TSA has a fan

[David Brooks]

I just thought I'd bring it to the group's attention that "Pam.Scott", of
Aviation Institute (but also, apparently, "UNO Library") has made some
*very* good points. Perhaps everyone else should calm down and pay
attention:

http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf90/301045_web.pdf


-- David Brooks
Believe!!!!!

Smileys? Moi?

[C J Campbell]

"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> I just thought I'd bring it to the group's attention that "Pam.Scott", of
> Aviation Institute (but also, apparently, "UNO Library") has made some
> *very* good points. Perhaps everyone else should calm down and pay
> attention:
>
> http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf90/301045_web.pdf

I am not sure what an IFR is in the context of her letter, but she does not
sound all that knowledgeable. She suggests that aliens should plan ahead
before beginning something as complex as flight training but that it is
unreasonable to make them wait before coming to the US, which seems
contradictory to me. Also, I don't follow the argument that we should not
complain because, after all, airport employees have to be fingerprinted. So
what? If they had to have their eyebrows surgically removed, should we cut
off our ears? Both would be just as effective security measures as
fingerprinting. (Look! That guy is a real pilot! He flies with such grace
and skill that the toreadors at TSA awarded him both ears and the eyebrows.
But I digress.)

[John Harlow]

David Brooks wrote:
> I just thought I'd bring it to the group's attention that
> "Pam.Scott", of Aviation Institute (but also, apparently, "UNO
> Library") has made some *very* good points. Perhaps everyone else
> should calm down and pay attention:
>
> http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf90/301045_web.pdf
>

But something has to be done!

[G Farris]

I'm a moderate here - I believe we have to expect, and even encourage some
rulemaking in light of the things that have happened. 9/11 proved that civil
aviation has become a method of choice for terrorists, and a continuing flow
of information indicates they still concentrate on such methods. The
regrettable incident in Florida, too soon after 9/11, proved to the public
that security lapses can exist in General Aviation, and the general public has
only a vague understanding of the fact that the plane he stole was not similar
to the ones hijacked on 9/11 - and if we're to be honest, GA "could" be used
by terrorists to disperse insidious products over populations. So we should
expect some new rules, and come forth with proposals for security enhancements
of our own - it's the best protection against scapegoating by thick-headed
government agencies.

But fingerprinting? Who can pretend that such methods have any useful or
effective applications? If Muhammed Atta had been fingerprinted before 9/11
are we supposed to believe he wouldn't have boarded the plane? Did you all see
the pictures of those FBI agents "dusting" every piece of debris from the twin
towers for prints? Big job!

Fingerprinting has all the trappings and attributes of presumption of guilt,
and unless I'm missing something, offers little serious or useful application
in modern security enhancement. It really looks like clueless agencies,
spending large sums of tax funds, "pretending" to do something about security.

I hope somebody is dusting those golf clubs - might pick up some prints to
help with some fraud convictions down the road.

G Faris

[Peter Duniho]

"G Farris" > wrote in message
...
> I'm a moderate here - I believe we have to expect, and even encourage some
> rulemaking in light of the things that have happened. 9/11 proved that
> civil
> aviation has become a method of choice for terrorists, and a continuing
> flow
> of information indicates they still concentrate on such methods.

Same thing could be said for renting U-Haul trucks. But they continue to
operate their business unfettered.

Your "moderation" is ill-placed.

[Bob Noel]

In article >, (G
Farris) wrote:

>9/11 proved that
> civil
> aviation has become a method of choice for terrorists

Airlines, not all civil aviation.

> The
> regrettable incident in Florida, too soon after 9/11, proved to the
> public
> that security lapses can exist in General Aviation,

If anyone really cared, they would have noticed that there
are "security lapses" in GA long ago. One person stole
a C-152 from LWM and buzzed BOS while firing a semi-automatic
weapon.

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

[Gary Drescher]

"G Farris" > wrote in message
...
> The
> regrettable incident in Florida, too soon after 9/11, proved to the public
> that security lapses can exist in General Aviation,

There was no security lapse in that incident. A student was allowed to
pre-flight an airplane unescorted, shortly before the student was to be
signed off to solo anyway. Preventing such access would have been completely
pointless. Even under some of the more draconian new restrictions (at BED
now, we need to undergo a fingerprint background check in order to have
unescorted access to the ramp), that student would >still< have had the same
access privileges!

--Gary

[G Farris]

In article >,
says...
>
>Your "moderation" is ill-placed.
>

Moderation offends extremists.
Yet it's the basis of reconciliation.

I do believe that in the times we live in, it is reasonable to expect a few
new rules, and in fact we should desire to participate in new rulemaking. Not
every new rule will make sense to everyone in every case, but then the old
ones sometimes didn't either.

Was I unclear about the fact that I was mocking this particular rule, as
inappropriate? Or is it the word "moderation" or the concept that you find
offensive?

G Faris

[John Harlow]

> concentrate on such methods. The regrettable incident in Florida, too


As far as I'm concerned, the Florida incident only showed how GA really
ISN'T a threat. A damaged office does not warrant such idiotic mandates
from equally idiotic bureaucracies such as the TSA.

[G Farris]

In article >,
says...
>
>> concentrate on such methods. The regrettable incident in Florida, too
>
>
>As far as I'm concerned, the Florida incident only showed how GA really
>ISN'T a threat. A damaged office does not warrant such idiotic mandates
>from equally idiotic bureaucracies such as the TSA.
>
>
I agree - and one would hope, despite the tragic circumstances, that the GA
incidents that have followed 9/11 would convince the public in this manner.
Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case. Instead of saying "Look,
tiny airplanes don't knock down skyscrapers!" People appear to be saying,
"Boy, we got lucky there!!".

G Faris

[David Brooks]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:iJ7ed.229500$wV.153455@attbi_s54...
> "G Farris" > wrote in message
> ...
> > The
> > regrettable incident in Florida, too soon after 9/11, proved to the
public
> > that security lapses can exist in General Aviation,
>
> There was no security lapse in that incident. A student was allowed to
> pre-flight an airplane unescorted, shortly before the student was to be
> signed off to solo anyway. Preventing such access would have been
completely
> pointless. Even under some of the more draconian new restrictions (at BED
> now, we need to undergo a fingerprint background check in order to have
> unescorted access to the ramp), that student would >still< have had the
same
> access privileges!

