Photo Pilot Certificates

[KayInPA]

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2004/04-3-046x.html

Quote: "AOPA worked closely with the committee, including the senior
minority member, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), to make sure pilots
would not have only one option — the closest flight standards
district office (FSDO) — for having their pictures taken. The
bill would require the FAA to assign designees — most likely
aviation medical examiners (AMEs) — to take official photos."

The pros/cons of the measure notwithstanding, wouldn't it make sense
to work with state driver's licensing centers? I mean, aren't they
already in the business of issuing (semi) secure identification
cards... in somewhat convenient locations nationwide?

---
Kay
PP-ASEL
email: remove ns from aviationns

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, (KayInPA) said:
>The pros/cons of the measure notwithstanding, wouldn't it make sense
>to work with state driver's licensing centers? I mean, aren't they
^^^^^
>already in the business of issuing (semi) secure identification
>cards... in somewhat convenient locations nationwide?

I think the word "state" there is your big stumbling block. State
driver's license centers vary from state to state in the photographic
equipment they use and their standards. They probably want these things
to be the same across the country. Plus there's the little matter of
trying to get one level of government to work with another.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"God be between you and harm, in all the empty places that you must walk"

[G.R. Patterson III]

KayInPA wrote:
>
> The pros/cons of the measure notwithstanding, wouldn't it make sense
> to work with state driver's licensing centers? I mean, aren't they
> already in the business of issuing (semi) secure identification
> cards... in somewhat convenient locations nationwide?

It would make more sense to simply require that the pilot submit photos in exactly
the same format and method as that currently used for passports.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[C J Campbell]

Quite honestly, in the day of Photoshop, photos don't mean a darned thing.

[Ron Natalie]

"KayInPA" > wrote in message om...

> The pros/cons of the measure notwithstanding, wouldn't it make sense
> to work with state driver's licensing centers? I mean, aren't they
> already in the business of issuing (semi) secure identification
> cards... in somewhat convenient locations nationwide?

Not in this state. The DMV is worse than dealing with the FSDO.

What they really need to do is allow the photos to be handled like
Passports and other INS documents. You can go to the local photo
place and then you submit the photos with a certified application to
be made into the ID.

[Jay Masino]

Does anyone know how they're handling the fact that our certificates are
permenant, yet our appearance can change over time? Will we get a new
photograph at every medical? Will we end up with three different cards...
a permenant certificate, a medical, and a photo ID card? I can't see why
they don't keep using the rule where you have to have you're state
driver's license on your person, when flying. I realize state licenses
are not consistent, but the whole idea of this ID is silly, anyway.

--- Jay


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, (Jay Masino) said:
>Does anyone know how they're handling the fact that our certificates are
>permenant, yet our appearance can change over time? Will we get a new
>photograph at every medical? Will we end up with three different cards...
>a permenant certificate, a medical, and a photo ID card? I can't see why

When Ontario went to photo drivers licenses, you had a separate license
part of your license and a separate photo part. The license expired on a
different schedule than the photo (I think the license was good for 2
years, but the photo was good for 5), which struck me as the stupidest
thing in the world, but I worked in the road design part of the Ministry
of Transportation, not the drivers and vehicles part, so nobody asked my
opinion.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"Only a NAZI would try to invoke Godwin's [law] deliberately"
- Jeff Gostin in a.s.r

[kontiki]

Really. Why not stop these terrorist people from getting into the country in the
first place? Seems like what we are doing now is hiring a bunch of government
employees to plug holes in the dike. When they run out of fingers they start
looking for civilian "volunteers".

Its a huge joke, because illegal immigration is the dirty little secret that
very damn few politicians will even talk about, much less do anything about.

Oh well... Nero fiddled while Rome burned.

C J Campbell wrote:
> Quite honestly, in the day of Photoshop, photos don't mean a darned thing.
>
>

[Shiver Me Timbers]

> kontiki > wrote:

> Why not stop these terrorist people from getting into
> the country in the first place?

The above comment you made is so vague and generic as to defy
description.

So why don't you come back to the group and specifically tell us all
just exactly you would do to stop any terrorist from getting into
your country in the first place.

> Seems like what we are doing now is hiring a bunch of government
> employees to plug holes in the dike.

Who is "we"..... All your doing is mouthing off in a newsgroup about a
problem your government is well aware of, and you are not giving any
specific examples of just what should be or could be done to plug all
the holes in that dike.

Rhetoric is one thing that everyone in a newsgroup is good at.

Specific and viable solutions to the problem are a different matter
altogether.

So hop to it kontiki, hoist that sail, grab your oar, and tell us
exactly how you would solve the problem..... and leave your
rhetoric behind.

[kontiki]

Shiver Me Timbers wrote:

>>kontiki > wrote:
>
>
>>Why not stop these terrorist people from getting into
>>the country in the first place?
>
>
> The above comment you made is so vague and generic as to defy
> description.
>
> So why don't you come back to the group and specifically tell us all
> just exactly you would do to stop any terrorist from getting into
> your country in the first place.
>
Okay.. thank you for allowing me to elaborate. Every single day hundreds
of unknown, undocumented individuals enter this country across our borders.
The Border Patrol makes but a dent in this number. Who these people are, where
they come from and their exact intentions are totally unknown. Yes, many of them
come from Mexico and countries in South America looking for a better life.
An unknown quantity of other individuals, however, are coming here for other
purposes. These are the ones that would do us harm and they know they have a 50/50
chance of getting in here *totally* undetected. No paperwork... no way to
determine their motives... their intentions or their criminal or political history.

There is also a northern border that is just as porus. I submit that a reasonable
person would conclude that a good use of a percentage of US forces might be to
assist the Border Patrol monitor and secure these borders to a greater extent than
they are today. I bet if you took a poll of all troops in Iraq and asked them if
they would rather serve their tours assisting the border patrol HERE in the US or
in the deserts of Iraq would find a lot of volunteers for the program.

In fact.... I one might also conclude that critical monitoring of who GOT a Visa
and who didn't and just what these visa holders where actually DOING in this country
might have prevented 9-11. It was, after all, the responsibility of the INS to do
this very thing, which they utterly failed to do. The result was that the INS was
dissolved... I don't know about you but I feel better already.

>>>Seems like what we are doing now is hiring a bunch of government
>>employees to plug holes in the dike.
>
>
> Who is "we"..... All your doing is mouthing off in a newsgroup about a
> problem your government is well aware of, and you are not giving any
> specific examples of just what should be or could be done to plug all
> the holes in that dike.

