A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

ABC sticks it to GA security...



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 14th 05, 11:37 PM
Dave S
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ABC sticks it to GA security...

Just seen on Monday's World News Tonight...

Gaping holes!
Lax Security!

Nothing like some sensationalism without BALANCE..

Dave

Ads
  #4  
Old March 15th 05, 05:51 AM
cpu
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Did you hear what they said?

NBC: 1 Cessna + 200 lb of fertelizer = Oklahoma bombing.

ABC: 1 small plane + several lb of C4 = Serious destruction

Wow, serious stuff.... But it seems using a Honda Civic + the same
amount of bomb material will be much easier than using a GA plane.
Unless those targets that are un-accessible by cars, such as White
House. That's why we have ADIZ.

It is a tough issue to deal with.... Just like buying a virus
protection software. It will never protect you from the latest virus
attack, no mater how much money you spend, until someone become a
victim.

  #5  
Old March 15th 05, 02:02 PM
Icebound
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"cpu" wrote in message
oups.com...
Did you hear what they said?

NBC: 1 Cessna + 200 lb of fertelizer = Oklahoma bombing.



Really?

The Oklahoma bomb was described as a "massive truck bomb" in a rented Ryder
truck.
A quote:

The FBI also changed the size of the bomb numerous times. They originally
claimed that it weighed 1,200 pounds, upgraded that figure to 2,000 pounds,
then to 4,000 pounds, and finally, they issued a press release stating that
the bomb weighed 4800 pounds.

:unquote

There is also some evidence that if was something much more than just
fertilizer and fuel, because similar large fertilizer and fuel bombs had
done much less damage in the past.... but then you can read the conspiracy
theories all over the internet for yourselves.




  #6  
Old March 15th 05, 02:27 PM
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 14 Mar 2005 21:51:36 -0800, "cpu" wrote in
.com::

Did you hear what they said?

NBC: 1 Cessna + 200 lb of fertelizer = Oklahoma bombing.


Doesn't that estimate overlook 55 gallon drums of diesel fuel?


ABC: 1 small plane + several lb of C4 = Serious destruction


I would imagine several pounds of C4 or any of several other
explosives could be as easily deployed by many many other means as by
light aircraft. What is the principal difference between those other
means and singling out light aircraft?

Wow, serious stuff....


I can't believe the TSA & FBI originated those numbers.

But it seems using a Honda Civic + the same amount of bomb material
will be much easier than using a GA plane.


It smells like the airlines are behind this absurd GA alleged
insecurity pseudo issue. Perhaps it's time for the media to make a
distinction between heavily fuel laden biz-jets and four-place bug
smashes. Otherwise, the media hype' of this issue smacks of fear
mongering.

  #7  
Old March 15th 05, 02:53 PM
John T
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Larry Dighera wrote:

What is the principal difference between those other
means and singling out light aircraft?


Public ignorance. They're comfortable with trucks, but the vast majority of
them don't understand aviation. That makes it easy to convince them we're
nothing but spoiled rich brats playing with our expensive toys.

It also makes it easy to convince them that the threat of a small plane
carrying a ferti-diesel-lizer bomb is feasible.

It smells like the airlines are behind this absurd GA alleged
insecurity pseudo issue. Perhaps it's time for the media to make a
distinction between heavily fuel laden biz-jets and four-place bug
smashes.


I don't know whether the airlines are behind this. After all, what would
they have to gain? But it is easy to conjure any number of conspiracies
about who could have something to gain by scaring the public about aviation
security and those small planes, in particular. Bureaucratic
self-preservation is one, for instance.

Otherwise, the media hype' of this issue smacks of fear
mongering.


Of course it is.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________



  #8  
Old March 15th 05, 03:21 PM
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 09:53:41 -0500, "John T" wrote in
: :

I don't know whether the airlines are behind this. After all, what would
they have to gain?


Consider the fact that airline passengers must now submit to long
lines for degrading security inspections, wait for protracted periods
to meet airline schedules, and be treated like cattle. Contrast that
with the corporate or charter biz-jet GA experience. I would expect
airlines to fear loosing high paying business class customers to the
more flexible, more comfortable and less invasive GA fleet.
  #9  
Old March 15th 05, 03:57 PM
John T
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Larry Dighera wrote:

Consider the fact that airline passengers must now submit to long
lines for degrading security inspections, wait for protracted periods
to meet airline schedules, and be treated like cattle. Contrast that
with the corporate or charter biz-jet GA experience. I would expect
airlines to fear loosing high paying business class customers to the
more flexible, more comfortable and less invasive GA fleet.


Plausible, but I think unlikely, theory. I seriously doubt there has been a
very large movement of business travelers to charter/bizjets. Sure, there
are the corporate executives who can occasionally make the justification of
paying the still relatively exorbitant rates for private flights, but
economic pressures still make waiting in the cattle chutes more feasible for
the majority of business travelers.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________



  #10  
Old March 15th 05, 05:01 PM
Gary
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Actualy I believe the reason the Oklahoma bombing was soo destructive was
not so much the power of the bomb but rather a structural flaw in the design
of the building. The truck was parked under a ground level parkade and when
detonated actualy lifted part of the building and one of the main horizontal
supports was not connected to the rest of the structure. This main support
then fell inward from the force of the blast when the weight of the building
was no longer holding it in place. Once the pressure from the blast had
dissipated, the floors above, now without any support came crashing down. If
the main horizontal support had been fastend to the building the destruction
may not have been as severe!


However things like this and 9/11 bring on the fear mongering by (uneducated
or ignorant) john q public and our goverments hell bent on control. Which in
turn then takes away more of our rights and feedoms that our fore fathers
fought so hard to protect.

Flying is just plane fun and something I enjoy immensley. I really get bent
out of shape whenever someone starts shouting that the sky is falling and
the plane are full of terroists!

LOL. well that is my rant for today. Hope everyones day here is full of
clear skies and strong tail winds.

Gary


"Icebound" wrote in message
...

"cpu" wrote in message
oups.com...
Did you hear what they said?

NBC: 1 Cessna + 200 lb of fertelizer = Oklahoma bombing.



Really?

The Oklahoma bomb was described as a "massive truck bomb" in a rented

Ryder
truck.
A quote:

The FBI also changed the size of the bomb numerous times. They originally
claimed that it weighed 1,200 pounds, upgraded that figure to 2,000

pounds,
then to 4,000 pounds, and finally, they issued a press release stating

that
the bomb weighed 4800 pounds.

:unquote

There is also some evidence that if was something much more than just
fertilizer and fuel, because similar large fertilizer and fuel bombs had
done much less damage in the past.... but then you can read the conspiracy
theories all over the internet for yourselves.






 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pilots Group Grades U.S. Aviation Security an 'F' George Patterson Piloting 33 March 13th 05 12:58 PM
ramifications of new TSA rules on all non-US and US citizen pilots paul k. sanchez Piloting 19 September 27th 04 11:49 PM
ISRAELI LINK IN US TORTURE TECHNIQUES MORRIS434 Naval Aviation 0 May 12th 04 05:14 AM
TSA's General Aviation Airport Security Recommendations Might Become Requirements Larry Dighera Piloting 1 February 25th 04 05:11 PM
another "either you are with us ..." story Jeff Franks Piloting 2 December 31st 03 12:04 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.