Private Planes: Freedom, Security, and Responsibility

[Matt Barrow]

http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=4469

/excerpt

These concerns overshoot the runway by a mile. The 9/11 hijackers used
commercial airliners, regardless of claims that they could easily have used
charter planes, because the superior security techniques used by private
charter companies were a sufficient deterrent. Rather than admit that
central bureaucratic control of airline safety has failed, government
officials seem more interested in forcing everyone under the same flawed
management. In other words, while the FAA's farm dog was guarding the
henhouse the fox stole the chickens-so the farmer wants to make his neighbor
use the same dog.

Not surprisingly, members of the commercial airline industry would also like
to see charter services brought under stricter control. According to the
Washington Post, "The Air Line Pilots Association . . . urged the [TSA] to
adopt one level of security for every type of flight, including charter and
small-aircraft operators." This is not the first time that the dominant
members of an industry have begged to be more heavily regulated by
government. Physicians, pharmacists, truckers, railroads, broadcasters-all
have been more than happy to use government power to squeeze out
competition, protect their chunk of the market, raise prices, or all of the
above. As Milton and Rose Friedman noted, "[I]nterested parties go to work
to make sure that [regulatory] power is used for their benefit." And, they
added, "They generally succeed."

/end

[[email protected]]

I started to read the article from the link, but when the author
mentioned "737 jumbo jets" I realized it probably wasn't worth my
time...

[Andrew Sarangan]

Except for the "737 jumbojet" the rest of the article is well written.

[Bashir Salamati]

On 14 Dec 2005 07:44:38 -0800, "Andrew Sarangan" >
wrote:

:Except for the "737 jumbojet" the rest of the article is well written.

News crews tested charter security. The charter companies won.

http://jetchartersmagazine.com/story/print.cfm?storyid=46004

[Doug]

The freedom to travel inside one's own country is fundamental to a free
society. The day I fly my airplane and land at another airport and am
asked by uniformed personnel "papers please" and quizzed as to "what is
the purpose of your trip" is the day that freedom is lost.

I realize the 911 tragedy has changed our freedoms -- temporarily. Let
us not forget how freedoms were before the change and remember to try
and put those freedoms back when events have stabilized. Need to be
really careful we don't loose them altogether.

[Larry Dighera]

On 14 Dec 2005 08:16:20 -0800, "Doug" >
wrote in . com>::

>The day I fly my airplane and land at another airport and am
>asked by uniformed personnel "papers please" and quizzed as to "what is
>the purpose of your trip" is the day that freedom is lost.

Given this quote from the story:

Not surprisingly, members of the commercial airline industry would
also like to see charter services brought under stricter control.
According to the Washington Post, "The Air Line Pilots Association
. . . urged the [TSA] to adopt one level of security for every
type of flight, including charter and small-aircraft operators."
This is not the first time that the dominant members of an
industry have begged to be more heavily regulated by government.

It would seem that it is our fellow airmen employed by the airlines
who would have our government impose that loss of fundamental freedom
of which you speak.

Given the current desperate financial situation airline competition is
creating for those professional airline pilots, it's easy to see their
fear of GA operations usurping their market, because GA is not
currently subject to the same absurd security measures as the
airlines. While the public may benefit financially from unregulated
competition, such competition does foster desperately vicious
behavior.

Would one expect the airlines to act responsibly and admit their
failure to provide adequate security previous to 9/11, and work
collaboratively to rectify their shortcoming? Only in a perfect
world. It's far easier for the airlines to acrimoniously strike at
each other and anyone else they see as bringing down their industry,
in a fear born fit of self destructive rage.

When will mankind learn, that only constructive endeavors can provide
the prosperity and thriving well-being we all desire?

[Skylune]

>>Would one expect the airlines to act responsibly and admit their
failure to provide adequate security previous to 9/11, and work
collaboratively to rectify their shortcoming? <<

Commercial aviation provided the vehicles. GA provided the training.
Would one expect GA schools to act responsibly and admit their failure to
provide adequate security previous to 9/11?

[Jim Macklin]

It is all Bill Gates fault, Microsoft Flight Simulator
software allows any sky lune itic to practice the task of
flying into a building in their choice of aircraft. I think
the earlier versions even had the NYC skyline and WTC on the
box cover.

Certainly, it is not possible to learn how to steer and
airplane anywhere else in the world, except the USA. There
are no airplanes in the Mid-East, Far-East, Africa or any
place other than Florida, Texas, and California.

What I want to know is when will the government and the
anti-weapons/self-defense crowd admit that the security
rules themselves left the passenger and crew in an unarmed
and [mentally] defenseless state. Had every passenger had a
6 shot 38 or 45 revolver and instructions to , sit in your
seat and shot anybody who causes trouble, NONE of those
airliners would have been hijacked.
To those who will say that the possibility of gun fire in
the cabin would cause explosive decompression, remember that
FAR 25 airplanes are designed and have been so for decades,
to resist and handle damage to the structure and explosions
that can leave a 20 sq. ft. hole in the fuselage. The out
flow valve will just close a little bit for a few dozen
bullets holes.

But it is felt that death in a plane crash or with your
throat cut by a terrorists is better than having citizens
armed and acting in their own best interest.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm



"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
| >>Would one expect the airlines to act responsibly and
admit their
| failure to provide adequate security previous to 9/11, and
work
| collaboratively to rectify their shortcoming? <<
|
| Commercial aviation provided the vehicles. GA provided
the training.
| Would one expect GA schools to act responsibly and admit
their failure to
| provide adequate security previous to 9/11?
|

[[email protected]]

>>>>Would one expect GA schools to act responsibly and admit their failure to
provide adequate security previous to 9/11?<<<<

Come on, Sky-buffoon... Who could have ever imagined airliners being
used in such an insidious and evil way before 9/11? I suppose given
your known stance on GA this comment really shouldn't surprise anybody
(odd, in light of your admission to resume fight training at some
point, maybe). Feel free to find a new forum to rant and spew your
slanted nonsense - your postings are like so many mosquitoes buzzing
around my ear...