"WE" are American citizens and LEGAL immigrants/visitors. I just one specific
examples above, please read. If you desire more I will gladly oblige.

>
> Rhetoric is one thing that everyone in a newsgroup is good at.

Please highlight ANYTHING I just said that any reasonable person would consider
to be simply "rhetoric".
>
> Specific and viable solutions to the problem are a different matter
> altogether.

I just gave one. I could give more if you are really interested.
>
> So hop to it kontiki, hoist that sail, grab your oar, and tell us
> exactly how you would solve the problem..... and leave your
> rhetoric behind.

Balls in your court... diagram all of my rhetoric to the rest of the group.

[Morgans]

"KayInPA" > wrote
>
> The pros/cons of the measure notwithstanding, wouldn't it make sense
> to work with state driver's licensing centers? I mean, aren't they
> already in the business of issuing (semi) secure identification
> cards... in somewhat convenient locations nationwide?
>
> ---
> Kay

State photos and identification standards are not secure enough, IMHO.

There have been cases where the machines that make the pictures, and blank
ID stock have been stolen. Anyone can make an ID, then.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.766 / Virus Database: 513 - Release Date: 9/18/2004

[Teacherjh]

>>
Why not stop these terrorist people from getting into the country in the
first place?
<<

Because it won't work.

This is not a battle against =people=, most especially not a battle against
people who come from any specific country, apperances to the contrary
notwithstanding. This is a battle aginst =ideas=. The people are already
here.

We need to stop certain =ideas= from getting into the country. Sometimes the
ideas come packaged in people, but sometimes they come packaged as music, radio
transmissions, books, internet postings, and correspondence. The people are
already here. Ideas spread faster than people.

However, stopping the spread of ideas runs up against the very freedoms that
make our country what it is. So we are stuck making believe that stopping
people will solve the problem. It won't, but motion looks like action if you
are far enough away.

Photo IDs don't stop people =or= ideas. They are pretty, and everyone has an
ego, but they accomplish nothing, any more than photo IDs stop the drug trade
or deadbeat dads.

Jose

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

[BTIZ]

you already have terrorists in the country.. and they are US citizens...
remember Oklahoma City

BT

"Shiver Me Timbers" > wrote in message
...
> > kontiki > wrote:
>
> > Why not stop these terrorist people from getting into
> > the country in the first place?
>
> The above comment you made is so vague and generic as to defy
> description.
>
> So why don't you come back to the group and specifically tell us all
> just exactly you would do to stop any terrorist from getting into
> your country in the first place.
>
> > Seems like what we are doing now is hiring a bunch of government
> > employees to plug holes in the dike.
>
> Who is "we"..... All your doing is mouthing off in a newsgroup about a
> problem your government is well aware of, and you are not giving any
> specific examples of just what should be or could be done to plug all
> the holes in that dike.
>
> Rhetoric is one thing that everyone in a newsgroup is good at.
>
> Specific and viable solutions to the problem are a different matter
> altogether.
>
> So hop to it kontiki, hoist that sail, grab your oar, and tell us
> exactly how you would solve the problem..... and leave your
> rhetoric behind.

[Jim Carter]

So are you suggesting that we pull the troops out of Iraq and station them
on the US borders? That makes perfectly good sense, the news media love it.
They can drastically cut their costs of covering the terrorist attacks. They
won't have to go overseas for the daily "car bombing at a border crossing"
report, they can go to our Southern border during the winter and our
Northern border during the summer. Nice scenery and decent weather -- not
bad working conditions for the news crews.

I agree with SMT that almost everything you wrote is rhetoric. I could find
only the one tangible suggestion in your whole post. So how about a few
more?

1. Implement RFID tagging of identity documents. We already have magnetic
strips on most driver licenses, but they are too easy to defeat. RFID would
add another layer of security and can be scanned from as far away as 25'
when properly configured.

2. Establish a single, central repository of the identity records. It is way
too difficult for the states and feds to share documentation in the current
environment and in today's technological world, it is ridiculous that our
officials don't implement something from this century.

3. Divert the ridiculous funding allocations from the GA security
initiatives and put them into bolstering our border defenses. I don't mean
gun emplacements, but how about some much more efficient ID verification
systems, more control points, more airborne surveillance, and a system that
identifies welcome visitors rather than forcing them to swim a river to get
in.

4. Stop trying to win hearts and minds until the battle is over and the
field is secured. With the press documenting every step a soldier takes, our
peacekeepers are having to watch their backs as much as anything. We need to
understand that war is messy, brutal, and not politically correct. Find the
*******s, kill the *******s, secure the field, and then rebuild the country.
(Can you imagine trying to use the same strategy on Japan in WW2 as we are
using on Iraq now?)

5. We are dealing with a small group of people (I use that term liberally)
that place no value whatsoever on human life. They demonstrate that fact on
a daily basis, yet we are reluctant to brutally use their own methods in
retaliation. We need to selectively kill (not capture) this vermin because
they are a threat to the entire human, civilized race. Let's quit playing
nice and quit talking about a kinder, gentler war. How asinine!

6. Pull the civilian and government contractors out of areas where security
can't be guaranteed. Let the military finish the job of dealing with the
insurgents, and let the contractors work in other parts of Iraq. Let
elections go forward in secure areas and let the other areas continue to
live under martial law until they are secured.

Okay, here are my first 6 suggestions. I'm sure others will find more; some
will disagree (violently probably) while yet others will nod knowingly. But
hey, let's talk specific solutions and quit just complaining about the
problem.


--
Jim Carter
"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
>
> Okay.. thank you for allowing me to elaborate. Every single day hundreds
> of unknown, undocumented individuals enter this country across our
borders.
> The Border Patrol makes but a dent in this number. Who these people are,
where
> they come from and their exact intentions are totally unknown. Yes, many
of them
> come from Mexico and countries in South America looking for a better life.
> An unknown quantity of other individuals, however, are coming here for
other
> purposes. These are the ones that would do us harm and they know they have
a 50/50
> chance of getting in here *totally* undetected. No paperwork... no way to
> determine their motives... their intentions or their criminal or political
history.
>
> There is also a northern border that is just as porus. I submit that a
reasonable
> person would conclude that a good use of a percentage of US forces might
be to
> assist the Border Patrol monitor and secure these borders to a greater
extent than
> they are today. I bet if you took a poll of all troops in Iraq and asked
them if
> they would rather serve their tours assisting the border patrol HERE in
the US or
> in the deserts of Iraq would find a lot of volunteers for the program.
>
> In fact.... I one might also conclude that critical monitoring of who GOT
a Visa
> and who didn't and just what these visa holders where actually DOING in
this country
> might have prevented 9-11. It was, after all, the responsibility of the
INS to do
> this very thing, which they utterly failed to do. The result was that the
INS was
> dissolved... I don't know about you but I feel better already.
>
> ... clipped for brevity
>
> "WE" are American citizens and LEGAL immigrants/visitors. I just one
specific
> examples above, please read. If you desire more I will gladly oblige.
>
>

[C Kingsbury]

http://www.cis.org/topics/terrorism.html Offers a good overview of the
subject and a ton of links to specific details. The Center for Immigration
Studies is definitely a partisan organization but their director is a solid
guy who's motivated to seek the truth.