Well, let's drive the nail home, shall we? Even if fully implemented, the
new TSA rule would have had no effect on this incident. Unless maybe he
didn't have a birth certificate.

-- David Brooks
Believe!!!!!

[Peter Duniho]

"G Farris" > wrote in message
...
> I do believe that in the times we live in, it is reasonable to expect a
> few
> new rules, and in fact we should desire to participate in new rulemaking.

Your beliefs are ill-placed. None of the new rules are making us safer, and
the old rules failed to do so not because the rules themselves were
insufficient, but rather because those in charge of implementing them failed
to do so.

If and when the government is availing themselves of *existing* rules, and
if and when those rules prove insufficient, then we can talk about what new
rules to create. But not until then, and when we do, only rules that
actually create a net benefit should be considered.

> Not every new rule will make sense to everyone in every case,

Why is it so wrong to expect new rules to make sense? And remember, these
new rules haven't been cases of a new rule not making sense to everyone.
They are examples of new rules not making sense to practically anyone who
has actually taken the time to be educated about the issues (you can fool
lots of ignorant people into thinking the rule makes sense, but those people
are not worthy of consideration).

> but then the old ones sometimes didn't either.

Past failure is an excuse for future failure?

I suppose when a building or bridge collapses due to an engineering failure,
we should just say "well, that's the way it goes...let's build the new one
just like we built the old one".

> Was I unclear about the fact that I was mocking this particular rule, as
> inappropriate? Or is it the word "moderation" or the concept that you find
> offensive?

I find your docile willingness to agree to whatever ridiculous government
rulemaking it cares to pursue offensive.

Pete

[G.R. Patterson III]

Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> Why is it so wrong to expect new rules to make sense? And remember, these
> new rules haven't been cases of a new rule not making sense to everyone.

I think that most rules make sense if you understand the true purpose of the rule.
European governments (especially Britain) have been complaining for years about the
fact that American flight schools are much cheaper than European ones. I think that
this particular rule is an attempt to placate foreign governments by making it more
difficult for their citizens to train over here. I agree that it doesn't make sense
as a security measure.

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

[G Farris]

In article >,
says...

>If and when the government is availing themselves of *existing* rules, and
>if and when those rules prove insufficient, then we can talk about what new
>rules to create. But not until then, and when we do, only rules that
>actually create a net benefit should be considered.

I don't know what you do for a living, but I <know>
you're not a legislator!!


>
>> Not every new rule will make sense to everyone in every case,
>
>Why is it so wrong to expect new rules to make sense?


OK - and well said.



>I find your docile willingness to agree to whatever ridiculous government
>rulemaking it cares to pursue offensive.
>

And yet I don't propose to accept everything that comes down the pipeline. I
find the fingerprinting rule ridiculous - Barbie and Ken security measures,
and I thought I said so. I just think it's better to meet them head on, and
try to propose better rules. I see it as an aggressive stance, more than the
"take it lying down" attitude you read. What scares me most though is the sort
of "above the law" "these are our rights" attitude. "This is the way it was
when Pa showed me my first aeroplane, so this is how it's gonna be". To me
that's a loser's argument, and unfortunately I encounter it too often in these
groups (though not suggesting this is what I read in your posts).

G Faris

[John Galban]

"John Harlow" > wrote in message >...
> David Brooks wrote:
> > I just thought I'd bring it to the group's attention that
> > "Pam.Scott", of Aviation Institute (but also, apparently, "UNO
> > Library") has made some *very* good points. Perhaps everyone else
> > should calm down and pay attention:
> >
> > http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf90/301045_web.pdf
> >
>
> But something has to be done!

"... with the good intention of deterring more hijackers and
terrorists from trying to take over another plane. Something has to be
done, so if not this rule, what then?"

This is a classic example of the pointless, hysterical attitudes
that are all to common today. It assumes that the regulation would
actually deter a hijacking terrorist from taking over a plane. If she
took a moment to put herself in the place of a hijacking terrorist, it
would be obvious that this rule wouldn't do a thing to deter him.

The last sentence is the kicker. Do something! However ineffective
or burdensome it is. She's an idiot.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Peter Duniho]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
> I think that most rules make sense if you understand the true
> purpose of the rule.

I didn't think it necessary to qualify "make sense" to mean "make sense for
the purpose being claimed by the rule makers".

[Chris]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Peter Duniho wrote:
>>
>> Why is it so wrong to expect new rules to make sense? And remember,
>> these
>> new rules haven't been cases of a new rule not making sense to everyone.
>
> I think that most rules make sense if you understand the true purpose of
> the rule.
> European governments (especially Britain) have been complaining for years
> about the
> fact that American flight schools are much cheaper than European ones. I
> think that
> this particular rule is an attempt to placate foreign governments by
> making it more
> difficult for their citizens to train over here. I agree that it doesn't
> make sense
> as a security measure.
>
I wish our flight schools had that degree of power. If they had they would
be better off getting the price of AVGAS down to $3 a gallon instead of the
$7.50 it currently is.

That would solve the cost issue at a stroke and no stupid rules either.

[Andrew Gideon]

Peter Duniho wrote:

>> Not every new rule will make sense to everyone in every case,
>
> Why is it so wrong to expect new rules to make sense?

Turn this around, too. Adding rules has a cost. Implementing rules has a
cost. If the new rules make no sense - or don't help address the problem -
then they take away value that might be spent on something that does work.
Value spent on bad rules is time not spent on effective rules.

In other words, ineffective rules decrease security.

- Andrew

[G.R. Patterson III]

Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I think that most rules make sense if you understand the true
> > purpose of the rule.
>
> I didn't think it necessary to qualify "make sense" to mean "make sense for
> the purpose being claimed by the rule makers".

You have a bad tendency to take any comment as a statement that you did something
wrong. You really ought to work on that.

