TSA - another indignity for permanent residents

[David Brooks]

I've lived in this country for many years, paid my taxes, been a
schoolteacher and a Scout leader, and now this:
http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchResultsSimple.cfm?numberValue=19147&searchType=docket.
The restrictions recently placed on >12500 training is being extended to all
aircraft. TSA claims that Congress mandated it, and maybe we were all asleep
when that happened. The rule is already in effect; the documentation and
security training requirements kick in Oct 20.

Faced with the requirement to send the TSA all the identifying information,
finding someone to fingerprint me and figuring out how to get the prints
filed, and paying $130 for the privilege - well, I wonder if the Commercial
certificate is worth it. I did also have vague ideas of becoming an elderly
instructor; forget that.

Now, I know that sounds like special pleading, and Big Brother already has
my fingerprints in my Resident Alien file so no big deal, and $130 is less
than an hour of training, but right now it's looking like the final straw.
And it's bull**** on the face of it. Residents have already undergone deep
security investigations. If everyone reacts like me, the result will be
less-well-trained pilots mixing it up with the rest of you in the sky. Is
the BFR considered training under the rule (part 61 calls it instruction)?
If so, the clock is ticking in any case. One justification in the rule says
that the 9/11 terrorists learned to fly small planes, but there's no logic
provided to support restrictions on existing certified pilots who want more
advanced ratings.

I mailed AOPA, I'll add these comments to the docket. I called my FBO, and
the chief instructor said "oh, nice of them to inform the schools" and said
she would start rattling cages.

-- David Brooks

[David Brooks]

Just after I sent to r.a.p, I realized I should have x-posted to a more
relevant group. Hoping this can catch any thread that develops.

-- David Brooks

"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> I've lived in this country for many years, paid my taxes, been a
> schoolteacher and a Scout leader, and now this:
>
http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchResultsSimple.cfm?numberValue=19147&searchType=docket.
> The restrictions recently placed on >12500 training is being extended to
all
> aircraft. TSA claims that Congress mandated it, and maybe we were all
asleep
> when that happened. The rule is already in effect; the documentation and
> security training requirements kick in Oct 20.
>
> Faced with the requirement to send the TSA all the identifying
information,
> finding someone to fingerprint me and figuring out how to get the prints
> filed, and paying $130 for the privilege - well, I wonder if the
Commercial
> certificate is worth it. I did also have vague ideas of becoming an
elderly
> instructor; forget that.
>
> Now, I know that sounds like special pleading, and Big Brother already has
> my fingerprints in my Resident Alien file so no big deal, and $130 is less
> than an hour of training, but right now it's looking like the final straw.
> And it's bull**** on the face of it. Residents have already undergone deep
> security investigations. If everyone reacts like me, the result will be
> less-well-trained pilots mixing it up with the rest of you in the sky. Is
> the BFR considered training under the rule (part 61 calls it instruction)?
> If so, the clock is ticking in any case. One justification in the rule
says
> that the 9/11 terrorists learned to fly small planes, but there's no logic
> provided to support restrictions on existing certified pilots who want
more
> advanced ratings.
>
> I mailed AOPA, I'll add these comments to the docket. I called my FBO, and
> the chief instructor said "oh, nice of them to inform the schools" and
said
> she would start rattling cages.
>
> -- David Brooks
>
>

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "David Brooks" > said:
>"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>> I've lived in this country for many years, paid my taxes, been a
>> schoolteacher and a Scout leader, and now this:
>>
>http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchResultsSimple.cfm?numberValue=19147&searchType=docket.

Amazing. I've briefly scanned it to see if there was an exemption for us
permanent residents, but everywhere I look I see "aliens", not
"non-resident aliens". Hey, I thought I passed my security checks when I
got fingerprinted and had to provide proof that I had no outstanding
warrants back in Canada.

This sucks.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
<<<You've got to love a newsreader with a menu option named "Kill this Author".
<<Does it work? And if so, is the death traceable?
<Nah, but Dave the Resurrector will just bring 'em back again.

[Peter MacPherson]

I have a question....

Since this is for "training", "alien" CFI's are exempt since we're doing the
training? I'm an "alien" CFI and if I understand this, I don't have to send
anything to the TSA for myself, just fellow aliens that are seeking
training.
BUT, if I were to seek additional training, I would have to send the TSA
the required doc. Or when I need a BFR(which is training), I would need
to comply with this nonsense. I called AOPA with this question and they
don't have an answer yet.

The TSA has foiled the terrorists once again!! All those terrorists that
are about to start their IFR training will now be captured by the TSA!!
And here I thought this agency were just a bunch of nitwits..... ; - )