"Jim Carter" > wrote in message
. ..

> 1. Implement RFID tagging of identity documents. We already have magnetic
> strips on most driver licenses, but they are too easy to defeat. RFID
would
> add another layer of security and can be scanned from as far away as 25'
> when properly configured.

This is fine, but the bigger issue is, are we being careful enough with who
we give papers to? IIRC a number of the 9/11 guys should never have been
allowed in, according to the rules as they were written at the time. It
doesn't matter how secure the document is if someone who shouldn't have one
gets it.

> 2. Establish a single, central repository of the identity records. It is
way
> too difficult for the states and feds to share documentation in the
current
> environment and in today's technological world, it is ridiculous that our
> officials don't implement something from this century.

Just out of curiosity, do you know what the feds work with today? If the FBI
wants to pull up all known records on person XYZ, what do they have to do,
and what do they risk missing? I'm not sure the system is quite as bad as
you make it; then again maybe it is worse. I just don't know.

> 3. Divert the ridiculous funding allocations from the GA security
> initiatives

To the degree that the TSA is involved in GA, it seems to me like a teeny
tiny piece of their gargantuan budget. I suspect they spend more on
janitorial supplies per year.

> and put them into bolstering our border defenses. I don't mean
> gun emplacements, but how about some much more efficient ID verification
> systems, more control points, more airborne surveillance, and a system
that
> identifies welcome visitors rather than forcing them to swim a river to
get
> in.

Two words: Shipping Containers. I live a mile and a half from the Conley
Terminal in South Boston, and every day watch ships twenty times the size of
airliners drop hundreds of truck-sized packages on the dock. Most enter the
country with only a cursory once-over, if that.

> (Can you imagine trying to use the same strategy on Japan in WW2 as we are
> using on Iraq now?)

In WWII everyone agreed (after 1941) that we needed to fight the Axis powers
to the point of unconditional surrender. Other than the first 3 days after
9/11 we haven't anything like that kind of unanimity about what to do. It's
not just that the rest of the world doesn't support us, it's that even we
aren't united in this.

> 5. We are dealing with a small group of people (I use that term liberally)
> that place no value whatsoever on human life. They demonstrate that fact
on
> a daily basis, yet we are reluctant to brutally use their own methods in
> retaliation.

Part of me wants to hear W. on the floor of the Senate yelling, "Fallujah
delenda est!" Unfortunately, as the Russians' experience in Chechnya
demonstrates, an assymetrical conflict just doesn't work like that. Perhaps
the one moment that might have worked was the evening of 9/11. Launch B-2s
with 2000lb JDAMs and make an announcement on CNN that over the next four
hours, we will blow up the Ministry of Baksheesh building in each of
Damascus, Tehran, Tripoli, Baghdad, Karachi, etc, unless they cough up
everything they know about the following organizations, people, WMD, etc.
Tell them the next 3 nights we go after their airbases, then their military
facilities, then the powerplants, and then on the fifth night we will have
the ICBMs retargeted and we just start taking cities out. Who knows what
that might have shaken out?

OTOH, part of me thinks that's exactly what OBL thought we would do: lash
out madly and just destabilize the whole region and world so badly that he
could ride in like Saladin and restore the Caliphate. By responding in a
careful, measured fashion we screwed up the whole plan. But we may yet come
to such a reckoning. All I know is that the Iranian parliament (or whatever
it is) regularly opens sessions with cheers of "Death to America!" and they
are building nuclear bombs and ballistic missiles. This is not a good thing.
And then there's the Norks. Talk about a bunch of insane mother#$%&!s. After
the Cold War ended we thought the world was going to finally start being a
nice place. Instead we end up with a bunch of villains who make Dr. No and
Goldfinger look like pikers.

-cwk.

[Jim Carter]

Very thoughtful and very nicely put CK. I enjoy reading this kind of work.

As regards the centralized system, I have reason to believe it is bad enough
to cause significant concern because the company I work for is working with
some federal agencies to resolve the issue. It isn't necessarily bad at the
top level, but when we realize that terrorists may be smart enough to
frequent smaller towns and the local systems aren't all interfaced I think
we can see a part of the problem. As an earlier responder noted, the
federal - state - local interface still lacks a lot, especially in the
information exchange world. Many local authorities don't really understand
the finer points of security. Many still think that means locks and guns. A
while back I was in a car traveling late at night with my VHF radio on. I
share some frequencies with some of the local authorities and I listened as
a radio operator discussed the access procedures to the NCIC system in the
clear. She was told the password was in the top drawer of the desk, but when
she reported the desk was locked, the password was broadcast in the clear
because the trooper couldn't get back to the office soon enough. Guns and
locks, but no real security understanding.

