Got my BFR ahead of the TSA rule

[David Brooks]

Although it wasn't due for another 2 months, I decided to play it safe and
extend my ability to fly despite the TSA for another 22 months.

I don't suppose anyone has heard any rumors from inside the TSA? There's
nothing on their website
(http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?theme=79&content=0900051980003002 doesn't
even admit to the existence of 49 CFR 1552) and nothing on AOPA's. I don't
want to sound alarmist beause I think there's been enough pressure on them
to at least delay implementation. But FAA instructors in New Zealand have 17
hours before they start complying (unless there is some implicit definition
of date using Zulu or Eastern).

Has anyone asked how they are going to enforce this crap in practice? Not
that I want to start messing with the Feds, especially as I've made my
feelings public and the DHS knows where I live.

-- David Brooks

[Peter MacPherson]

I saw the post on the AOPA website about Rep. Mica asking
the TSA to postpone the 10/20 compliance date until it's been
reviewed further, but nothing since. I was hoping something would
come out today about this being postponed....no such luck yet.

Pete

"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> Although it wasn't due for another 2 months, I decided to play it safe and
> extend my ability to fly despite the TSA for another 22 months.
>
> I don't suppose anyone has heard any rumors from inside the TSA? There's
> nothing on their website
> (http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?theme=79&content=0900051980003002
> doesn't
> even admit to the existence of 49 CFR 1552) and nothing on AOPA's. I don't
> want to sound alarmist beause I think there's been enough pressure on them
> to at least delay implementation. But FAA instructors in New Zealand have
> 17
> hours before they start complying (unless there is some implicit
> definition
> of date using Zulu or Eastern).
>
> Has anyone asked how they are going to enforce this crap in practice? Not
> that I want to start messing with the Feds, especially as I've made my
> feelings public and the DHS knows where I live.
>
> -- David Brooks
>
>

[Andrew Sarangan]

I am getting my Flight Review done tomorrow to reset the clock for
another two years, even though I am only 6 months into my current Flight
Review. Funny thing is, most instructors are still not aware of this
rule. Only the ones monitoring newsgroups and AOPA know about this. The
rest of them don't have a clue. How could they? It is not in FAR 61, and
there have been no advisories from the FAA.



"Peter MacPherson" > wrote in
news:AHTcd.204462$wV.181323@attbi_s54:

> I saw the post on the AOPA website about Rep. Mica asking
> the TSA to postpone the 10/20 compliance date until it's been
> reviewed further, but nothing since. I was hoping something would
> come out today about this being postponed....no such luck yet.
>
> Pete
>
> "David Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Although it wasn't due for another 2 months, I decided to play it
>> safe and extend my ability to fly despite the TSA for another 22
>> months.
>>
>> I don't suppose anyone has heard any rumors from inside the TSA?
>> There's nothing on their website
>> (http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?theme=79&content=0900051980003002
>> doesn't
>> even admit to the existence of 49 CFR 1552) and nothing on AOPA's. I
>> don't want to sound alarmist beause I think there's been enough
>> pressure on them to at least delay implementation. But FAA
>> instructors in New Zealand have 17
>> hours before they start complying (unless there is some implicit
>> definition
>> of date using Zulu or Eastern).
>>
>> Has anyone asked how they are going to enforce this crap in practice?
>> Not that I want to start messing with the Feds, especially as I've
>> made my feelings public and the DHS knows where I live.
>>
>> -- David Brooks
>>
>>
>
>


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[KayInPA]

Andrew Sarangan > wrote in message >...
> Funny thing is, most instructors are still not aware of this
> rule. Only the ones monitoring newsgroups and AOPA know about this. The
> rest of them don't have a clue. How could they? It is not in FAR 61, and
> there have been no advisories from the FAA.

Isn't that the truth. I mentioned it about a week ago to some people
at my airport, asking what their thoughts were. They looked at me
like I had just sprouted another head.

[Robert M. Gary]

I just called AOPA about this. They claim that anyone you've given
instruction to in the past is grandfathered. They also said that a
pilot cert that says "USA" on it is probably good enough proof of US
citizenship. They also said that there is no provision (or even plan)
for the FSDO to enforce this. No one knows who would enforce it and
what would happen to someone not in compliance. Of course this stuff
changes hour to hour.

-Robert

"David Brooks" > wrote in message >...
> Although it wasn't due for another 2 months, I decided to play it safe and
> extend my ability to fly despite the TSA for another 22 months.
>
> I don't suppose anyone has heard any rumors from inside the TSA? There's
> nothing on their website
> (http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?theme=79&content=0900051980003002 doesn't
> even admit to the existence of 49 CFR 1552) and nothing on AOPA's. I don't
> want to sound alarmist beause I think there's been enough pressure on them
> to at least delay implementation. But FAA instructors in New Zealand have 17
> hours before they start complying (unless there is some implicit definition
> of date using Zulu or Eastern).
>
> Has anyone asked how they are going to enforce this crap in practice? Not
> that I want to start messing with the Feds, especially as I've made my
> feelings public and the DHS knows where I live.
>
> -- David Brooks

[Peter MacPherson]

I hope you're right about this, but I've seen some flight schools
saying that you need to present a US passport as proof of
citizenship.


"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
om...
>I just called AOPA about this. They claim that anyone you've given
> instruction to in the past is grandfathered. They also said that a
> pilot cert that says "USA" on it is probably good enough proof of US
> citizenship. They also said that there is no provision (or even plan)
> for the FSDO to enforce this. No one knows who would enforce it and
> what would happen to someone not in compliance. Of course this stuff
> changes hour to hour.
>
> -Robert
>
> "David Brooks" > wrote in message
> >...
>> Although it wasn't due for another 2 months, I decided to play it safe
>> and
>> extend my ability to fly despite the TSA for another 22 months.
>>
>> I don't suppose anyone has heard any rumors from inside the TSA? There's
>> nothing on their website
>> (http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?theme=79&content=0900051980003002
>> doesn't
>> even admit to the existence of 49 CFR 1552) and nothing on AOPA's. I
>> don't
>> want to sound alarmist beause I think there's been enough pressure on
>> them
>> to at least delay implementation. But FAA instructors in New Zealand have
>> 17
>> hours before they start complying (unless there is some implicit
>> definition
>> of date using Zulu or Eastern).
>>
>> Has anyone asked how they are going to enforce this crap in practice? Not
>> that I want to start messing with the Feds, especially as I've made my
>> feelings public and the DHS knows where I live.
>>
>> -- David Brooks

[kage]

You certainly do at Flight Safety.