I suspect anybody with a (then) current copy of MS Flight Sim could
have done what the terrorist monkeys did after a few hours flying a 737
around in VR - it ain't rocket science.

[[email protected]]

Wow. Jim, you and I are definitely on the same wavelength here re
Microsoft : )

BTW, I think Glaser safety slugs are considered safe for ventilating
bad guys but not damaging aircraft..

[Skylune]

by "Jim Macklin" > Dec 14, 2005 at
01:37 PM


It is all Bill Gates fault, Microsoft Flight Simulator
software allows any sky lune itic to practice the task of
flying into a building in their choice of aircraft. I think
the earlier versions even had the NYC skyline and WTC on the
box cover.

Certainly, it is not possible to learn how to steer and
airplane anywhere else in the world, except the USA. There
are no airplanes in the Mid-East, Far-East, Africa or any
place other than Florida, Texas, and California.

What I want to know is when will the government and the
anti-weapons/self-defense crowd admit that the security
rules themselves left the passenger and crew in an unarmed
and [mentally] defenseless state. Had every passenger had a
6 shot 38 or 45 revolver and instructions to , sit in your
seat and shot anybody who causes trouble, NONE of those
airliners would have been hijacked.<<

True about MS Flight Simulator. I used to fly it around the WTC (and
Megis field) myself. But, as you know, the terrorists trained at GA
schools. This is a FACT, and has been well publicized.

As far as your arming the passengers scenario, the govt. did "admit" this
implicitly by allowing pilots to be armed.

Where I live, most everyone is armed (including yours truly, with my handy
dandy Mossberg), and there is virtually no crime, so I kinda/sorta see your
point. But, I wonder how comfortable the pilots and other passengers would
feel knowing that most of their fellow passengers were armed??

I fly SWA occassionally. Imagine what would happen during their boarding
process if most of the passengers were armed?

[Jim Macklin]

typo corrected
"Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message news:Rw_nf.28952$QW2.19358@dukeread08...
| It is all Bill Gates fault, Microsoft Flight Simulator
| software allows any sky lune itic to practice the task
of
| flying into a building in their choice of aircraft. I
think
| the earlier versions even had the NYC skyline and WTC on
the
| box cover.
|
| Certainly, it is not possible to learn how to steer an
| airplane anywhere else in the world, except the USA.
There
| are no airplanes in the Mid-East, Far-East, Africa or any
| place other than Florida, Texas, and California.
|
| What I want to know is when will the government and the
| anti-weapons/self-defense crowd admit that the security
| rules themselves left the passenger and crew in an unarmed
| and [mentally] defenseless state. Had every passenger had
a
| 6 shot 38 or 45 revolver and instructions to , sit in your
| seat and shot anybody who causes trouble, NONE of those
| airliners would have been hijacked.
| To those who will say that the possibility of gun fire in
| the cabin would cause explosive decompression, remember
that
| FAR 25 airplanes are designed and have been so for
decades,
| to resist and handle damage to the structure and
explosions
| that can leave a 20 sq. ft. hole in the fuselage. The out
| flow valve will just close a little bit for a few dozen
| bullets holes.
|
| But it is felt that death in a plane crash or with your
| throat cut by a terrorists is better than having citizens
| armed and acting in their own best interest.
|
|
| --
| James H. Macklin
| ATP,CFI,A&P
|
| --
| The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
| But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
| some support
| http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
|
|
|
| "Skylune" > wrote in message
|
lkaboutaviation.com...
|| >>Would one expect the airlines to act responsibly and
| admit their
|| failure to provide adequate security previous to 9/11,
and
| work
|| collaboratively to rectify their shortcoming? <<
||
|| Commercial aviation provided the vehicles. GA provided
| the training.
|| Would one expect GA schools to act responsibly and admit
| their failure to
|| provide adequate security previous to 9/11?
||
|
|

[Skylune]

>>by " > Dec 14, 2005 at 11:49
AM


Come on, Sky-buffoon...

<snip>
I suspect anybody with a (then) current copy of MS Flight Sim could
have done what the terrorist monkeys did after a few hours flying a 737
around in VR - it ain't rocket science.<<

I also "suspect" this could have been done with MS Flight Sim. But, that
is not what really happened. Fact: The terrorists trained at GA schools.


I need to pull out the handy John Adams quote again: "Facts are stubborn
things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates
of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

[Andrew Gideon]

wrote:

> Come on, Sky-buffoon... Who could have ever imagined airliners being
> used in such an insidious and evil way before 9/11?

Didn't one of those "Jack Ryan" novels have an airliner deliberately crashed
into Congress?

- Andrew

[[email protected]]

>>>>I also "suspect" this could have been done with MS Flight Sim. But, that
is not what really happened. Fact: The terrorists trained at GA
schools<<<<

Yes they did. Many flight school students were/are Arabic. The
overwhelming majority are not terrorists. What do you suggest might
have prevented the attack? If you're going to suggest tighter screening
of foreign students, that's not up to the flight schools, that would be
a gov't function as it would involve the State Dept. So, tell me how GA
was responsible again?

Here's a parallel for you. Tim McVeigh rented a Ryder truck filled with
fertilizer that blew away half a building in OKC. Should the feds have
had tighter screening standards in place for truck rentals before this
happened? I doubt anybody would have suspected a rental being used for
such evil intent. Where do you draw the line? What reasonable standard
exists that won't curtail the rights & freedoms of law abiding folks?