"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> I've lived in this country for many years, paid my taxes, been a
> schoolteacher and a Scout leader, and now this:
> http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchResultsSimple.cfm?numberValue=19147&searchType=docket.
> The restrictions recently placed on >12500 training is being extended to
> all
> aircraft. TSA claims that Congress mandated it, and maybe we were all
> asleep
> when that happened. The rule is already in effect; the documentation and
> security training requirements kick in Oct 20.
>
> Faced with the requirement to send the TSA all the identifying
> information,
> finding someone to fingerprint me and figuring out how to get the prints
> filed, and paying $130 for the privilege - well, I wonder if the
> Commercial
> certificate is worth it. I did also have vague ideas of becoming an
> elderly
> instructor; forget that.
>
> Now, I know that sounds like special pleading, and Big Brother already has
> my fingerprints in my Resident Alien file so no big deal, and $130 is less
> than an hour of training, but right now it's looking like the final straw.
> And it's bull**** on the face of it. Residents have already undergone deep
> security investigations. If everyone reacts like me, the result will be
> less-well-trained pilots mixing it up with the rest of you in the sky. Is
> the BFR considered training under the rule (part 61 calls it instruction)?
> If so, the clock is ticking in any case. One justification in the rule
> says
> that the 9/11 terrorists learned to fly small planes, but there's no logic
> provided to support restrictions on existing certified pilots who want
> more
> advanced ratings.
>
> I mailed AOPA, I'll add these comments to the docket. I called my FBO, and
> the chief instructor said "oh, nice of them to inform the schools" and
> said
> she would start rattling cages.
>
> -- David Brooks
>
>

[David Brooks]

"Peter MacPherson" > wrote in message
news:Zwl4d.26699$wV.2744@attbi_s54...
> I have a question....
>
> Since this is for "training", "alien" CFI's are exempt since we're doing
the
> training? I'm an "alien" CFI and if I understand this, I don't have to
send
> anything to the TSA for myself, just fellow aliens that are seeking
> training.
> BUT, if I were to seek additional training, I would have to send the TSA
> the required doc. Or when I need a BFR(which is training), I would need
> to comply with this nonsense. I called AOPA with this question and they
> don't have an answer yet.

My reply from Ian Twombly at AOPA says they understand flight review and
instrument refresher are included, although they don't fit the model of
"applying for a course of training". By "refresher" I think he referred to
my question about "three and a hold", not just IPC.

Actually, the whole model adopted by the rule is that you go to a school,
apply for training, finish it, and you're done. I think of myself as a
customer of the flight school who must happens to be taking lessons towards
my Commercial, with occasional too-long layoffs, and with the occasional FR
or instrument refresher thrown in.

The $130 doesn't include the estimated $75 cost of fingerprinting.

> The TSA has foiled the terrorists once again!! All those terrorists that
> are about to start their IFR training will now be captured by the TSA!!
> And here I thought this agency were just a bunch of nitwits..... ; - )
>
>
>
> "David Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I've lived in this country for many years, paid my taxes, been a
> > schoolteacher and a Scout leader, and now this:
> >
http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchResultsSimple.cfm?numberValue=19147&searchType=docket.
> > The restrictions recently placed on >12500 training is being extended to
> > all
> > aircraft. TSA claims that Congress mandated it, and maybe we were all
> > asleep
> > when that happened. The rule is already in effect; the documentation and
> > security training requirements kick in Oct 20.
> >
> > Faced with the requirement to send the TSA all the identifying
> > information,
> > finding someone to fingerprint me and figuring out how to get the prints
> > filed, and paying $130 for the privilege - well, I wonder if the
> > Commercial
> > certificate is worth it. I did also have vague ideas of becoming an
> > elderly
> > instructor; forget that.
> >
> > Now, I know that sounds like special pleading, and Big Brother already
has
> > my fingerprints in my Resident Alien file so no big deal, and $130 is
less
> > than an hour of training, but right now it's looking like the final
straw.
> > And it's bull**** on the face of it. Residents have already undergone
deep
> > security investigations. If everyone reacts like me, the result will be
> > less-well-trained pilots mixing it up with the rest of you in the sky.
Is
> > the BFR considered training under the rule (part 61 calls it
instruction)?
> > If so, the clock is ticking in any case. One justification in the rule
> > says
> > that the 9/11 terrorists learned to fly small planes, but there's no
logic
> > provided to support restrictions on existing certified pilots who want
> > more
> > advanced ratings.
> >
> > I mailed AOPA, I'll add these comments to the docket. I called my FBO,
and
> > the chief instructor said "oh, nice of them to inform the schools" and
> > said
> > she would start rattling cages.
> >
> > -- David Brooks
> >
> >
>
>

[Bob Gardner]

Did you notice that in the local news coverage of the Oregon attorney who
was incorrectly tabbed as a terrorist in the Spanish train bombing, it was
stated that he had taken flight lessons? Oh, the horror!!!