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

[Peter Duniho]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
> You have a bad tendency to take any comment as a statement that you did
> something
> wrong. You really ought to work on that.

Really? I'm so fortunate to have someone like you looking out for me, to
tell me what I ought to "work on".

As far as this example goes, well let's see. I posted that I don't think
it's wrong to expect new rules to make sense. You replied *to my post*, not
to any other one, saying that most new rules DO make sense, when the clear
implication of my post was that I felt many (or even most) new rules do not
make sense.

How am I not supposed to take that as a direct contradiction of my own post?

And of course, your most recent post, to which I'm replying now, is also a
clear example of a statement that I "did something wrong".

Seems to me that it would be just as useful, if not more so, for you to take
a moment to consider what your statements mean in context, rather than being
surprised when someone takes them as criticism or disagreement.

Pete

[G.R. Patterson III]

Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> And of course, your most recent post, to which I'm replying now, is also a
> clear example of a statement that I "did something wrong".

Yep, sure is.

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

[Peter Duniho]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>> And of course, your most recent post, to which I'm replying now, is also
>> a
>> clear example of a statement that I "did something wrong".
>
> Yep, sure is.

So, if you want me to stop interpreting your posts as a statement that I
"did something wrong", you need to stop posting posts that are statements
that I "did something wrong".

It's pretty simple, really.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> And of course, your most recent post, to which I'm replying now, is also
> >> a
> >> clear example of a statement that I "did something wrong".
> >
> > Yep, sure is.
>
> So, if you want me to stop interpreting your posts as a statement that I
> "did something wrong", you need to stop posting posts that are statements
> that I "did something wrong".
>
> It's pretty simple, really.

No, *you* need to make some intelligent decisons about which posts are critical and
which are not.

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

[Peter Duniho]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
> No, *you* need to make some intelligent decisons about which posts
> are critical and which are not.

I do. If you weren't so critical of me, you'd see that.

[DCMacLean]

In article >,
says...
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> ...
> > No, *you* need to make some intelligent decisons about which posts
> > are critical and which are not.
>
> I do. If you weren't so critical of me, you'd see that.
>
>
>
OK guys, enough already.
DCMac

[Jim Rosinski]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote

> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote
> > No, *you* need to make some intelligent decisons about which posts
> > are critical and which are not.
>
> I do. If you weren't so critical of me, you'd see that.

Probably not much can be added to an exchange that has degenerated
this far. But I can't resist offering the suggestion that the cause of
the degeneration might have been just a misunderstanding about what
was meant by "the new TSA rules make sense". One of you took the
meaning as "the new TSA rules are understandable", and the other took
the meaning as "the new TSA rules are good".

Aside to George and Pete: usually I enjoy reading each of your posts,
as they are often interesting and informative.

Jim Rosinski

[David Brooks]

"Jim Rosinski" > wrote in message
om...
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote
>
> > "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote
> > > No, *you* need to make some intelligent decisons about which posts
> > > are critical and which are not.
> >
> > I do. If you weren't so critical of me, you'd see that.
>
> Probably not much can be added to an exchange that has degenerated
> this far. But I can't resist offering the suggestion that the cause of
> the degeneration might have been just a misunderstanding about what
> was meant by "the new TSA rules make sense". One of you took the
> meaning as "the new TSA rules are understandable", and the other took
> the meaning as "the new TSA rules are good".

Of course, these are both false :-)

> Aside to George and Pete: usually I enjoy reading each of your posts,
> as they are often interesting and informative.

Agree.

-- David Brooks
Believe!!!!!

[Marco Grubert]

> There was no security lapse in that incident. A student was allowed to
> pre-flight an airplane unescorted, shortly before the student was to be
> signed off to solo anyway. Preventing such access would have been completely
> pointless. Even under some of the more draconian new restrictions (at BED
> now, we need to undergo a fingerprint background check in order to have
> unescorted access to the ramp), that student would >still< have had the same
> access privileges!

Of course TSA's alien training rule would not have had anything to say
about
that moron, Charles J. Bishop, who was a US citizen...
Speaking of morons, AOPA has some statements on its website about
TSA's chief who seems to be rather clueless about his department; or
maybe he was still recovering from TSA's $500,000 2-year-anniversary
party.

Nevertheless I think stealing GA aircrafts and using them for either
fly-by shootings or in combination with explosives is a real threat
(and even harder to counter than your Oklahoma-bombing truck). Making
sure that airports are properly fenced in and have a metal
detector/x-ray machine could be a reasonable deterrent.

- Marco

[Jose]

> Nevertheless I think stealing GA aircrafts and using them for either
> fly-by shootings or in combination with explosives is a real threat

Why do you think that?

Jose
--
for Email, make the obvious change in the address

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
(Marco Grubert) wrote:

> Nevertheless I think stealing GA aircrafts and using them for either
> fly-by shootings or in combination with explosives is a real threat
> (and even harder to counter than your Oklahoma-bombing truck). Making
> sure that airports are properly fenced in and have a metal
> detector/x-ray machine could be a reasonable deterrent.

How would that work in Alaska?

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

[Gary Drescher]

"Marco Grubert" > wrote in message
om...
> Nevertheless I think stealing GA aircrafts and using them for either
> fly-by shootings or in combination with explosives is a real threat

Why steal an airplane? Isn't it easier just to rent one?

> (and even harder to counter than your Oklahoma-bombing truck).

It's true that you can protect a specific target from a truck-bombing by
erecting barricades to prevent traffic from approaching. In that limited
respect, plane-bombings are harder to counter.

However, it's of no use to protect a specific target as long as many other
equally attractive targets remain accessible. Protecting all such targets
would require permanently shutting down traffic in entire cities, which is
impossible. Additionally, you can carry a much greater explosive payload in
a truck (or even a car) than in a typical GA plane. So on the whole, car-
and truck-bombings are the greater threat.

> Making
> sure that airports are properly fenced in and have a metal
> detector/x-ray machine could be a reasonable deterrent.

