Security for Sailplane Pilots??

It's always bothered me that the public, and to some extent aviation
policy makers, have no clue as to the real meaning of "general
aviation", and it bothers me even more that soaring is lumped into
that group for the purposes of making policy.

And there's evidence of why this is a serious issue to our sport in
this month's Atlantic Monthly which starts off with a short article
entitled "Private Plane, Public Menace". This journal influences
thinkers and policymakers, so it shouldn't be ignored. See
http://tinyurl.com/359fgyu for the full article. The author has a
legitimate concern, and generally argues for a more rational approach
to airline passenger security, BUT the likely message people will take
away from the store is "we need to restrict all aircraft operations",
including LSAs, gliders, hang gliders, you name it.

Jim Kellett
Chairman, Virginia Soaring Association

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 06:49:28 -0800 (PST), Jim Kellett
wrote:

This journal influences
thinkers and policymakers, so it shouldn't be ignored. See
http://tinyurl.com/359fgyu for the full article. The author has a
legitimate concern, and generally argues for a more rational approach
to airline passenger security, BUT the likely message people will take
away from the store is "we need to restrict all aircraft operations",
including LSAs, gliders, hang gliders, you name it.


Write this guy a public letter and demand the same kind of security
checks that this guy is talking about for any truck driver before he
enters his truck.

Mention that any halfways decent-sized truck can carry twenty tons of
explosies.
Mention Oklahoma. Should be easy to get at least one Oklahoma survivor
(or someone who lost a beloved) who supports your point of view.


Then, demand these security checks for *any* car.
Very easy to add some statistics about terrorists killing thousands of
people each year using car bombs.
Very had to find *any* case for a light aircraft that has been used as
a weapon, because there has not been such a case yet.

Then ask this guy why alcohol and smoking are still allowed in God's
own country - how many tens of thousands of people are being killed
each year? Enough to characterize this stuff as weapons of mass
destruction?


Then, go to court.
Demand that the same security nonsense that is applied in aviation
should be applied to *anything* that might pose a risk.


Beat them with their own weapons.


Andreas

On Jan 11, 10:58*am, Andreas Maurer wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 06:49:28 -0800 (PST), Jim Kellett

wrote:
This journal influences
thinkers and policymakers, so it shouldn't be ignored. See
http://tinyurl.com/359fgyufor the full article. *The author has a
legitimate concern, and generally argues for a more rational approach
to airline passenger security, BUT the likely message people will take
away from the store is "we need to restrict all aircraft operations",
including LSAs, gliders, hang gliders, you name it.

Write this guy a public letter and demand the same kind of security
checks that this guy is talking about for any truck driver before he
enters his truck.

Mention that any halfways decent-sized truck can carry twenty tons of
explosies.
Mention Oklahoma. Should be easy to get at least one Oklahoma survivor
(or someone who lost a beloved) who supports your point of view.

Then, demand these security checks for *any* car.
Very easy to add some statistics about terrorists killing thousands of
people each year using car bombs.
Very had to find *any* case for a light aircraft that has been used as
a weapon, because there has not been such a case yet.

Then ask this guy why alcohol and smoking are still allowed in God's
own country - how many tens of thousands of people are being killed
each year? Enough to characterize this stuff as weapons of mass
destruction?

Then, go to court.
Demand that the same security nonsense that is applied in aviation
should be applied to *anything* that might pose a risk.

Beat them with their own weapons.

Andreas

Light planes actually have been used as suicide weapons, but match
sticks and arson cause more destruction and loss of life than light
planes with suicidal pilots.

What's really weird about this article is that Mr. Goldberg was
actually pretty good on Colbert (I saw it on youtube) -- he's the guy
that coined the term "security theater" to describe the complete
nonsense that now goes on daily at US airline terminals. Reading this
article makes me think he's more interested in simply stirring the pot
than bringing actual sense back to the fore.

It'd be really heartening to see some less paranoid people in
government office....

-Evan Ludeman / T8

On 1/11/2011 8:58 AM, Andreas Maurer wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 06:49:28 -0800 (PST), Jim Kellett
wrote:

This journal influences
thinkers and policymakers, so it shouldn't be ignored. See
http://tinyurl.com/359fgyu for the full article. The author has a
legitimate concern, and generally argues for a more rational approach
to airline passenger security, BUT the likely message people will take
away from the store is "we need to restrict all aircraft operations",
including LSAs, gliders, hang gliders, you name it.


Write this guy a public letter and demand the same kind of security
checks that this guy is talking about for any truck driver before he
enters his truck.

Mention that any halfways decent-sized truck can carry twenty tons of
explosies.
Mention Oklahoma. Should be easy to get at least one Oklahoma survivor
(or someone who lost a beloved) who supports your point of view.


Then, demand these security checks for *any* car.
Very easy to add some statistics about terrorists killing thousands of
people each year using car bombs.
Very had to find *any* case for a light aircraft that has been used as
a weapon, because there has not been such a case yet.

Then ask this guy why alcohol and smoking are still allowed in God's
own country - how many tens of thousands of people are being killed
each year? Enough to characterize this stuff as weapons of mass
destruction?


Then, go to court.
Demand that the same security nonsense that is applied in aviation
should be applied to *anything* that might pose a risk.


Beat them with their own weapons.


Andreas

"What Andreas said!" (Hey - if I didn't know better I might've thought he was
writing as a wild-eyed, radical (U.S. of A.-based), American!!!)