Bob Gardner

"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> "Peter MacPherson" > wrote in message
> news:Zwl4d.26699$wV.2744@attbi_s54...
>> I have a question....
>>
>> Since this is for "training", "alien" CFI's are exempt since we're doing
> the
>> training? I'm an "alien" CFI and if I understand this, I don't have to
> send
>> anything to the TSA for myself, just fellow aliens that are seeking
>> training.
>> BUT, if I were to seek additional training, I would have to send the TSA
>> the required doc. Or when I need a BFR(which is training), I would need
>> to comply with this nonsense. I called AOPA with this question and they
>> don't have an answer yet.
>
> My reply from Ian Twombly at AOPA says they understand flight review and
> instrument refresher are included, although they don't fit the model of
> "applying for a course of training". By "refresher" I think he referred to
> my question about "three and a hold", not just IPC.
>
> Actually, the whole model adopted by the rule is that you go to a school,
> apply for training, finish it, and you're done. I think of myself as a
> customer of the flight school who must happens to be taking lessons
> towards
> my Commercial, with occasional too-long layoffs, and with the occasional
> FR
> or instrument refresher thrown in.
>
> The $130 doesn't include the estimated $75 cost of fingerprinting.
>
>> The TSA has foiled the terrorists once again!! All those terrorists that
>> are about to start their IFR training will now be captured by the TSA!!
>> And here I thought this agency were just a bunch of nitwits..... ; - )
>>
>>
>>
>> "David Brooks" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > I've lived in this country for many years, paid my taxes, been a
>> > schoolteacher and a Scout leader, and now this:
>> >
> http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchResultsSimple.cfm?numberValue=19147&searchType=docket.
>> > The restrictions recently placed on >12500 training is being extended
>> > to
>> > all
>> > aircraft. TSA claims that Congress mandated it, and maybe we were all
>> > asleep
>> > when that happened. The rule is already in effect; the documentation
>> > and
>> > security training requirements kick in Oct 20.
>> >
>> > Faced with the requirement to send the TSA all the identifying
>> > information,
>> > finding someone to fingerprint me and figuring out how to get the
>> > prints
>> > filed, and paying $130 for the privilege - well, I wonder if the
>> > Commercial
>> > certificate is worth it. I did also have vague ideas of becoming an
>> > elderly
>> > instructor; forget that.
>> >
>> > Now, I know that sounds like special pleading, and Big Brother already
> has
>> > my fingerprints in my Resident Alien file so no big deal, and $130 is
> less
>> > than an hour of training, but right now it's looking like the final
> straw.
>> > And it's bull**** on the face of it. Residents have already undergone
> deep
>> > security investigations. If everyone reacts like me, the result will be
>> > less-well-trained pilots mixing it up with the rest of you in the sky.
> Is
>> > the BFR considered training under the rule (part 61 calls it
> instruction)?
>> > If so, the clock is ticking in any case. One justification in the rule
>> > says
>> > that the 9/11 terrorists learned to fly small planes, but there's no
> logic
>> > provided to support restrictions on existing certified pilots who want
>> > more
>> > advanced ratings.
>> >
>> > I mailed AOPA, I'll add these comments to the docket. I called my FBO,
> and
>> > the chief instructor said "oh, nice of them to inform the schools" and
>> > said
>> > she would start rattling cages.
>> >
>> > -- David Brooks
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

[Peter MacPherson]

How long do you think before all pilots wind up on some
"watch list". Maybe we already are....


"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
...
> Did you notice that in the local news coverage of the Oregon attorney who
> was incorrectly tabbed as a terrorist in the Spanish train bombing, it was
> stated that he had taken flight lessons? Oh, the horror!!!
>
> Bob Gardner
>
> "David Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Peter MacPherson" > wrote in message
>> news:Zwl4d.26699$wV.2744@attbi_s54...
>>> I have a question....
>>>
>>> Since this is for "training", "alien" CFI's are exempt since we're doing
>> the
>>> training? I'm an "alien" CFI and if I understand this, I don't have to
>> send
>>> anything to the TSA for myself, just fellow aliens that are seeking
>>> training.
>>> BUT, if I were to seek additional training, I would have to send the TSA
>>> the required doc. Or when I need a BFR(which is training), I would need
>>> to comply with this nonsense. I called AOPA with this question and they
>>> don't have an answer yet.
>>
>> My reply from Ian Twombly at AOPA says they understand flight review and
>> instrument refresher are included, although they don't fit the model of
>> "applying for a course of training". By "refresher" I think he referred
>> to
>> my question about "three and a hold", not just IPC.
>>
>> Actually, the whole model adopted by the rule is that you go to a school,
>> apply for training, finish it, and you're done. I think of myself as a
>> customer of the flight school who must happens to be taking lessons
>> towards
>> my Commercial, with occasional too-long layoffs, and with the occasional
>> FR
>> or instrument refresher thrown in.
>>
>> The $130 doesn't include the estimated $75 cost of fingerprinting.
>>
>>> The TSA has foiled the terrorists once again!! All those terrorists that
>>> are about to start their IFR training will now be captured by the TSA!!
>>> And here I thought this agency were just a bunch of nitwits..... ; - )
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "David Brooks" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> > I've lived in this country for many years, paid my taxes, been a
>>> > schoolteacher and a Scout leader, and now this:
>>> >
>> http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchResultsSimple.cfm?numberValue=19147&searchType=docket.
>>> > The restrictions recently placed on >12500 training is being extended
>>> > to
>>> > all
>>> > aircraft. TSA claims that Congress mandated it, and maybe we were all
>>> > asleep
>>> > when that happened. The rule is already in effect; the documentation
>>> > and
>>> > security training requirements kick in Oct 20.
>>> >
>>> > Faced with the requirement to send the TSA all the identifying
>>> > information,
>>> > finding someone to fingerprint me and figuring out how to get the
>>> > prints
>>> > filed, and paying $130 for the privilege - well, I wonder if the
>>> > Commercial
>>> > certificate is worth it. I did also have vague ideas of becoming an
>>> > elderly
>>> > instructor; forget that.
>>> >
>>> > Now, I know that sounds like special pleading, and Big Brother already
>> has
>>> > my fingerprints in my Resident Alien file so no big deal, and $130 is
>> less
>>> > than an hour of training, but right now it's looking like the final
>> straw.
>>> > And it's bull**** on the face of it. Residents have already undergone
>> deep
>>> > security investigations. If everyone reacts like me, the result will
>>> > be
>>> > less-well-trained pilots mixing it up with the rest of you in the sky.
>> Is
>>> > the BFR considered training under the rule (part 61 calls it
>> instruction)?
>>> > If so, the clock is ticking in any case. One justification in the rule
>>> > says
>>> > that the 9/11 terrorists learned to fly small planes, but there's no
>> logic
>>> > provided to support restrictions on existing certified pilots who want
>>> > more
>>> > advanced ratings.
>>> >
>>> > I mailed AOPA, I'll add these comments to the docket. I called my FBO,
>> and
>>> > the chief instructor said "oh, nice of them to inform the schools" and
>>> > said
>>> > she would start rattling cages.
>>> >
>>> > -- David Brooks
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Peter Duniho]