Since car- or truck-bombings are a greater threat on the whole, should we
also have to fence in all parking lots and garages, and screen everyone
there with metal detectors and x-ray machines?

--Gary

[Dave Stadt]

"Marco Grubert" > wrote in message
om...
> > There was no security lapse in that incident. A student was allowed to
> > pre-flight an airplane unescorted, shortly before the student was to be
> > signed off to solo anyway. Preventing such access would have been
completely
> > pointless. Even under some of the more draconian new restrictions (at
BED
> > now, we need to undergo a fingerprint background check in order to have
> > unescorted access to the ramp), that student would >still< have had the
same
> > access privileges!
>
> Of course TSA's alien training rule would not have had anything to say
> about
> that moron, Charles J. Bishop, who was a US citizen...
> Speaking of morons, AOPA has some statements on its website about
> TSA's chief who seems to be rather clueless about his department; or
> maybe he was still recovering from TSA's $500,000 2-year-anniversary
> party.
>
> Nevertheless I think stealing GA aircrafts and using them for either
> fly-by shootings or in combination with explosives is a real threat
> (and even harder to counter than your Oklahoma-bombing truck). Making
> sure that airports are properly fenced in and have a metal
> detector/x-ray machine could be a reasonable deterrent.
>
> - Marco

Your thought process is terribly flawed. Fences, metal detectors or any
other technology will stop absolutely nothing. Do you honestly think
stealing is the only way to get a plane? Renting or buying are much more
viable options. You cannot stop a determined terrorist. That has been a
fact since forever and is simply something we will live with.

[John Galban]

(Marco Grubert) wrote in message >...
>
> Nevertheless I think stealing GA aircrafts and using them for either
> fly-by shootings or in combination with explosives is a real threat
> (and even harder to counter than your Oklahoma-bombing truck).

Fly-by shootings? What is that? Have you ever tried to shoot
something from a plane? Sheesh!

As for explosives, the limited payload of GA aircraft tends to
counter it's advantages over a garden variety, fertilzer truck bomb.
With a big truck bomb, you can blow up a building, even if you can't
get right next to it. You'll never be able to do that much damage in
an explosive laden light single. Even if you fly it right into the
building.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Roger]

On 26 Oct 2004 11:59:56 -0700, (John Galban)
wrote:

(Marco Grubert) wrote in message >...
>>
>> Nevertheless I think stealing GA aircrafts and using them for either
>> fly-by shootings or in combination with explosives is a real threat
>> (and even harder to counter than your Oklahoma-bombing truck).
>
> Fly-by shootings? What is that? Have you ever tried to shoot
>something from a plane? Sheesh!
>
> As for explosives, the limited payload of GA aircraft tends to
>counter it's advantages over a garden variety, fertilzer truck bomb.
>With a big truck bomb, you can blow up a building, even if you can't
>get right next to it. You'll never be able to do that much damage in
>an explosive laden light single. Even if you fly it right into the
>building.

Kinda like the kid who flew into the bank building down in Florida?
I think it was Florida.
He broke a window.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[David Brooks]

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On 26 Oct 2004 11:59:56 -0700, (John Galban)
> wrote:
>
> (Marco Grubert) wrote in message
>...

> > As for explosives, the limited payload of GA aircraft tends to
> >counter it's advantages over a garden variety, fertilzer truck bomb.
> >With a big truck bomb, you can blow up a building, even if you can't
> >get right next to it. You'll never be able to do that much damage in
> >an explosive laden light single. Even if you fly it right into the
> >building.
>
> Kinda like the kid who flew into the bank building down in Florida?
> I think it was Florida.
> He broke a window.

He wasn't carrying explosives.

I've heard the "small plane carrying big bomb" argument before, and heard
that it would be difficult to arrrange for it to detonate at the right
moment. Are there any explosives experts out there can comment? It shouldn't
be too difficult to get the raw materials; I hear it's being sold on the
street in Iraq. But a detonator that's triggered by the deceleration, or
something?

-- David Brooks
Believe!!!!!

[G.R. Patterson III]

David Brooks wrote:
>
> I've heard the "small plane carrying big bomb" argument before, and heard
> that it would be difficult to arrrange for it to detonate at the right
> moment. Are there any explosives experts out there can comment?

From what I've read, the problem is to build a detonator that's delicate enough to
trigger the device while still being tough enough to take the impact and being stable
enough to avoid a premature explosion. The U.S. had tremendous problems with this
sort of thing in their torpedo designs early in WW II, and those things only traveled
about 40 knots. As an accidental aviation link, the Navy began replacing certain
parts in the detonators with similar parts machined out of old aircraft propellors.
The metal from the props was tough enough to do the job without deforming.

Of course, if you go back to the old-fashioned stuff like mercury-fulminate
detonators, the shock will set them off.

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

[Peter Duniho]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
> From what I've read, the problem is to build a detonator that's delicate
> enough to
> trigger the device while still being tough enough to take the impact and
> being stable
> enough to avoid a premature explosion.

For the purpose of terrorism, I would think a timer system would work fine.
I'm no explosives expert, but I'm sure there are a variety of electronic or
fuse solutions that would survive an airplane crash well enough to set off
some explosives.

The terrorist would use a short timer, 3 or 5 seconds or so, and then start
it just before impact. Assuming the airplane didn't bounce off the target,
that would be sufficient.

Anyway, I don't guess there's much point in turning this into a "how do you
build an airplane bomb" thread. I just think that a sufficiently motivated
person can probably figure out a way to solve whatever minor technical
problems might come along.

That's assuming you need a bomb and you need it to explode. Fact is, you
could yield about as many fatalities as one gets with your average car bomb
simply by flying a Cessna at high speed into a crowd. Dive for speed,
strike in a near level attitude to cut a swath through the crowd, done.

Airplanes are certainly useful for killing people. The problem with the
attitudes of the general public and the TSA is that they aren't any more
useful than any number of other unregulated methods, and it would be
impossible to prevent most of the methods anyway. If the regulations did
something to make the world safer, that would be one thing; but they don't,
and are thus just stupid.