>>>>I need to pull out the handy John Adams quote again: "Facts are stubborn
things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the
dictates
of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."<<<<

You quote this as if it helps make your case somehow. It doesn't. Shoo,
fly...

[Jim Macklin]

The GLASER bullet will penetrate the fuselage unless it hits
a wet body first. I recently fired some Glasers into some
standard 1 gallon plastic (disposable type) water jugs.
None of the slugs exited the water jug, there were many
small lead pellets and a few bits of copper jacket inside
the remains of the jug. The Glaser is to protect the other
people on the airplane, not the airplane.

FAR 25 requires that the pressurized aircraft be able to
withstand explosions, engine disintegration and maintain a
livable cabin with a 20 sq. ft. hole. That size hole would
require about 1/2 a ton of bullets.
I have spoken with several Boeing engineers about this and
we all agree that handguns in the cabin do not pose a
serious threat to the aircraft.

Let's imagine a Western movie, the deputy runs into the
Marshall's office shouting that the outlaws are going to rob
the stage when it get 5 miles out of town, Can you imagine
the laughter, anywhere in the world, if the Marshall
said,"Take the guns away from the passengers to avoid
violence."




--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

> wrote in message
oups.com...
| Wow. Jim, you and I are definitely on the same wavelength
here re
| Microsoft : )
|
| BTW, I think Glaser safety slugs are considered safe for
ventilating
| bad guys but not damaging aircraft..
|

[nrp]

You are getting very close to my originally flippant answer to the
aircraft 9-11 hijack etc thing:

1) Reinforce the cockpit doors including with kevlar to make the
bulkhead bullet-proof.
2) A simple loaded light weight single shot pistol under every oxygen
mask panel.
3) The pilots have a button.....

At this point majority rules.

[Jim Macklin]

Imagine if this is what had happened on the morning of
9-11...
Welcome aboard Mr. Atta, your seat is 11 C, do you have your
gun?
No, just a box cutter.

We'll we are handing out guns to every passenger who wants
to be armed, would you prefer a S&W or a Colt or Ruger?
Just select the gun you want and have a seat. Please be
careful, anybody who causes trouble will be shot. Have a
nice day and thank you for choosing to fly with us today.


Do you think any of the airliners would have been hijacked
by a 5 man terror crew with perhaps a 100 armed and alert
passengers [being armed tends to make you alert]?

BTW, Pilots on the airlines were required to be armed before
the mid-late 60's, to protect the mail. Your postman
walking the street also often had a gun in his big leather
bag. But LBJs postmaster general took them away.

The government is dragging its feet as much as possible to
keep flight crews unarmed, making as many obstacles to
getting a pilot armed as they can. The boss of the program
was John McGrew, the former head of the BATF and as anti-gun
a person as can be found short of HCI.

--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm





"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
| by "Jim Macklin" >
Dec 14, 2005 at
| 01:37 PM
|
|
| It is all Bill Gates fault, Microsoft Flight Simulator
| software allows any sky lune itic to practice the task
of
| flying into a building in their choice of aircraft. I
think
| the earlier versions even had the NYC skyline and WTC on
the
| box cover.
|
| Certainly, it is not possible to learn how to steer and
| airplane anywhere else in the world, except the USA.
There
| are no airplanes in the Mid-East, Far-East, Africa or any
| place other than Florida, Texas, and California.
|
| What I want to know is when will the government and the
| anti-weapons/self-defense crowd admit that the security
| rules themselves left the passenger and crew in an unarmed
| and [mentally] defenseless state. Had every passenger had
a
| 6 shot 38 or 45 revolver and instructions to , sit in your
| seat and shot anybody who causes trouble, NONE of those
| airliners would have been hijacked.<<
|
| True about MS Flight Simulator. I used to fly it around
the WTC (and
| Megis field) myself. But, as you know, the terrorists
trained at GA
| schools. This is a FACT, and has been well publicized.
|
| As far as your arming the passengers scenario, the govt.
did "admit" this
| implicitly by allowing pilots to be armed.
|
| Where I live, most everyone is armed (including yours
truly, with my handy
| dandy Mossberg), and there is virtually no crime, so I
kinda/sorta see your
| point. But, I wonder how comfortable the pilots and other
passengers would
| feel knowing that most of their fellow passengers were
armed??
|
| I fly SWA occassionally. Imagine what would happen during
their boarding
| process if most of the passengers were armed?
|
|
|
|

[Skylune]

>>by " > Dec 14, 2005 at 12:30
PM


>>>>I also "suspect" this could have been done with MS Flight Sim. But,
that
is not what really happened. Fact: The terrorists trained at GA
schools<<<<

Yes they did. Many flight school students were/are Arabic. The
overwhelming majority are not terrorists. What do you suggest might
have prevented the attack? If you're going to suggest tighter screening
of foreign students, that's not up to the flight schools, that would be
a gov't function as it would involve the State Dept. So, tell me how GA
was responsible again?<<

Good points.

To clarify, I did not say GA was "responsible." I said that GA schools
provided the training.

There is plenty of blame to go around, with most falling on FBI
bureacracy, and airport "security" at Logan IMO.

I actually think the flight schools bear little of the responsibility,
even though they were roundly criticized right after the terrorist
*******s committed their cowardly attacks.

I'm fairly certain that new security requirements have been established
for foreign-born trainees.

I'm not buying the McVeigh/Ryder truck analogy. I'm pretty sure that
people purchasing large quantities of nitrogen based products such as
fertilizer face some type of restrictions or scrutiny today, but I'm not
sure.

