TSA has a fan

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 14:47:21 GMT, Jose
wrote in : :

The difference between an aircraft used as a delivery method and an
automobile is the aircraft's ability to easily circumvent the traffic
barricades that have been erected since the Oklahoma bombing.

... but its payload carrying capacity is quite limited.

The published useful load of my PA28-235 was 1,400 lbs. I have read
reports, that 200 lbs of explosive is being used by car bombers in
Iraq with results of ~25 deaths. 7 X 25 = 175 if the aircraft is not
overloaded. If no physical barrier to entry (or SAM) existed, a
target could be selected to increase that number substantially. The
use of light aircraft to collapse tall buildings however, would be
considerably ineffective compared to a fuel laden airliner, in my
opinion.

Little good to circumbent [sic] the traffic barricades to deliver a firecracker.

What sort of math did you use to arrive at the conclusion that a light
aircraft is incapable of carrying enough explosive to kill a lot of
innocent folks? How much did McVie's fertilizer and kerosene weigh?

OTOH, a truck and a catapult could do the trick just as well.
Why not be proactive and ban catapults. (and dogapults too while we're at it.

The TSA is not 'banning' aircraft nor airman. They are
bureaucratically executing the mandate handed to them by the current
administration. Unfortunately, they appear to not be educated enough
in the arcana to produce a meaningful product.

It is up to us airmen to assist the TSA in getting it right. They
would probably welcome the input. We would be seen as policing our
own ranks. And not only would we get fairer regulations, something
useful might actually be created.

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


David Brooks wrote:

I've heard the "small plane carrying big bomb" argument before, and heard
that it would be difficult to arrrange for it to detonate at the right
moment. Are there any explosives experts out there can comment?

From what I've read, the problem is to build a detonator that's delicate
enough to
trigger the device while still being tough enough to take the impact and
being stable
enough to avoid a premature explosion. The U.S. had tremendous problems
with this
sort of thing in their torpedo designs early in WW II, and those things
only traveled
about 40 knots. As an accidental aviation link, the Navy began replacing
certain
parts in the detonators with similar parts machined out of old aircraft
propellors.
The metal from the props was tough enough to do the job without deforming.

Of course, if you go back to the old-fashioned stuff like
mercury-fulminate
detonators, the shock will set them off.

For heavens sake the terrorists have detonators that can with stand shocks,
what do you think the streets of Baghdad like, some as silk like I 90 out in
Minnesota. No they rough full of potholes.

Give me moderate turbulence over Baghdad streets anyday

"Jose" wrote in message
om...
The difference between an aircraft used as a delivery method and an
automobile is the aircraft's ability to easily circumvent the traffic
barricades that have been erected since the Oklahoma bombing.

... but its payload carrying capacity is quite limited. Little good to
circumbent the traffic barricades to deliver a firecracker.

OTOH, a truck and a catapult could do the trick just as well. Why not be
proactive and ban catapults. (and dogapults too while we're at it.

You guys all have big dick syndrome LOL.

In an exercise like this, its not a question of the size of the bang, but
what you bang. The terrorist is out to cause terror. He does not need to
make things go bang any more just threaten to make things go bang.

Leave the gutless politicians to do the rest of the damage.

The published useful load of my PA28-235 was 1,400 lbs. I have read
reports, that 200 lbs of explosive is being used by car bombers in
Iraq with results of ~25 deaths. 7 X 25 = 175 if the aircraft is not
overloaded.

I doubt the math scales that way. First, the "useful load" includes pilot and fuel Although you probably don't need all that much fuel if you stage your attack from nearby. Second, the number of deaths is probably not strictly proportional to the
number of pounds of explosive. I don't know what the conditions of the Iraq car bomb targets are or how they compare to targets likely to be chosen here.

As for the 200 lb figure, accepted as true, I might reasonably ask =why= "only" 200 lbs were used. Perhaps the cost or difficulty of obtaining more? (more is better, no?). Given this, the ease of procuring and driving a car, vs. the comparitive
difficulty of procuring and flying an airplane, would lead me to belive that car bombs should be more common than light airplane bombs, and we should pay more attention to cars being loaded with explosives than we should light planes. It is
certainly possible to cause death and damage with planes, but I don't think it's all that cost effective to terrorists.

Actually, now all a terrorist has to do is run naked through airline security the wrong way (from the exit). The whole terminal is likely to be shut down while the security breach is fixed and passengers rescreened. Have 100 people do this in a
coordinated way and air travel will be so muddled up the country will suffer a far bigger economic hit than any car bomb would produce.

When your house is made of straw, a bigger padlock doesn't really increase security.