--
Jim Carter
"C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> http://www.cis.org/topics/terrorism.html Offers a good overview of the
> subject and a ton of links to specific details. The Center for Immigration
> Studies is definitely a partisan organization but their director is a
solid
> guy who's motivated to seek the truth.
>
> "Jim Carter" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
> > 1. Implement RFID tagging of identity documents. We already have
magnetic
> > strips on most driver licenses, but they are too easy to defeat. RFID
> would
> > add another layer of security and can be scanned from as far away as 25'
> > when properly configured.
>
> This is fine, but the bigger issue is, are we being careful enough with
who
> we give papers to? IIRC a number of the 9/11 guys should never have been
> allowed in, according to the rules as they were written at the time. It
> doesn't matter how secure the document is if someone who shouldn't have
one
> gets it.
>
> > 2. Establish a single, central repository of the identity records. It is
> way
> > too difficult for the states and feds to share documentation in the
> current
> > environment and in today's technological world, it is ridiculous that
our
> > officials don't implement something from this century.
>
> Just out of curiosity, do you know what the feds work with today? If the
FBI
> wants to pull up all known records on person XYZ, what do they have to do,
> and what do they risk missing? I'm not sure the system is quite as bad as
> you make it; then again maybe it is worse. I just don't know.
>
> > 3. Divert the ridiculous funding allocations from the GA security
> > initiatives
>
> To the degree that the TSA is involved in GA, it seems to me like a teeny
> tiny piece of their gargantuan budget. I suspect they spend more on
> janitorial supplies per year.
>
> > and put them into bolstering our border defenses. I don't mean
> > gun emplacements, but how about some much more efficient ID verification
> > systems, more control points, more airborne surveillance, and a system
> that
> > identifies welcome visitors rather than forcing them to swim a river to
> get
> > in.
>
> Two words: Shipping Containers. I live a mile and a half from the Conley
> Terminal in South Boston, and every day watch ships twenty times the size
of
> airliners drop hundreds of truck-sized packages on the dock. Most enter
the
> country with only a cursory once-over, if that.
>
> > (Can you imagine trying to use the same strategy on Japan in WW2 as we
are
> > using on Iraq now?)
>
> In WWII everyone agreed (after 1941) that we needed to fight the Axis
powers
> to the point of unconditional surrender. Other than the first 3 days after
> 9/11 we haven't anything like that kind of unanimity about what to do.
It's
> not just that the rest of the world doesn't support us, it's that even we
> aren't united in this.
>
> > 5. We are dealing with a small group of people (I use that term
liberally)
> > that place no value whatsoever on human life. They demonstrate that fact
> on
> > a daily basis, yet we are reluctant to brutally use their own methods in
> > retaliation.
>
> Part of me wants to hear W. on the floor of the Senate yelling, "Fallujah
> delenda est!" Unfortunately, as the Russians' experience in Chechnya
> demonstrates, an assymetrical conflict just doesn't work like that.
Perhaps
> the one moment that might have worked was the evening of 9/11. Launch B-2s
> with 2000lb JDAMs and make an announcement on CNN that over the next four
> hours, we will blow up the Ministry of Baksheesh building in each of
> Damascus, Tehran, Tripoli, Baghdad, Karachi, etc, unless they cough up
> everything they know about the following organizations, people, WMD, etc.
> Tell them the next 3 nights we go after their airbases, then their
military
> facilities, then the powerplants, and then on the fifth night we will have
> the ICBMs retargeted and we just start taking cities out. Who knows what
> that might have shaken out?
>
> OTOH, part of me thinks that's exactly what OBL thought we would do: lash
> out madly and just destabilize the whole region and world so badly that he
> could ride in like Saladin and restore the Caliphate. By responding in a
> careful, measured fashion we screwed up the whole plan. But we may yet
come
> to such a reckoning. All I know is that the Iranian parliament (or
whatever
> it is) regularly opens sessions with cheers of "Death to America!" and
they
> are building nuclear bombs and ballistic missiles. This is not a good
thing.
> And then there's the Norks. Talk about a bunch of insane mother#$%&!s.
After
> the Cold War ended we thought the world was going to finally start being a
> nice place. Instead we end up with a bunch of villains who make Dr. No and
> Goldfinger look like pikers.
>
> -cwk.
>
>

[C J Campbell]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> Really. Why not stop these terrorist people from getting into the country
in the
> first place? Seems like what we are doing now is hiring a bunch of
government
> employees to plug holes in the dike. When they run out of fingers they
start
> looking for civilian "volunteers".

Unfortunately, people don't wear signs saying "terrorist," "illegal alien,"
or "I'm stupid." It would be nice if they did. People who complain about
illegal immigration forget a few things:

Most of the 9/11 terrorists were here legally.

The border of the United States is enormously long. Those who think that you
can stop people from crossing it suffer from a severe lack of imagination.
Even if we had enough population to put soldiers shoulder to shoulder along
the Rio Grande and the Canadian border, it would destroy the economy and
probably would not stop a single illegal from crossing.

It boggles the mind that anyone can think it would be possible monitor what
people do once they are in the country. Heck, we can't even track our own
criminals, let alone those from other countries.

The ability to monitor what an alien is doing 24 hours a day, seven days a
week is also the ability to monitor what you are doing 24 hours a day, seven
days a week.

[Shiver Me Timbers]

> C J Campbell > wrote:

> The border of the United States is enormously long.

What..... About 3500 miles on the Canada US border.

> Those who think that you can stop people from crossing it
> suffer from a severe lack of imagination.

Oh heck... We can't even stop those feisty maritimers from scarfing
some lobsters offshore in dories.

Nor can we stop those smuggling Mohawks who carry cartons of
non taxed ciggies into New York state by the ton in fourteen
foot open boats across the St. Lawrence.

And BC BUD..... Oh boy now theres a hot topic of discussion for you.

> Even if we had enough population to put soldiers shoulder to shoulder along
> the Rio Grande and the Canadian border, it would destroy the economy and
> probably would not stop a single illegal from crossing.

If there was a soldier every hundred feet ..... that would make what.

Feeble math time. One mile.... lets say five thousand feet, one
soldier every one hundred feet - why that's fifty soldiers per mile.

Hmmmm 3500 mile border times fifty soldiers equals one hundred
and seventy five thousand soldiers.

And Mr. Kontiki..... that's for the day shift, now when you add in the
night shift you would need at least three hundred and fifty thousand
soldiers every twenty four hours just to patrol that one border.

And that's just for the Canadian American border.

By the way Kontiki just how many US soldiers are on the ground
in IRAQ these days........ I forget. Anybody care to refresh his memory.

Now folks...... If a soldier gets paid 1500 bucks a month, and you need
a minimum of 350,000 per day..... why thats about 560 million dollars a
month. And of course that's not including, food, shelter,
transportation, and absolutely everything else that a soldier would
require in the way of support and infrastructure to maintain that level
of security. It would take an awful lot of buses and boats to move
175,000 soldiers into position and back to base every twelve hours.

I wonder how many port a potties you would need and how far apart would
you put them. Any ex soldiers here who could tell the group how far a
soldier would normally be expected to walk when it came time to take a
poop.

Isn't this just fascinating.

> It boggles the mind that anyone can think it would be possible
> to monitor what people do once they are in the country.

Indeed it does.... but Kontiki thinks that it is possible but can give
no specifics as to how it could be done.

> Heck, we can't even track our own criminals, let alone
> those from other countries.

It's the same on this side of the border also.

But hey folks..... All is not lost.

You have managed to stop live cows from entering the US from Canada.

As far as I know - Not one has made it across in a year and a half.

