TSA Considers Wiping Egg From Face Re. GA.

Larry Dighera wrote:

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 11:31:02 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in Message-Id:
:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

-------------------------------------------------------------------
AVflash Volume 9, Number 43a October 20, 2003
-------------------------------------------------------------------

LOY HINTS AT GA SECURITY CHANGES

snip

Obviously the hope is that the perma-TFRs will actually go away. But I'm
not holding my breath.

Everyone want's things to go back the way they were in kinder and
gentler times long ago; not likely, IMO. Osama's strike at the icons
of our "invincable" nation have forever done their damage in the eyes
of the people of the world.

Don't blame Osama for the TFRs and other post 9/11 airspace grabs by the
Feds. Osama may have been responsible for the attacks on 9/11, but Americans
were (and continue to be) resposnible for the airspace restrictions.

David H
Boeing Field (BFI), Seattle, WA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Visit the Pacific Northwest Flying forum:
http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/pnwflying

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:27:34 -0700, David H
wrote in Message-Id: :

Larry Dighera wrote:

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 11:31:02 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in Message-Id:
:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

-------------------------------------------------------------------
AVflash Volume 9, Number 43a October 20, 2003
-------------------------------------------------------------------

LOY HINTS AT GA SECURITY CHANGES

snip

Obviously the hope is that the perma-TFRs will actually go away. But I'm
not holding my breath.

Everyone want's things to go back the way they were in kinder and
gentler times long ago; not likely, IMO. Osama's strike at the icons
of our "invincable" nation have forever done their damage in the eyes
of the people of the world.

Don't blame Osama for the TFRs and other post 9/11 airspace grabs by the
Feds. Osama may have been responsible for the attacks on 9/11, but Americans
were (and continue to be) resposnible for the airspace restrictions.

I blame Osama only for opening the eyes of the American people and the
world to the vulnerability to significant hostile attack of our
historically strategically isolated nation.

I see the (largely ineffective, inappropriately implemented) security
related Temporary Flight Restrictions as a poorly conceived,
unilateral reaction, by the elected and appointed representatives of
the people of this nation, to the collective realization of the
startling fact, that the USA is immanently vulnerable to vicious
attack from well financed and zealously determined fanatics. I do not
see those TFRs to be directly mandated by the American people.

Presumably, the purpose of the airspace security restrictions
implemented by the TSA, with the help of the US Congress, NSA, CIA,
DHS, DOD, DOT, FAA, NORAD, ..., are to provide a volume of airspace
that exclusively contains aircraft identified as friendly (from a
security standpoint) and to provide adequate time for the aerial
interception of any potentially hostilely piloted, unidentified
aircraft before they reach their targets. Because of the physical
limitations of time and space, the cost of operating aerial
interception patrols, and past inadequacy of planning for domestic
aerial threats, the ridiculous pseudo-security-TFRs were created as a
desperate response to the hysterical demand that those agencies "do
something." What the TSA et al fails to recognize is that the
airliners commandeered by the September 11, 2001 terrorists are no
different from those currently freely permitted to operate with
impunity within the security-TFRs! To date, the security-TFRs have
only succeeded in placing the nation's federally certificated airmen
in jeopardy of being shot down and losing their certification, not
deterring hostile attacks. The nation's noble airmen have become the
expendable "kick dog" of the ineffective, bungling, bureaucratic
agencies charged with this nation's security in their pathetic attempt
to be seen as fulfilling their stated purpose.

It's time the people of this nation cry, "The king has no clothes" at
the largely theatrical pseudo-security TFRs. The TFRs over stadiums
only prevent lawful aviation operators from overflights, not
terrorists. The obviously politically motivated TFR over Disneyland
is so ineffectual at deflecting aerial terrorist attacks as to be
patently absurd. The grief inflicted on this nation's airmen by the
frequent and routinely sudden (and inadequately publicized) appearance
of presidential and vice presidential TFRs in excess of 3,000 square
miles in area extending from the surface to a height of over 3 miles
is such an onerous fiat as to be characterized as despotism, given the
hastily enacted power authorizing the shooting down of all intruder
aircraft, and the revocation of airman certificates without due
process nor recourse. The TFRs implemented over nuclear waste
facilities only point the way to the nation's soft underbelly; they
are not temporary, and they only serve to disrupt the National
Airspace System, not thwart determined aerial terrorists.