Karl
In the Falcon 50EX sim at 1700 today!


"Peter MacPherson" > wrote in message
news:yFcdd.421008$Fg5.52134@attbi_s53...
>I hope you're right about this, but I've seen some flight schools
> saying that you need to present a US passport as proof of
> citizenship.
>
>
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> om...
>>I just called AOPA about this. They claim that anyone you've given
>> instruction to in the past is grandfathered. They also said that a
>> pilot cert that says "USA" on it is probably good enough proof of US
>> citizenship. They also said that there is no provision (or even plan)
>> for the FSDO to enforce this. No one knows who would enforce it and
>> what would happen to someone not in compliance. Of course this stuff
>> changes hour to hour.
>>
>> -Robert
>>
>> "David Brooks" > wrote in message
>> >...
>>> Although it wasn't due for another 2 months, I decided to play it safe
>>> and
>>> extend my ability to fly despite the TSA for another 22 months.
>>>
>>> I don't suppose anyone has heard any rumors from inside the TSA? There's
>>> nothing on their website
>>> (http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?theme=79&content=0900051980003002
>>> doesn't
>>> even admit to the existence of 49 CFR 1552) and nothing on AOPA's. I
>>> don't
>>> want to sound alarmist beause I think there's been enough pressure on
>>> them
>>> to at least delay implementation. But FAA instructors in New Zealand
>>> have 17
>>> hours before they start complying (unless there is some implicit
>>> definition
>>> of date using Zulu or Eastern).
>>>
>>> Has anyone asked how they are going to enforce this crap in practice?
>>> Not
>>> that I want to start messing with the Feds, especially as I've made my
>>> feelings public and the DHS knows where I live.
>>>
>>> -- David Brooks
>
>

[OtisWinslow]

Not everyone has a passport if they don't travel out of the country.


"Peter MacPherson" > wrote in message
news:yFcdd.421008$Fg5.52134@attbi_s53...
>I hope you're right about this, but I've seen some flight schools
> saying that you need to present a US passport as proof of
> citizenship.
>
>

[Peter MacPherson]

I think they'll tell you you'll need to get one.


"OtisWinslow" > wrote in message
...
> Not everyone has a passport if they don't travel out of the country.
>
>
> "Peter MacPherson" > wrote in message
> news:yFcdd.421008$Fg5.52134@attbi_s53...
>>I hope you're right about this, but I've seen some flight schools
>> saying that you need to present a US passport as proof of
>> citizenship.
>>
>>
>
>

[NW_PILOT]

"Peter MacPherson" > wrote in message
news:ddfdd.278375$D%.69704@attbi_s51...
> I think they'll tell you you'll need to get one.

What about the people that cannot obtain a passport due to legal reasons? We
are not talking bad criminals maybe they are on probation for a traffic
offence witch prevents them from leaving the country, state you live or
possessing a passport during the probation period. Each states laws/rules
will vary. Some states may not prevent you from possessing a passport while
on probation but some do.

[Andrew Sarangan]

"OtisWinslow" > wrote in news:Ywedd.3577977
:

> Not everyone has a passport if they don't travel out of the country.
>
>
> "Peter MacPherson" > wrote in message
> news:yFcdd.421008$Fg5.52134@attbi_s53...
>>I hope you're right about this, but I've seen some flight schools
>> saying that you need to present a US passport as proof of
>> citizenship.
>>
>>
>
>



Actually, there are many foreign citizens living in the US and don't have a
passport. Canadians don't need a passport to enter the US. Same holds true
for US citizens living in Canada.


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Rip]

Gee, sounds like Nazi Germany. Traveling across the US of A? Papers
please, mein herr. Vat, you haf no papers? Shoot zis man!

Peter MacPherson wrote:
> I think they'll tell you you'll need to get one.
>
>
> "OtisWinslow" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Not everyone has a passport if they don't travel out of the country.
>>
>>
>>"Peter MacPherson" > wrote in message
>>news:yFcdd.421008$Fg5.52134@attbi_s53...
>>
>>>I hope you're right about this, but I've seen some flight schools
>>>saying that you need to present a US passport as proof of
>>>citizenship.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Peter MacPherson]

It does seem we're heading that way, doesn't it......very depressing.
; (



"Rip" > wrote in message
om...
> Gee, sounds like Nazi Germany. Traveling across the US of A? Papers
> please, mein herr. Vat, you haf no papers? Shoot zis man!
>
> Peter MacPherson wrote:
>> I think they'll tell you you'll need to get one.
>>
>>
>> "OtisWinslow" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Not everyone has a passport if they don't travel out of the country.
>>>
>>>
>>>"Peter MacPherson" > wrote in message
>>>news:yFcdd.421008$Fg5.52134@attbi_s53...
>>>
>>>>I hope you're right about this, but I've seen some flight schools
>>>>saying that you need to present a US passport as proof of
>>>>citizenship.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

[Peter MacPherson]

Don't try to apply logic....you'll end up being committed... ; - )



"NW_PILOT" > wrote in message
...
> "Peter MacPherson" > wrote in message
> news:ddfdd.278375$D%.69704@attbi_s51...
>> I think they'll tell you you'll need to get one.
>
> What about the people that cannot obtain a passport due to legal reasons?
> We
> are not talking bad criminals maybe they are on probation for a traffic
> offence witch prevents them from leaving the country, state you live or
> possessing a passport during the probation period. Each states laws/rules
> will vary. Some states may not prevent you from possessing a passport
> while
> on probation but some do.
>
>

[Richard Russell]

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 12:42:47 -0700, "kage" >
wrote:

>You certainly do at Flight Safety.
>
>Karl
>In the Falcon 50EX sim at 1700 today!
>
>
>"Peter MacPherson" > wrote in message
>news:yFcdd.421008$Fg5.52134@attbi_s53...
>>I hope you're right about this, but I've seen some flight schools
>> saying that you need to present a US passport as proof of
>> citizenship.
>>
>>
snipped...

