More Anti GA hysteria

My response to the writer and editors of the Globe:

**************************************
Enough is enough! Your hysteria regarding the "threat to security" of General
Aviation is a shameful and irresponsible attack on innocent, hard-working,
tax-paying productive American citizens who earn their livelihood by flying
these aircraft.

We are among the most law-abiding and careful citizens you will find, as our
lives (and our passenger's lives) depend wholly on what we do.

Your story is an insult to us. There has never been a single incident of
terrorism using small planes--and using all the creative power I can muster, I
could not envision a scenario where my little 4 place- single engine Cessna
could do any serious damage to anything.

Your "stadium scenario" is nonsense . . . it is far more likely that any of the
millions of panel trucks, rental trucks, or other vehicles can be used for
attacks.

A single motorcycle rider with a backpack full of a nerve agent of other poison
can ride through Times Square and do a lot more damage. Even a single subway
rider with a backpack full of viral agent could infect thousands and thousands
of people. Why aren't you writing stories about UNCHECKED backpacks and
motorcycles?

It's time to stop "piling on" aviators . . . we have been scapegoated long
enough for the attack on the WTC.

Your heartless scare-tactics are simply to inflame and create more irrational
fear, and to sell more papers.

Shame on you!


Lee Ross
www.Rosspilot.com
New York


www.Rosspilot.com

Hey, Ross; as a former magazine editor, I applaud your article. Succinct,
to the point, and scorching. Very well done! Now, let's see if they have
the courage to print it.

-c

"Rosspilot" wrote in message
...
My response to the writer and editors of the Globe:

**************************************
Enough is enough! Your hysteria regarding the "threat to security" of
General
Aviation is a shameful and irresponsible attack on innocent, hard-working,
tax-paying productive American citizens who earn their livelihood by
flying
these aircraft.

We are among the most law-abiding and careful citizens you will find, as
our
lives (and our passenger's lives) depend wholly on what we do.

Your story is an insult to us. There has never been a single incident of
terrorism using small planes--and using all the creative power I can
muster, I
could not envision a scenario where my little 4 place- single engine
Cessna
could do any serious damage to anything.

Your "stadium scenario" is nonsense . . . it is far more likely that any
of the
millions of panel trucks, rental trucks, or other vehicles can be used for
attacks.

A single motorcycle rider with a backpack full of a nerve agent of other
poison
can ride through Times Square and do a lot more damage. Even a single
subway
rider with a backpack full of viral agent could infect thousands and
thousands
of people. Why aren't you writing stories about UNCHECKED backpacks and
motorcycles?

It's time to stop "piling on" aviators . . . we have been scapegoated long
enough for the attack on the WTC.

Your heartless scare-tactics are simply to inflame and create more
irrational
fear, and to sell more papers.

Shame on you!


Lee Ross
www.Rosspilot.com
New York


www.Rosspilot.com

"Rosspilot" wrote in message
...
My response to the writer and editors of the Globe:

**************************************
Enough is enough! Your hysteria regarding the "threat to security" of
General
Aviation is a shameful and irresponsible attack on innocent, hard-working,
tax-paying productive American citizens who earn their livelihood by
flying
these aircraft.

We are among the most law-abiding and careful citizens you will find, as
our
lives (and our passenger's lives) depend wholly on what we do.

Your story is an insult to us. There has never been a single incident of
terrorism using small planes--and using all the creative power I can
muster, I
could not envision a scenario where my little 4 place- single engine
Cessna
could do any serious damage to anything.

Your "stadium scenario" is nonsense . . . it is far more likely that any
of the
millions of panel trucks, rental trucks, or other vehicles can be used for
attacks.

A single motorcycle rider with a backpack full of a nerve agent of other
poison
can ride through Times Square and do a lot more damage. Even a single
subway
rider with a backpack full of viral agent could infect thousands and
thousands
of people. Why aren't you writing stories about UNCHECKED backpacks and
motorcycles?

It's time to stop "piling on" aviators . . . we have been scapegoated long
enough for the attack on the WTC.

Your heartless scare-tactics are simply to inflame and create more
irrational
fear, and to sell more papers.

Shame on you!


Lee Ross
www.Rosspilot.com
New York

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 10:07:05 -0700, "gatt"
wrote in
::

Hey, Ross; as a former magazine editor, I applaud your article. Succinct,
to the point, and scorching. Very well done! Now, let's see if they have
the courage to print it.

-c


When Ross wrote:

"Your heartless scare-tactics are simply to inflame and create
more irrational fear, and to sell more papers."

It struck a resonate chord in my thinking about this issue.

Unfortunately, Ross's response to the Boston Globe contains more heat
than light. It appears to attribute the "information" provided by The
Center for Strategic and International Studies employees to the author
of Globe article. Ross goes on to proclaim the law abiding
responsibleness of airmen, but that wasn't questioned in the article
and seems irrelevant; for it would be amoral criminal terrorists
perpetrating terrorist acts not regular law abiding airmen. And while
Ross confesses to being unable to imagine a scenario for the use of
light aircraft in a terrorist plot, that says more about his feeble
creative powers than it does about the unsuitability of such aircraft
for terrorist purposes.

So while I don't like the sensational spin applied by Karen Schaler to
The Center for Strategic and International Studies' information, I am
happy to be informed that such a study is under way. If I were to
take the author of the Globe article to task, I would emphasize the
lack of naming the specific organizations that funded the "research."

I have a feeling. that that information would be enlightening, and
perhaps provide a valid basis for discrediting the conclusions reached
by The Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Ross goes on to proclaim the law abiding
responsibleness of airmen, but that wasn't questioned in the article
and seems irrelevant; for it would be amoral criminal terrorists
perpetrating terrorist acts not regular law abiding airmen.