The TSA is not 'banning' aircraft nor airman. They are
bureaucratically executing the mandate handed to them by the current
administration. Unfortunately, they appear to not be educated enough
in the arcana to produce a meaningful product.

The TSA is successfully banning licensed aircraft and licensed airmen from flying safely near certain places and events. They are however not banning terrorists from doing the same thing. I'm beginning to wonder who the target is.

(from chris, AKA spam at spamtrap dot net)
In an exercise like this, its not a question of the size of the bang, but
what you bang. The terrorist is out to cause terror. He does not need to
make things go bang any more just threaten to make things go bang.

Well, bigger is better though if you are going to do it at all. We didn't really pay much attention until the Big Bang. And coordinated is really better.

Jose
--
for Email, make the obvious change in the address

The TSA is successfully banning licensed aircraft and
licensed airmen from flying safely near certain places and events.
They are however not banning terrorists from doing the same thing.
I'm beginning to wonder who the target is.

Editing glitch. I meant that they are not banning terrorists from flying near those same places and events and detonating explosives or crashing... the "safely flying" above was added after the sentence was structured.

As customer service always says, "we're sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused".

Jose
--
for Email, make the obvious change in the address

Chris wrote:

For heavens sake the terrorists have detonators that can with stand shocks,
what do you think the streets of Baghdad like, some as silk like I 90 out in
Minnesota. No they rough full of potholes.

You have to have something that will function while or after being subjected to the
shock of decelerating from 100 mph or more to 0 in the space of a few feet. Something
like an ELT trigger, perhaps. What's the failure rate on those things again? A simple
"dead man" switch might be most reliable, and I'd guess that's probably what many of
these car bombers use.

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

"Chris" wrote in message ...
"Jose" wrote in message
om...
The difference between an aircraft used as a delivery method and an
automobile is the aircraft's ability to easily circumvent the traffic
barricades that have been erected since the Oklahoma bombing.

... but its payload carrying capacity is quite limited. Little good to
circumbent the traffic barricades to deliver a firecracker.

OTOH, a truck and a catapult could do the trick just as well. Why not be
proactive and ban catapults. (and dogapults too while we're at it.

You guys all have big dick syndrome LOL.

In an exercise like this, its not a question of the size of the bang, but
what you bang. The terrorist is out to cause terror. He does not need to
make things go bang any more just threaten to make things go bang.

Leave the gutless politicians to do the rest of the damage.

Chris hits the nail on the head! Put yourself in a terrorists
shoes. Are you going to go to the trouble of rigging an explosive
laden light airplane to hit a ground restricted target, or are you
going to load up a Ryder truck with 5,000 lbs. of diesel and
fertilizer (a la McVeigh) and take down an unprotected building? I'd
say that there are more high profile targets that have not been
hardened against ground attack than those that have been.

As Chris said, the politicians (and the hysterical general public)
will do the rest.

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

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 02:53:35 GMT, Jose
wrote in : :

The published useful load of my PA28-235 was 1,400 lbs. I have read
reports, that 200 lbs of explosive is being used by car bombers in
Iraq with results of ~25 deaths. 7 X 25 = 175 if the aircraft is not
overloaded.

I doubt the math scales that way.

Agreed. But the math provides at least an inkling of what can be
expected unlike your "firecracker" analogy.

First, the "useful load" includes pilot and fuel Although you probably
don't need all that much fuel if you stage your attack from nearby.

By what percentage do you think you could exceed the useful load of a
light aircraft and still have it flyable?

Second, the number of deaths is probably not strictly proportional to the
number of pounds of explosive.

That may be true if one fails to consider the population density in
which it is detonated.

I don't know what the conditions of the Iraq car bomb targets are or
how they compare to targets likely to be chosen here.

Neither do I, but it does introduce at least some quantified data into
the discussion.

As for the 200 lb figure, accepted as true, I might reasonably ask =why=
"only" 200 lbs were used. Perhaps the cost or difficulty of obtaining more?
(more is better, no?). Given this, the ease of procuring and driving a car,
vs. the comparitive difficulty of procuring and flying an airplane, would
lead me to belive that car bombs should be more common than light airplane
bombs, and we should pay more attention to cars being loaded with explosives
than we should light planes. It is certainly possible to cause death and
damage with planes, but I don't think it's all that cost effective to terrorists.

You lack imagination. Attempting to divert the discussion to
automobiles is a rhetorical tactic that fails to support your
"firecracker" analogy.

Actually, now all a terrorist has to do is run naked through airline security
the wrong way (from the exit). The whole terminal is likely to be shut down
while the security breach is fixed and passengers rescreened. Have 100 people
do this in a coordinated way and air travel will be so muddled up the country
will suffer a far bigger economic hit than any car bomb would produce.