I'm thankful that I got in before all of this crap. I've been a US
citizen all my life and I am a PP-ASEL but I have never had a
passport. Can't they come up with something that a larger percentage
of the population would actually have?
Rich Russell

[Robert M. Gary]

"Peter MacPherson" > wrote in message news:<yFcdd.421008$Fg5.52134@attbi_s53>...
> I hope you're right about this, but I've seen some flight schools
> saying that you need to present a US passport as proof of
> citizenship.
>

It's really pretty silly that the TSA put this rule out there and then
said they'd tell us what it means in 10 days. I know that some places
like ATP have said they will only accept passports (if you don't have
one, you'd better get one). They claim that most birth certificates do
not meet the requirement (not sure what they are refering to there). I
work with a guy who is on an H-1 Visa from France. He's having to
discountinue his flight training until this is worked out. I spoke
with one FBO that said they would just check driver's licenses. They
did not realize that any legal resident can get a driver's license (if
not for Arnold illegals would have had them too).

-Robert (in CA)

[Robert M. Gary]

Andrew Sarangan > wrote in message >...
> "OtisWinslow" > wrote in news:Ywedd.3577977
> :
> Actually, there are many foreign citizens living in the US and don't have a
> passport. Canadians don't need a passport to enter the US. Same holds true
> for US citizens living in Canada.

From my reading of the rule, giving flight training to Canadian's is
current prohibited until the TSA comes out with a way for foriegn
students to register. So, at this point, it doesn't matter what
country you are from. If you are not a U.S. citizen you cannot get
flight instruction. That includes legal residence (green card holds,
H-1, H-2, J-1, L-1, L-3 etc).

-Robert

[David Brooks]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
om...
> Andrew Sarangan > wrote in message
>...
> > "OtisWinslow" > wrote in news:Ywedd.3577977
> > :
> > Actually, there are many foreign citizens living in the US and don't
have a
> > passport. Canadians don't need a passport to enter the US. Same holds
true
> > for US citizens living in Canada.
>
> From my reading of the rule, giving flight training to Canadian's is
> current prohibited until the TSA comes out with a way for foriegn
> students to register. So, at this point, it doesn't matter what
> country you are from. If you are not a U.S. citizen you cannot get
> flight instruction. That includes legal residence (green card holds,
> H-1, H-2, J-1, L-1, L-3 etc).

If you already have a US or Canadian pilot certificate of any kind
(including student [my interpretation]) you are now exempted until Dec 19.
This hastily drawn up letter seems to leave us in a state that aliens only
have to show a pilot certificate, but US citizens (even if they have a
certificate) still have to show a passport or birth certificate.

--
David Brooks

[Peter Duniho]

"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> This hastily drawn up letter seems to leave us in a state that aliens only
> have to show a pilot certificate, but US citizens (even if they have a
> certificate) still have to show a passport or birth certificate.

Nah...all a US citizen needs to do is to claim they are a foreign citizen,
show their pilot certificate, wait for the government to prosecute them for
the false claim of foreign citizenship, and use the evidence used in that
claim as their proof of US citizenship.

No passport or birth certificate required. :)

Pete

[Michael]

Richard Russell > wrote
> I'm thankful that I got in before all of this crap. I've been a US
> citizen all my life and I am a PP-ASEL but I have never had a
> passport. Can't they come up with something that a larger percentage
> of the population would actually have?

They did.

Your birth certificate, plus any government photo ID (like your
driver's license) is fine.

The list of acceptable papers is found on p.37-38 of the docket,
http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf90/296897_web.pdf

Michael

[Cub Driver]

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 08:01:26 -0400, Richard Russell
> wrote:

> Can't they come up with something that a larger percentage
>of the population would actually have?

It's not a big deal to get a passport. If you're really interested in
flying, it's less of a hassle than the medical exam you will
eventually need.

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

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
the blog www.danford.net

[Gary Drescher]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 08:01:26 -0400, Richard Russell
> > wrote:
>
>> Can't they come up with something that a larger percentage
>>of the population would actually have?
>
> It's not a big deal to get a passport.

The big deal, from a civil liberties standpoint, is the criminalization of
knowledge--the criminalization of teaching and learning, unless you produce
a government document that qualifies you for the privilege.

If the TSA can get away with that regarding learning to fly, then why not
regarding learning to drive, or learning high-school chemistry or biology,
or other potentially dangerous subjects?

--Gary

[Gig Giacona]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:_qNdd.296295$3l3.274837@attbi_s03...
> "Cub Driver" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 08:01:26 -0400, Richard Russell
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Can't they come up with something that a larger percentage
>>>of the population would actually have?
>>
>> It's not a big deal to get a passport.
>
> The big deal, from a civil liberties standpoint, is the criminalization of
> knowledge--the criminalization of teaching and learning, unless you
> produce a government document that qualifies you for the privilege.
>
> If the TSA can get away with that regarding learning to fly, then why not
> regarding learning to drive, or learning high-school chemistry or biology,
> or other potentially dangerous subjects?
>
> --Gary
>
>

Well, in most states you do have to present a birth certificate to get your
first driver's license. Further, you have to present proof of residence to
enroll in school.

There is a whole bunch of "CYA" going on within the government. Who can
blame them. Would you want to be the guy that has to appear before congress
after the next terrorist attack that has to say, "Well we had a plan that
would have checked flight training applicants ID but I thought it was to
much work."?

[Gary Drescher]

"Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
>> The big deal, from a civil liberties standpoint, is the criminalization
>> of knowledge--the criminalization of teaching and learning, unless you
>> produce a government document that qualifies you for the privilege.
>>
>> If the TSA can get away with that regarding learning to fly, then why not
>> regarding learning to drive, or learning high-school chemistry or
>> biology, or other potentially dangerous subjects?
>
> Well, in most states you do have to present a birth certificate to get
> your first driver's license. Further, you have to present proof of
> residence to enroll in school.

That's not at all analogous. Yes, proof of age or residency can be required
for a license or for receiving a government service (such as public
education). But you're not required to prove anything to anyone in order to
obtain the government's permission to privately acquire knowledge of
driving, or chemistry, or biology.

> There is a whole bunch of "CYA" going on within the government. Who can
> blame them.

Anyone who expects responsible government can blame them.

> Would you want to be the guy that has to appear before congress after the
> next terrorist attack that has to say, "Well we had a plan that would have
> checked flight training applicants ID but I thought it was to much work."?

Huh? Who's talking about "too much work"? The point is that it is
>totalitarian< to require the government's permission to convey or receive
general >knowledge<. Yes, there are some attacks that can we can avoid by
subordinating ourselves to totalitarianism. But it's not worth it.

