Bob Orr: just trying open a dialogue!

Here is the CBS correspondent's reply to pilots' critcism, as
published in the Aero-News email newsletter this morning. (I
especially like the line about diverting our energies to finding a
solution!)

***********************************************


....I'm sure you're aware that I have been thoroughly castigated
by AOPA members for a story that was completely about the
GOVERNMENT'S responsibilities in protecting our national air space
and security.

We're confident the story was factual, fair, and in context
(when you consider we've done scores of reports since 9/11 about
commercial aviation vulnerabilities and this ONE regarding general
aviation). There's little doubt commercial jetliners and large
metro airports are more likely to be targeted by terrorists than a
Cessna sitting on an FBO tarmac in Iowa. But, since the mid 1990's
terrorists have shown a continuing interest in using small planes
to deliver explosives and/or chem-bio weapons. After 9/11 we cannot
afford to assume that anything is safe.

The bottom line is the
government has STUDIED the challenge of securing some 19-thousand
diverse airfields, but to this point has relied on VOLUNTARY
measures such as "Airport Watch" to provide the security. Now, I
realize a number of aircraft owners and operatives don't want any
more government regulations to go along with all of those
bothersome flight restrictions.

But, I would maintain, now is the time to have an honest
discussion about reasonable steps to make GA uniformly safer and
more secure. I don't think any of us want to wait until after
something happens. I'm not predicting an attack involving GA
aircraft, and in fact, I pray that never occurs. But, that doesn't
mean we should completely disregard any terror possibility no
matter how small it might be or how irritating the report is to any
particular sector, group, or association.

I'm sorry this story has stirred up so many hard feelings. That
was never the intention. At the same time, I think the uproar is a
bit overdone.

It's my hope now that some of the energies being spent in this
debate over journalism might be applied to finding workable,
affordable security solutions we can all live with.
Sincerely, Bob Orr
FMI: www.cbs.com

For the WHOLE story, go to
http://www.aero-news.net/news/genav....b-f63dfebc5b46


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Bob Orr is an idiot.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

Here is the CBS correspondent's reply to pilots' critcism, as
published in the Aero-News email newsletter this morning. (I
especially like the line about diverting our energies to finding a
solution!)

***********************************************


...I'm sure you're aware that I have been thoroughly castigated
by AOPA members for a story that was completely about the
GOVERNMENT'S responsibilities in protecting our national air space
and security.

We're confident the story was factual, fair, and in context
(when you consider we've done scores of reports since 9/11 about
commercial aviation vulnerabilities and this ONE regarding general
aviation). There's little doubt commercial jetliners and large
metro airports are more likely to be targeted by terrorists than a
Cessna sitting on an FBO tarmac in Iowa. But, since the mid 1990's
terrorists have shown a continuing interest in using small planes
to deliver explosives and/or chem-bio weapons. After 9/11 we cannot
afford to assume that anything is safe.

The bottom line is the
government has STUDIED the challenge of securing some 19-thousand
diverse airfields, but to this point has relied on VOLUNTARY
measures such as "Airport Watch" to provide the security. Now, I
realize a number of aircraft owners and operatives don't want any
more government regulations to go along with all of those
bothersome flight restrictions.

But, I would maintain, now is the time to have an honest
discussion about reasonable steps to make GA uniformly safer and
more secure. I don't think any of us want to wait until after
something happens. I'm not predicting an attack involving GA
aircraft, and in fact, I pray that never occurs. But, that doesn't
mean we should completely disregard any terror possibility no
matter how small it might be or how irritating the report is to any
particular sector, group, or association.

I'm sorry this story has stirred up so many hard feelings. That
was never the intention. At the same time, I think the uproar is a
bit overdone.

It's my hope now that some of the energies being spent in this
debate over journalism might be applied to finding workable,
affordable security solutions we can all live with.
Sincerely, Bob Orr
FMI: www.cbs.com

For the WHOLE story, go to

http://www.aero-news.net/news/genav....b-f63dfebc5b46


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Opening a dialogue only takes one's mouth, clearly Orrs eyes, ears, and mind
are all closed.
--
Jim Burns III

Remove "nospam" to reply

Just point out to him that he is the one busily expending energy and ringing
the alarm bell to find a solution for a GA problem that DOESN'T exist...
denny

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

Here is the CBS correspondent's reply to pilots' critcism, as
published in the Aero-News email newsletter this morning.

You can bet the CBS legal department looked it over and made changes
before Aero-News was sent it.

Here is the CBS correspondent's reply to pilots' critcism

Where do you get from this he is "trying to open a dialog"? He just
restated the same crap.

di·a·logue a : a conversation between two or more persons; also : a
similar exchange between a person and something else (as a computer) b
: an exchange of ideas and opinions c : a discussion between
representatives of parties to a conflict that is aimed at resolution

Dialogue involves TWO parties, not just the side CBS picks.
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.




Cub Driver wrote in message . ..
Here is the CBS correspondent's reply to pilots' critcism, as
published in the Aero-News email newsletter this morning. (I
especially like the line about diverting our energies to finding a
solution!)

***********************************************


...I'm sure you're aware that I have been thoroughly castigated
by AOPA members for a story that was completely about the
GOVERNMENT'S responsibilities in protecting our national air space
and security.