[Jim Macklin]

They may have trained at flight schools in the USA, but did
they learn how to do it here? Are the restrictions
effective? On the same line of reasoning...
The shoe bomber was trying to use matches to light a fuse in
his shoes...When was the last time you heard about a
terrorist bomber who did not have a 9 volt battery and a
switch to set their bomb off? The shoe bomber was not
intended to blow up the airplane, his task was to yank out
chain and make us take our shoes off.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm



"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
| >>by " > Dec 14,
2005 at 11:49
| AM
|
|
| Come on, Sky-buffoon...
|
| <snip>
| I suspect anybody with a (then) current copy of MS Flight
Sim could
| have done what the terrorist monkeys did after a few hours
flying a 737
| around in VR - it ain't rocket science.<<
|
| I also "suspect" this could have been done with MS Flight
Sim. But, that
| is not what really happened. Fact: The terrorists
trained at GA schools.
|
|
| I need to pull out the handy John Adams quote again:
"Facts are stubborn
| things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations,
or the dictates
| of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and
evidence."
|
|
|
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

All non-US citizens begin flight training are required to
submit a fee of $150 and a complete history and photographs
before beginning flight training. All CFIs/flight schools
are required to verify citizenship for all students and may
not train a non-citizen until they are approved by the TSA.
There is an exception for already certificated pilots just
getting recurrent training, etc.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P
CFI expires Jan 2008



--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm



"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
| >>by " > Dec 14,
2005 at 12:30
| PM
|
|
| >>>>I also "suspect" this could have been done with MS
Flight Sim. But,
| that
| is not what really happened. Fact: The terrorists
trained at GA
| schools<<<<
|
| Yes they did. Many flight school students were/are Arabic.
The
| overwhelming majority are not terrorists. What do you
suggest might
| have prevented the attack? If you're going to suggest
tighter screening
| of foreign students, that's not up to the flight schools,
that would be
| a gov't function as it would involve the State Dept. So,
tell me how GA
| was responsible again?<<
|
| Good points.
|
| To clarify, I did not say GA was "responsible." I said
that GA schools
| provided the training.
|
| There is plenty of blame to go around, with most falling
on FBI
| bureacracy, and airport "security" at Logan IMO.
|
| I actually think the flight schools bear little of the
responsibility,
| even though they were roundly criticized right after the
terrorist
| *******s committed their cowardly attacks.
|
| I'm fairly certain that new security requirements have
been established
| for foreign-born trainees.
|
| I'm not buying the McVeigh/Ryder truck analogy. I'm
pretty sure that
| people purchasing large quantities of nitrogen based
products such as
| fertilizer face some type of restrictions or scrutiny
today, but I'm not
| sure.
|
|
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

Didn't the Kamikaze pilots crash into ships during WWII?


"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
| wrote:
|
| > Come on, Sky-buffoon... Who could have ever imagined
airliners being
| > used in such an insidious and evil way before 9/11?
|
| Didn't one of those "Jack Ryan" novels have an airliner
deliberately crashed
| into Congress?
|
| - Andrew
|

[Jim Macklin]

A small 5 shot S&W 38. The MAD doctrine still works.


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"nrp" > wrote in message
oups.com...
| You are getting very close to my originally flippant
answer to the
| aircraft 9-11 hijack etc thing:
|
| 1) Reinforce the cockpit doors including with kevlar to
make the
| bulkhead bullet-proof.
| 2) A simple loaded light weight single shot pistol under
every oxygen
| mask panel.
| 3) The pilots have a button.....
|
| At this point majority rules.
|

[Skylune]

>>by "Jim Macklin" > Dec 14, 2005 at
03:08 PM


All non-US citizens begin flight training are required to
submit a fee of $150 and a complete history and photographs
before beginning flight training. All CFIs/flight schools
are required to verify citizenship for all students and may
not train a non-citizen until they are approved by the TSA.
There is an exception for already certificated pilots just
getting recurrent training, etc<<

Jim: The requirements for non citizens are new (post 9/11/01), aren't
they? They seem pretty reasonable to me.

[[email protected]]

>>>>To clarify, I did not say GA was "responsible." I said that GA schools
provided the training.<<<<

Your tone was indicative (to me anyway) that GA was somehow responsible
for the attack

>>>>I'm not buying the McVeigh/Ryder truck analogy. I'm pretty sure that
people purchasing large quantities of nitrogen based products such as
fertilizer face some type of restrictions or scrutiny today, but I'm
not
sure.<<<<

Today, yes. I don't think that was the case in 1993(?) when the Murrah
building was wiped out. But you missed the point. What reasonable
standard exists to protect the public without infringing too much on
the right of the law-abiding.

>>>>I'm fairly certain that new security requirements have been established
for foreign-born trainees.<<<<

I recall hearing something about that as well not long after 9/11. A
day late and a dollar short, as my mother used to say

[Ron Natalie]

Skylune wrote:

> To clarify, I did not say GA was "responsible." I said that GA schools
> provided the training.

Nearly every pilot, with the exception of a few military types are
trained at GA schools. Ya gotta start somewhere. Nobody is going
to let you fly an airliner first.

> There is plenty of blame to go around, with most falling on FBI
> bureacracy, and airport "security" at Logan IMO.

And what about the INS who failed to oversee the visas properly.
Or the FAA to even pretend to scrutinize the existing watch lists
against the airline manifests.

Or the airport security at Dulles and Newark?

[Skylune]

>>by " > Dec 14, 2005 at 01:24
PM

Your tone was indicative (to me anyway) that GA was somehow responsible
for the attack


<snip>
Today, yes. I don't think that was the case in 1993(?) when the Murrah
building was wiped out. But you missed the point. What reasonable
standard exists to protect the public without infringing too much on
the right of the law-abiding.

<snip>
I recall hearing something about that as well not long after 9/11. A
day late and a dollar short, as my mother used to say<<

Sorry about the wise-ass tone.

