More stupidity about nuked-up Cessnas

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0629/p03s02-usju.html

Absolutely the worst research I've seen:


"That has again raised the question of whether enough is being done to
secure the more than 19,000 small airports scattered across the nation"

"After 9/11, the Federal Aviation Administration closed all small airports
for almost three months while officials contemplated whether to require bag
searches, metal detectors, and other such security measures"

"Last week in Connecticut, an allegedly inebriated student pilot took two
teenagers out for a five-hour jaunt before being detected and forced to
land."




"R.L." wrote in message
. com...
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0629/p03s02-usju.html

In a previous article, "R.L." said:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0629/p03s02-usju.html


At least give them credit for the last two paragraphs:

But other analysts note that threats need to be put into context. For
instance, trucks or boats can carry far more explosives than most small
planes. They're also easier to get into large metropolitan areas.

"There's a tendency to overreact to potential aviation threats because
people view them in isolation instead of viewing them in terms of other
threats," says Clint Oster, a transportation economist at Indiana
University in Bloomington. "The real issue is that we need to have a
systematic way of assessing big threats from little ones."



--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
You really know you're in trouble when your boss decides upon a suicide
pact... and agrees to go first.
-- Chris King

"R.L." wrote in message
. com...
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0629/p03s02-usju.html



I love the 2nd headline :- "Some 19,000 small airports across the US have
varied safeguards".

For me, this falls into the "Christmas Day expected to fall on December 25th
this year" school of "journalism".

S. wrote:

For me, this falls into the "Christmas Day expected to fall on December
25th this year" school of "journalism".

I be impressed by that from a journalist; it's not wrong.

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
gonline.com...
S. wrote:

For me, this falls into the "Christmas Day expected to fall on December
25th this year" school of "journalism".

I be impressed by that from a journalist; it's not wrong.

LOL. Nice !


S.

R.L. wrote:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0629/p03s02-usju.html

We have the same problem here in Australia:
http://www.grayonline.id.au/C150-Irony.pdf (25 KB - dial-up safe)

Shamelessly adapted from a bumper-sticker, and presented for your
crew-room/cube-farm pleasure

Cheers,

James
--
There are people who find it odd to eat four or five Chinese meals
in a row; in China, I often remind them, there are a billion or so
people who find nothing odd about it.
-- Calvin Trillin

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 16:59:53 GMT, "R.L." wrote in
::

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0629/p03s02-usju.html


Perhaps the thing to do is to e-mail the author of the article, Ms.
Alexandra Marks, and educate her about how absurd the fear of little
GA aircraft is:
http://www.csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/enc...3s02-usju.html

She'll probably respond with something regarding this:

But security experts counter that Al Qaeda has a history of
planning to use small aircraft in attacks. Soon after 9/11,
investigators uncovered a plan to use a small plane packed with
explosives to attack the US Embassy in Pakistan. Mohammad Atta,
one of the 9/11 hijackers, had applied for a loan to buy a crop
duster. And Zacarias Massouwi, the alleged 20th hijacker, had a
crop-dusting manual with him when he was arrested.

"I don't think these guys were interested in farming," says
Professor Thomas.

If the nation is going to start securing 100 horsepower aircraft
against terrorists, it should first find ways to prevent cars and
trucks being used for terrorist purposes.

The fact is, regardless of what terrorists _planned_ to do with small
aircraft, they _used_ heavy AIRLINERS filled with _tons_ of fuel in
their attacks on September 11, 2001, not GA aircraft. And the last I
heard, security of airline flights is no better since we spent
_billions_ in security efforts than it was on September 11, 2001.

In a previous article, Larry Dighera said:
Perhaps the thing to do is to e-mail the author of the article, Ms.
Alexandra Marks, and educate her about how absurd the fear of little
GA aircraft is:

You did read the WHOLE article, didn't you? The last two paragraphs, the
most important part of any article, where she says several things that
you'd probably agree with?


--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
....the default behaviour should be *not* to **** up.
-- adb

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 22:07:40 +0000 (UTC),
(Paul Tomblin) wrote in ::

In a previous article, Larry Dighera said:
Perhaps the thing to do is to e-mail the author of the article, Ms.
Alexandra Marks, and educate her about how absurd the fear of little
GA aircraft is:

You did read the WHOLE article, didn't you? The last two paragraphs, the
most important part of any article, where she says several things that
you'd probably agree with?

Yes. I read the WHOLE article. It seemed to question the security of
GA aircraft as possible terrorists weapons. The fact that she thought
that issue worth publicizing calls her journalistic ethics into
question IMO.