--Gary

[Gig Giacona]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:%uPdd.508857$8_6.37858@attbi_s04...
> "Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
>>> The big deal, from a civil liberties standpoint, is the criminalization
>>> of knowledge--the criminalization of teaching and learning, unless you
>>> produce a government document that qualifies you for the privilege.
>>>
>>> If the TSA can get away with that regarding learning to fly, then why
>>> not regarding learning to drive, or learning high-school chemistry or
>>> biology, or other potentially dangerous subjects?
>>
>> Well, in most states you do have to present a birth certificate to get
>> your first driver's license. Further, you have to present proof of
>> residence to enroll in school.
>
> That's not at all analogous. Yes, proof of age or residency can be
> required for a license or for receiving a government service (such as
> public education). But you're not required to prove anything to anyone in
> order to obtain the government's permission to privately acquire knowledge
> of driving, or chemistry, or biology.
>
>> There is a whole bunch of "CYA" going on within the government. Who can
>> blame them.
>
> Anyone who expects responsible government can blame them.
>
>> Would you want to be the guy that has to appear before congress after the
>> next terrorist attack that has to say, "Well we had a plan that would
>> have checked flight training applicants ID but I thought it was to much
>> work."?
>
> Huh? Who's talking about "too much work"? The point is that it is
> >totalitarian< to require the government's permission to convey or receive
> general >knowledge<. Yes, there are some attacks that can we can avoid by
> subordinating ourselves to totalitarianism. But it's not worth it.
>
> --Gary

Totalitarianism is a little strong for this particular situation. I have
intentionally stayed out of most of the political threads that have shown up
lately in the aviation newsgroups so I really don't know what you political
leanings are neither do I really care.

But, Gary, what they are requiring is that you prove US citizenship, or the
authorization from the US government if you are not a citizen, to receive
instruction from a person certificated by the that same US Government to
give said instruction. Plus, that particular instruction, not on could be,
but has been used in an attack on the citizens of the US.

Gig

[Gary Drescher]

"Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
...
> But, Gary, what they are requiring is that you prove US citizenship, or
> the authorization from the US government if you are not a citizen, to
> receive instruction from a person certificated by the that same US
> Government to give said instruction. Plus, that particular instruction,
> not on could be, but has been used in an attack on the citizens of the US.

1) The presence or absence of government certification of an instructor has
no bearing on how dangerous the imparted knowledge is. 2) Instruction in
driving a car, and in basic chemistry, has also been used in a large-scale
terrorist attack on US citizens. 3) If the goal is to prevent >future<
attacks, we must consider not just the forms of knowledge that have already
been used against us, but those that might be in the future. So the
rationale for criminalizing unauthorized learning about aviation can be
applied much more generally.

--Gary

[Gig Giacona]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:yKQdd.297056$3l3.52975@attbi_s03...
> "Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
> ...
>> But, Gary, what they are requiring is that you prove US citizenship, or
>> the authorization from the US government if you are not a citizen, to
>> receive instruction from a person certificated by the that same US
>> Government to give said instruction. Plus, that particular instruction,
>> not on could be, but has been used in an attack on the citizens of the
>> US.
>
> 1) The presence or absence of government certification of an instructor
> has no bearing on how dangerous the imparted knowledge is. 2) Instruction
> in driving a car, and in basic chemistry, has also been used in a
> large-scale terrorist attack on US citizens. 3) If the goal is to prevent
> >future< attacks, we must consider not just the forms of knowledge that
> have already been used against us, but those that might be in the future.
> So the rationale for criminalizing unauthorized learning about aviation
> can be applied much more generally.
>
> --Gary

It does have a bearing on the governments ability to regulate though. If you
have knowledge of chemistry nobody is trying to stop you from teaching it to
anyone you choose. If you happen to be a public school chemistry teacher
they most certainly do control whom you teach it to while on duty at the
public school.

I know how to fly and have been certificated to do so in both Fixed Wings
since 1980 and Helicopters since 1996. I am not however a CFI. Could I teach
you how to fly? Probably. Could I sign you off for a check ride? No. There
is nothing in that rule that stops me from teaching you what I know. It does
stop a CFI from using a privilege he has been granted by the US government
to certain people that government has decided it doesn't want to have that
information.

Basically what they have done is restrict a privilege they provided in the
first place.

[Gary Drescher]

"Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
...
>> 1) The presence or absence of government certification of an instructor
>> has no bearing on how dangerous the imparted knowledge is. 2) Instruction
>> in driving a car, and in basic chemistry, has also been used in a
>> large-scale terrorist attack on US citizens. 3) If the goal is to prevent
>> >future< attacks, we must consider not just the forms of knowledge that
>> have already been used against us, but those that might be in the future.
>> So the rationale for criminalizing unauthorized learning about aviation
>> can be applied much more generally.
>>
>> --Gary
>
> It does have a bearing on the governments ability to regulate though. If
> you have knowledge of chemistry nobody is trying to stop you from teaching
> it to anyone you choose. If you happen to be a public school chemistry
> teacher they most certainly do control whom you teach it to while on duty
> at the public school.

Right, and it would be analogous to restrict what a CFI does while on duty
in the employ of the government. But few if any CFIs are working for the
government when they teach. So the TSA intrusion goes far beyond your
public-school analogy. (Plus, the point of public-school eligibility
restrictions is >not< to try to keep people from acquiring general knowledge
without government authorization.)

--Gary

[Jose]

> If you
> have knowledge of chemistry nobody is trying to stop you from teaching it to
> anyone you choose. If you happen to be a public school chemistry teacher
> they most certainly do control whom you teach it to while on duty at the
> public school.
>
> I know how to fly [...] I am not however a CFI. Could I teach
> you how to fly? Probably. Could I sign you off for a check ride? No. There
> is nothing in that rule that stops me from teaching you what I know. It does
> stop a CFI from using a privilege he has been granted by the US government
> to certain people that government has decided it doesn't want to have that
> information.

That's all well and good, but it certainly does not stop a CFI from (like the public school chemistry teacher) teaching on their own, with no logbook endorsement. They would not then be using the privilages of their CFI certificate.

In the end, it makes it harder for legitimate (but private) people from learning to fly, but doesn't stop terrorists at all. Terrorists don't need a logbook endorsement. They just need FlightSimulator 2004.