Ummm... I retract my comment regarding your imagination. :-)

When your house is made of straw, a bigger padlock doesn't really increase security.

True. But a bit irrelevant to the discussion of the potential use of
light aircraft by terrorists.

The TSA is not 'banning' aircraft nor airman. They are
bureaucratically executing the mandate handed to them by the current
administration. Unfortunately, they appear to not be educated enough
in the arcana to produce a meaningful product.

The TSA is successfully banning licensed aircraft and licensed airmen
from flying safely near certain places and events. They are however
not banning terrorists from doing the same thing.

The TSA is not turning lead to gold either, for both are impossible.

Agreed. The TSA ban you mention above is a feeble attempt to sterilize
the airspace in the vicinity of such events. But they've got to do
something to justify the billions of dollars in their budget. :-( I
don't see the TSA's regulations as being very useful with regard to
light aircraft any more than you do, but with the news media whipping
up anti GA hysteria daily, they must unfortunately feel compelled to
regulate something even if it's ineffective.

I'm beginning to wonder who the target is.

It's far easier for the TSA to affect legitimate operations than
elusive terrorists. If they restricted their regulations solely to
terrorists, they wouldn't promulgate any regulations at all. Then how
would they justify the cost of their existence? :-(

Agreed. [that the math doesn't scale this way] But the math
provides at least an inkling of what can be
expected unlike your "firecracker" analogy.

My analogy was intended as illustration, not proof. The math does not scale the way you purport so arguments based on it doing so are irrelevant.

To solve a problem, first the problem needs to be identified. I think we are identifying two different problems as if they are the same. Second, the goal needs to be agreed upon. I don't think we are talking about the same goal. Only then can the
course of action be evaluated. Instead, what is happening is that a course of action is taken. Based on this action, a goal is identified, and then that goal is made to look like it relates to something people might consider to be a problem.

The goal should be to stop terrorists from causing terror, especially by death and destruction, without handing over the very freedoms that make this country worth living in in the first place. To this end, my "diverting the discussion to
automobiles" is not a rhetorical tactic, but a way of pointing out the mismatch of goals. Restrictions on general aviation have very little impact on the ability of terrorists to cause terror. Threrefore it does not accomplish that goal. However,
it does accomplish the goal of restricting general aviation (which is the wrong goal in the first place).

When your house is made of straw, a bigger padlock doesn't really increase security. You said this is irrelevant; I say it is a perfect illustration of what I mean. If it is easy to come in through the window, a lock on the door (even if it had no
lock to begin with) does little good. If it is easy to cause terror with car bombs, it makes little sense to put a bigger lock on general aviation. It won't increase our security. The muscle needs to be put where it will do good while doing no (or
little enough) parasitic harm. General aviation is not such a place.

You even seem to agree with me:

The TSA ban you mention above is a feeble attempt to sterilize
the airspace in the vicinity of such events. But they've got to do
something to justify the billions of dollars in their budget. :-(

So I'm unsure what your point really is. What would you recommend? Or, more to the point,
1: What is the problem?
- 1a: Is it solvable? If so...
2: What is the goal of your solution? and then...
3: What is your proposed course of action?

Jose
--
for Email, make the obvious change in the address

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 00:01:24 GMT, Jose
wrote in ::

Agreed. [that the math doesn't scale this way] But the math
provides at least an inkling of what can be
expected unlike your "firecracker" analogy.

My analogy was intended as illustration, not proof.

It was inaccurate by several orders of magnitude.

The math does
not scale the way you purport so arguments based on it doing so are irrelevant.

Until you knew how much explosive was used in car bombs, you had no
idea how much was necessary for terrorist use. Now you have some
reference point to provide an approximation of the effects that can be
expected. That is why I introduced that quantified data point. If it
is correct, I think you'll agree that most GA aircraft are capable of
carrying enough explosive to be as effective as a car bomb many times
over. Personally, I don't see car bombs as being in the same class as
firecrackers.

To solve a problem, first the problem needs to be identified.
I think we are identifying two different problems as if they are
the same. Second, the goal needs to be agreed upon. I don't
think we are talking about the same goal. Only then can the
course of action be evaluated. Instead, what is happening is
that a course of action is taken. Based on this action, a goal
is identified, and then that goal is made to look like it relates
to something people might consider to be a problem.

Perhaps. But you and I are not privy the rationale used by the TSA in
reaching the decisions they have, so we are left to deduce them. This
deductive reasoning can easily be flawed, so it is not possible for us
to accurately evaluate the TSA's actions. So we guess...

