the
> naked eye. It works like a one way check valve but allows a
> controlled amount of flow before it checks off and stops the flow.
> It is there in case an unloading hose ruptures and specifically keeps
> the tanks contents from "dumping".
> Not to **** you or anyone else off in this group but, I will argue
> that there is some irresponsibility involved in talking about of
> effective means of terrorism in a public forum. Take the transponder
> hijack code discussions after 9/11 that broadcast to the world
> something that had been known mainly to pilots and not to the general
> public until after that fateful day, for instance. Or the fact that
> since the Oklahoma City bombing, the general public now knows how to
> build anfo bombs. It is bad enough when law enforcement releases this
> kind of information to the public. Please, lets not educate these
> radicals ourselves.
>
> Joe Schneider
> 8437R
> Large scale chemical manufacturing industry for over 25 years.
> Ammonia, methanol, ammonium nitrate, etc.
>
> "Roger Long" > wrote in message
> ...
> snip
>
> > The irresponsibility is in the media searching for easy ratings and
> the
> > government for poll bumps by focusing so narrowly on what gets an
> easy
> > response from the public. This deflects attention from the reality
> that no
> > one is paying attention to.
> >
> > I was driving behind a big propane truck the other day. On the back
> is a
> > three inch pipe with a butterfly valve, the kind that is full open
> with a 90
> > degree turn. The pipe had a cap but it had big grips on it so it
> could be
> > easily removed. I've designed piping systems and had several miles
> to study
> > it so I could see that it would only take about 20 seconds to remove
> the
> > cap, turn the valve, and dump the tank's contents. There was no
> locking
> > device of any kind. A passerby could dump this truck.
> snip

[Rosspilot]

>Laws, rules and regulations serve only to help keep honest people honest.
>They will *not* stop those persons who are intent on causing harm to
>society.
>
>I think that there are very few people in the GA community who think that
>GA aircraft have no potential as terrorist tools. What makes me (and I
>think many others) angry is how GA is singled out to the exclusion of
>SUVs, RVs, limos, rental trucks and boats.


OK--I agree with this in spite of my earlier contention that I could not
imagine a scenario where my little Skyhawk could be used in an attack. Of
course I can, as much as I don't want to.

www.Rosspilot.com

[Rosspilot]

From AOPA:

SOURCE DISPUTES ALARMIST STORY ON GA "THREAT"...
A story in Thursday's Boston Globe that warned in great detail of a
neglected "small-plane terrorism threat" has drawn a response from the
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) -- the
Washington think tank whose staff is quoted in the Globe as the basis
for the story. "The Globe story is incomplete and does not take into
account a broad range of findings that are still under development,"
CSIS spokesman Jay Farrar said in a statement posted on the CSIS Web
site. The CSIS said its report is not yet finished, and "personal
statements made before a study's completion ... do not place into
context the full range of threats against the transportation system of
the United States."
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/283-full.html#188032

....CITING "DIRTY BOMBS" AND STADIUM TARGETS...
The Globe story quoted CSIS staff who said that Al Qaeda is known to
have considered the use of small aircraft and helicopters for attacks
on U.S. soil, and that sports stadiums are a "perfect target" for a
Cessna 172 loaded with radiological material and explosives. "The
no-fly zones over these stadiums are loosely enforced," the story
says, quoting a CSIS staffer. An FAA official quoted in the story said
that GA security efforts were dropped because they "would have cost
too much." A TSA spokesman said, "These [small] planes aren't a focus
for us. .... We don't have unlimited funds to deal with everything."
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/283-full.html#188033

....AND AOPA RESPONDS
AOPA was quick to dash off a letter to The Boston Globe's editors,
denouncing the story as "irresponsible," and noting that numerous GA
security programs have been implemented since 9/11. Next time the
Globe reports about GA issues, it should consult AOPA, the letter
said. AOPA President Phil Boyer also responded to the story in an
interview on a Washington, D.C., radio station, WTOP. Boyer told
listeners that that most GA aircraft are operated in much the same way
as other forms of personal transportation, like cars. "There's the
general aviation airplane in which the pilot and the passengers know
each other," Boyer said. "That's the norm."
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/283-full.html#188034

www.Rosspilot.com

[David Reinhart]

Yeah, AOPA sent a letter. So did a bunch of other people, including me.
They printed one. I've been having an email exchange with the Globe's
Ombudsman about that story. Despite the CSIS saying that the Globe
article is "incorrect" she says paper stands by the factual accuracy of
the the story. They won't even consider printing the press release from
CSIS. That lady has one twisted mind....

Dave Reinhart



Rosspilot wrote:

> From AOPA:
>
> SOURCE DISPUTES ALARMIST STORY ON GA "THREAT"...
> A story in Thursday's Boston Globe that warned in great detail of a
> neglected "small-plane terrorism threat" has drawn a response from the
> Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) -- the
> Washington think tank whose staff is quoted in the Globe as the basis
> for the story. "The Globe story is incomplete and does not take into
> account a broad range of findings that are still under development,"
> CSIS spokesman Jay Farrar said in a statement posted on the CSIS Web
> site. The CSIS said its report is not yet finished, and "personal
> statements made before a study's completion ... do not place into
> context the full range of threats against the transportation system of
> the United States."
> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/283-full.html#188032
>
> ...CITING "DIRTY BOMBS" AND STADIUM TARGETS...
> The Globe story quoted CSIS staff who said that Al Qaeda is known to
> have considered the use of small aircraft and helicopters for attacks
> on U.S. soil, and that sports stadiums are a "perfect target" for a
> Cessna 172 loaded with radiological material and explosives. "The
> no-fly zones over these stadiums are loosely enforced," the story
> says, quoting a CSIS staffer. An FAA official quoted in the story said
> that GA security efforts were dropped because they "would have cost
> too much." A TSA spokesman said, "These [small] planes aren't a focus
> for us. .... We don't have unlimited funds to deal with everything."
> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/283-full.html#188033
>
> ...AND AOPA RESPONDS
> AOPA was quick to dash off a letter to The Boston Globe's editors,
> denouncing the story as "irresponsible," and noting that numerous GA
> security programs have been implemented since 9/11. Next time the
> Globe reports about GA issues, it should consult AOPA, the letter
> said. AOPA President Phil Boyer also responded to the story in an
> interview on a Washington, D.C., radio station, WTOP. Boyer told
> listeners that that most GA aircraft are operated in much the same way
> as other forms of personal transportation, like cars. "There's the
> general aviation airplane in which the pilot and the passengers know
> each other," Boyer said. "That's the norm."
> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/283-full.html#188034
>
> www.Rosspilot.com