Well that's the whole point now, isn't it?

Does any critically-thinking person believe that a suicidal zealot, hell-bent
on wreaking havoc, is going to pay any attention to "no fly zones" and TFRs?
NEWS FLASH!! The planes that flew into the WTC both busted the NY Class B.
Yet it is we careful, law-abiding, rule-obeying pilots who are the recipients
of all the punitive and restrictive "security precautions" perpetrated on us.
I hope to God I am preachin' to the choir here.


And while
Ross confesses to being unable to imagine a scenario for the use of
light aircraft in a terrorist plot, that says more about his feeble
creative powers than it does about the unsuitability of such aircraft
for terrorist purposes.



No wonder you're so popular here, Larry.



So while I don't like the sensational spin applied by Karen Schaler to
The Center for Strategic and International Studies' information, I am
happy to be informed that such a study is under way. If I were to
take the author of the Globe article to task, I would emphasize the
lack of naming the specific organizations that funded the "research."

I have a feeling. that that information would be enlightening, and
perhaps provide a valid basis for discrediting the conclusions reached
by The Center for Strategic and International Studies

So write your own letter.


www.Rosspilot.com

Courtesy of the Boston Globe:

The Bostom MASSACHUSETTS Globe, home of John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and the Boston
Red Sox. (The Patriots play in Focboro!), and $4 a gallon 100 octane low led
at BED.

Need I say more?

"AJW" wrote in message
...

Courtesy of the Boston Globe:

The Bostom MASSACHUSETTS Globe, home of John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and the
Boston
Red Sox. (The Patriots play in Focboro!), and $4 a gallon 100 octane low
led
at BED.

Need I say more?

Please don't, unless it's something intelligent.

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 17:56:56 -0400, "Jeremy Lew"
wrote in ::

Courtesy of the Boston Globe:

http://snipurl.com/8oly


Given this excerpt from the Globe article:


Phil Anderson, a senior associate at the center who specializes in
homeland security issues, said the possible scenarios include
situations in which Al Qaeda members could use a small aircraft,
such as a single-engine, four-seat Cessna 172, to cause
catastrophe. One potential target could be a stadium packed with
tens of thousands of people.

''The no-fly zones over these stadiums are loosely enforced," said
Anderson.

Despite concerns expressed about general aviation after the Sept.
11, 2001, attacks, there are still no safety restrictions on these
smaller planes, no metal detectors or screening of luggage.

Anderson said terrorists could load a plane with explosives, add
shrapnel and possibly chemical or biological materials, and then
detonate a bomb inside a stadium.

''You just roll in low and go over the top of the rim of that
stadium and you can slow it down to about 45 knots so it's very
manageable, put it on the 50-yard line, and push the button," said
Anderson.

Any stadium could be a potential target. ''Just look at the
stadium where the Washington Redskins play," he said. FedEx Field,
in Landover, Md., seats more than 90,000 people. ''There's a
flight path that runs right by it and it's just right out there in
the middle of an open area, crimson and gold, just the perfect
target."

Perhaps the most rational approach to eliminate the "threat" this
scenario may pose would be to ban large public gatherings for the
remainder of the existence of the USA. And perhaps the think-tank
members who dreamt up these scenarios and provided them to the media
for publication should be held culpable in the event that one is
carried out.

Bob Noel wrote:
Other than being spectacular, the use of a small
aircraft would be stupid.

I agree, but "spectacular" is the main criterion for terrorist actions.

Pick a mission/objective that you think
a small aircraft could accomplish, and I'll find a cheaper, faster,
easier way to accomplish the same objective without using a small
aircraft, with the added bonus that the terrorist would likely
survive
to attempt more evil.

Efficiency and effectiveness (in terms of numbers of casualties) aren't
usually terrorist objectives, especially at the expense of being
spectacular. Surviving the attack is seen as a negative outcome.

In article , "Brien K. Meehan"
wrote:

Other than being spectacular, the use of a small
aircraft would be stupid.

I agree, but "spectacular" is the main criterion for terrorist actions.

That depends on the terrorist's objective.

It is my understanding that some organizations are more interested
in spectacular than actual damage. However, other organizations want
to inflict damage. Do you have information to the contrary?

Pick a mission/objective that you think
a small aircraft could accomplish, and I'll find a cheaper, faster,
easier way to accomplish the same objective without using a small
aircraft, with the added bonus that the terrorist would likely
survive
to attempt more evil.

Efficiency and effectiveness (in terms of numbers of casualties) aren't
usually terrorist objectives, especially at the expense of being
spectacular. Surviving the attack is seen as a negative outcome.


based on what information?

btw - using a small aircraft isn't even particularly spectacular.

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

Bob Noel wrote:
It is my understanding that some organizations are more interested
in spectacular than actual damage. However, other organizations want
to inflict damage.

What organizations?

Do you have information to the contrary?

Decades of observation.

Efficiency and effectiveness (in terms of numbers of casualties)
aren't
usually terrorist objectives, especially at the expense of being
spectacular. Surviving the attack is seen as a negative outcome.

based on what information?

Decades of observation, and general knowledge of middle-eastern
terrorist groups' teachings and statements, which include the premise
that successful suicide missions guarantee blissful eternal afterlife.
Survival is failure. Everyone knows this.

Do you have information to the contrary?

btw - using a small aircraft isn't even particularly spectacular.

Driving a plane into something will ALWAYS be more spectacular than
driving a car or truck into something, even if it is less effective.