But if you want to see what could happen when a radically new terrorist
group hits the US of A then click here to see a new and very real
threat on the horizon.

http://tinyurl.com/6gccu

[kontiki]

Where did I suggest pulling troops pout of Iraq??? What I am saying is
that fighting despots and terrorists around the world is excellent
but doing little to nothing about thousands of potential terrorists
entering this country undetected is a bit counter productive. I believe
that a legitimate use of our military forces (and their associated technology)
would be to help safeguard our borders. A number of other respectable
people happen to agree with me on that, I would not consider it rhetoric.

You have listed more things that we can do, some are workable, others are
merely pie-in-the-sky and can easily be defeated/worked around. The problem
you are dealing with is that it only takes ONE sophisticated terroist
to circumvent our security to ruin it for a lot of inoocent people and
cause us to go fight wars all over the world.

To focus so much security and attention on airports and ports of call while
leaving the borders wide open is not logical. If I were a terrorist wanting
to enter this country undetected I would choose to come accross with the
masses at the border.


Jim Carter wrote:
> So are you suggesting that we pull the troops out of Iraq and station them
> on the US borders? That makes perfectly good sense, the news media love it.
> They can drastically cut their costs of covering the terrorist attacks. They
> won't have to go overseas for the daily "car bombing at a border crossing"
> report, they can go to our Southern border during the winter and our
> Northern border during the summer. Nice scenery and decent weather -- not
> bad working conditions for the news crews.
>
> I agree with SMT that almost everything you wrote is rhetoric. I could find
> only the one tangible suggestion in your whole post. So how about a few
> more?
>
> 1. Implement RFID tagging of identity documents. We already have magnetic
> strips on most driver licenses, but they are too easy to defeat. RFID would
> add another layer of security and can be scanned from as far away as 25'
> when properly configured.
>
> 2. Establish a single, central repository of the identity records. It is way
> too difficult for the states and feds to share documentation in the current
> environment and in today's technological world, it is ridiculous that our
> officials don't implement something from this century.
>
> 3. Divert the ridiculous funding allocations from the GA security
> initiatives and put them into bolstering our border defenses. I don't mean
> gun emplacements, but how about some much more efficient ID verification
> systems, more control points, more airborne surveillance, and a system that
> identifies welcome visitors rather than forcing them to swim a river to get
> in.
>
> 4. Stop trying to win hearts and minds until the battle is over and the
> field is secured. With the press documenting every step a soldier takes, our
> peacekeepers are having to watch their backs as much as anything. We need to
> understand that war is messy, brutal, and not politically correct. Find the
> *******s, kill the *******s, secure the field, and then rebuild the country.
> (Can you imagine trying to use the same strategy on Japan in WW2 as we are
> using on Iraq now?)
>
> 5. We are dealing with a small group of people (I use that term liberally)
> that place no value whatsoever on human life. They demonstrate that fact on
> a daily basis, yet we are reluctant to brutally use their own methods in
> retaliation. We need to selectively kill (not capture) this vermin because
> they are a threat to the entire human, civilized race. Let's quit playing
> nice and quit talking about a kinder, gentler war. How asinine!
>
> 6. Pull the civilian and government contractors out of areas where security
> can't be guaranteed. Let the military finish the job of dealing with the
> insurgents, and let the contractors work in other parts of Iraq. Let
> elections go forward in secure areas and let the other areas continue to
> live under martial law until they are secured.
>
> Okay, here are my first 6 suggestions. I'm sure others will find more; some
> will disagree (violently probably) while yet others will nod knowingly. But
> hey, let's talk specific solutions and quit just complaining about the
> problem.
>
>

[Paul Sengupta]

"Jim Carter" > wrote in message
. ..
> 5. We are dealing with a small group of people (I use that term liberally)
> that place no value whatsoever on human life. They demonstrate that fact
on
> a daily basis, yet we are reluctant to brutally use their own methods in
> retaliation. We need to selectively kill (not capture) this vermin because
> they are a threat to the entire human, civilized race.

This was what Saddam did. But we removed him.

Paul

[kontiki]

Teacherjh wrote:

>
> We need to stop certain =ideas= from getting into the country. Sometimes the
> ideas come packaged in people, but sometimes they come packaged as music, radio
> transmissions, books, internet postings, and correspondence. The people are
> already here. Ideas spread faster than people.
>
All well and good but more and people are coming every day (illegally) and along
with them more and more of your so called "ideas".

[Paul Sengupta]

"C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Two words: Shipping Containers. I live a mile and a half from the Conley
> Terminal in South Boston, and every day watch ships twenty times the size
of
> airliners drop hundreds of truck-sized packages on the dock. Most enter
the
> country with only a cursory once-over, if that.

Paperwork is the key. I was watching a programme on television
that interviewed someone about this very thing, but in relation to
air freight. The answer was paperwork. If the shipment could be
traced back to its origins, and each step of the way everything had
been handled by known quantities, then it was not required to check
everything as it entered the US.

Paul

[kontiki]

How is it that we can patrol no fly zones and borders in other countries
around the world but not our own? I disagree, I thing we have the ability
AND the technology to do a MUCH better job patrolling, DETECTING and STOPPING
illegal entry into this country.

What we lack is the will. But don't worry... we'll continue to spend billions
fighting wars eleswhere, rebuilding the countries afterwards etc etc rather
than make the (politically incorrect) effort to defend our own borders and
develop our own oil reserves here at home.

I give up on this subject... who cares anyway, we can't do it, it can't be
done, we can't we can't we can't.....

C J Campbell wrote:

> "kontiki" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Really. Why not stop these terrorist people from getting into the country
>
> in the
>
>>first place? Seems like what we are doing now is hiring a bunch of
>
> government
>
>>employees to plug holes in the dike. When they run out of fingers they
>
> start
>
>>looking for civilian "volunteers".
>
>
> Unfortunately, people don't wear signs saying "terrorist," "illegal alien,"
> or "I'm stupid." It would be nice if they did. People who complain about
> illegal immigration forget a few things:
>
> Most of the 9/11 terrorists were here legally.
>
> The border of the United States is enormously long. Those who think that you
> can stop people from crossing it suffer from a severe lack of imagination.
> Even if we had enough population to put soldiers shoulder to shoulder along
> the Rio Grande and the Canadian border, it would destroy the economy and
> probably would not stop a single illegal from crossing.
>
> It boggles the mind that anyone can think it would be possible monitor what
> people do once they are in the country. Heck, we can't even track our own
> criminals, let alone those from other countries.
>
> The ability to monitor what an alien is doing 24 hours a day, seven days a
> week is also the ability to monitor what you are doing 24 hours a day, seven
> days a week.
>
>

[Cub Driver]

Whatever our feelings about the FAA, this proposed bill obviously asks
too much of them. Six months! Good grief. The FAA took nearly that
long to look over my first medical!