Jose

[Gig Giacona]

"Jose" > wrote in message
om...
>> If you have knowledge of chemistry nobody is trying to stop you from
>> teaching it to anyone you choose. If you happen to be a public school
>> chemistry teacher they most certainly do control whom you teach it to
>> while on duty at the public school.
>>
>> I know how to fly [...] I am not however a CFI. Could I teach
>> you how to fly? Probably. Could I sign you off for a check ride? No.
>> There is nothing in that rule that stops me from teaching you what I
>> know. It does stop a CFI from using a privilege he has been granted by
>> the US government to certain people that government has decided it
>> doesn't want to have that information.
>
> That's all well and good, but it certainly does not stop a CFI from (like
> the public school chemistry teacher) teaching on their own, with no
> logbook endorsement. They would not then be using the privilages of their
> CFI certificate.
>
> In the end, it makes it harder for legitimate (but private) people from
> learning to fly, but doesn't stop terrorists at all. Terrorists don't
> need a logbook endorsement. They just need FlightSimulator 2004.
>
> Jose
>

I couldn't agree more. I didn't say that the rule would do any good I was
just disagreeing that it was an example of totalitarianism as stated by
Daniel.

I get real twitchy when people start using words like that when it not the
case.

[Gig Giacona]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:iZRdd.404357$mD.228025@attbi_s02...
> "Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> 1) The presence or absence of government certification of an instructor
>>> has no bearing on how dangerous the imparted knowledge is. 2)
>>> Instruction in driving a car, and in basic chemistry, has also been used
>>> in a large-scale terrorist attack on US citizens. 3) If the goal is to
>>> prevent >future< attacks, we must consider not just the forms of
>>> knowledge that have already been used against us, but those that might
>>> be in the future. So the rationale for criminalizing unauthorized
>>> learning about aviation can be applied much more generally.
>>>
>>> --Gary
>>
>> It does have a bearing on the governments ability to regulate though. If
>> you have knowledge of chemistry nobody is trying to stop you from
>> teaching it to anyone you choose. If you happen to be a public school
>> chemistry teacher they most certainly do control whom you teach it to
>> while on duty at the public school.
>
> Right, and it would be analogous to restrict what a CFI does while on duty
> in the employ of the government. But few if any CFIs are working for the
> government when they teach. So the TSA intrusion goes far beyond your
> public-school analogy. (Plus, the point of public-school eligibility
> restrictions is >not< to try to keep people from acquiring general
> knowledge without government authorization.)
>
> --Gary
>

My point is that there is that the rule in no way restricts the transfer of
knowledge. It does restict the transfer of knowledge in order to attain a US
government issued certificate.

Feel free to go and teach as many people as you can how to fly or build
nuclear weapons. As long as you don't do it while excersing the privledges
of your US Governement issued certificate.

Gig

P.S. I said Daniel instead of Gary in a earlier post ... Sorry Daniel.

[Peter Duniho]

"Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
...
> My point is that there is that the rule in no way restricts the transfer
> of knowledge.

Which makes the rule even more ridiculous. Granted, most US instructors and
schools will probably not offer instruction when it's specifically not being
logged and used for a rating, but honestly, for the purpose of terrorism,
that's not necessary.

All it would take is one terrorist to learn how to fly, who could then teach
everyone else how to fly. They don't even need to learn in the US.

IMHO, the FAA ought to be the filter. FBOs aren't in the habit of renting
airplanes to people who aren't pilots. The FAA ought to be doing whatever
security check they and the TSA deem necessary, and preventing those who
might not pass muster through the proposed rules from even getting a pilot
certificate. Same thing for medical certificates.

One of the most absurd things about these rules is that it puts the onus on
thousands of independent professionals, all of whom will have varying
ability to implement the rules, and none of whom ever intended to work for
the US government as their security officers. Since it's the FAA and TSA
who feel that they have the ability to correctly identify those who should
and should not get flight training, they should be the ones to deal with the
security checks (including verification of US citizenship).

Of course, as Jose pointed out, you don't even need to go to a flight
instructor to learn how to fly well enough to crash an airplane into a
building. You can sit at your PC and accomplish the same thing, for a lot
less money.

The whole thing is just dumb.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> I get real twitchy when people start using words like that when it not the
> case.

Personally, I get twitchy when the government appears to be moving toward
totalitarianism.

Whether this is an example of totalitarianism or not, it's clearly an
example of rules that don't accomplish anything, and clearly increases the
risk that we will eventually live under totalitaristic rule.

Pete

[Jose]

> I didn't say that the rule would do any good I was
> just disagreeing that it was an example of
> totalitarianism as stated by Daniel.

Can you see the nose of the camel?

Jose

[Gary Drescher]

"Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
...
> I didn't say that the rule would do any good I was just disagreeing that
> it was an example of totalitarianism

Suppose the government were to ban government-certified high-school teachers
from >privately< teaching dangerous subjects such as chemistry or driver ed
to students who are pursuing a government certification (such as a
high-school GED or a driver's license), unless the government approves those
students first.

And suppose the restriction's >express purpose< (however ineffectively
pursued) is to keep general knowledge out of the hands of people who fail to
prove their worthiness to the government's satisfaction.

Wouldn't you regard that as a frighteningly totalitarian tactic? Why is it
any different when the subject matter happens to be aviation?

--Gary

[Gig Giacona]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
> ...
>> My point is that there is that the rule in no way restricts the transfer
>> of knowledge.
>
> Which makes the rule even more ridiculous. Granted, most US instructors
> and schools will probably not offer instruction when it's specifically not
> being logged and used for a rating, but honestly, for the purpose of
> terrorism, that's not necessary.
>
> All it would take is one terrorist to learn how to fly, who could then
> teach everyone else how to fly. They don't even need to learn in the US.
>
> IMHO, the FAA ought to be the filter. FBOs aren't in the habit of renting
> airplanes to people who aren't pilots. The FAA ought to be doing whatever
> security check they and the TSA deem necessary, and preventing those who
> might not pass muster through the proposed rules from even getting a pilot
> certificate. Same thing for medical certificates.
>
> One of the most absurd things about these rules is that it puts the onus
> on thousands of independent professionals, all of whom will have varying
> ability to implement the rules, and none of whom ever intended to work for
> the US government as their security officers. Since it's the FAA and TSA
> who feel that they have the ability to correctly identify those who should
> and should not get flight training, they should be the ones to deal with
> the security checks (including verification of US citizenship).
>
> Of course, as Jose pointed out, you don't even need to go to a flight
> instructor to learn how to fly well enough to crash an airplane into a
> building. You can sit at your PC and accomplish the same thing, for a lot
> less money.
>
> The whole thing is just dumb.
>
> Pete

YOu act as if having the "People" do the government's job for them is a new
idea the TSA just came up with. If you are an employer you are required to
do a lot of the government's work. Including the very same thing that is
being required by the TSA... ie Make sure that people are either US citizens
or authorized foriegn nationals.