Pete

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 19:11:31 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>::

>The problem with the
>attitudes of the general public and the TSA is that they [aircraft used as bombs]
> aren't any more
>useful than any number of other unregulated methods, and it would be
>impossible to prevent most of the methods anyway.

The difference between an aircraft used as a delivery method and an
automobile is the aircraft's ability to easily circumvent the traffic
barricades that have been erected since the Oklahoma bombing.

[Jose]

> The difference between an aircraft used as a delivery method and an
> automobile is the aircraft's ability to easily circumvent the traffic
> barricades that have been erected since the Oklahoma bombing.

.... but its payload carrying capacity is quite limited. Little good to circumbent the traffic barricades to deliver a firecracker.

OTOH, a truck and a catapult could do the trick just as well. Why not be proactive and ban catapults. (and dogapults too while we're at it. :)

Jose
--
for Email, make the obvious change in the address

[Peter Duniho]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> The difference between an aircraft used as a delivery method and an
> automobile is the aircraft's ability to easily circumvent the traffic
> barricades that have been erected since the Oklahoma bombing.

That may be a perceived difference, but logically it makes no sense
whatsoever. As someone else already pointed out, only a tiny fraction of
all possible targets can be hardened against ground-based delivery, and of
course there's also the problem that delivering an ineffective weapon to a
target is no better than not delivering an effective weapon.

For a terrorist's purpose, what I said is still true: aircraft aren't any
more useful than any number of other unregulated methods available.

Pete

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 14:47:21 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >::

>> The difference between an aircraft used as a delivery method and an
>> automobile is the aircraft's ability to easily circumvent the traffic
>> barricades that have been erected since the Oklahoma bombing.
>
>... but its payload carrying capacity is quite limited.

The published useful load of my PA28-235 was 1,400 lbs. I have read
reports, that 200 lbs of explosive is being used by car bombers in
Iraq with results of ~25 deaths. 7 X 25 = 175 if the aircraft is not
overloaded. If no physical barrier to entry (or SAM) existed, a
target could be selected to increase that number substantially. The
use of light aircraft to collapse tall buildings however, would be
considerably ineffective compared to a fuel laden airliner, in my
opinion.

>Little good to circumbent [sic] the traffic barricades to deliver a firecracker.

What sort of math did you use to arrive at the conclusion that a light
aircraft is incapable of carrying enough explosive to kill a lot of
innocent folks? How much did McVie's fertilizer and kerosene weigh?

>OTOH, a truck and a catapult could do the trick just as well.
>Why not be proactive and ban catapults. (and dogapults too while we're at it. :)

The TSA is not 'banning' aircraft nor airman. They are
bureaucratically executing the mandate handed to them by the current
administration. Unfortunately, they appear to not be educated enough
in the arcana to produce a meaningful product.

It is up to us airmen to assist the TSA in getting it right. They
would probably welcome the input. We would be seen as policing our
own ranks. And not only would we get fairer regulations, something
useful might actually be created.

[Chris]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> David Brooks wrote:
>>
>> I've heard the "small plane carrying big bomb" argument before, and heard
>> that it would be difficult to arrrange for it to detonate at the right
>> moment. Are there any explosives experts out there can comment?
>
> From what I've read, the problem is to build a detonator that's delicate
> enough to
> trigger the device while still being tough enough to take the impact and
> being stable
> enough to avoid a premature explosion. The U.S. had tremendous problems
> with this
> sort of thing in their torpedo designs early in WW II, and those things
> only traveled
> about 40 knots. As an accidental aviation link, the Navy began replacing
> certain
> parts in the detonators with similar parts machined out of old aircraft
> propellors.
> The metal from the props was tough enough to do the job without deforming.
>
> Of course, if you go back to the old-fashioned stuff like
> mercury-fulminate
> detonators, the shock will set them off.

For heavens sake the terrorists have detonators that can with stand shocks,
what do you think the streets of Baghdad like, some as silk like I 90 out in
Minnesota. No they rough full of potholes.

Give me moderate turbulence over Baghdad streets anyday

[Chris]

"Jose" > wrote in message
om...
>> The difference between an aircraft used as a delivery method and an
>> automobile is the aircraft's ability to easily circumvent the traffic
>> barricades that have been erected since the Oklahoma bombing.
>
> ... but its payload carrying capacity is quite limited. Little good to
> circumbent the traffic barricades to deliver a firecracker.
>
> OTOH, a truck and a catapult could do the trick just as well. Why not be
> proactive and ban catapults. (and dogapults too while we're at it. :)

You guys all have big dick syndrome LOL.

In an exercise like this, its not a question of the size of the bang, but
what you bang. The terrorist is out to cause terror. He does not need to
make things go bang any more just threaten to make things go bang.

Leave the gutless politicians to do the rest of the damage.

[Jose]

> The published useful load of my PA28-235 was 1,400 lbs. I have read
> reports, that 200 lbs of explosive is being used by car bombers in
> Iraq with results of ~25 deaths. 7 X 25 = 175 if the aircraft is not
> overloaded.

I doubt the math scales that way. First, the "useful load" includes pilot and fuel Although you probably don't need all that much fuel if you stage your attack from nearby. Second, the number of deaths is probably not strictly proportional to the
number of pounds of explosive. I don't know what the conditions of the Iraq car bomb targets are or how they compare to targets likely to be chosen here.

As for the 200 lb figure, accepted as true, I might reasonably ask =why= "only" 200 lbs were used. Perhaps the cost or difficulty of obtaining more? (more is better, no?). Given this, the ease of procuring and driving a car, vs. the comparitive
difficulty of procuring and flying an airplane, would lead me to belive that car bombs should be more common than light airplane bombs, and we should pay more attention to cars being loaded with explosives than we should light planes. It is
certainly possible to cause death and damage with planes, but I don't think it's all that cost effective to terrorists.

Actually, now all a terrorist has to do is run naked through airline security the wrong way (from the exit). The whole terminal is likely to be shut down while the security breach is fixed and passengers rescreened. Have 100 people do this in a
coordinated way and air travel will be so muddled up the country will suffer a far bigger economic hit than any car bomb would produce.