I think each of us ought to write our senators (we each have two) and
support the bill while extending the time.

I don't have any opinion on who takes the photo. It's a
once-in-a-lifetime hassle. My FSDO is 60 miles away, reasonable trip
fo rme. I suppose it's different in Idaho?

Still, if there are designated examiners, it ought to be possible to
have designated photographers!

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org

[Cub Driver]

On 23 Sep 2004 18:15:57 GMT, (Jay Masino)
wrote:

>Does anyone know how they're handling the fact that our certificates are
>permenant, yet our appearance can change over time? Will we get a new

The State Department doesn't seem at all bothered by the fact that my
four-year-old granddaughter's passport shows a four-month-old infant.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org

[marcelfrancisci]

The reason is much simpler than all your answers, all the "state driver's
licensing centers" an other photo places would't be any good to the hundred
of thousands of FAA licenced pilots that live abroad.... the medical
examiner is the only person that represents the FAA in all the major
countries.

[Blanche]

KayInPA > wrote:
[snip]
>The pros/cons of the measure notwithstanding, wouldn't it make sense
>to work with state driver's licensing centers? I mean, aren't they
>already in the business of issuing (semi) secure identification
>cards... in somewhat convenient locations nationwide?

Obviously you haven't spent time in a Colorado DL office lately!

For starters, they've been attacked by a virus that has shut them
down for the entire week. You can take the written or the checkride
but they can't issue the DL.

I'm voting for the same approach as a passport. Go get the photo
at any stripmall, get the application (either online or at the
local post office), bring cash and the current passport to the
post office and a few days later, a new passport appears.

Why can't we use the same approach for the new FAA ID? Same process
only now you add the existing FAA cert.

No passport? No problem. Use your DL or other Govt. issued ID.

This is not rocket science, folks!

[Blanche]

Shiver Me Timbers > wrote:
>> kontiki > wrote:
>
>> Why not stop these terrorist people from getting into
>> the country in the first place?
>
>The above comment you made is so vague and generic as to defy
>description.
>
>So why don't you come back to the group and specifically tell us all
>just exactly you would do to stop any terrorist from getting into
>your country in the first place.

Doncha just love people who post anonymously?

The statement is not vague and generic. It's right on point!

How do we fix it? We've known for years how to fix it, but it
requires multiple US Gov. organizations to cooperate.

1) Identifying visitors to the US. On a student visa? Then it's
the school's responsibility to track the student. When a student
enrolls at a college or university, they are required to provide
the visa information (at least at all the schools I know of).
The visa expired? The school is responsible for a) expelling the
student and b) immediately informing INS.

2) Same process for trade/flight/whatever school.

Drastic? Yup. But remember, the folks on 911 were all on expired visas.

3) Here for tourist reasons? When I visit a foreign country, even the
hotel wants my passport. Why not here?

4) Here for business reasons? See #3.

Troll, troll, go away.

[C J Campbell]

"Shiver Me Timbers" > wrote in message
...
> > C J Campbell > wrote:

>
> If there was a soldier every hundred feet ..... that would make what.
>
> Feeble math time. One mile.... lets say five thousand feet, one
> soldier every one hundred feet - why that's fifty soldiers per mile.
>
> Hmmmm 3500 mile border times fifty soldiers equals one hundred
> and seventy five thousand soldiers.
>
> And Mr. Kontiki..... that's for the day shift, now when you add in the
> night shift you would need at least three hundred and fifty thousand
> soldiers every twenty four hours just to patrol that one border.
>

Actually, you need at least three shifts, so 500,000 soldiers just watching
the border. For every soldier on the front lines, you need at least seven
others in support, so three and a half million soldiers just to watch the
Canadian border. That still does not stop people coming through legitimate
checkpoints with falsified documents or whatever. Nor does it account for
aircraft or boats. Neither does it count up the cost of the enormously long
lines at the border while confiscate everybody's fingernail clippers.

>
> I wonder how many port a potties you would need and how far apart would
> you put them. Any ex soldiers here who could tell the group how far a
> soldier would normally be expected to walk when it came time to take a
> poop.

There is no real limit for soldiers, but there are some practical limits.
The statutory limit for migrant workers, I believe, is 300 yards.

[C J Campbell]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> How is it that we can patrol no fly zones and borders in other countries
> around the world but not our own?

Evidently we can't, with possible exception of Korea, which has an extremely
short border and no traffic is allowed across it.

Many of the terrorists in Iraq are coming across the border with Syria or
Iran.

As for no fly zones, airplanes can be picked up on radar with just a few
patrolling aircraft. But that assumes no one is allowed to fly. In the
United States, which has heavy air traffic crossing the borders both ways,
it is much more difficult to sort out legitimate air traffic from the rest.

Even if we could stop everyone from coming into the country, halting all
international movement (heck, we have people sneaking in from China in
shipping containers), you would still have plenty of terrorists that were
born and raised here.

However, you sound dangerous to me. Perhaps the government should make you
wear an ankle bracelet or something so that your movements can be tracked 24
hours a day. Maybe you should even be confined to your house. Or do you see
my point, yet?

[C J Campbell]

"Blanche" > wrote in message
...
> Shiver Me Timbers > wrote:
> >> kontiki > wrote:
> >
> >> Why not stop these terrorist people from getting into
> >> the country in the first place?
> >
> >The above comment you made is so vague and generic as to defy
> >description.
> >
> >So why don't you come back to the group and specifically tell us all
> >just exactly you would do to stop any terrorist from getting into
> >your country in the first place.
>
> Doncha just love people who post anonymously?
>
> The statement is not vague and generic. It's right on point!
>
> How do we fix it? We've known for years how to fix it, but it
> requires multiple US Gov. organizations to cooperate.
>
> 1) Identifying visitors to the US. On a student visa? Then it's
> the school's responsibility to track the student. When a student
> enrolls at a college or university, they are required to provide
> the visa information (at least at all the schools I know of).
> The visa expired? The school is responsible for a) expelling the
> student and b) immediately informing INS.

Which then c) has the responsibility of tracking down this person in a
population of over 300 million. I suppose you could set up checkpoints
throughout the US where you would be forced to present your documents.
Papers, please?

>
> 2) Same process for trade/flight/whatever school.
>
> Drastic? Yup. But remember, the folks on 911 were all on expired visas.
>
> 3) Here for tourist reasons? When I visit a foreign country, even the
> hotel wants my passport. Why not here?
>
> 4) Here for business reasons? See #3.