As an employer you are required to complete an I-9 form and it's
requirements are pretty damn close to what is required under the new rule.
Now that I think of it they ought to make the rule exactly the same. Hell,
they could use the same damn form and save millions of dollars.

[Gig Giacona]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:ku7ed.229392$wV.11585@attbi_s54...
> "Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I didn't say that the rule would do any good I was just disagreeing that
>> it was an example of totalitarianism
>
> Suppose the government were to ban government-certified high-school
> teachers from >privately< teaching dangerous subjects such as chemistry or
> driver ed to students who are pursuing a government certification (such as
> a high-school GED or a driver's license), unless the government approves
> those students first.
>


THe case here is that the GOVERNMENT is controlling someone from using a
GOVERNMENT issued certificate to teach someone something that will lead to a
GOVERNMENT issued certificate.
Gig

[Jose]

> THe case here is that the GOVERNMENT is controlling someone from using a
> GOVERNMENT issued certificate to teach someone something that will lead to a
> GOVERNMENT issued certificate.

.... and this will prevent GOVERNMENT sanctioned terrorists from getting a certificate.

What about terrorists that the US government =doesn't= sanction? How do we stop them?

Jose

[Gig Giacona]

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
>> THe case here is that the GOVERNMENT is controlling someone from using a
>> GOVERNMENT issued certificate to teach someone something that will lead
>> to a GOVERNMENT issued certificate.
>
> ... and this will prevent GOVERNMENT sanctioned terrorists from getting a
> certificate.
>
> What about terrorists that the US government =doesn't= sanction? How do
> we stop them?
>
> Jose

We go to there house with a GOVERNMENT owned aircraft and bomb them with a
GOVERNMENT owned bomb.


Take the fight to the terrorist's backyard.... Of wait that's what W did.

[Jose]

>>What about terrorists that the US government =doesn't= sanction? How do
>> we stop them?
>
> We go to there house with a GOVERNMENT owned aircraft and bomb them with a
> GOVERNMENT owned bomb.

No new rules needed.

Jose

[Gary Drescher]

"Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
>> Suppose the government were to ban government-certified high-school
>> teachers from >privately< teaching dangerous subjects such as chemistry
>> or driver ed to students who are pursuing a government certification
>> (such as a high-school GED or a driver's license), unless the government
>> approves those students first.

>
> THe case here is that the GOVERNMENT is controlling someone from using a
> GOVERNMENT issued certificate to teach someone something that will lead to
> a GOVERNMENT issued certificate.
> Gig

Yes, and that is the case in my analogy as well. A driver's license and a
GED are government-issued certificates.

--Gary

[Peter Duniho]

"Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> YOu act as if having the "People" do the government's job for them is a
> new idea the TSA just came up with.

Why would you say such a silly thing? Does the fact that there is precedent
somehow make it okay? And what in the world did I write that makes you
think I'm unaware of any precedent?

[Peter Duniho]

"Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> Take the fight to the terrorist's backyard.... Of wait that's what W did.

No. He took the fight to the terrorist's neighbor's backyard.

How would you like it if your neighbor was operating a meth lab, and as a
consequence the Drug War cops busted down your door and shot you?

[Gary Drescher]

"Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
...
> We go to there house with a GOVERNMENT owned aircraft and bomb them with a
> GOVERNMENT owned bomb.
>
>
> Take the fight to the terrorist's backyard.... Of wait that's what W did.

Except he got the address wrong.

--Gary

[Gig Giacona]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:YUaed.230649$wV.108149@attbi_s54...
>
> "Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
>>> Suppose the government were to ban government-certified high-school
>>> teachers from >privately< teaching dangerous subjects such as chemistry
>>> or driver ed to students who are pursuing a government certification
>>> (such as a high-school GED or a driver's license), unless the government
>>> approves those students first.
>
>>
>> THe case here is that the GOVERNMENT is controlling someone from using a
>> GOVERNMENT issued certificate to teach someone something that will lead
>> to a GOVERNMENT issued certificate.
>> Gig
>
> Yes, and that is the case in my analogy as well. A driver's license and a
> GED are government-issued certificates.
>
> --Gary
>

Did the government issue the certificate to teach you to drive or teach for
the GED? If they did they can take it away.

Gig

[Gig Giacona]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
> ...
>> [...]
>> Take the fight to the terrorist's backyard.... Of wait that's what W did.
>
> No. He took the fight to the terrorist's neighbor's backyard.
>
> How would you like it if your neighbor was operating a meth lab, and as a
> consequence the Drug War cops busted down your door and shot you?
>

Every country over there with the (probably temporary) exception of Saudi,
Kuwait and Baharan are fair game as far as I'm concerned. And Saudi is
pushing it.

[Jose]

> Every country over there with the (probably temporary) exception of Saudi,
> Kuwait and Baharan are fair game as far as I'm concerned.

You mean, every country =except= the one where the 9/11 terrorists came from?

Jose

[Gary Drescher]

"Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
...
>
>>> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
>>>> Suppose the government were to ban government-certified high-school
>>>> teachers from >privately< teaching dangerous subjects such as chemistry
>>>> or driver ed to students who are pursuing a government certification
>>>> (such as a high-school GED or a driver's license), unless the
>>>> government approves those students first.
>>
>>>
>>> THe case here is that the GOVERNMENT is controlling someone from using a
>>> GOVERNMENT issued certificate to teach someone something that will lead
>>> to a GOVERNMENT issued certificate.
>>> Gig
>>
>> Yes, and that is the case in my analogy as well. A driver's license and a
>> GED are government-issued certificates.
>>
>> --Gary
>>
>
> Did the government issue the certificate to teach you to drive or teach
> for the GED? If they did they can take it away.

Wait, perhaps I misunderstood you earlier. Is it the case that you're
>agreeing< that I'm describing analogous restrictions; but you're saying
that those restrictions wouldn't frighten you either?

And no, the fact that the government issues a certificate to you does not
necessarily give them the right to take it away, or even the power to do so
(although that power is certainly growing). It depends on whether they can
establish a good reason for doing so.