"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> I've lived in this country for many years, paid my taxes, been a
> schoolteacher and a Scout leader, and now this:
> http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchResultsSimple.cfm?numberValue=19147&searchType=docket.

Ugh.

I want to know when these kinds of regulations are going to start being
implemented for the boat training industry. And the truck driving industry.
And the driver education industry. How about the railroad training
industry?

IMHO, part of the problem is that's *only* been aviation that's been singled
out, and we're just not big enough to make a difference. No one else cares
about us, and we're not a large enough constituency for any politician to
take us seriously.

Seems like our best bet would be to simply start lobbying Congress and the
TSA to close up the "security holes" that exist in all the *other*
transportation industries. Once they start suffering under the same rules,
then we'll have some seriously significant allies for the fight.

Someone remind me...how long did it take the country to get through
McCarthyism?

Pete

[Icebound]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> Someone remind me...how long did it take the country to get through
> McCarthyism?
>


It IS a rather bizarre society.

Guns are encouraged. I guess they are never misused....
Aviation is tightly controlled, more tightly every passing week. I guess
aviation must be bad.


--
*** A great civilization is not conquered from without until it
has destroyed itself from within. ***
- Ariel Durant 1898-1981

[David Brooks]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, "David Brooks" >
said:
> >"David Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> I've lived in this country for many years, paid my taxes, been a
> >> schoolteacher and a Scout leader, and now this:
> >>
>
>http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchResultsSimple.cfm?numberValue=19147&searchT
ype=docket.
>
> Amazing. I've briefly scanned it to see if there was an exemption for us
> permanent residents, but everywhere I look I see "aliens", not
> "non-resident aliens". Hey, I thought I passed my security checks when I
> got fingerprinted and had to provide proof that I had no outstanding
> warrants back in Canada.
>
> This sucks.

There's a beautiful paragraph in the analysis.

"TSA does not expect a significant impact on the overall demand for U.S.
flight training...the IFR only impacts alien candidates for U.S. flight
training..."

False.

"...and the population of alien candidates is small relative to the number
of U.S. flight students..."

18% is small? OK, it's less than one fifth, but it is significant, and
higher than I would have expected. Where did I get that 18% number? From a
previous page of the IFR, and it comes from the FAA.

"...the impact on demand will not be significant because U.S. flight
training is considered to be the global standard, and it is comparatively
less expensive to obtain a pilot's certificate in the U.S...."

This seems to assume that all noncitizen pilots are traveling here for
training; the argument is irrelevant to people like Paul and me. I'd like to
know how many of that 18% (an FAA number) are residents versus visitors.

-- David Brooks

[NW_PILOT]

One Nation Under Surveillance, Loosing All Our Liberty's and No Real Justice
For Anyone Unless Your A Politician!