So, Mr. Kontiki. Our latest audit shows that you have unaccounted for sales
of $350.22. Are you certain that you cannot remember what this was? Perhaps
if we talk to your family it will help you to remember.

[C J Campbell]

"Blanche" > wrote in message
>
> 3) Here for tourist reasons? When I visit a foreign country, even the
> hotel wants my passport. Why not here?

What do these hotels do for their own citizens? And how do you tell a
foreigner from a citizen in this country?

[Ron Natalie]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message ...
>
> "Blanche" > wrote in message
> >
> > 3) Here for tourist reasons? When I visit a foreign country, even the
> > hotel wants my passport. Why not here?
>
> What do these hotels do for their own citizens? And how do you tell a
> foreigner from a citizen in this country?
>
Actually, it's an anachronism. I haven't been asked for my passport of
late even at the borders (and sometimes not even then). The last time
I had to show my passport to a hotel was over 15 years ago and that was
in Japan.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Blanche wrote:
>
> The visa expired? The school is responsible for a) expelling the
> student and b) immediately informing INS.

A visa allows one to enter the country. You do not have to leave when it expires.
Once you're in the country, the INS tells you how long you can stay.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Cub Driver wrote:
>
> I don't have any opinion on who takes the photo. It's a
> once-in-a-lifetime hassle.

Betcha it eventually becomes a once every two years hassle.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[Ron Natalie]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message ...
>
>
> Blanche wrote:
> >
> > The visa expired? The school is responsible for a) expelling the
> > student and b) immediately informing INS.
>
> A visa allows one to enter the country. You do not have to leave when it expires.
> Once you're in the country, the INS tells you how long you can stay.
>
Further, a student visa doesn't expire as long as the student is enrolled and making
progress towards their course of study. They've got 60 days after they finish to
get out (or make other arrangements). So it's not that you can be studying and have
a student visa expire, it's because you stop studying that the terms of your entry under
that visa becomes invalid. It's actually the schools completion of the "certificate of
eligibility" that lets you be in the country on the visa.

[Ron Natalie]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message ...
>
>
> Cub Driver wrote:
> >
> > I don't have any opinion on who takes the photo. It's a
> > once-in-a-lifetime hassle.
>
> Betcha it eventually becomes a once every two years hassle.

Gee, even passports are good for ten years. My driver's license picture
is going about to be renewed for another 5 (it's about 6 years old now).

-Ron

[kontiki]

Blanche wrote:
>
> Doncha just love people who post anonymously?
>
> The statement is not vague and generic. It's right on point!
>

Thank You. What a breath of fresh air. Now I don't feel like a voice in the
wilderness of political correctness. :o)

[kontiki]

C J Campbell wrote:
>
> So, Mr. Kontiki. Our latest audit shows that you have unaccounted for sales
> of $350.22. Are you certain that you cannot remember what this was? Perhaps
> if we talk to your family it will help you to remember.
>
>
You are carrying this to a ridiculous extreme. We already have immigration laws
that would suffice but they are worthless unless enforced. Most of the 9-11
hijackers were in clear violation of their visas but no one was checking on
them. There are NOT 300 million visa holders in the US. If there is insufficient
resources for the US Gov. to check on the ones that are issued then there should
be an immediate moratorium and the further issuance of visas until the problem
is addressed. This has not been done and apparently won't.

Instead... we will require picture ID's on everyone and you will have to renew
them periodically. And of course we WILL require a lot of people and infrastructure
to "check" these IDs.... and of course arrest them if they don't have them.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Ron Natalie wrote:
>
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message ...
> >
> >
> > Cub Driver wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't have any opinion on who takes the photo. It's a
> > > once-in-a-lifetime hassle.
> >
> > Betcha it eventually becomes a once every two years hassle.
>
> Gee, even passports are good for ten years. My driver's license picture
> is going about to be renewed for another 5 (it's about 6 years old now).

Yep, but as others have pointed out, it would be logical to have the AME provide the
photo, since you're going to be seeing one every two or three years. Betcha they just
link it to the medical certificate.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[kontiki]

C J Campbell wrote:
>
> However, you sound dangerous to me. Perhaps the government should make you
> wear an ankle bracelet or something so that your movements can be tracked 24
> hours a day. Maybe you should even be confined to your house.

I have said nothing at all about "thought control". I've been speaking strictly
about the enforcement of EXISTING US immigration laws. You are diverting from
the relevant subject and trying to make it sound as if I am FOR additional
"Big Brother" type security measures. If you will read my posts carefully you
will see that I am totally against having additional burdens placed upon
America citizens.... who's only crime appears to be that of being licensed
pilot post 9-11.

[zatatime]

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 18:31:38 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote:

> Betcha they just
>link it to the medical certificate.


Oh no....As if they don't already have enough "non-medical" related
ways to pull your medical. Now they'll be able to revoke you if
you're not photogenic enough!

Time for some plastic surgery to get ready for this one!

z

[kontiki]

C J Campbell wrote:
>
> Actually, you need at least three shifts, so 500,000 soldiers just watching
> the border. For every soldier on the front lines, you need at least seven
> others in support, so three and a half million soldiers just to watch the
> Canadian border. That still does not stop people coming through legitimate
> checkpoints with falsified documents or whatever. Nor does it account for
> aircraft or boats. Neither does it count up the cost of the enormously long
> lines at the border while confiscate everybody's fingernail clippers.

You have succeeded in taking my original comments so completely out of context
that the discussion now bears no relevance to my original post.

I will quote two sentences from my original posts and would ask you to find
anything in them that would tend to indicate I was advocating what you say
above. Words in caps are emphasis I have added assist in comprehension of
the meaning of the sentences as they were written.

"I submit that a reasonable person would conclude that a good use of a
PERCENTAGE of US forces might be to ASISTS the Border Patrol monitor and
secure these borders to a greater extent than they are today."

"I believe that a legitimate use of our military forces (and their associated
technology) would be to HELP safeguard our borders."

The military has some exclusive technology capabilities which could be used
to assist the border patrol do their jobs. This same position has been advocated
by a number of congressman and senators. I happen to agree.

[Rutger]

> I don't have any opinion on who takes the photo. It's a
> once-in-a-lifetime hassle. My FSDO is 60 miles away, reasonable trip
> fo rme. I suppose it's different in Idaho?