And we're not even talking about merely taking away a certficate. The TSA
has the power to impose a fine of $10,000 per violation if a CFI imparts
knowledge without the government's permission. Thus, CFIs who insist on
ignoring the regulation could be subject to having their homes and life
savings confiscated as retaliation. Imagine if >that< were to happen to
chemistry teachers who engage in unauthorized spreading of knowledge to GED
students.

--Gary

[Gig Giacona]

A number of would be terrorists are from the Northern part of my home
state... I wouldn't suggest bombing Razorback Stadium either. And for the
record it is pretty bad form to edit out a sentence just to make you
response cleaner.

Gig



"Jose" > wrote in message
om...
>> Every country over there with the (probably temporary) exception of
>> Saudi, Kuwait and Baharan are fair game as far as I'm concerned.
>
> You mean, every country =except= the one where the 9/11 terrorists came
> from?
>
> Jose
>

[Gig Giacona]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:UVced.231023$wV.219416@attbi_s54...
> "Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>>> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
>>>>> Suppose the government were to ban government-certified high-school
>>>>> teachers from >privately< teaching dangerous subjects such as
>>>>> chemistry or driver ed to students who are pursuing a government
>>>>> certification (such as a high-school GED or a driver's license),
>>>>> unless the government approves those students first.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> THe case here is that the GOVERNMENT is controlling someone from using
>>>> a GOVERNMENT issued certificate to teach someone something that will
>>>> lead to a GOVERNMENT issued certificate.
>>>> Gig
>>>
>>> Yes, and that is the case in my analogy as well. A driver's license and
>>> a GED are government-issued certificates.
>>>
>>> --Gary
>>>
>>
>> Did the government issue the certificate to teach you to drive or teach
>> for the GED? If they did they can take it away.
>
> Wait, perhaps I misunderstood you earlier. Is it the case that you're
> >agreeing< that I'm describing analogous restrictions; but you're saying
> that those restrictions wouldn't frighten you either?
>
> And no, the fact that the government issues a certificate to you does not
> necessarily give them the right to take it away, or even the power to do
> so (although that power is certainly growing). It depends on whether they
> can establish a good reason for doing so.
>
My certificate says, "Has been found to be properly qualified to exercise
the PRIVILEGES of:"

I signed it. So, I accepted the PRIVILEGES part of it. PRIVILEGES can be
taken away by the grantor. When they start messing with RIGHTS I'm right
there with you.


> And we're not even talking about merely taking away a certficate. The TSA
> has the power to impose a fine of $10,000 per violation if a CFI imparts
> knowledge without the government's permission. Thus, CFIs who insist on
> ignoring the regulation could be subject to having their homes and life
> savings confiscated as retaliation. Imagine if >that< were to happen to
> chemistry teachers who engage in unauthorized spreading of knowledge to
> GED students.
>
> --Gary

What if that same CFI insists on ignoring FAA regulations that go with the
certificate? Do you think the FAA should say, "No problem. Go ahead a SOLO
that 5 year old."

If you don't like the regulation scream and yell and get it changed. But you
are going to have to scream and yell to your congress critter. Doing it here
isn't going to do any good.

Or if you really beleive that this regulation is unconstitutional sue the
TSA.

[Gary Drescher]

"Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> [...]
>>> Take the fight to the terrorist's backyard.... Of wait that's what W
>>> did.
>>
>> No. He took the fight to the terrorist's neighbor's backyard.
>>
>> How would you like it if your neighbor was operating a meth lab, and as a
>> consequence the Drug War cops busted down your door and shot you?
>>
>
> Every country over there with the (probably temporary) exception of Saudi,
> Kuwait and Baharan are fair game as far as I'm concerned. And Saudi is
> pushing it.

The west has considered Islamic countries and peoples to be "fair game" for
many centuries. That's why so many people there want to strike back against
the west in any way they can.

--Gary

[Gig Giacona]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:oTeed.515136$8_6.312835@attbi_s04...
> "Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> [...]
>>>> Take the fight to the terrorist's backyard.... Of wait that's what W
>>>> did.
>>>
>>> No. He took the fight to the terrorist's neighbor's backyard.
>>>
>>> How would you like it if your neighbor was operating a meth lab, and as
>>> a consequence the Drug War cops busted down your door and shot you?
>>>
>>
>> Every country over there with the (probably temporary) exception of
>> Saudi, Kuwait and Baharan are fair game as far as I'm concerned. And
>> Saudi is pushing it.
>
> The west has considered Islamic countries and peoples to be "fair game"
> for many centuries. That's why so many people there want to strike back
> against the west in any way they can.
>
> --Gary
>

Oh BULL****. I hate the it's all our fault answer to islamic terrorism.

[Jose]

> A number of would be terrorists are from the Northern part of my home
> state... I wouldn't suggest bombing Razorback Stadium either.

But you do suggest bombing the Arabs wholesale.

> And for the
> record it is pretty bad form to edit out a sentence just to make you
> response cleaner.

I disagree. Editing (without changing the meaning) is a good thing - it means that readers don't have to wade repeatedly through the same text post after post, but those that need it have the context for my response.

For the record, all I edited out was "and Saudi is pushing it.", which doesn't change the meaning (though it softens the original slightly). Saudi is still (according to the post) on the same side of the line as the rest of the Arab countries, the
irony of which I was pointing out.

Jose

[Gary Drescher]

"Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
...
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> news:oTeed.515136$8_6.312835@attbi_s04...
>>> Every country over there with the (probably temporary) exception of
>>> Saudi, Kuwait and Baharan are fair game as far as I'm concerned. And
>>> Saudi is pushing it.
>>
>> The west has considered Islamic countries and peoples to be "fair game"
>> for many centuries. That's why so many people there want to strike back
>> against the west in any way they can.
>
> Oh BULL****. I hate the it's all our fault answer to islamic terrorism.

Good. Then you'll notice I said nothing of the sort. Terrorism is the fault
of the terrorists, whether it's terror committed by our side or terror
committed by the other side.

Understanding what motivates terror, however, is completely different from
saying who's to blame for terror. And my assessment of that motivation is
accurate, whether you hate to hear it or not.

--Gary

[Gary Drescher]

"Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
>>> Every country over there with the (probably temporary) exception of
>>> Saudi, Kuwait and Baharan are fair game as far as I'm concerned. And
>>> Saudi is pushing it.
>>
>> The west has considered Islamic countries and peoples to be "fair game"
>> for many centuries. That's why so many people there want to strike back
>> against the west in any way they can.
>
> Oh BULL****. I hate the it's all our fault answer to islamic terrorism.