The goal should be to stop terrorists from causing terror,
especially by death and destruction, without handing over
the very freedoms that make this country worth living in
in the first place.

That sounds about right.

To this end, my "diverting the discussion
to automobiles" is not a rhetorical tactic, but a way of pointing
out the mismatch of goals.

It appeared to be an attempt to justify removing GA security
regulations based on the existence of possibly more attractive
terrorist delivery means. Pointing the finger at automobiles/trucks
diverts attention from GA.

It is known that the 9/11 terrorists took flying lessons from
government regulated instructors in this country for the purpose of
inflicting terror. The TSA has apparently been charged with the task
of seeing that doesn't occur again. The solution they have
implemented is the best of which they are capable. It is flawed,
inadequate to achieve its goal, and a typical example of bureaucratic
incompetence. So if we airmen feel it is too restrictive and
ineffective, it would behoove us to provide improved solutions (self
regulation), or shut up. Complaining about TSA regulations without
offering better alternatives isn't going to help the TSA achieve their
goals nor lessen their impact on the pilot community, in my opinion.

Restrictions on general aviation have
very little impact on the ability of terrorists to cause terror.
Threrefore it does not accomplish that goal.

That premise may or may not be true. By what logic did you arrive at
it?

However,
it does accomplish the goal of restricting general aviation
(which is the wrong goal in the first place).

All regulations are restrictive unless they are being removed. But
regulatory power is the only tool the TSA has at its disposal.

The news media (probably at the instigation of the airlines) have
whipped public hysteria about the seemingly unfair lack of security
regulations applied to GA operations. The TSA is charged with
aviation security, but the funds are not available to put federal
baggage screeners at every airport in this country, so fortunately the
TSA is unable to require such an inane practice. But they can
publicly appear to be doing SOMETHING to curtail GA being used by
terrorists: screen aviation training applicants. It's all about
APPEARANCES, not effective security measures apparently.

When your house is made of straw, a bigger padlock doesn't really
increase security. You said this is irrelevant; I say it is a
perfect illustration of what I mean. If it is easy to come in
through the window, a lock on the door (even if it had no
lock to begin with) does little good.

As you stated, it depends on the intended goal. If the goal is to be
PERCEIVED by the lay public as taking action against terrorists,
registering flight training applicants is a relatively benign and
readily accomplished ploy. If the goal is to actually accomplish
increased security against terrorism by restricting GA, nothing is
going to work. But that answer is unacceptable to the public and the
administration; and it doesn't provide a necessity for increased
government funding to feed the bureaucracy and stage 1/2 million
dollar TSA dinners.... If the goal is to harm GA to prevent it from
becoming more attractive than the airlines to business air travelers,
it's a first step.

If it is easy to cause
terror with car bombs, it makes little sense to put a bigger
lock on general aviation. It won't increase our security.
The muscle needs to be put where it will do good while doing no (or
little enough) parasitic harm. General aviation is not such a place.

You and I know that, but the lay public doesn't. They feel that
'something' must be done about the potential 'threat' posed by GA.
Perhaps you could write a biting essay that would expose the folly of
the TSA's regulation, that would EDUCATE the lay public about the
futility of attempting to impose security measures on GA operations.

You even seem to agree with me:

The TSA ban you mention above is a feeble attempt to sterilize
the airspace in the vicinity of such events. But they've got to do
something to justify the billions of dollars in their budget. :-(

I agree that imposing additional regulations, in the name of
increasing security, on GA operations will be ineffective.

I do not agree that GA aircraft would not be useful for terrorist
purposes. No airman wants to admit that publicly, but if we are to be
perceived as credible, we must be honest.

So I'm unsure what your point really is. What would you recommend?

I am not qualified to recommend security regulation. I have no
experience in that field.

Or, more to the point,
1: What is the problem?

The problem is the need to increase security against future terrorist
activities. The problem for the TSA is to be PERCEIVED as
accomplishing that goal.

- 1a: Is it solvable?

Not without destroying our freedoms and way of life, in my opinion.

If so...
2: What is the goal of your solution?

To implement only those regulations that are actually EFFECTIVE in
reducing terrorist threat without destroying our way of life.

and then...
3: What is your proposed course of action?

Personally, to chat about it on usenet. :-)

Theoretically, to weigh the assured benefit of proposed security
regulations against the inevitable restrictions they undesirably
impose, so that only those with sufficient merit and minimal harmful
impact are enacted. But I don't have the administration clamoring for
the impossible, and the new media snapping at my heals for a showing
of apparent benefits as a result of the public funding being expended
at TSA.