"Peter MacPherson" > wrote in message
news:lvm4d.234760$Fg5.18644@attbi_s53...
> How long do you think before all pilots wind up on some
> "watch list". Maybe we already are....
>
>
> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Did you notice that in the local news coverage of the Oregon attorney
who
> > was incorrectly tabbed as a terrorist in the Spanish train bombing, it
was
> > stated that he had taken flight lessons? Oh, the horror!!!
> >
> > Bob Gardner
> >
> > "David Brooks" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> "Peter MacPherson" > wrote in message
> >> news:Zwl4d.26699$wV.2744@attbi_s54...
> >>> I have a question....
> >>>
> >>> Since this is for "training", "alien" CFI's are exempt since we're
doing
> >> the
> >>> training? I'm an "alien" CFI and if I understand this, I don't have to
> >> send
> >>> anything to the TSA for myself, just fellow aliens that are seeking
> >>> training.
> >>> BUT, if I were to seek additional training, I would have to send the
TSA
> >>> the required doc. Or when I need a BFR(which is training), I would
need
> >>> to comply with this nonsense. I called AOPA with this question and
they
> >>> don't have an answer yet.
> >>
> >> My reply from Ian Twombly at AOPA says they understand flight review
and
> >> instrument refresher are included, although they don't fit the model of
> >> "applying for a course of training". By "refresher" I think he referred
> >> to
> >> my question about "three and a hold", not just IPC.
> >>
> >> Actually, the whole model adopted by the rule is that you go to a
school,
> >> apply for training, finish it, and you're done. I think of myself as a
> >> customer of the flight school who must happens to be taking lessons
> >> towards
> >> my Commercial, with occasional too-long layoffs, and with the
occasional
> >> FR
> >> or instrument refresher thrown in.
> >>
> >> The $130 doesn't include the estimated $75 cost of fingerprinting.
> >>
> >>> The TSA has foiled the terrorists once again!! All those terrorists
that
> >>> are about to start their IFR training will now be captured by the
TSA!!
> >>> And here I thought this agency were just a bunch of nitwits.....
- )
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "David Brooks" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>> > I've lived in this country for many years, paid my taxes, been a
> >>> > schoolteacher and a Scout leader, and now this:
> >>> >
> >>
http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchResultsSimple.cfm?numberValue=19147&searchType=docket.
> >>> > The restrictions recently placed on >12500 training is being
extended
> >>> > to
> >>> > all
> >>> > aircraft. TSA claims that Congress mandated it, and maybe we were
all
> >>> > asleep
> >>> > when that happened. The rule is already in effect; the documentation
> >>> > and
> >>> > security training requirements kick in Oct 20.
> >>> >
> >>> > Faced with the requirement to send the TSA all the identifying
> >>> > information,
> >>> > finding someone to fingerprint me and figuring out how to get the
> >>> > prints
> >>> > filed, and paying $130 for the privilege - well, I wonder if the
> >>> > Commercial
> >>> > certificate is worth it. I did also have vague ideas of becoming an
> >>> > elderly
> >>> > instructor; forget that.
> >>> >
> >>> > Now, I know that sounds like special pleading, and Big Brother
already
> >> has
> >>> > my fingerprints in my Resident Alien file so no big deal, and $130
is
> >> less
> >>> > than an hour of training, but right now it's looking like the final
> >> straw.
> >>> > And it's bull**** on the face of it. Residents have already
undergone
> >> deep
> >>> > security investigations. If everyone reacts like me, the result will
> >>> > be
> >>> > less-well-trained pilots mixing it up with the rest of you in the
sky.
> >> Is
> >>> > the BFR considered training under the rule (part 61 calls it
> >> instruction)?
> >>> > If so, the clock is ticking in any case. One justification in the
rule
> >>> > says
> >>> > that the 9/11 terrorists learned to fly small planes, but there's no
> >> logic
> >>> > provided to support restrictions on existing certified pilots who
want
> >>> > more
> >>> > advanced ratings.
> >>> >
> >>> > I mailed AOPA, I'll add these comments to the docket. I called my
FBO,
> >> and
> >>> > the chief instructor said "oh, nice of them to inform the schools"
and
> >>> > said
> >>> > she would start rattling cages.
> >>> >
> >>> > -- David Brooks
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

[Robert Chambers]

What the TSA is trying to say is that since Immigration has done such a
shoddy job of keeping out the bad element that wish to do the country
harm that they are going to take over and re-invent the wheel. I can
only imagine the hassles some folk are going to be subjected to. I
don't think the $130 per candidate is going to cover much of the huge
bureacracy they are going to create. Yet another unfunded mandate that
the taxpayer will end up footing the bill for. You have to admire the
TSA though, they have managed to amass a uniformed staff of the same
people that let the 9/11 people get on board with their weapons and
claim that the flying public is safer. I don't believe flying
commercially is any safer than it was thanks to the TSA. I do however
think that any subsequent hijacking attempt is going to be met with a
lot more resistance from the passengers and unusual attitides from the
folks in the cockpit. People are not going to sit back and wait to be
crashed.

This is just my opinion, if presented with the scenario I'd tend to
think that a handful of hijackers would pose no challenge to a cabinload
of people lobbing full soda cans and caraffes of scalding hot coffee at
them.

Robert


David Brooks wrote:

> "Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>In a previous article, "David Brooks" >
>
> said:
>
>>>"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>I've lived in this country for many years, paid my taxes, been a
>>>>schoolteacher and a Scout leader, and now this:
>>>>
>>
>>http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchResultsSimple.cfm?numberValue=19147&searchT
>
> ype=docket.
>
>>Amazing. I've briefly scanned it to see if there was an exemption for us
>>permanent residents, but everywhere I look I see "aliens", not
>>"non-resident aliens". Hey, I thought I passed my security checks when I
>>got fingerprinted and had to provide proof that I had no outstanding
>>warrants back in Canada.
>>
>>This sucks.
>
>
> There's a beautiful paragraph in the analysis.
>
> "TSA does not expect a significant impact on the overall demand for U.S.
> flight training...the IFR only impacts alien candidates for U.S. flight
> training..."
>
> False.
>
> "...and the population of alien candidates is small relative to the number
> of U.S. flight students..."
>
> 18% is small? OK, it's less than one fifth, but it is significant, and
> higher than I would have expected. Where did I get that 18% number? From a
> previous page of the IFR, and it comes from the FAA.
>
> "...the impact on demand will not be significant because U.S. flight
> training is considered to be the global standard, and it is comparatively
> less expensive to obtain a pilot's certificate in the U.S...."
>
> This seems to assume that all noncitizen pilots are traveling here for
> training; the argument is irrelevant to people like Paul and me. I'd like to
> know how many of that 18% (an FAA number) are residents versus visitors.
>
> -- David Brooks
>
>

[Robert M. Gary]

"David Brooks" > wrote in message >...
> I've lived in this country for many years, paid my taxes, been a
> schoolteacher and a Scout leader, and now this:
> http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchResultsSimple.cfm?numberValue=19147&searchType=docket.
> The restrictions recently placed on >12500 training is being extended to all
> aircraft. TSA claims that Congress mandated it, and maybe we were all asleep
> when that happened. The rule is already in effect; the documentation and
> security training requirements kick in Oct 20.

