If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
comments?
http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/qnd...get=URBANG.HTM excerpt: While passenger aircraft are now pretty secure, the same is not the case for commercial freighters and private aircraft. It is quite possible that a smaller aircraft, or long range transports from foreign nations, could be used for suicide attacks. This scenario has terrorists renting a small two engine aircraft (like the Piper Aztec or Cessna Businessliner) and flying off to any target within several hundred miles. These aircraft rent for about $250 an hour (with a 3-4 hour minimum). They have a cargo capacity of about half a ton, and that could be filled with explosives. This would give the terrorists the equivalent of an American cruise missile (which has a one ton warhead.) These aircraft have a maximum take off weight of about three tons and only carry about 500 pounds of fuel. Probably would not bring down a large skyscraper, but would do a lot of damage to the White House or most other government buildings in Washington. You can buy these aircraft second hand for $200-300,000. I hate stuff like this, but I think it's better to toss it out there and shine light on it than stick my head in the sand and pretend it isn't there. www.Rosspilot.com |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
You can also drive down a street shooting people at random and there is not
much anybody can do to stop you. Sure, it is possible to use small aircraft for a terrorist attack. The question is, what do you do about it? There is really not much of anything anyone can do to prevent it. Maybe the asteroid is coming, but I am not going to spend a lot of time worrying about it. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
This would be the typical answer from a GA pilot. For the vast majority of
non-pilots (which is reality), they have NOTHING to lose by shutting down GA. The benefits for them are clear -- elimination of another threat which they have no knowledge about. On the other hand, guns or other items which could be used to kill are owned by a large diverse group of people. Trying to ban those could be highly detrimental to a politicians career if not worse. For us, the answer is clear, as you have put it below, try to look at it from the other side of the chainlink fence. The AOPA and the few in government interested in aviation are the only people standing between us and the shutting down of GA as we know it. "C J Campbell" wrote in message ... You can also drive down a street shooting people at random and there is not much anybody can do to stop you. Sure, it is possible to use small aircraft for a terrorist attack. The question is, what do you do about it? There is really not much of anything anyone can do to prevent it. Maybe the asteroid is coming, but I am not going to spend a lot of time worrying about it. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"S Narayan" wrote in message ... | This would be the typical answer from a GA pilot. For the vast majority of | non-pilots (which is reality), they have NOTHING to lose by shutting down | GA. It would be more accurate to say that the general public does not know what they would lose by shutting down GA. If they shut down GA, most of the general public would have no idea why they have no jobs, why they can't get their mail, why their doctor or lawyer or CPA can no longer serve them, why their forests are burning down, why their seafood suddenly has become more valuable than gold in the few places it is still available, why children are suddenly dying of cancer, etc. The public would just blame it on bad handling of "the economy," whatever that is. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"C J Campbell" wrote in message ... "S Narayan" wrote in message ... | This would be the typical answer from a GA pilot. For the vast majority of | non-pilots (which is reality), they have NOTHING to lose by shutting down | GA. It would be more accurate to say that the general public does not know what they would lose by shutting down GA. If they shut down GA, most of the general public would have no idea why they have no jobs, why they can't get their mail, why their doctor or lawyer or CPA can no longer serve them, why their forests are burning down, why their seafood suddenly has become more valuable than gold in the few places it is still available, why children are suddenly dying of cancer, etc. The public would just blame it on bad handling of "the economy," whatever that is. "However, we cannot opt out of economic issues. Every citizen and every official they elect has an affect on the economy. Our only options are to be informed or uninformed when making our choices in the economy or in the voting booth. Unfortunately, those who are uninformed -- or, worse yet misinformed -- when it comes to economics include the intelligentsia, even when they have Ph.D.s in other fields. "Economics as a profession has some responsibility for this widespread lack of understanding. Highly sophisticated economic analysis can be found in courses on campuses where a majority of the students have no real understanding of something as elementary as supply and demand. "Even students taking introductory economics as their one and only course in the subject may get little that they can take with them out into the world as citizens and voters. Introductory economics is too often taught as if the students in it were all potential economists who had to be introduced to the standard graphs, equations and jargon that they will need in higher level courses or in the profession." -- Thomas Sowell, _Thoughts on the 'Dismal' Science_, December 26, 2003 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:48:52 -0800, "C J Campbell"