If big brother would actually have his way, that trip to the FSDO to
get your picture taken might also turn into: Bring all your logbooks,
submit a blood sample, submit a hair sample, and please step into the
polygraph room before we can even permit you to step in front of the
camera.

[kontiki]

C J Campbell wrote:
>
> Most of the 9/11 terrorists were here legally.

Yes, initially. but at least half of them were subsequently found
to be in violation of the terms of their Visas.

But with the INS not enforcing anything what did it matter?

[kontiki]

Martin Hotze wrote:
> Blanche > wrote:
>
>
>>Why can't we use the same approach for the new FAA ID? Same process
>>only now you add the existing FAA cert.
>
>
>
> not to long ago everybody was fighting the new FAA *foto* ID. Now it seems that
> everybody is OK with this and we are only discussing the way it can be handled.
>
Exactly. We've all pretty much given in. Now we can get ready for the next round
of additional "security" measures. It seems Mr. Weiner already has some ideas.

[C Kingsbury]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >
> > Blanche wrote:
> > >
> > > The visa expired? The school is responsible for a) expelling the
> > > student and b) immediately informing INS.
> >
> > A visa allows one to enter the country. You do not have to leave when it
expires.
> > Once you're in the country, the INS tells you how long you can stay.
> >
> Further, a student visa doesn't expire as long as the student is enrolled
and making
> progress towards their course of study. They've got 60 days after they
finish to
> get out (or make other arrangements). So it's not that you can be
studying and have
> a student visa expire, it's because you stop studying that the terms of
your entry under
> that visa becomes invalid. It's actually the schools completion of the
"certificate of
> eligibility" that lets you be in the country on the visa.

Yes, and I'm sure we can depend on all the university administrators in
Cambridge, Massachusetts, to duly notify John Ashcroft's Department of
Justice of every such event.

Best,
-cwk.

[C J Campbell]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > "Blanche" > wrote in message
> > >
> > > 3) Here for tourist reasons? When I visit a foreign country, even the
> > > hotel wants my passport. Why not here?
> >
> > What do these hotels do for their own citizens? And how do you tell a
> > foreigner from a citizen in this country?
> >
> Actually, it's an anachronism. I haven't been asked for my passport of
> late even at the borders (and sometimes not even then). The last time
> I had to show my passport to a hotel was over 15 years ago and that was
> in Japan.

True. But if Mr. Kontiki walks in the door, be sure to demand his passport.

[C J Campbell]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> C J Campbell wrote:
> >
> > Most of the 9/11 terrorists were here legally.
>
> Yes, initially. but at least half of them were subsequently found
> to be in violation of the terms of their Visas.
>
> But with the INS not enforcing anything what did it matter?
>

OK, a visa expires. The INS is notified. They go out to the alien's last
known address and he has apparently moved and left no forwarding address.
Now what?

[Javier Henderson]

Martin Hotze > writes:

> "marcelfrancisci" > wrote:
>
> > the medical
> > examiner is the only person that represents the FAA in all the major
> > countries.
>
> the local FAA designated examiner here in our area is an Austrian citizen. Do
> you think this beeing a good idea having him making the fotos and clearing them?

Our state (California) governor is also from Austria.

THEY ARE TAKING OVER!

-jav

[Cub Driver]

On 24 Sep 2004 12:02:40 -0700, (Rutger) wrote:

>If big brother would actually have his way, that trip to the FSDO to
>get your picture taken might also turn into: Bring all your logbooks,
>submit a blood sample, submit a hair sample, and please step into the
>polygraph room before we can even permit you to step in front of the
>camera.

Well, you might mention that to your senators when you write them. Ask
them to omit the blood sample etc.

Besides, I'd like the see the FAA get a hair sample from me!

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org

[Cub Driver]

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 13:01:30 +0200, "marcelfrancisci"
> wrote:

>would't be any good to the hundred
>of thousands of FAA licenced pilots that live abroad...

Do they worry much about FAA ramp checks?


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
wrote:

> Besides, I'd like the see the FAA get a hair sample from me!

I have little enough as it is!

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

[NW_PILOT]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> KayInPA wrote:
> >
> > The pros/cons of the measure notwithstanding, wouldn't it make sense
> > to work with state driver's licensing centers? I mean, aren't they
> > already in the business of issuing (semi) secure identification
> > cards... in somewhat convenient locations nationwide?
>
> It would make more sense to simply require that the pilot submit photos in
exactly
> the same format and method as that currently used for passports.
>
> George Patterson
> If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to
have
> been looking for it.

That's what I was thinking but the post office would charge you $80.00 to
take and seal your info. unless you could have it done for free at a local
FSDO like at the passport agency

[NW_PILOT]

Some states drivers license don't expire!



"Jay Masino" > wrote in message
...
> Does anyone know how they're handling the fact that our certificates are
> permenant, yet our appearance can change over time? Will we get a new
> photograph at every medical? Will we end up with three different cards...
> a permenant certificate, a medical, and a photo ID card? I can't see why
> they don't keep using the rule where you have to have you're state
> driver's license on your person, when flying. I realize state licenses
> are not consistent, but the whole idea of this ID is silly, anyway.
>
> --- Jay
>
>
> --
> __!__
> Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
> http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
> http://www.oceancityairport.com
> http://www.oc-adolfos.com

[NW_PILOT]

I don't want to be charged $80.00 by the post office to seal an envelope!
That is an expense that would only benefits the post office they would have
to make another way to submit your photos like the passport agency bring
yourself birth cert. and some forum of ID and no $80.00 fee from the post
office. I'd be ok with letting a notary charge me a set fee mandated by the
FAA to seal the application/photo envelope at leased it is going to a
private person in most cases and not the post office. Supporting the local
economy




"Blanche" > wrote in message
...
> KayInPA > wrote:
> [snip]
> >The pros/cons of the measure notwithstanding, wouldn't it make sense
> >to work with state driver's licensing centers? I mean, aren't they
> >already in the business of issuing (semi) secure identification
> >cards... in somewhat convenient locations nationwide?
>
> Obviously you haven't spent time in a Colorado DL office lately!
>
> For starters, they've been attacked by a virus that has shut them
> down for the entire week. You can take the written or the checkride
> but they can't issue the DL.
>
> I'm voting for the same approach as a passport. Go get the photo
> at any stripmall, get the application (either online or at the
> local post office), bring cash and the current passport to the
> post office and a few days later, a new passport appears.
>
> Why can't we use the same approach for the new FAA ID? Same process
> only now you add the existing FAA cert.
>
> No passport? No problem. Use your DL or other Govt. issued ID.
>
> This is not rocket science, folks!
>