What does "Flight School" mean? Just 141 schools? Does this only apply
to Student Visa applicants? Are they going to ask each of us as CFIs
to inquire about out student's residency status, even if its some guy
working on his private in his friends C-150?

-Robert

[David Brooks]

"Robert Chambers" > wrote in message
m...
> What the TSA is trying to say is that since Immigration has done such a
> shoddy job of keeping out the bad element that wish to do the country
> harm that they are going to take over and re-invent the wheel. I can
> only imagine the hassles some folk are going to be subjected to. I
> don't think the $130 per candidate is going to cover much of the huge
> bureacracy they are going to create. Yet another unfunded mandate that
> the taxpayer will end up footing the bill for.

Ah. Read the IFR. Where do you think they came up with $130? They have
actually calculated the recurring cost to the Federal government, and
divided it by the number of applications, and it came to $129.82. Of course
this is an estimate divided by an estimate, and the estimate of number of
fee-generating applications comes from mangling an FAA statistic, but it
looks like they are making an effort to zero-sum it. But oh, lookit, there
is a $3M startup cost that they are not attempting to recover.

They also estimate an annual average cost of $1,500 incurred by the 3,000
flight schools in the economic impact analysis.

-- David Brooks

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, (Robert M. Gary) said:
>http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchResultsSimple.cfm?numberValue=19147&searchType=docket.
>
>What does "Flight School" mean? Just 141 schools? Does this only apply
>to Student Visa applicants? Are they going to ask each of us as CFIs
>to inquire about out student's residency status, even if its some guy
>working on his private in his friends C-150?

I'm trying to find some time to read the full text of the regulations
above. But from a quick scan, and from some of the comments on there, it
appears that yes, you as a private CFI will have to start checking
people's papers and not accept students unless they either have proof of
citizenship or this TSA certificate.

Another thing that's in that full text is a reckoning of the costs,
including $1,000,000 to build the office space for this bureacracy.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Software planning seems to be based on denying plausibility.
-- Graham Reed

[Icebound]

"Robert Chambers" > wrote in message
m...
....snip...
> I do however
> think that any subsequent hijacking attempt is going to be met with a
> lot more resistance from the passengers and unusual attitides from the
> folks in the cockpit. People are not going to sit back and wait to be
> crashed.
>
> This is just my opinion, if presented with the scenario I'd tend to
> think that a handful of hijackers would pose no challenge to a cabinload
> of people lobbing full soda cans and caraffes of scalding hot coffee at
> them.
>


I wish I could share your optimism about that but I do not. People will not
"expect" to be crashed, unless they have military/police training, or were
directly involved and have their vivid memories of a prior incident.

That having been said, I AM optimistic, however, that aviation is about as
safe as it has always been. There will always be a deranged idiot or two
out there, (some of whom are not even aliens), and once in a long while one
will get through, TSA-2004-19147 notwithstanding.


--
*** A great civilization is not conquered from without until it
has destroyed itself from within. ***
- Ariel Durant 1898-1981

[Newps]

NW_PILOT wrote:
> One Nation Under Surveillance, Loosing All Our Liberty's and No Real Justice
> For Anyone Unless Your A Politician!

Yes, loose liberty. A travesty beyond all belief.

[Montblack]

("Icebound" wrote)
>> ...snip...
> > I do however
> > think that any subsequent hijacking attempt is going to be met with a
> > lot more resistance from the passengers and unusual attitides from the
> > folks in the cockpit. People are not going to sit back and wait to be
> > crashed.
> >
> > This is just my opinion, if presented with the scenario I'd tend to
> > think that a handful of hijackers would pose no challenge to a cabinload
> > of people lobbing full soda cans and caraffes of scalding hot coffee at
> > them.


> I wish I could share your optimism about that but I do not. People will
not
> "expect" to be crashed, unless they have military/police training, or were
> directly involved and have their vivid memories of a prior incident.
>
> That having been said, I AM optimistic, however, that aviation is about as
> safe as it has always been. There will always be a deranged idiot or two
> out there, (some of whom are not even aliens), and once in a long while
one
> will get through, TSA-2004-19147 notwithstanding.


Saving so much from the previous two post seemed OK in this
instance.

Want to read something frightening? It's about how we all *might*
respond (post 9/11) to an airline terrorist hijacking?

Read this...

The deeper you get into it, the more troubling it becomes.
http://www.womenswallstreet.com/WWS/article_landing.aspx?titleid=1&articleid=711

(Same link as above ...wait for it)
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J548230D8


Montblack

[Jay Beckman]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
>
>> I wish I could share your optimism about that but I do not. People will
> not
>> "expect" to be crashed, unless they have military/police training, or
>> were
>> directly involved and have their vivid memories of a prior incident.
>>
>> That having been said, I AM optimistic, however, that aviation is about
>> as
>> safe as it has always been. There will always be a deranged idiot or two
>> out there, (some of whom are not even aliens), and once in a long while
> one
>> will get through, TSA-2004-19147 notwithstanding.
>
>
> Saving so much from the previous two post seemed OK in this
> instance.
>
> Want to read something frightening? It's about how we all *might*
> respond (post 9/11) to an airline terrorist hijacking?
>
> Read this...
>
> The deeper you get into it, the more troubling it becomes.
> http://www.womenswallstreet.com/WWS/article_landing.aspx?titleid=1&articleid=711
>
> (Same link as above ...wait for it)
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?J548230D8
>
>
> Montblack

Sorry but this article has been done to death and IMO, the author is a glory
seeking crackpot who was / is paranoid.