It appears that the governmental agencies tasked with securing the
nation against hostile attacks is far better at their marketing effort
of projecting false perceptions than actually implementing solidly
conceived effective security measures. I submit, that the total
abolishment of all security related TFRs is eminently preferable to
the tyrrany of the embarrassing, unconstitutional sham currently being
falsely perpetrated upon the nation's airmen and public at large in
the name of security.


--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

I blame Osama only for opening the eyes of the American people and the
world to the vulnerability to significant hostile attack of our
historically strategically isolated nation.


It is the fundamental nature of an open society that it is vulnerable. The
alternative (a closed society) is not acceptable, and there is no "middle
ground" unless you can find a number that is greater than six and less than
four.

Jose

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

On 27 Oct 2003 14:55:34 GMT, (Teacherjh)
wrote in Message-Id: :


I blame Osama only for opening the eyes of the American people and the
world to the vulnerability to significant hostile attack of our
historically strategically isolated nation.


It is the fundamental nature of an open society that it is vulnerable. The
alternative (a closed society) is not acceptable, and there is no "middle
ground" unless you can find a number that is greater than six and less than
four.

And your point is?

I blame Osama only for opening the eyes [...] to the vulnerability...


It is the fundamental nature of an open society that it is vulnerable....

And your point is?


My point is that "opening our eyes" to the vulnerability is not much of an
accomplishment, any more than throwing somebody out a forty ninth story window
"opens our eyes" to the vulnerability of high apartments with glass windows.

Jose

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

On 27 Oct 2003 19:11:51 GMT, (Teacherjh)
wrote in Message-Id: :



I blame Osama only for opening the eyes [...] to the vulnerability...


It is the fundamental nature of an open society that it is vulnerable....

And your point is?


My point is that "opening our eyes" to the vulnerability is not much of an
accomplishment, any more than throwing somebody out a forty ninth story window
"opens our eyes" to the vulnerability of high apartments with glass windows.

So you're saying the vulnerability of an open society is obvious to
ALL the people of the world? Doubtful. I believe we were perceived
by the people of the world as mighty and all powerful.

Now it has become apparent that a band of bedouin thugs can kill
thousands and inflict hundreds of millions of dollars in damages in
the US through will and planning alone.

If the vulnerability had been obvious, one would think that those
government agencies charged with the nation's safety would have taken
steps to prevent the type of terrorist attacks we witnessed on
September 11, 2001. You know, little things like having a plan of
action when an airliner deviates from its flight plan after disabling
transponder squawking, air martials, armed airline staff, ... Now
that our vulnerability can no longer be denied, (inappropriate?) steps
are being taken to attempt to close the gaps in our security. But as
you assert, it is virtually impossible in an open society.

You have failed to convince me that the US did not lose a lot of
stature in the eyes of the world as a result of the attacks.


[Nowhere did I use the words "opening our eyes" as you have. What I
said in Message-ID: was,
"Osama's strike at the icons of our "invincible" nation have forever
done their damage in the eyes of the people of the world."]

So you're saying the vulnerability of an open society is obvious to
ALL the people of the world?


Well, I'm saying it's pretty obvious to anybody who has lived in an open
society and has taken some time to think about it. It's also obvous to anyone
who has thought about how to attack an open society.


If the vulnerability had been obvious, one would think that [...]
government [...] would have taken steps to prevent...


It did. It missed one. Total security is not possible in an open society,
much as "the people" might want to be led otherwise. Airports are vulnerable,
no matter how many fences we put up and no matter how many locks we have to put
on our aircraft. Cities are vulnerable to air attack no matter how many TFRs
go up, unless all aircraft are dismantled and pounded into the ground.


You have failed to convince me that the US did not lose a lot of
stature in the eyes of the world as a result of the attacks.


I wasn't trying to. I wasn't even addressing "stature". I was addressing the
point that the 9/11 attacks somehow revealed something to us.


[Nowhere did I use the words "opening our eyes" as you have.


in message id: you
(Larry Dighera
Date: 10/27/03 9:33 AM Eastern Standard Time) said:
(after quoting people)

I blame Osama only for opening the eyes of the American people and the
world to the vulnerability to significant hostile attack of our
historically strategically isolated nation.


I agree with your sentiment, and go further.

Osama and his gang is responsible for killing thousands of people and
destroying parts of lower Manhattan.
WE are responsible for our reaction to it:

Jose



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