My criticisms of GA are limited mostly to complete lack of community
control over any aspect of airport operations at many facilities. Noise,
and certain rude pilots who simply ignore noise abatement being my main
gripe...

No other industry/activity enjoys such protections from community noise
statutes. If I am wrong in this assertion, please correct me. No one
ever has, and I cannot find any facts that indicate otherwise.


Regarding security, I think you ask the $99 question: "What reasonable
standard exists to protect the public without infringing too much on
the right of the law-abiding?" Trade-offs suck, but when we have
psychotic terrorists killing our citizens, using our "freedoms" to their
twisted advantage, I think everyone would agree that their needs to be
some restrictions on personal liberty.

Regarding noise, I think people on the ground should have some "rights."
Presently, we have none. "Rights" to free skies (ficticious, really --
this just refers to FARs which people at the EAA and AOPA would like to
see enshrined in the Constitution, but aren't) needs to be balanced with
people's right to peace and quiet, IMO. I think this is especially true
for those unfortunates who live miles away from an airport and have no way
of knowing that they will suddenly be under a flight path (or acrobatic
training box) designated by some anonymous bureaucrat at an aloof federal
bureaucracy (the FAA) who doesn't give a hoot about them.

Sadly, compromise with the flight schools/pilots is obviously not possible
in my neck of the woods. So we, being stubborn New Englanders, will fight
back using all legal, political methods at our disposal.

Those who dismiss all of the "anti-noise/GA" activists as kooks and
looneys

[Skylune]

>>by Ron Natalie > Dec 14, 2005 at 04:35 PM


Skylune wrote:

> To clarify, I did not say GA was "responsible." I said that GA schools
> provided the training.

Nearly every pilot, with the exception of a few military types are
trained at GA schools. Ya gotta start somewhere. Nobody is going
to let you fly an airliner first.

> There is plenty of blame to go around, with most falling on FBI
> bureacracy, and airport "security" at Logan IMO.

And what about the INS who failed to oversee the visas properly.
Or the FAA to even pretend to scrutinize the existing watch lists
against the airline manifests.

Or the airport security at Dulles and Newark?<<

I agree with your statements and the sentiment of your questions. No
reasonable person wants to "stop" GA or GA flight schools. I certainly
don't.

We want them to be good neighbors. In my current case, they are not, and
hide behind FARs, anonimity provided by the planes, etc. In fact, I have
been threatened with harrassment, and worse, by certain of the pilots just
for raising the point that the Part 150 recommendations were never
implemented, and are routinely ignored. So now I am ****ed, and will
pursue any legal means to make THEIR lives a bit more difficult.

When I lived a few miles away from FRG, we did not experience any of these
problems. Sure there was some noise, but it was not a big deal because
that airport took noise abatement and neighborliness more seriously. (When
I did my short lived training years back at FRG, the instructor always
stuck to the published arrival/departure procedures, avoiding residential
areas.) Rarely, if ever, was my home buzzed, despite my proximity to a
very busy GA airport.

Sadly, that is not the case everywhere, as I now have the misfortune of
knowing first hand.

[Peter Clark]

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 15:22:39 -0500, Andrew Gideon >
wrote:

wrote:
>
>> Come on, Sky-buffoon... Who could have ever imagined airliners being
>> used in such an insidious and evil way before 9/11?
>
>Didn't one of those "Jack Ryan" novels have an airliner deliberately crashed
>into Congress?

"Debt of Honor" (paperback was published June 1994, I can't seem to
find the publish date for the hardcover offhand, but was likely late
93/early 94).

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:bL%nf.29034$QW2.18759@dukeread08...


> BTW, Pilots on the airlines were required to be armed before
> the mid-late 60's, to protect the mail. Your postman
> walking the street also often had a gun in his big leather
> bag. But LBJs postmaster general took them away.
>

Do you have a cite for that? I grew up at the airport hanging around the
Trans Texas Airlines (Later Texas International) office and I think I'd
remember after 65 or 66 if the pilots were carrying guns. I know TTA was
carrying airmail because one of my Grandfathers side jobs was taking the
mail from the post office to the airport.

[Jose]

> Regarding security, I think you ask the $99 question: "What reasonable
> standard exists to protect the public without infringing too much on
> the right of the law-abiding?" Trade-offs suck, but when we have
> psychotic terrorists killing our citizens, using our "freedoms" to their
> twisted advantage, I think everyone would agree that their needs to be
> some restrictions on personal liberty.

It's "there needs to be". Spelling aside, I do =not= agree with this at
all. It is the price of freedom. Freedom disappears long before
security appears.

> My criticisms of GA are limited mostly to complete lack of community
> control over any aspect of airport operations at many facilities.

If every town set its own flight rules, flying would become so
impractical as to disappear. Noise rules =are= a kind of flight rules.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> wrote:
>
>> Come on, Sky-buffoon... Who could have ever imagined airliners being
>> used in such an insidious and evil way before 9/11?
>
> Didn't one of those "Jack Ryan" novels have an airliner deliberately
> crashed
> into Congress?
>
> - Andrew
>

Yep in Debt of Honor by a senior Japan Air pilot.

[Dave Stadt]

"Skylune" > wrote in message >
> Regarding security, I think you ask the $99 question: "What reasonable
> standard exists to protect the public without infringing too much on
> the right of the law-abiding?" Trade-offs suck, but when we have
> psychotic terrorists killing our citizens, using our "freedoms" to their
> twisted advantage, I think everyone would agree that their needs to be
> some restrictions on personal liberty.

Only nut cases like you would think such a thing.

[Skywise]

"Skylune" > wrote in
lkaboutaviation.com:

<Snipola>
> I need to pull out the handy John Adams quote again: "Facts are stubborn
> things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates
> of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

Pot - kettle - black.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
Like censorship and not getting support help? Switch to Supernews!
They won't even answer questions through your ISP!

