"Flying too High" by Steven Pomper

In article
outaviation.com,
"Skylune" (the Fig Plucker's son) plucked
a fig, wet his bed (yet again) and scribbled:

Holy cow. A friend of mine (a like minded person who wants GA to be
professionalized and regulated -- no its not regulated now) just referred
me to this excellent piece of journalism. A bit dated, to be sure, but
still relevant. (Ironic that this was being written at the same time GA
schools were training the Saudi terrorists who flew into the WTC.)

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/fea...10.pomper.html


Once again, "Skyloser" (and the "reporter," Stephen Pomper) shows his
complete depth of understanding of GA (less than the depth of a
mudpuddle after a brief summer shower).

The piece is obviously a hit piece and worthless as objective reporting.
the writer sounds like a flunkout from a third-rate journalism school.

It is truly frightening that you are allowed to pilot an airplane. Pilots
such as you will cause harm to come to GA. Therefore, keep it up,
Orville!

Orval Fairbairn wrote:

The piece is obviously a hit piece and worthless as objective reporting.

What's "objective reporting"? I've never heard of that before...


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame
## VP, Product Development
## MFM Software, Inc. (http://www.mfm.com/)
"In accord with UNIX philosophy, Perl gives you enough rope to
hang yourself."
-- Programming perl, Larry Wall and Randal L. Schwartz

Excellent examples of "objective reporting" are written on the AOPA's
presidents page. Especially when he writes about "taking on" a US
Attorney from Minnesota, who was able to ride his bike, undeterred, onto a
GA airfield. Of course Boyer, with his acute analytic ability, stated that
this "proved" the voluntary security system was working, because everyone
knew the intruder was not a threat! Awesome. The TV executive speaks!

How about this tid-bid, written today by a "conservative issue advocacy
group"? Is this objective?

US Reports Over 3,000 Restricted Airspace Violations

by Jim Kouri, CPP



The Federal Aviation Administration reported about 3,400 violations of
restricted airspace from September 12, 2001, to December 31, 2004, most of
which were committed by general aviation pilots.

Violations can occur because pilots may divert from their flight plan to
avoid bad weather, the Administration may establish newly restricted
airspace with little warning, and pilots in the air may be unaware of the
new restrictions, or pilots do not check for notices of restrictions, as
required. Also, terrorists may deliberately enter restricted airspace to
test the government's response or carry out an attack.

One government official claims this is a serious problem considering the
timeline between an intentional violation and an actual terrorist attack
using an aircraft in a Kamikaze-type attack.

"The problem of airspace violations is one needing constant attention by
several agencies including the military," he said.

Federal agencies have acted individually or have coordinated to enhance
aviation security. For example, the Transportation Security Administration
established a national operations center that disseminates operational- and
intelligence-related information, and has enhanced passenger and checked
baggage screening, secured cockpit doors, and assessed the risk to some,
but not all, commercial airports.

Also, few general aviation airport owners have conducted risk assessments.
The North American Aerospace Defense Command's mission was expanded to
include monitoring domestic air traffic and conducting air patrols.
Collectively, the agencies are operating the National Capital Region
Coordination Center to secure the National Capital Region.

The General Accounting Office identified gaps in the simultaneous,
time-critical, multi-agency response to airspace violations. While it may
not be possible to prevent all violations or deter all attacks, GAO
identified some gaps in policies and procedures. Specifically, the
agencies were operating without an organization in the lead. They also
lacked: fully developed interagency policies and procedures for the
airspace violations response teleconferencing system; information sharing
protocols and procedures; or accepted definitions of a violation. As a
result, opportunities may be missed to enhance the security of US
aviation, according to the GAO study.



Sources: General Accounting Office, Transportation Security
Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, National Security
Institute

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National
Association of Chiefs of Police. He's former chief at a New York City
housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed "Crack City" by reporters
covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of
public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for
several major organizations. He's also served on the National Drug Task
Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country.
He writes for many police and crime magazines including Chief of Police,
Police Times, The Narc Officer, Campus Law Enforcement Journal, and
others, and he's a columnist for TheConservativeVoice.Com. He's appeared
as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows
including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc.
His book Assume The Position is available at Amazon.Com,
Booksamillion.com, and can be ordered at local bookstores. Kouri holds a
bachelor of science in criminal justice and master of arts in public
administration and he's a board certified protection professional.


The opinions expressed in this column represent those of the author and do
not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, or philosophy of
TheRealityCheck.org, Inc.

"Mark T. Dame" wrote in message
...
Orval Fairbairn wrote:

The piece is obviously a hit piece and worthless as objective reporting.

What's "objective reporting"? I've never heard of that before...

"Objective reporting" is an oxymoron and frequently just a moron.

That article was so full of half-truths and outright distortions as to
be laughable, although people unfamiliar with aviation (like the
author) might read it and be indignant that "those rich pilots" are
scamming the system.

I thought "Where to begin with this" but as ET pointed out it's troll
bait.

However, Boyer is right - you can't legislate common sense. What
safeguards are in place to keep a drunk from driving and killing
innocents? It happens a lot more often in cars than in airplanes if not
only because the number of road vehicles is much higher. JFK Jr. should
have exercised better judgement that night in his decision making even
though he was not legal to fly in the conditions that existed.

Skylune, how many people are involved in drunk boating accidents on
your lake in NH? What stops them from getting tanked and going out on
the lake? Same self-regulation that most pilots abide by.

Funny, but the user fees and so called "corporatization" are happening,
five years after the article was published. Boyer has not succeeded in
his quest to stop it, and it is coming soon, to an airfield near you.
Just today, Bush talked about spending "offsets" to cut the deficit. The
groundwork is laid.

The author's main point was that a moron like JFK Jr. can fly legally
(LEGALLY, that is the point!) with VFR at night in hazy conditions,
unsupervised. This is a fact.

True, you cannot legislate common sense, and Boyer really likes to muddy
the waters. Saying that people drive drunk, or drive or fly drunk too
does not change anything). Besides, I have seen boaters and auto drivers
being given sobriety checks when they were pulled over. How often does
that happen with pilots?

True, you cannot legislate common sense, and Boyer really likes to muddy
the waters. Saying that people drive drunk, or drive or fly drunk too
does not change anything). Besides, I have seen boaters and auto drivers
being given sobriety checks when they were pulled over. How often does
that happen with pilots?

It's called a "ramp check", and the FAA does them at airports
regularly.

In my ten years of flying, I've seen one pilot being given a breath
test, and I've been ramp checked (although not "breath tested") myself.
Given how little GA flying actually occurs anymore, that's an
amazingly high percentage of flights being checked. (Or I'm just
lucky.)

In that same period of time I've NEVER seen a motorist being given a
breath test, even though I've driven exponentially more than I've
flown.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Who administered the breath test to the pilot?

I'm not really suggesting it is needed before each flight (except maybe in
Orville's case, who also needs a random pee test), I'm just suggesting that
standards to obtain your ticket should be much tougher than they are now.
And, a standard annual drug test should be required -- that is a no
brainer.

An annual drug test would do nothing. Any druggie knows to cut it out for a
few days when you have to take a whiz-quiz.

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
Who administered the breath test to the pilot?

I'm not really suggesting it is needed before each flight (except maybe in
Orville's case, who also needs a random pee test), I'm just suggesting
that
standards to obtain your ticket should be much tougher than they are now.
And, a standard annual drug test should be required -- that is a no
brainer.