GA headed for regulatory trouble

How about returning things to normal, and NOT allowing the relatively
small number of terrorists in this world dictate how we live our lives?


If only it were so easy.

How is it "not so easy"?

It would require a major political and social sea change, on the same order
as what happened after 9/11.

I don't think we'll see that (a sudden, utter and complete change in the
social contract) happen again, maybe ever?

What we will see, hopefully, is a gradual realization that things *are* back
to normal, and that we can drop a lot of the goofier parts of our
"heightened security." Unfortunately, that happens with almost glacial
slowness, and can be instantly and irretrievably reversed at the next
terrorist threat.

:-(
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
What we will see, hopefully, is a gradual realization that things *are* back
to normal, snip

Things are certainly NOT back to normal for me (and a lot of other people
in the Mid-Atlantic states).



--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.OceanCityAirport.com
http://www.oc-Adolfos.com

What we will see, hopefully, is a gradual realization that things *are*
back
to normal, snip

Things are certainly NOT back to normal for me (and a lot of other people
in the Mid-Atlantic states).

I know that, Jay. I was referring to things being back to normal in "the
real world" outside of our rarefied little aviation world.

If things stay calm, there are no more terrorist attacks, and stupid pilots
stop busting TFRs and ADIZ's for any length of time, the general public will
gradually come to the realization that things are "back to normal" -- and
the politicians will soon follow.

Only then will we see some of the dumber parts of our security
"preparedness" eliminated or reduced.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"How many of them, what did they look like, which way did they go? I must
follow them, for I am their leader."

(Sign on JFK's desk in the Oval Office.)

Jim



, the general public will
gradually come to the realization that things are "back to normal" -- and
the politicians will soon follow.

It would require a major political and social sea change, on the same order
as what happened after 9/11.

Yes. We are now ruled by the terrorists. And before you object, note
that your response was to that very statement a few messages up thread.

More exactly, we are ruled by fear, and our government is using this
fear against us. Not against the terrorists, but against us law-abiding
citizens of the United States, a nation that supposes itself to be free.

I don't think we'll see that (a sudden, utter and complete change in the
social contract) happen again, maybe ever?

Then you have little faith in the Constitution, which is the wedge we
have against Washington that helps us keep what freedoms we deem important.

What we will see, hopefully, is a gradual realization that things *are*
back to normal, and that we can drop a lot of the goofier parts of our
"heightened security."

We are not back to normal here on the East Coast, but at least you
recognize that this is because of our lawmakers, not because of the
terrorists. But since you don't have to live with the ADIZ all the
time, it seems to have much less importance to you.

I agree with your statement "it's not so easy" to the extent that you
mean "it's not easy to accomplish because of all the political pressures
to keep us in fear...". However, I strongly disagree with that =same=
statement ("It's not so easy") if it is taken to mean "...because there
will be significant adverse consequences if we do".

In the former case, the implication is "...therefore we need to work
hard to accopmlish it" but in the later case the implication is
"...therefore we shouldn't do it".

That's why I reacted.

Jose
--
You may not get what you pay for, but you sure as hell pay for what you get.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Well, VORs are about as modern as a '47 LaSalle Coupe

(googling '47 LaSalle Coupe)... you mean, it's one of those horseless
carriage things?? Sheesh, what'll they think of next!

Jose
--
You may not get what you pay for, but you sure as hell pay for what you get.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

("Jon Woellhaf" wrote)
I don't think F-16 are necessary. The Phalanx guns I imagine to be
strategically placed around the White House and Pentagon should be quite
effective against a King Air.


Read the Product Warning Label: Not recommended for use in urban areas.

Otherwise, it's a great weapon system for a carrier task force out at sea.

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/.../wep-phal.html

http://www.colosseumbuilders.com/john/nj/phalanx.htm
(Up close photos)


Montblack
http://www.montysminiguns.com/RealityPage.htm
(What the heck, while we're at it .... fun site)

"Montblack" wrote in message
...
("Jon Woellhaf" wrote)
I don't think F-16 are necessary. The Phalanx guns I imagine to be
strategically placed around the White House and Pentagon should be quite
effective against a King Air.


Read the Product Warning Label: Not recommended for use in urban areas.

Otherwise, it's a great weapon system for a carrier task force out at sea.

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/.../wep-phal.html

http://www.colosseumbuilders.com/john/nj/phalanx.htm
(Up close photos)


Montblack
http://www.montysminiguns.com/RealityPage.htm
(What the heck, while we're at it .... fun site)

The CIWS is amazingly agile for its size.

Spent a week at Norfolk back in the late '80s shooting video for RCA while
the Navy replaced the starboard/forward Aegis radar plate on the CG-47 (USS
Ticonderoga.)

Each morning, they would run the CIWS mounts through a diagnostic routine
that looked a lot like a mechanical form of "jazzercize." Just spinning up
the barrells, it was LOUD!

Don't know what the official numbers are, but I'd bet it can rotate and
elevate at rates exceeding 90 degrees a second and at 4500 rounds/min, they
can throw out a lot of lead (er, depleted uranium.)

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:J8Sye.138516$xm3.101979@attbi_s21...
In fact, be careful what you wish for. If you guys keep clamoring about
how
"ineffective" this ADIZ is, the Feds just might clamp down a "No-Fly
Zone"
over Washington once again.
THAT would be far more effective against terrorist attack from the air,
don't you think?

Perhaps. But the public and corporate outrage over such a No-Fly
Zone would prevent it from being implemented.

Which is PRECISELY why we now have the "ineffective" ADIZ. I'm sure at
the deepest level of government security -- probably the Secret Service --
they were clamoring for a permanent No-Fly Zone around D.C. after 9/11.
When this proved to be politically impossible, they "settled" for the
ADIZ.

But -- mark my words -- all it will take is ONE successful attack using a
GA plane, and there WILL be a "No Fly Zone" around D.C.

Which is why ALL of us have to be vigilant around our local airports, by
the way. All it will take is one of these nut-case shoe-bombers to fly a
stolen Cherokee Six loaded with fill-in-the-blank into
fill-in-the-blank, and we'll all be recalling the ADIZ fondly.

Think it can't happen here?
--


Then democracy has a problem, and cannot be the wonderful institution that
we claim it to be... since we claim a need to suspend its freedoms.

The destruction of any icon of democracy will not destroy democracy, nor
will the preservation of any icon ensure democracy...... especially if the
means of preservation is specifically at the expense of democratic
principles.

Democracy does not need icons... icons are the trappings of Kings: Palaces
that symbolized protection of its peasants, but also came to symbolize the
oppression of the masses.

Have we forgotten that democracy is of the people, by the people, for the
people ,... the *people*.... not *by* any particular icon, and not *for*
any particular icon.

The *people* of a Democratic America can withstand much worse than a psycho
doing damage to an icon, or even 20 psychos doing damage to any number of
icons.

If they give themselves half a chance.

"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of
zeal,
well meaning but without understanding."
- Justice Louis Brandeis (1928)

--
*** A great civilization is not conquered from without until it
has destroyed itself from within. ***
- Ariel Durant 1898-1981

"Icebound" wrote in message
...
[...]
The *people* of a Democratic America can withstand much worse than a
psycho doing damage to an icon, or even 20 psychos doing damage to any
number of icons.

If they give themselves half a chance.

Thank you. I'm doing my best to stay out of the off-topic threads, but your
post deserves special recognition for its truthfulness and insight.

Pete