[Jim Macklin]

Yes, they are new and no, they are not really reasonable,
they do not look at a Canadian of Irish descent and
differently than they do for a Muslim from a refugee camp in
Palestine.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
| >>by "Jim Macklin" >
Dec 14, 2005 at
| 03:08 PM
|
|
| All non-US citizens begin flight training are required to
| submit a fee of $150 and a complete history and
photographs
| before beginning flight training. All CFIs/flight schools
| are required to verify citizenship for all students and
may
| not train a non-citizen until they are approved by the
TSA.
| There is an exception for already certificated pilots just
| getting recurrent training, etc<<
|
| Jim: The requirements for non citizens are new (post
9/11/01), aren't
| they? They seem pretty reasonable to me.
|
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

There are many sources you can look up. You will even find
reports of airline pilots killing attempted hijackers BEFORE
the date of the Cuban hijackings, which began after the PO
rescinded the requirement for armed pilots.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:bL%nf.29034$QW2.18759@dukeread08...
|
|
| > BTW, Pilots on the airlines were required to be armed
before
| > the mid-late 60's, to protect the mail. Your postman
| > walking the street also often had a gun in his big
leather
| > bag. But LBJs postmaster general took them away.
| >
|
| Do you have a cite for that? I grew up at the airport
hanging around the
| Trans Texas Airlines (Later Texas International) office
and I think I'd
| remember after 65 or 66 if the pilots were carrying guns.
I know TTA was
| carrying airmail because one of my Grandfathers side jobs
was taking the
| mail from the post office to the airport.
|
|

[John Galban]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> Your postman
> walking the street also often had a gun in his big leather
> bag. But LBJs postmaster general took them away.
>

Interesting. It could have given a whole new meaning to the phrase
"going postal". I'd hate to be working in the sorting room on
Publisher's Clearinghouse day :-)

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

[Jim Macklin]

Going "postal" never happened when there were many armed
people present, it is only possible for mass shootings in
public place to happen when the victims are unarmed and the
shooter knows and expects this condition. Crazy people are
not stupid, only crazy.


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"John Galban" > wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > Your postman
| > walking the street also often had a gun in his big
leather
| > bag. But LBJs postmaster general took them away.
| >
|
| Interesting. It could have given a whole new meaning to
the phrase
| "going postal". I'd hate to be working in the sorting
room on
| Publisher's Clearinghouse day :-)
|
| John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
|

[Jack]

Jim Macklin wrote:

> FAR 25 requires that the pressurized aircraft be able to
> withstand explosions, engine disintegration and maintain a
> livable cabin with a 20 sq. ft. hole. That size hole would
> require about 1/2 a ton of bullets.

Cite?

A hole the size of a twin bed is pretty BIG!


Jack

[Montblack]

("Skylune" wrote)
> I'm fairly certain that new security requirements have been established
> for foreign-born trainees.
>
> I'm not buying the McVeigh/Ryder truck analogy. I'm pretty sure that
> people purchasing large quantities of nitrogen based products such as
> fertilizer face some type of restrictions or scrutiny today, but I'm not
> sure.


The 9-11 terrorists were turned in, by GA, to the FBI and other gov't
agencies with "security requirements." All of this was prior to 9-11. These
various gov't agencies dropped the ball - tripped up by their internal
"security requirements."

GA across the country said - Hey, these guys don't seem right ......nothing.

As far as your other hopeful belief in gov't protecting you, I used to sell
the stuff you're talking about - and deliver it. It is very easy to get your
hands on it, in bag or bulk. Pre-9-11 and post 9-11.


Montblack

[Jim Macklin]

§ 25.365 Pressurized compartment loads.
Look it up yourself, FAR 25 under pressure, the formula
given is based on cabin cross section, with 20 sq. ft as a
maximum required. A sq. ft = 144 sq.in. a .45 caliber
bullet is 0.1592611875 sq.in or 18083 bullet holes for 20
sq. ft.

A 45 ACP bullet is 230 grains and a loaded cartridge weight
is about 400 grains. An ounce is 437.5 grains and
therefore, about 16 bullets to a pound. 18,000 ounces of
cartridges is 1130 pounds and a half ton is only 1,000
pounds. If you only consider the bullets, it would be a
little less than a half ton, but bullets without cases,
powder, etc are just lumps.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P




"Jack" > wrote in message
. net...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > FAR 25 requires that the pressurized aircraft be able to
| > withstand explosions, engine disintegration and maintain
a
| > livable cabin with a 20 sq. ft. hole. That size hole
would
| > require about 1/2 a ton of bullets.
|
| Cite?
|
| A hole the size of a twin bed is pretty BIG!
|
|
| Jack

[Matt Barrow]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Except for the "737 jumbojet" the rest of the article is well written.

Umm....that was a remark from the omniscient MSM he was "quoting".

[George Patterson]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

> Do you have a cite for that?

It's mentioned frequently in older books on aviation. Check out "Fate is the
Hunter" or Ernie Gann's autobiography for starters. Gann retired from commercial
aviation in the late 50s, and pilots were still required to carry pistols in
their flight bags.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-12-14, > wrote:
>>>>>Would one expect GA schools to act responsibly and admit their failure to
> provide adequate security previous to 9/11?<<<<
>
> Come on, Sky-buffoon... Who could have ever imagined airliners being
> used in such an insidious and evil way before 9/11?

Not wanting to give Skylune further ammunition (really, it's irrelevant
where the terrorists trained - it included *airline* training in airline
sims, too) - actually, there have been attempts to use airliners in this
way in the past. The most notable attempt was a FedEx DC-10 in 1994,
where a disgruntled worker who was going to be fired attempted to kill
all three crew members and crash the plane into FedEx headquarters.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-12-14, Skylune > wrote:
> I also "suspect" this could have been done with MS Flight Sim. But, that
> is not what really happened. Fact: The terrorists trained at GA schools.