Jay Beckman
Chandler, AZ

[Montblack]

("Jay Beckman" wrote)
> > The deeper you get into it, the more troubling it becomes.
> >
http://www.womenswallstreet.com/WWS/article_landing.aspx?titleid=1&articleid=711
> >
> > (Same link as above ...wait for it)
> > http://makeashorterlink.com/?J548230D8

> Sorry but this article has been done to death and IMO, the author is a
glory
> seeking crackpot who was / is paranoid.


I've been ...away... for a spell, so I'll just mosey on over and untie my
rope from those four big legs sticking up in the air. Well Old Paint, looks
like no more trips around the corral for you tonight.


Montblack

[Steve Fleischer]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 22:38:00 -0700, Jay Beckman wrote:

> Sorry but this article has been done to death and IMO, the author is a glory
> seeking crackpot who was / is paranoid.

Agreed.

http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2004/07/21/askthepilot95/index.html

--
Steve
E-mail: steve at flyingtigerwebdesign dot com
Hong Kong, 23/09/2004 15:24:23

[Robert Chambers]

I did read the IFR all of it, and kind of stupid having a document that
describes flight training as an IFR.. what it if it was an IFR to
describe Instrument flight training? it would be an IFR^^2 ?

I don't think you can get much bureacracy for $130 a pop.. it's gotta
cost more than that!

David Brooks wrote:

> "Robert Chambers" > wrote in message
> m...
>
>>What the TSA is trying to say is that since Immigration has done such a
>>shoddy job of keeping out the bad element that wish to do the country
>>harm that they are going to take over and re-invent the wheel. I can
>>only imagine the hassles some folk are going to be subjected to. I
>>don't think the $130 per candidate is going to cover much of the huge
>>bureacracy they are going to create. Yet another unfunded mandate that
>>the taxpayer will end up footing the bill for.
>
>
> Ah. Read the IFR. Where do you think they came up with $130? They have
> actually calculated the recurring cost to the Federal government, and
> divided it by the number of applications, and it came to $129.82. Of course
> this is an estimate divided by an estimate, and the estimate of number of
> fee-generating applications comes from mangling an FAA statistic, but it
> looks like they are making an effort to zero-sum it. But oh, lookit, there
> is a $3M startup cost that they are not attempting to recover.
>
> They also estimate an annual average cost of $1,500 incurred by the 3,000
> flight schools in the economic impact analysis.
>
> -- David Brooks
>
>

[Marco Rispoli]

And just to top it all off ... AOPA doesn't care.

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2004/040923tsa.html

Not even a mention of Permanent Residents. Not even a mention that permanent
residents already went through background checks, finger printing, they are
already on file with the Departement of Homeland Security (no less) ...
nothing.

I am an AOPA member but as far as they are concerned I do not exist.

I might even understand where the TSA is coming from and I might even
appreciate that they are trying to defend this country, since after all, I
live here too and my wife works in Manhattan and I really don't want to go
through another day like 9/11.

But at least, I expected the AOPA to stand up for us and try to make the
point!!

--
Marco Rispoli - NJ, USA / PP-ASEL
My on-line aviation community -> http://www.thepilotlounge.com

[Peter MacPherson]

I agree completely. I'm going to call AOPA tomorrow and find
out why permanent residents are not part of their lobbying effort.



"Marco Rispoli" > wrote in message
t...
> And just to top it all off ... AOPA doesn't care.
>
> http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2004/040923tsa.html
>
> Not even a mention of Permanent Residents. Not even a mention that
> permanent
> residents already went through background checks, finger printing, they
> are
> already on file with the Departement of Homeland Security (no less) ...
> nothing.
>
> I am an AOPA member but as far as they are concerned I do not exist.
>
> I might even understand where the TSA is coming from and I might even
> appreciate that they are trying to defend this country, since after all, I
> live here too and my wife works in Manhattan and I really don't want to go
> through another day like 9/11.
>
> But at least, I expected the AOPA to stand up for us and try to make the
> point!!
>
> --
> Marco Rispoli - NJ, USA / PP-ASEL
> My on-line aviation community -> http://www.thepilotlounge.com
>
>

[Marco Rispoli]

"Peter MacPherson" > wrote in message
news:FUJ4d.37784$wV.7672@attbi_s54...
> I agree completely. I'm going to call AOPA tomorrow and find
> out why permanent residents are not part of their lobbying effort.
>
>

I will be sending an email to Phil Boyer tonight.

Not sure what good it will do ... but it's worth a try.

--
Marco Rispoli - NJ, USA / PP-ASEL
My on-line aviation community -> http://www.thepilotlounge.com

[Peter MacPherson]

I just sent an email to Phil Boyer. I'll let you know what his response is.



"Marco Rispoli" > wrote in message
t...
> "Peter MacPherson" > wrote in message
> news:FUJ4d.37784$wV.7672@attbi_s54...
>> I agree completely. I'm going to call AOPA tomorrow and find
>> out why permanent residents are not part of their lobbying effort.
>>
>>
>
> I will be sending an email to Phil Boyer tonight.
>
> Not sure what good it will do ... but it's worth a try.
>
> --
> Marco Rispoli - NJ, USA / PP-ASEL
> My on-line aviation community -> http://www.thepilotlounge.com
>
>

[Andrew Gideon]

Marco Rispoli wrote:

> Not sure what good it will do ... but it's worth a try.