When your house is made of straw, a bigger padlock doesn't really increase security.

> The TSA is not 'banning' aircraft nor airman. They are
> bureaucratically executing the mandate handed to them by the current
> administration. Unfortunately, they appear to not be educated enough
> in the arcana to produce a meaningful product.

The TSA is successfully banning licensed aircraft and licensed airmen from flying safely near certain places and events. They are however not banning terrorists from doing the same thing. I'm beginning to wonder who the target is.

(from chris, AKA spam at spamtrap dot net)
> In an exercise like this, its not a question of the size of the bang, but
> what you bang. The terrorist is out to cause terror. He does not need to
> make things go bang any more just threaten to make things go bang.

Well, bigger is better though if you are going to do it at all. We didn't really pay much attention until the Big Bang. And coordinated is really better.

Jose
--
for Email, make the obvious change in the address

[Jose]

> The TSA is successfully banning licensed aircraft and
> licensed airmen from flying safely near certain places and events.
> They are however not banning terrorists from doing the same thing.
> I'm beginning to wonder who the target is.

Editing glitch. I meant that they are not banning terrorists from flying near those same places and events and detonating explosives or crashing... the "safely flying" above was added after the sentence was structured.

As customer service always says, "we're sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused".

Jose
--
for Email, make the obvious change in the address

[G.R. Patterson III]

Chris wrote:
>
> For heavens sake the terrorists have detonators that can with stand shocks,
> what do you think the streets of Baghdad like, some as silk like I 90 out in
> Minnesota. No they rough full of potholes.

You have to have something that will function while or after being subjected to the
shock of decelerating from 100 mph or more to 0 in the space of a few feet. Something
like an ELT trigger, perhaps. What's the failure rate on those things again? A simple
"dead man" switch might be most reliable, and I'd guess that's probably what many of
these car bombers use.

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

[John Galban]

"Chris" > wrote in message >...
> "Jose" > wrote in message
> om...
> >> The difference between an aircraft used as a delivery method and an
> >> automobile is the aircraft's ability to easily circumvent the traffic
> >> barricades that have been erected since the Oklahoma bombing.
> >
> > ... but its payload carrying capacity is quite limited. Little good to
> > circumbent the traffic barricades to deliver a firecracker.
> >
> > OTOH, a truck and a catapult could do the trick just as well. Why not be
> > proactive and ban catapults. (and dogapults too while we're at it. :)
>
> You guys all have big dick syndrome LOL.
>
> In an exercise like this, its not a question of the size of the bang, but
> what you bang. The terrorist is out to cause terror. He does not need to
> make things go bang any more just threaten to make things go bang.
>
> Leave the gutless politicians to do the rest of the damage.

Chris hits the nail on the head! Put yourself in a terrorists
shoes. Are you going to go to the trouble of rigging an explosive
laden light airplane to hit a ground restricted target, or are you
going to load up a Ryder truck with 5,000 lbs. of diesel and
fertilizer (a la McVeigh) and take down an unprotected building? I'd
say that there are more high profile targets that have not been
hardened against ground attack than those that have been.

As Chris said, the politicians (and the hysterical general public)
will do the rest.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 02:53:35 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >::

>> The published useful load of my PA28-235 was 1,400 lbs. I have read
>> reports, that 200 lbs of explosive is being used by car bombers in
>> Iraq with results of ~25 deaths. 7 X 25 = 175 if the aircraft is not
>> overloaded.
>
>I doubt the math scales that way.

Agreed. But the math provides at least an inkling of what can be
expected unlike your "firecracker" analogy.

>First, the "useful load" includes pilot and fuel Although you probably
>don't need all that much fuel if you stage your attack from nearby.

By what percentage do you think you could exceed the useful load of a
light aircraft and still have it flyable?

>Second, the number of deaths is probably not strictly proportional to the
>number of pounds of explosive.

That may be true if one fails to consider the population density in
which it is detonated.

>I don't know what the conditions of the Iraq car bomb targets are or
>how they compare to targets likely to be chosen here.

Neither do I, but it does introduce at least some quantified data into
the discussion.

>As for the 200 lb figure, accepted as true, I might reasonably ask =why=
>"only" 200 lbs were used. Perhaps the cost or difficulty of obtaining more?
>(more is better, no?). Given this, the ease of procuring and driving a car,
>vs. the comparitive difficulty of procuring and flying an airplane, would
>lead me to belive that car bombs should be more common than light airplane
>bombs, and we should pay more attention to cars being loaded with explosives
>than we should light planes. It is certainly possible to cause death and
>damage with planes, but I don't think it's all that cost effective to terrorists.

You lack imagination. Attempting to divert the discussion to
automobiles is a rhetorical tactic that fails to support your
"firecracker" analogy.

>Actually, now all a terrorist has to do is run naked through airline security
>the wrong way (from the exit). The whole terminal is likely to be shut down
>while the security breach is fixed and passengers rescreened. Have 100 people
>do this in a coordinated way and air travel will be so muddled up the country
>will suffer a far bigger economic hit than any car bomb would produce.

Ummm... I retract my comment regarding your imagination. :-)

>When your house is made of straw, a bigger padlock doesn't really increase security.

True. But a bit irrelevant to the discussion of the potential use of
light aircraft by terrorists.

>> The TSA is not 'banning' aircraft nor airman. They are
>> bureaucratically executing the mandate handed to them by the current
>> administration. Unfortunately, they appear to not be educated enough
>> in the arcana to produce a meaningful product.
>
>The TSA is successfully banning licensed aircraft and licensed airmen
>from flying safely near certain places and events. They are however
>not banning terrorists from doing the same thing.

The TSA is not turning lead to gold either, for both are impossible.

Agreed. The TSA ban you mention above is a feeble attempt to sterilize
the airspace in the vicinity of such events. But they've got to do
something to justify the billions of dollars in their budget. :-( I
don't see the TSA's regulations as being very useful with regard to
light aircraft any more than you do, but with the news media whipping
up anti GA hysteria daily, they must unfortunately feel compelled to
regulate something even if it's ineffective.