wrote: "S Narayan" wrote in message ... | This would be the typical answer from a GA pilot. For the vast majority of | non-pilots (which is reality), they have NOTHING to lose by shutting down | GA. It would be more accurate to say that the general public does not know what they would lose by shutting down GA. If they shut down GA, most of the general public would have no idea why they have no jobs, why they can't get their mail, why their doctor or lawyer or CPA can no longer serve them, why their forests are burning down, why their seafood suddenly has become more valuable than gold in the few places it is still available, why children are suddenly dying of cancer, etc. ....why it's no longer possible to get checks returned in the statement each month, why the rural economy in Alaska has collapsed, why the organ transplant system has fractured or been destroyed, why there is suddenly a shortage of pilots in the U.S... Rob |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Why UPS, DHL and FedEx will only deliver to areas close by the
major airports that can handle 737s & 757s. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"C J Campbell" wrote in message
... "S Narayan" wrote in message ... | This would be the typical answer from a GA pilot. For the vast majority of | non-pilots (which is reality), they have NOTHING to lose by shutting down | GA. It would be more accurate to say that the general public does not know what they would lose by shutting down GA. Agreed. If they shut down GA, most of the general public would have no idea why they have no jobs, why they can't get their mail, why their doctor or lawyer or CPA can no longer serve them, why their forests are burning down, why their seafood suddenly has become more valuable than gold in the few places it is still available, why children are suddenly dying of cancer, etc. The public would just blame it on bad handling of "the economy," whatever that is. Let's not forget crop dusters, aerial surveying, photography, pipeline patrolling etc.. So there goes the cheap, plentiful food from agriculture, more fires and less security. Less tourism to some of the more inaccessible locales. In addition, Alaska might as well be boarded up. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
S Narayan wrote:
Let's not forget crop dusters, aerial surveying, photography, pipeline patrolling etc.. So there goes the cheap, plentiful food from agriculture, more fires and less security. Less tourism to some of the more inaccessible locales. In addition, Alaska might as well be boarded up. Forget it. The average person wouldn't understand the consequences of shutting down oxygen. - Andrew |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
The truth is using a small aircraft for a terrorist act would be pretty
easy, cheap and effective. The other side of that is, of course, so what? As we all know, it is easy to rent a truck, strap explosives around one's body, bring guns into a school, etc. The issue is not the delivery mechanism. As has been said often, and again recently in this forum, we are becoming a cowering nation. I have no problem acting upon real and significant threats, but I hate the insidious use of the "war on terror" to shape public policy that infringes on rights and diseminates meaningless alerts, leading to "news " articles about simple acts like busting airspace and fashion changes to airport friendly shoes... Sometimes I feel like I must have been born at the luckiest time in US history. I spent my 20's and 30's after WWII, polio, smallpox, the depression... before AIDS, overcrowded cities, and now the war on terrorism. Michael "Rosspilot" wrote in message ... http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/qnd...get=URBANG.HTM excerpt: While passenger aircraft are now pretty secure, the same is not the case for commercial freighters and private aircraft. It is quite possible that a smaller aircraft, or long range transports from foreign nations, could be used for suicide attacks. This scenario has terrorists renting a small two engine aircraft (like the Piper Aztec or Cessna Businessliner) and flying off to any target within several hundred miles. These aircraft rent for about $250 an hour (with a 3-4 hour minimum). They have a cargo capacity of about half a ton, and that could be filled with explosives. This would give the terrorists the equivalent of an American cruise missile (which has a one ton warhead.) These aircraft have a maximum take off weight of about three tons and only carry about 500 pounds of fuel. Probably would not bring down a large skyscraper, but would do a lot of damage to the White House or most other government buildings in Washington. You can buy these aircraft second hand for $200-300,000. I hate stuff like this, but I think it's better to toss it out there and shine light on it than stick my head in the sand and pretend it isn't there. www.Rosspilot.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AIRNAV not publishing fuel prices... | Victor | Owning | 77 | February 22nd 04 12:02 AM |
ALEXIS PARK INN - comments please. | dlevy | Owning | 15 | January 23rd 04 04:54 PM |
ALEXIS PARK INN - comments please. | plumbus bobbus | Home Built | 0 | January 22nd 04 12:02 AM |
ALEXIS PARK INN - comments please. | plumbus bobbus | Instrument Flight Rules | 0 | January 22nd 04 12:02 AM |
Arming Global Hawk Draws Conflicting Comments From Pentagon | Larry Dighera | Military Aviation | 5 | July 14th 03 08:51 PM |