Good. Then you'll notice I said nothing of the sort. Terrorism is the fault
of the terrorists, whether it's terror committed by our side or terror
committed by the other side.

Understanding what motivates terror, however, is completely different from
saying who's to blame for terror. And my assessment of that motivation is
accurate, whether you hate to hear it or not.

--Gary

[Gary Drescher]

"Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
...
> My certificate says, "Has been found to be properly qualified to exercise
> the PRIVILEGES of:"
>
> I signed it. So, I accepted the PRIVILEGES part of it. PRIVILEGES can be
> taken away by the grantor.

Not arbitrarily. Legally and morally, revocation of privileges requires a
sound reason. It requires due process.

>When they start messing with RIGHTS I'm right there with you.

Legally and morally, there is a right not to have privileges revoked
arbitrarily. For instance, the government cannot lawfully or rightfully
revoke your piltot's license based on your religion or political party.

Besides, regardless of the word printed on the certificate, travel
(including air travel) is a fundamental right. The government is obliged to
respect that right, subject only to regulations that are plausibly needed
for safety and other legitimate public concerns.

> What if that same CFI insists on ignoring FAA regulations that go with the
> certificate? Do you think the FAA should say, "No problem. Go ahead a SOLO
> that 5 year old."

Uh, no. But how is that comparable to what's under discussion? How does the
existence of a regulation that imposes a plausible safety requirement bear
on the reasonableness or legality of a regulation that tries to criminalize
certain instances of the dissemination of basic knowledge?

--Gary

[Morgans]

"Gig Giacona" > wrote
>
> THe case here is that the GOVERNMENT is controlling someone from using a
> GOVERNMENT issued certificate

Like a
--
Jim in NCteaching certificate?

>to teach someone something that will lead to a GOVERNMENT issued
>certificate.

Oh.
Like a Board of Education diploma?

> Gig

And the difference was..... what, again?



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.778 / Virus Database: 525 - Release Date: 10/15/2004

[Morgans]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gig Giacona" > wrote
> >
> > THe case here is that the GOVERNMENT is controlling someone from using a
> > GOVERNMENT issued certificate
>
> Like a teaching certificate?
>
> >to teach someone something that will lead to a GOVERNMENT issued
> >certificate.
>
> Oh.
> Like a Board of Education diploma?
>
> > Gig
>
> And the difference was..... what, again?
>
>
Crap, put the sig in the wrong place.

Try again.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.778 / Virus Database: 525 - Release Date: 10/15/2004

[AI Nut]

And don't forget, we need to burn ALL those books!!!


"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:yKQdd.297056$3l3.52975@attbi_s03...
> "Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
> ...
> > But, Gary, what they are requiring is that you prove US citizenship, or
> > the authorization from the US government if you are not a citizen, to
> > receive instruction from a person certificated by the that same US
> > Government to give said instruction. Plus, that particular instruction,
> > not on could be, but has been used in an attack on the citizens of the
US.
>
> 1) The presence or absence of government certification of an instructor
has
> no bearing on how dangerous the imparted knowledge is. 2) Instruction in
> driving a car, and in basic chemistry, has also been used in a large-scale
> terrorist attack on US citizens. 3) If the goal is to prevent >future<
> attacks, we must consider not just the forms of knowledge that have
already
> been used against us, but those that might be in the future. So the
> rationale for criminalizing unauthorized learning about aviation can be
> applied much more generally.
>
> --Gary
>
>

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, David Brooks wrote:
> to at least delay implementation. But FAA instructors in New Zealand have 17
> hours before they start complying (unless there is some implicit definition
> of date using Zulu or Eastern).

Surely the TSA rules only apply inside the United States?

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[David Brooks]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, David Brooks wrote:
> > to at least delay implementation. But FAA instructors in New Zealand
have 17
> > hours before they start complying (unless there is some implicit
definition
> > of date using Zulu or Eastern).
>
> Surely the TSA rules only apply inside the United States?

They apply to any flight training that is carried out under FAA regulations,
by an FAA-certified instructor, anywhere in the world. They also apply to
flight training that is given by flight schools in the US, certified under
US regulations, that would *not* lead to a FAA certification.

All you have to do is read the IFR itself and the three letters of
clarification. Actually, now I've done that myself again I've realized the
following. Thanks to the way the Definitions section is written and then
modified, an instructor who has a JAR instructor certificate and a FAA CFI
(that they are not actually using), who is training European students
towards a European certificate, is covered. I think that's unintentional,
but that's what they wrote, and that particular scenario is probably
constitutionally moot because it's outside their authority.

(note that they now define flight training as "training that could be used
towards a new airman's certificate or rating"; there's no qualification that
it has to be an FAA rating. I suspect some insular thinking there).

-- David Brooks
Believe!!!!!

[Chris]

"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> "Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >, David Brooks wrote:
>> > to at least delay implementation. But FAA instructors in New Zealand
> have 17
>> > hours before they start complying (unless there is some implicit
> definition
>> > of date using Zulu or Eastern).
>>
>> Surely the TSA rules only apply inside the United States?
>
> They apply to any flight training that is carried out under FAA
> regulations,
> by an FAA-certified instructor, anywhere in the world. They also apply to
> flight training that is given by flight schools in the US, certified under
> US regulations, that would *not* lead to a FAA certification.
>
> All you have to do is read the IFR itself and the three letters of
> clarification. Actually, now I've done that myself again I've realized the
> following. Thanks to the way the Definitions section is written and then
> modified, an instructor who has a JAR instructor certificate and a FAA CFI
> (that they are not actually using), who is training European students
> towards a European certificate, is covered. I think that's unintentional,
> but that's what they wrote, and that particular scenario is probably
> constitutionally moot because it's outside their authority.
>
> (note that they now define flight training as "training that could be used
> towards a new airman's certificate or rating"; there's no qualification
> that
> it has to be an FAA rating. I suspect some insular thinking there).

However a FAA CFI without a JAR instructor rating could not teach in the UK
and take a fee. In that case, if he taught using his JAR rating as the basis
and signed it off using his JAR licence number, the hours are allowable
against any FAA training requirements and no paperwork needed.

A FAA CFI without a JAR instructor licence cannot teach and get paid but
would have all the paperwork to do as he would be following US regs.

Excellent!