You should also mention it to our local AOPA representative, whom you'll be
seeing on an upcoming Thursday for dinner.

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/region/r-ea.html

- Andrew

[Marco Rispoli]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
gonline.com...
> Marco Rispoli wrote:
>
> > Not sure what good it will do ... but it's worth a try.
>
> You should also mention it to our local AOPA representative, whom you'll
be
> seeing on an upcoming Thursday for dinner.
>
> http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/region/r-ea.html
>
> - Andrew
>

Well well well ... why didn't I think of that?

Yeah I'll get in touch with Bill ...

Thanks Andrew!

--
Marco Rispoli - NJ, USA / PP-ASEL
My on-line aviation community -> http://www.thepilotlounge.com

[David Brooks]

"Marco Rispoli" > wrote in message
t...
> And just to top it all off ... AOPA doesn't care.
>
> http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2004/040923tsa.html
>
> Not even a mention of Permanent Residents. Not even a mention that
permanent
> residents already went through background checks, finger printing, they
are
> already on file with the Departement of Homeland Security (no less) ...
> nothing.
>
> I am an AOPA member but as far as they are concerned I do not exist.

I made a similar point to Ian Twombly. He has just replied to the effect
that there was a miscommunication internally (I hope he doesn't mind me
publicizing this) and AOPA is certainly including us in its lobbying
efforts. I'll accept that.

-- David Brooks

[Andrew Gideon]

Marco Rispoli wrote:

> Well well well ... why didn't I think of that?

Because I need something to make me look useful in my declining years.

> Yeah I'll get in touch with Bill ...

Good idea. In fact, I was thinking after I'd posted my previous note: why
wait for the meeting? Give him a call. But it sounds like you'd already
thought of that. So much for my usefulness <grin>.

FWIW, there's at least one other "green card PIC" (cute label, that) in both
MAPA and the PFC. Perhaps there are more. I wonder if it's worth
contacting Larry - the fellow behind Surface Winds - in hopes of an article
on the matter.

- Andrew

[Marco Rispoli]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...

> I wonder if it's worth
> contacting Larry - the fellow behind Surface Winds - in hopes of an
article
> on the matter.
>
> - Andrew

I'm all ears. Who's this Larry?

I am ready to fight this to the very end.

I am eligible to become a citizen within 6 months to a year so this is
almost a non-issue for me. It's a matter of principle though.

They are stiflying GA. They are starting with Permanent Residents but think
about that: who's next? People that have bad driving records? People older
than 60 years of age?

All you need is a couple of "coincidental" accidents involving a particular
group of pilots and they'll impose regulations to stop them.

They are taking aside the "minorities" inside GA, one by one, and eroding us
one at the time .

That's the way I see it.

--
Marco Rispoli - NJ, USA / PP-ASEL
My on-line aviation community -> http://www.thepilotlounge.com

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 00:47:53 GMT, Marco Rispoli wrote:

>I am eligible to become a citizen within 6 months to a year so this is
>almost a non-issue for me. It's a matter of principle though.

hm, I would ask the question if I want to be a citizen within such an
environment. Because *then* it is *your* government doing these things.

It is just changing the side of the fence.

aviation content: IMHO these actions all affect the aviation business and
hurts economically. How many FBOs went bankrupt after 9/11? How many will
follow? How much many stays outside of the country because of the bad
climate?
Hm, this is r.a.p: are there any such things in Canada? Maybe I should plan
my next holiday there?

#m

--
Somehow, some way, the Left trash talks "multi-national corporations" and
"big corporations" as if they were messengers of evil, when, in fact,
corporations represent the ultimate, perfect expression of communal
ownership of capital. (Jay Honeck in r.a.p.)

[Andrew Gideon]

Marco Rispoli wrote:

> "Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
> online.com...
>
>> I wonder if it's worth
>> contacting Larry - the fellow behind Surface Winds - in hopes of an
> article
>> on the matter.
>>
>> - Andrew
>
> I'm all ears. Who's this Larry?

The editor of "Surface Winds". He's also active in Chapter 73 of the EAA,
but I don't know the details.

[...]
> They are stiflying GA.

Well, we're inconvenient to them. We're outside the system that is their
reason for being. To prove that they are needed, there must be nothing
outside their system.

Then there are bozos like that Weiner fellow from NY that act out of simple
ignorance and a failure to recognize that ignorance and wisdom are not
equal.

- Andrew

[David Brooks]

I just submitted my comments to be reviewed and posted. There's a copy at
http://www.msnusers.com/davidbrooks/Documents/Comments/David%20Brooks%20comments%2Ehtm

-- David Brooks

"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> I've lived in this country for many years, paid my taxes, been a
> schoolteacher and a Scout leader, and now this:
>
http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchResultsSimple.cfm?numberValue=19147&searchType=docket.
> The restrictions recently placed on >12500 training is being extended to
all
> aircraft. TSA claims that Congress mandated it, and maybe we were all
asleep
> when that happened. The rule is already in effect; the documentation and
> security training requirements kick in Oct 20.
> (blah blah)