>I'm beginning to wonder who the target is.

It's far easier for the TSA to affect legitimate operations than
elusive terrorists. If they restricted their regulations solely to
terrorists, they wouldn't promulgate any regulations at all. Then how
would they justify the cost of their existence? :-(

[Jose]

> Agreed. [that the math doesn't scale this way] But the math
> provides at least an inkling of what can be
> expected unlike your "firecracker" analogy.

My analogy was intended as illustration, not proof. The math does not scale the way you purport so arguments based on it doing so are irrelevant.

To solve a problem, first the problem needs to be identified. I think we are identifying two different problems as if they are the same. Second, the goal needs to be agreed upon. I don't think we are talking about the same goal. Only then can the
course of action be evaluated. Instead, what is happening is that a course of action is taken. Based on this action, a goal is identified, and then that goal is made to look like it relates to something people might consider to be a problem.

The goal should be to stop terrorists from causing terror, especially by death and destruction, without handing over the very freedoms that make this country worth living in in the first place. To this end, my "diverting the discussion to
automobiles" is not a rhetorical tactic, but a way of pointing out the mismatch of goals. Restrictions on general aviation have very little impact on the ability of terrorists to cause terror. Threrefore it does not accomplish that goal. However,
it does accomplish the goal of restricting general aviation (which is the wrong goal in the first place).

When your house is made of straw, a bigger padlock doesn't really increase security. You said this is irrelevant; I say it is a perfect illustration of what I mean. If it is easy to come in through the window, a lock on the door (even if it had no
lock to begin with) does little good. If it is easy to cause terror with car bombs, it makes little sense to put a bigger lock on general aviation. It won't increase our security. The muscle needs to be put where it will do good while doing no (or
little enough) parasitic harm. General aviation is not such a place.

You even seem to agree with me:

> The TSA ban you mention above is a feeble attempt to sterilize
> the airspace in the vicinity of such events. But they've got to do
> something to justify the billions of dollars in their budget. :-(

So I'm unsure what your point really is. What would you recommend? Or, more to the point,
1: What is the problem?
- 1a: Is it solvable? If so...
2: What is the goal of your solution? and then...
3: What is your proposed course of action?

Jose
--
for Email, make the obvious change in the address

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 00:01:24 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >::

>> Agreed. [that the math doesn't scale this way] But the math
>> provides at least an inkling of what can be
>> expected unlike your "firecracker" analogy.
>
>My analogy was intended as illustration, not proof.

It was inaccurate by several orders of magnitude.

>The math does
>not scale the way you purport so arguments based on it doing so are irrelevant.

Until you knew how much explosive was used in car bombs, you had no
idea how much was necessary for terrorist use. Now you have some
reference point to provide an approximation of the effects that can be
expected. That is why I introduced that quantified data point. If it
is correct, I think you'll agree that most GA aircraft are capable of
carrying enough explosive to be as effective as a car bomb many times
over. Personally, I don't see car bombs as being in the same class as
firecrackers.

>To solve a problem, first the problem needs to be identified.
>I think we are identifying two different problems as if they are
>the same. Second, the goal needs to be agreed upon. I don't
>think we are talking about the same goal. Only then can the
>course of action be evaluated. Instead, what is happening is
>that a course of action is taken. Based on this action, a goal
>is identified, and then that goal is made to look like it relates
>to something people might consider to be a problem.

Perhaps. But you and I are not privy the rationale used by the TSA in
reaching the decisions they have, so we are left to deduce them. This
deductive reasoning can easily be flawed, so it is not possible for us
to accurately evaluate the TSA's actions. So we guess...

>The goal should be to stop terrorists from causing terror,
>especially by death and destruction, without handing over
>the very freedoms that make this country worth living in
>in the first place.

That sounds about right.

>To this end, my "diverting the discussion
>to automobiles" is not a rhetorical tactic, but a way of pointing
>out the mismatch of goals.

It appeared to be an attempt to justify removing GA security
regulations based on the existence of possibly more attractive
terrorist delivery means. Pointing the finger at automobiles/trucks
diverts attention from GA.

It is known that the 9/11 terrorists took flying lessons from
government regulated instructors in this country for the purpose of
inflicting terror. The TSA has apparently been charged with the task
of seeing that doesn't occur again. The solution they have
implemented is the best of which they are capable. It is flawed,
inadequate to achieve its goal, and a typical example of bureaucratic
incompetence. So if we airmen feel it is too restrictive and
ineffective, it would behoove us to provide improved solutions (self
regulation), or shut up. Complaining about TSA regulations without
offering better alternatives isn't going to help the TSA achieve their
goals nor lessen their impact on the pilot community, in my opinion.

>Restrictions on general aviation have
>very little impact on the ability of terrorists to cause terror.
>Threrefore it does not accomplish that goal.

That premise may or may not be true. By what logic did you arrive at
it?

>However,
>it does accomplish the goal of restricting general aviation
>(which is the wrong goal in the first place).

All regulations are restrictive unless they are being removed. But
regulatory power is the only tool the TSA has at its disposal.

The news media (probably at the instigation of the airlines) have
whipped public hysteria about the seemingly unfair lack of security
regulations applied to GA operations. The TSA is charged with
aviation security, but the funds are not available to put federal
baggage screeners at every airport in this country, so fortunately the
TSA is unable to require such an inane practice. But they can
publicly appear to be doing SOMETHING to curtail GA being used by
terrorists: screen aviation training applicants. It's all about
APPEARANCES, not effective security measures apparently.

>When your house is made of straw, a bigger padlock doesn't really
>increase security. You said this is irrelevant; I say it is a
>perfect illustration of what I mean. If it is easy to come in
>through the window, a lock on the door (even if it had no
>lock to begin with) does little good.