A fact, but it's totally irrelevant. Given most of the terrorists didn't
have any kind of criminal record and at the time were in the United
States perfectly legally, there is no way you could have denied them
training unless you imposed a rule 'brown skinned people and foreigners
are not to be trained'. Even with today's TSA rules, these people would
have been approved for training.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-12-14, Skylune > wrote:
> Jim: The requirements for non citizens are new (post 9/11/01), aren't
> they? They seem pretty reasonable to me.

Except they would have been pointless then - even if those regulations
existed then, the terrorists would have all been approved.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[Skylune]

>>by Dylan Smith > Dec 15, 2005 at 02:30 PM


On 2005-12-14, Skylune > wrote:
> Jim: The requirements for non citizens are new (post 9/11/01), aren't
> they? They seem pretty reasonable to me.

Except they would have been pointless then - even if those regulations
existed then, the terrorists would have all been approved.<<

Why? Jim M stated that flight schools are now required to verify US
citizenship, and not train non-citizens until they are approved by TSA.
If this is true, why would the terrorists have been approved?

[[email protected]]

>>>The most notable attempt was a FedEx DC-10 in 1994,
where a disgruntled worker who was going to be fired attempted to kill
all three crew members and crash the plane into FedEx headquarters<<<

IIRC that was motivated not by any overt act of terrorism but by the
wacko's plan that his kids would collect on his life insurance policy
if he died in a company acft. Of course, this wouldn't matter to the
people on the ground where the plane came down..

[Peter R.]

Peter Clark > wrote:

> "Debt of Honor" (paperback was published June 1994, I can't seem to
> find the publish date for the hardcover offhand, but was likely late
> 93/early 94).

Amazon is reporting the hard-cover publishing date as August 17, 1994.


--
Peter

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
>>>by Dylan Smith > Dec 15, 2005 at 02:30 PM
>
>
> On 2005-12-14, Skylune > wrote:
>> Jim: The requirements for non citizens are new (post 9/11/01), aren't
>> they? They seem pretty reasonable to me.
>
> Except they would have been pointless then - even if those regulations
> existed then, the terrorists would have all been approved.<<
>
> Why? Jim M stated that flight schools are now required to verify US
> citizenship, and not train non-citizens until they are approved by TSA.
> If this is true, why would the terrorists have been approved?
>

I think the more important question is, why would they have not been
approved?

[Jim Macklin]

TSA rules only detect known terrorists and others with
criminal records.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
| >>by Dylan Smith > Dec 15, 2005 at
02:30 PM
|
|
| On 2005-12-14, Skylune > wrote:
| > Jim: The requirements for non citizens are new (post
9/11/01), aren't
| > they? They seem pretty reasonable to me.
|
| Except they would have been pointless then - even if those
regulations
| existed then, the terrorists would have all been
approved.<<
|
| Why? Jim M stated that flight schools are now required to
verify US
| citizenship, and not train non-citizens until they are
approved by TSA.
| If this is true, why would the terrorists have been
approved?
|
|
|
|

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-12-15, Skylune > wrote:
> Why? Jim M stated that flight schools are now required to verify US
> citizenship, and not train non-citizens until they are approved by TSA.
> If this is true, why would the terrorists have been approved?

At the time, they were legally in the United States, and none of them
had a criminal background or other background that said 'terrorist'. Had
that condition existed, the people behind the attacks would have made
doubly sure the people used for the mission were squeaky clean. Only if
the US said "All foreigners are banned from flight training" would a
plan like this not worked - well, not worked in the same way (they would
have just trained in Canada instead, or perhaps any number of
countries). Or found a Timothy McVeigh type - it's not that far fetched,
there was an extensive radio programme about one of the London bombers
from July 7th, the remarkable thing about this bomber is that he was not
at all religious to start with and became radicalised only in the last
few years (and even his WIFE didn't know what he was planning or that he
was capable of such an act).

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[Skylune]

>>by "Jim Macklin" > Dec 15, 2005 at
11:10 AM


TSA rules only detect known terrorists and others with
criminal records.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P


If this is so, it seems the new requirements WOULD HAVE detected the 9-11
terrorists. I say this because several of the hijackers were in the
country illegally, using forged documents (passports and visas) to
illegally obtain driver's licenses. (I confirmed this in a news search.)


Surely, the TSA would pick up forged passports, especially the new
passports now being required for foreigners entering the country.

[Jim Macklin]

Maybe, but in general background checks look for records of
known activity, they have to show [prove] that you are
forbidden with positive records. No records probably will
pass the test.

I can design a level of security that will prevent all crime
and terrorism, it will involve having at least 1 policeman
every 50 square feet in every town and city, 1 policeman for
every civilian on every train, plane or bus. Everybody will
be tattooed with a bar code on their face for
identification.
Everybody will need permission before leaving their house,
school or work.

But then who will protect us from the police?


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm



"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
| >>by "Jim Macklin" >
Dec 15, 2005 at
| 11:10 AM
|
|
| TSA rules only detect known terrorists and others with
| criminal records.
|
|
| --
| James H. Macklin
| ATP,CFI,A&P
|
|
| If this is so, it seems the new requirements WOULD HAVE
detected the 9-11
| terrorists. I say this because several of the hijackers
were in the
| country illegally, using forged documents (passports and
visas) to
| illegally obtain driver's licenses. (I confirmed this in
a news search.)
|
|
| Surely, the TSA would pick up forged passports, especially
the new
| passports now being required for foreigners entering the
country.
|
|
|
|
|
|

[Skylune]

by Skywise <into@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Dec 14, 2005 at 11:01 PM


"Skylune" <live-ski-or-die@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
news:41fa639112b9db427c25872b82d6d0ba@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> I need to pull out the handy John Adams quote again: "Facts are
stubborn
> things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the
dictates
> of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

Pot - kettle - black.