In any event, whether - opining now as a long-suffering U.S. of A.-based
American - we're discussing the heavy-handed nationally-affecting idiocies of
(for one example) our TSA, or the more locally-based idiocies of (say)
politically-active, freedom-devouring insanities of intolerant neighbors who
want to craft ==*their*== perfect world (which always seems to include only
their own opinions, of course), responding politely and meekly doesn't work -
no matter how badly we might wish or hope to be a good neighbor and avoid
avoidable conflict.

The only thing that - in my experience(s) - *has* worked to (sometimes
permanently, so far as I've seen) silence voices as this is to politely,
civilly, factually and bluntly 'call them' on their intolerance.

Using Boulder (Colorado's) municipally-owned airport as an example, since my
introduction to it (1976), the Soaring Society of Boulder (SSB) has
continuously operated from it, during which span there have been several
(often contentious, vociferous, and intolerance-based) attempts by a few
individuals to either force 'those noisy towplanes' permanently off the field,
or alternatively to close the field down entirely ("Kids, can you spell
'Hemet'?"). More than once, serious groundswells emerged within SSB expressing
fears the intolerant factions would 'win,' a point I mention here by way of
trying to convey how noisily adamant the 'public discussion' sometimes became.

So far, multiple-use sanity (not to mention 'legality') has prevailed. The
most recently (4-5 years? and city-)appointed/paid airport manager recognizes
the philosophical importance of 'playing by the (FAA--based, among other
hand-in-the-pot) rules' and has consistently used factually-based statistice
to counter 'intolerantly-based-whining' opposition to various uses of the airport.

(For example, simply by logging who complained to him by name and/or location,
he 'discovered' something like 95% of the noise complaints came from 2 or 3
people/locations in a recent year...and had the fair-mindedness to include the
stat in a quarterly [or so] based airport newsletter. Hardly the 'groundswell'
such whiners like to proclaim.)

During one of the more contentious periods, I happened to take a phone call at
the Club shack complaining about towplane noise. Figuring whomever I was
speaking with was: a) sufficiently motivated to b) (civilly) complain about
things, I got a sense 'for where they were coming from' and offered to get
back with them with additional background information they might find helpful
solidifying their opinions. Following the phone call, I spoke with the (now
deceased) soaring FBO & picked his brain a bit, knowing he fielded such calls
semi-routinely. Turned out he'd fielded at least one call from the same people
(and, understandably, was short on patience with them in particular, for
other, tale-lengthening reasons). In any event, I wrote these particular folks
a 3-page letter detailing: 1) why it was unlikely they had any legal case to
evict the soaring operations; 2) what the FBO/Club(s) had done operationally
over the years to reduce noise footprints while maintaining 'acceptable levels
of operational safety'; 3) noted that particular lemon couldn't be squeezed
with expectations of juice (though some years later the new 4-bladed Hoffman
prop for Pawnees was expensively/effectively adopted by all local Pawnee
operators); and 4) pointed out that as relatively new residents of the area
either they or their realtor had failed to do due diligence when it came to
identifying previously-/long-standing (and entirely societally-normal) noise
sources (e.g. the airport and a nearby/active railroad line). I closed by
thanking them for their concern, and for taking time to speak with the soaring
FBO and my Club about those concerns, expressed regret that all that
reasonably could be done had already been done, and wished them well in the
future.

Several months later, some discreet checking revealed these particular folks
had vanished from the ranks of the routine whiners.

So, (and while fully recognizing that there's no hope of being reasonable with
the unreasonable elements of society) IMHO salient points a 1) what's the
point in NOT immediately hauling out/firing your main guns once recognizing
you're in a 'war'? 2) the preponderance of society is at least partially
rationally based, so deal with issues rationally and as publicly as necessary;
and 3) don't hesitate to (politely) call spades spades (too often nuance is
lost on rabble-rousers and ['Hemet'] petty tyrants).

FWIW, the local political climate surrounding the Boulder airport has - for
almost the entire duration of the present airport manager - been
controversy-free. It's not because he or glider people have consistently
sought to be 'meek good neighbors,' but rather he/they have (when necessary)
applied the above 3 points.

End of opinionatory tale...

Bob W.

In article ,
Andreas Maurer wrote:

Then, go to court.
Demand that the same security nonsense that is applied in aviation
should be applied to *anything* that might pose a risk.


Beat them with their own weapons.

Just remember to be careful what you ask for, because you might get it.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

On 1-11-2011 15:58, Andreas Maurer wrote:



Then, go to court.
Demand that the same security nonsense that is applied in aviation
should be applied to *anything* that might pose a risk.


Beat them with their own weapons.


Andreas

Careful what you suggest. They may in fact try to do just that
(security checks for everything you do).

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 22:40:40 +0000, Scott
wrote:


Careful what you suggest. They may in fact try to do just that
(security checks for everything you do).

In 1776 the people on your side of the pond showed more enthusiasm
against government-dictated senseless rules...


Andreas

On 1-12-2011 16:31, Andreas Maurer wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 22:40:40 +0000,
wrote:


Careful what you suggest. They may in fact try to do just that
(security checks for everything you do).

In 1776 the people on your side of the pond showed more enthusiasm
against government-dictated senseless rules...


Andreas


Yes, but it seems that enthusiasm went out of vogue sometime in the 20th
century...