As you stated, it depends on the intended goal. If the goal is to be
PERCEIVED by the lay public as taking action against terrorists,
registering flight training applicants is a relatively benign and
readily accomplished ploy. If the goal is to actually accomplish
increased security against terrorism by restricting GA, nothing is
going to work. But that answer is unacceptable to the public and the
administration; and it doesn't provide a necessity for increased
government funding to feed the bureaucracy and stage 1/2 million
dollar TSA dinners.... If the goal is to harm GA to prevent it from
becoming more attractive than the airlines to business air travelers,
it's a first step.

>If it is easy to cause
>terror with car bombs, it makes little sense to put a bigger
>lock on general aviation. It won't increase our security.
>The muscle needs to be put where it will do good while doing no (or
>little enough) parasitic harm. General aviation is not such a place.

You and I know that, but the lay public doesn't. They feel that
'something' must be done about the potential 'threat' posed by GA.
Perhaps you could write a biting essay that would expose the folly of
the TSA's regulation, that would EDUCATE the lay public about the
futility of attempting to impose security measures on GA operations.

>You even seem to agree with me:
>
>> The TSA ban you mention above is a feeble attempt to sterilize
>> the airspace in the vicinity of such events. But they've got to do
>> something to justify the billions of dollars in their budget. :-(

I agree that imposing additional regulations, in the name of
increasing security, on GA operations will be ineffective.

I do not agree that GA aircraft would not be useful for terrorist
purposes. No airman wants to admit that publicly, but if we are to be
perceived as credible, we must be honest.

>So I'm unsure what your point really is. What would you recommend?

I am not qualified to recommend security regulation. I have no
experience in that field.

>Or, more to the point,
>1: What is the problem?

The problem is the need to increase security against future terrorist
activities. The problem for the TSA is to be PERCEIVED as
accomplishing that goal.

>- 1a: Is it solvable?

Not without destroying our freedoms and way of life, in my opinion.

>If so...
>2: What is the goal of your solution?

To implement only those regulations that are actually EFFECTIVE in
reducing terrorist threat without destroying our way of life.

>and then...
>3: What is your proposed course of action?

Personally, to chat about it on usenet. :-)

Theoretically, to weigh the assured benefit of proposed security
regulations against the inevitable restrictions they undesirably
impose, so that only those with sufficient merit and minimal harmful
impact are enacted. But I don't have the administration clamoring for
the impossible, and the new media snapping at my heals for a showing
of apparent benefits as a result of the public funding being expended
at TSA.

[Jose]

> [the firecracker image] was inaccurate by several orders of magnitude.

It was a cartoon for chrissakes, not a physics lesson! It doesn't =make= my point, my point is made (or fails to be made) elsewhere.

> Personally, I don't see car bombs as being in the same class as
> firecrackers.

Well, in comparison with the airliners hitting the twin towers, they are.

Yes, I agree GA aircraft can be used to deliver an explosion that would make the New York Times. So will a bicycle or a motorcycle.

> It is known that the 9/11 terrorists took flying lessons from
> government regulated instructors in this country for the purpose of
> inflicting terror.

It is also known that those instructors informed the appropriate agencies of the United States Government that this was occuring, and our government didn't care. So the fault is not with the instructors, or the instructing infrastructure. It is
with the government itself. The solution they have imposed completely misses the problem, since the problem is with the agency imposing the solution. It is not only flawed, it is unconscionable.

>>>Restrictions on general aviation have
>>>very little impact on the ability of terrorists to cause terror.
>>>Threrefore it does not accomplish that goal.
>
> That premise may or may not be true. By what logic did you arrive at
> it?

The same logic that says if you have two doors on your house, and one of the doors is open, locking the other one twice doesn't stop a robbery. Restrictions on general aviation do not affect non-GA methods of causing terror, of which there are many.
Do you disagree?

>>>However,
>>>it does accomplish the goal of restricting general aviation
>>>(which is the wrong goal in the first place).
>
>
> All regulations are restrictive unless they are being removed.

All regulations accomplish the goal of regulating; in that sense they are always said to accomplish a goal. That is the hypocracy I was putting in contrast to my other statement.

> If the goal is to be
> PERCEIVED by the lay public as taking action against terrorists,
> registering flight training applicants is a relatively benign and
> readily accomplished ploy.

That's the key. "Perceived", "readily accomplished" and "ploy" are key words, as is your comment about making GA less attractive than the airlines, and perhaps allowing the airspace to be controlled by fewer FAA controllers. But I digress.

>>>Or, more to the point,
>>>1: What is the problem?
>
>
> The problem is the need to increase security against future terrorist
> activities. The problem for the TSA is to be PERCEIVED as
> accomplishing that goal.

No, this is not the problem. It is not =a= problem. Rather, it is a goal. What is the problem that this goal supposedly addresses? That is where we need to be crystal clear. I don't argue that there is no problem, just that it is important to be
clear as to exactly what that problem is, and not confuse a problem with a goal, which is a typical lawmaking error (or ploy).

>>- 1a: Is it solvable?
>
>
> Not without destroying our freedoms and way of life, in my opinion.


I agree fully.

>>>If so...
>>>2: What is the goal of your solution?
>
> To implement only those regulations that are actually EFFECTIVE in
> reducing terrorist threat without destroying our way of life.

Again you're a step ahead. Implementing regulations is a method, not a goal. Goals might be "prevent terrorists from getting knowledge of chemistry" or "prevent people from complaining about terrorists" or "make terrorists easy to identify". Each
of these goals might then have several methods that can be used to accomplish the goal.

>>and then...
>>>3: What is your proposed course of action?
>
> Theoretically, to weigh the assured benefit of proposed security
> regulations against the inevitable restrictions they undesirably
> impose, so that only those with sufficient merit and minimal harmful
> impact are enacted. But I don't have the administration clamoring for
> the impossible, and the new media snapping at my heals for a showing
> of apparent benefits as a result of the public funding being expended
> at TSA.

Evaluating proposals does not accomplish anything in itself, though it helps to choose the things to accomplish.

My evaluation is that restrictions on GA, including the tracking of flight students' citizenship status by flight instructors, is ineffective, both in the accomplishment of any goal I believe should be accomplished, and also in the image department.

Jose
--
for Email, make the obvious change in the address