TSA has a fan

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:iJ7ed.229500$wV.153455@attbi_s54...
"G Farris" wrote in message
...
The
regrettable incident in Florida, too soon after 9/11, proved to the
public
that security lapses can exist in General Aviation,

There was no security lapse in that incident. A student was allowed to
pre-flight an airplane unescorted, shortly before the student was to be
signed off to solo anyway. Preventing such access would have been
completely
pointless. Even under some of the more draconian new restrictions (at BED
now, we need to undergo a fingerprint background check in order to have
unescorted access to the ramp), that student would still have had the
same
access privileges!

Well, let's drive the nail home, shall we? Even if fully implemented, the
new TSA rule would have had no effect on this incident. Unless maybe he
didn't have a birth certificate.

-- David Brooks
Believe!!!!!

"G Farris" wrote in message
...
I do believe that in the times we live in, it is reasonable to expect a
few
new rules, and in fact we should desire to participate in new rulemaking.

Your beliefs are ill-placed. None of the new rules are making us safer, and
the old rules failed to do so not because the rules themselves were
insufficient, but rather because those in charge of implementing them failed
to do so.

If and when the government is availing themselves of *existing* rules, and
if and when those rules prove insufficient, then we can talk about what new
rules to create. But not until then, and when we do, only rules that
actually create a net benefit should be considered.

Not every new rule will make sense to everyone in every case,

Why is it so wrong to expect new rules to make sense? And remember, these
new rules haven't been cases of a new rule not making sense to everyone.
They are examples of new rules not making sense to practically anyone who
has actually taken the time to be educated about the issues (you can fool
lots of ignorant people into thinking the rule makes sense, but those people
are not worthy of consideration).

but then the old ones sometimes didn't either.

Past failure is an excuse for future failure?

I suppose when a building or bridge collapses due to an engineering failure,
we should just say "well, that's the way it goes...let's build the new one
just like we built the old one".

Was I unclear about the fact that I was mocking this particular rule, as
inappropriate? Or is it the word "moderation" or the concept that you find
offensive?

I find your docile willingness to agree to whatever ridiculous government
rulemaking it cares to pursue offensive.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:

Why is it so wrong to expect new rules to make sense? And remember, these
new rules haven't been cases of a new rule not making sense to everyone.

I think that most rules make sense if you understand the true purpose of the rule.
European governments (especially Britain) have been complaining for years about the
fact that American flight schools are much cheaper than European ones. I think that
this particular rule is an attempt to placate foreign governments by making it more
difficult for their citizens to train over here. I agree that it doesn't make sense
as a security measure.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

In article ,
says...

If and when the government is availing themselves of *existing* rules, and
if and when those rules prove insufficient, then we can talk about what new
rules to create. But not until then, and when we do, only rules that
actually create a net benefit should be considered.

I don't know what you do for a living, but I know
you're not a legislator!!



Not every new rule will make sense to everyone in every case,

Why is it so wrong to expect new rules to make sense?


OK - and well said.



I find your docile willingness to agree to whatever ridiculous government
rulemaking it cares to pursue offensive.


And yet I don't propose to accept everything that comes down the pipeline. I
find the fingerprinting rule ridiculous - Barbie and Ken security measures,
and I thought I said so. I just think it's better to meet them head on, and
try to propose better rules. I see it as an aggressive stance, more than the
"take it lying down" attitude you read. What scares me most though is the sort
of "above the law" "these are our rights" attitude. "This is the way it was
when Pa showed me my first aeroplane, so this is how it's gonna be". To me
that's a loser's argument, and unfortunately I encounter it too often in these
groups (though not suggesting this is what I read in your posts).

G Faris

"John Harlow" wrote in message ...
David Brooks wrote:
I just thought I'd bring it to the group's attention that
"Pam.Scott", of Aviation Institute (but also, apparently, "UNO
Library") has made some *very* good points. Perhaps everyone else
should calm down and pay attention:

http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf90/301045_web.pdf


But something has to be done!

"... with the good intention of deterring more hijackers and
terrorists from trying to take over another plane. Something has to be
done, so if not this rule, what then?"

This is a classic example of the pointless, hysterical attitudes
that are all to common today. It assumes that the regulation would
actually deter a hijacking terrorist from taking over a plane. If she
took a moment to put herself in the place of a hijacking terrorist, it
would be obvious that this rule wouldn't do a thing to deter him.

The last sentence is the kicker. Do something! However ineffective
or burdensome it is. She's an idiot.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...
I think that most rules make sense if you understand the true
purpose of the rule.

I didn't think it necessary to qualify "make sense" to mean "make sense for
the purpose being claimed by the rule makers".

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Peter Duniho wrote:

Why is it so wrong to expect new rules to make sense? And remember,
these
new rules haven't been cases of a new rule not making sense to everyone.

I think that most rules make sense if you understand the true purpose of
the rule.
European governments (especially Britain) have been complaining for years
about the
fact that American flight schools are much cheaper than European ones. I
think that
this particular rule is an attempt to placate foreign governments by
making it more
difficult for their citizens to train over here. I agree that it doesn't
make sense
as a security measure.

I wish our flight schools had that degree of power. If they had they would
be better off getting the price of AVGAS down to $3 a gallon instead of the
$7.50 it currently is.

That would solve the cost issue at a stroke and no stupid rules either.

Peter Duniho wrote:

Not every new rule will make sense to everyone in every case,

Why is it so wrong to expect new rules to make sense?

Turn this around, too. Adding rules has a cost. Implementing rules has a
cost. If the new rules make no sense - or don't help address the problem -
then they take away value that might be spent on something that does work.
Value spent on bad rules is time not spent on effective rules.

In other words, ineffective rules decrease security.

- Andrew

Peter Duniho wrote:

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...
I think that most rules make sense if you understand the true
purpose of the rule.

I didn't think it necessary to qualify "make sense" to mean "make sense for
the purpose being claimed by the rule makers".

You have a bad tendency to take any comment as a statement that you did something
wrong. You really ought to work on that.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...
You have a bad tendency to take any comment as a statement that you did
something
wrong. You really ought to work on that.

Really? I'm so fortunate to have someone like you looking out for me, to
tell me what I ought to "work on".

As far as this example goes, well let's see. I posted that I don't think
it's wrong to expect new rules to make sense. You replied *to my post*, not
to any other one, saying that most new rules DO make sense, when the clear
implication of my post was that I felt many (or even most) new rules do not
make sense.

How am I not supposed to take that as a direct contradiction of my own post?

And of course, your most recent post, to which I'm replying now, is also a
clear example of a statement that I "did something wrong".

Seems to me that it would be just as useful, if not more so, for you to take
a moment to consider what your statements mean in context, rather than being
surprised when someone takes them as criticism or disagreement.

Pete