Brian<<

Name a single example of factual misstatement. One.

[Robert M. Gary]

Apparently the airlines would like the get their pilots from pools of
applicants w/o any jet time. Charter is the only way for most to get
initial jet time. Even military pilot usually spend time with charter
outfits before going to the airlines.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article
utaviation.com>,
"Skylune" > wrote:

> by Skywise <into@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Dec 14, 2005 at 11:01 PM
>
>
> "Skylune" <live-ski-or-die@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > wrote in
> news:41fa639112b9db427c25872b82d6d0ba@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > I need to pull out the handy John Adams quote again: "Facts are
> stubborn
> > things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the
> dictates
> > of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
>
> Pot - kettle - black.
>
> Brian<<
>
> Name a single example of factual misstatement. One.
>
>

It is misstatement by implication. Saying that you can be killed if a
plane falls on you is a fact. Using that fact to say that airplanes
represent a public hazard is a misstatement by implication.

The same "logic" is used to excuse the Draconian measures taken around
the DC area.

--
Remve "_" from email to reply to me personally.

[Skylune]

>>by Orval Fairbairn <o_r_fairbairn@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Dec 19, 2005 at
09:28 PM



>
> Name a single example of factual misstatement. One.
>
>

It is misstatement by implication. Saying that you can be killed if a
plane falls on you is a fact. Using that fact to say that airplanes
represent a public hazard is a misstatement by implication.

The same "logic" is used to excuse the Draconian measures taken around
the DC area.<<

OK, but who ever said an airplane is a public safety hazard? Certainly
not me. Ever.

Certain pilots create a nuisance, but that is clearly not the same thing.

[[email protected]]

Skylune wrote:
>
> To clarify, I did not say GA was "responsible." I said that GA schools
> provided the training.
>
> There is plenty of blame to go around, with most falling on FBI
> bureacracy, and airport "security" at Logan IMO.

IIRC, 2 of the Atta crew flew into Logan from Maine (Portland?). I
assume
they cleared in Maine, and were inside the "secure area" in Logan after
landing
and transfering to their 767.

Then there's Egypt Air 990, which went to the bottom of the Atlantic.

JG

[Jay Beckman]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Skylune wrote:
>>
>> To clarify, I did not say GA was "responsible." I said that GA schools
>> provided the training.
>>
>> There is plenty of blame to go around, with most falling on FBI
>> bureacracy, and airport "security" at Logan IMO.
>
> IIRC, 2 of the Atta crew flew into Logan from Maine (Portland?). I
> assume
> they cleared in Maine, and were inside the "secure area" in Logan after
> landing
> and transfering to their 767.
>
> Then there's Egypt Air 990, which went to the bottom of the Atlantic.
>
> JG

A little different though as the plane was (reportedly) stuffed by a
legitimate badge-wearing crew member.

Jay B

[Jack]

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> Apparently the airlines would like the get their pilots from pools of
> applicants w/o any jet time. Charter is the only way for most to get
> initial jet time. Even military pilot usually spend time with charter
> outfits before going to the airlines.

To the extent some ex-military pilots do spend time with "charter"
outfits, I think it is more a matter of biding their time until a major
airline is in a hiring mode than it is that "charters" are a route to
the eventual left seat at American, United, Delta, or Northwest. The
airline industry is so cyclical, and hiring decisions so surprisingly ad
hoc in some instances, that the validity of sweeping statements about
what the "airlines would like" may have a very short half-life.

When the pool of available applicants is wide and deep you may see a
certain pattern of hiring, as some have claimed was discernible at DAL,
or at UAL. When the pool is shallower and/or the time horizon is short,
availability sometimes comes down to nothing more complex than which
dozen applicants out of a pool of several hundred suitable candidates
can show up Monday morning ready to enter the program, with 72 hours',
or less, notice. Ideally that wouldn't happen, but the weather isn't the
only thing that changes minute by minute in the airline business.

There is no advantage in hiring from a pool of applicants whose
experience doesn't translate well to the new job description. Jet time
is good, turboprop time is OK, piston-time-only must be rare these days
among major airline pilot job applicants and, I'd bet, rarer still among
successful applicants. I believe the modern military turns out a product
better oriented to the standards of the Big Four, and their
hard-charging younger rivals, than do some of what you call "charter"
outfits, into which group get lumped some very unusual cats and dogs.

Long ago, in 1973, in my initial training class at what was then called
a "regional" airline, out of eight starters there were six who completed
training. The two who fell by the wayside each had a combination of at
least two of the following deficiencies: no turbine time; little
multi-engine time; very little IFR time/proficiency; a wife who was
causing trouble for her own reasons; and, no large aircraft time -- and
both were civilians. Out of the six successful hires, four were former
military (three, fighter) pilots, and the two remaining civilians had
multi-turbine time, IIRC. The moral of this story to me: that was a
qualification, interview, and review process that was in today's terms
substandard, but then represented the best that Co. could do under the
necessity to put enough warm bodies into the right seat on short notice.

It's good to have a mix of backgrounds in your pilot group, if only in
order to have a problem-solver for every type of problem, and it's
better yet to have a large pool of qualified applicants, do your
homework, choose the winners on the basis of proven success in areas
requiring the kind of abilities and expertise your crews actually use
every day, AND give them enough advance notice that the cream of the
crop can put everything else on hold and "be there."

These days, nobody's going anywhere, to speak of.


Jack