We're confident the story was factual, fair, and in context
(when you consider we've done scores of reports since 9/11 about
commercial aviation vulnerabilities and this ONE regarding general
aviation). There's little doubt commercial jetliners and large
metro airports are more likely to be targeted by terrorists than a
Cessna sitting on an FBO tarmac in Iowa. But, since the mid 1990's
terrorists have shown a continuing interest in using small planes
to deliver explosives and/or chem-bio weapons. After 9/11 we cannot
afford to assume that anything is safe.

The bottom line is the
government has STUDIED the challenge of securing some 19-thousand
diverse airfields, but to this point has relied on VOLUNTARY
measures such as "Airport Watch" to provide the security. Now, I
realize a number of aircraft owners and operatives don't want any
more government regulations to go along with all of those
bothersome flight restrictions.

But, I would maintain, now is the time to have an honest
discussion about reasonable steps to make GA uniformly safer and
more secure. I don't think any of us want to wait until after
something happens. I'm not predicting an attack involving GA
aircraft, and in fact, I pray that never occurs. But, that doesn't
mean we should completely disregard any terror possibility no
matter how small it might be or how irritating the report is to any
particular sector, group, or association.

I'm sorry this story has stirred up so many hard feelings. That
was never the intention. At the same time, I think the uproar is a
bit overdone.

It's my hope now that some of the energies being spent in this
debate over journalism might be applied to finding workable,
affordable security solutions we can all live with.
Sincerely, Bob Orr
FMI: www.cbs.com

For the WHOLE story, go to
http://www.aero-news.net/news/genav....b-f63dfebc5b46


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"Gene Seibel" wrote in message
om...
| di·a·logue a : a conversation between two or more persons; also : a
| similar exchange between a person and something else (as a computer) b
| : an exchange of ideas and opinions c : a discussion between
| representatives of parties to a conflict that is aimed at resolution
|
| Dialogue involves TWO parties, not just the side CBS picks.
| --

Perhaps he is schizophrenic. He is certainly delusional.

In article ,
Cub Driver wrote:

Here is the CBS correspondent's reply to pilots' critcism, as
published in the Aero-News email newsletter this morning. (I
especially like the line about diverting our energies to finding a
solution!)

***********************************************


...I'm sure you're aware that I have been thoroughly castigated
by AOPA members for a story that was completely about the
GOVERNMENT'S responsibilities in protecting our national air space
and security.

We're confident the story was factual, fair, and in context
(when you consider we've done scores of reports since 9/11 about
commercial aviation vulnerabilities and this ONE regarding general
aviation). There's little doubt commercial jetliners and large
metro airports are more likely to be targeted by terrorists than a
Cessna sitting on an FBO tarmac in Iowa. But, since the mid 1990's
terrorists have shown a continuing interest in using small planes
to deliver explosives and/or chem-bio weapons. After 9/11 we cannot
afford to assume that anything is safe.



Mr. Orr sets low standarda and perpetually fails to meet them.




The bottom line is the
government has STUDIED the challenge of securing some 19-thousand
diverse airfields, but to this point has relied on VOLUNTARY
measures such as "Airport Watch" to provide the security. Now, I
realize a number of aircraft owners and operatives don't want any
more government regulations to go along with all of those
bothersome flight restrictions.


Maybe the fool should read the studies, rather than attempting to draw
conclusions out of thin air.



But, I would maintain, now is the time to have an honest
discussion about reasonable steps to make GA uniformly safer and
more secure. I don't think any of us want to wait until after
something happens. I'm not predicting an attack involving GA
aircraft, and in fact, I pray that never occurs. But, that doesn't
mean we should completely disregard any terror possibility no
matter how small it might be or how irritating the report is to any
particular sector, group, or association.


Mr. Orr is apparently incapable of determining that an honest discussion
requires two sides -- NOT leaving the other side on the cutting room
floor!



I'm sorry this story has stirred up so many hard feelings. That
was never the intention. At the same time, I think the uproar is a
bit overdone.


Yes -- but HE started the uproar and didn't figure on the backlash.




It's my hope now that some of the energies being spent in this
debate over journalism might be applied to finding workable,
affordable security solutions we can all live with.
Sincerely, Bob Orr
FMI: www.cbs.com


We already have the workable, affordable security solutions we can work
with.


For the WHOLE story, go to
http://www.aero-news.net/news/genav....36a4-4aa7-865b
-f63dfebc5b46


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Cub Driver wrote:


Here is the CBS correspondent's reply to pilots' critcism, as
published in the Aero-News email newsletter this morning. (I
especially like the line about diverting our energies to finding a
solution!)

snip

But, I would maintain, now is the time to have an honest
discussion about reasonable steps to make GA uniformly safer and
more secure. I don't think any of us want to wait until after
something happens. I'm not predicting an attack involving GA
aircraft, and in fact, I pray that never occurs. But, that doesn't
mean we should completely disregard any terror possibility no
matter how small it might be or how irritating the report is to any
particular sector, group, or association.


Until I see a piece designed to open "an honest discussion about reasonable
steps" to address the fact that we still relay on "VOLUNTARY measures" to
secure our cities from vulnerabilities to car/truck delivered explosives
and/or chem-bio weapons I will continue to hold my opinion that Orr's story
was NOT up to any sort of journalistic standards.

If Mr. Orr is so worried about an attack he'd better get on this right away
as this is a far more likely scenario and I'm sure he would not want to
"disregard any terror possibility no matter how small it might be or how
irritating the report is to any particular sector, group, or association".

snip

--
Frank....H