Got my BFR ahead of the TSA rule

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:iZRdd.404357$mD.228025@attbi_s02...
"Gig Giacona" wrote in message
...
1) The presence or absence of government certification of an instructor
has no bearing on how dangerous the imparted knowledge is. 2)
Instruction in driving a car, and in basic chemistry, has also been used
in a large-scale terrorist attack on US citizens. 3) If the goal is to
prevent future attacks, we must consider not just the forms of
knowledge that have already been used against us, but those that might
be in the future. So the rationale for criminalizing unauthorized
learning about aviation can be applied much more generally.

--Gary

It does have a bearing on the governments ability to regulate though. If
you have knowledge of chemistry nobody is trying to stop you from
teaching it to anyone you choose. If you happen to be a public school
chemistry teacher they most certainly do control whom you teach it to
while on duty at the public school.

Right, and it would be analogous to restrict what a CFI does while on duty
in the employ of the government. But few if any CFIs are working for the
government when they teach. So the TSA intrusion goes far beyond your
public-school analogy. (Plus, the point of public-school eligibility
restrictions is not to try to keep people from acquiring general
knowledge without government authorization.)

--Gary


My point is that there is that the rule in no way restricts the transfer of
knowledge. It does restict the transfer of knowledge in order to attain a US
government issued certificate.

Feel free to go and teach as many people as you can how to fly or build
nuclear weapons. As long as you don't do it while excersing the privledges
of your US Governement issued certificate.

Gig

P.S. I said Daniel instead of Gary in a earlier post ... Sorry Daniel.

"Gig Giacona" wrote in message
...
My point is that there is that the rule in no way restricts the transfer
of knowledge.

Which makes the rule even more ridiculous. Granted, most US instructors and
schools will probably not offer instruction when it's specifically not being
logged and used for a rating, but honestly, for the purpose of terrorism,
that's not necessary.

All it would take is one terrorist to learn how to fly, who could then teach
everyone else how to fly. They don't even need to learn in the US.

IMHO, the FAA ought to be the filter. FBOs aren't in the habit of renting
airplanes to people who aren't pilots. The FAA ought to be doing whatever
security check they and the TSA deem necessary, and preventing those who
might not pass muster through the proposed rules from even getting a pilot
certificate. Same thing for medical certificates.

One of the most absurd things about these rules is that it puts the onus on
thousands of independent professionals, all of whom will have varying
ability to implement the rules, and none of whom ever intended to work for
the US government as their security officers. Since it's the FAA and TSA
who feel that they have the ability to correctly identify those who should
and should not get flight training, they should be the ones to deal with the
security checks (including verification of US citizenship).

Of course, as Jose pointed out, you don't even need to go to a flight
instructor to learn how to fly well enough to crash an airplane into a
building. You can sit at your PC and accomplish the same thing, for a lot
less money.

The whole thing is just dumb.

Pete

"Gig Giacona" wrote in message
...
[...]
I get real twitchy when people start using words like that when it not the
case.

Personally, I get twitchy when the government appears to be moving toward
totalitarianism.

Whether this is an example of totalitarianism or not, it's clearly an
example of rules that don't accomplish anything, and clearly increases the
risk that we will eventually live under totalitaristic rule.

Pete

I didn't say that the rule would do any good I was
just disagreeing that it was an example of
totalitarianism as stated by Daniel.

Can you see the nose of the camel?

Jose

"Gig Giacona" wrote in message
...
I didn't say that the rule would do any good I was just disagreeing that
it was an example of totalitarianism

Suppose the government were to ban government-certified high-school teachers
from privately teaching dangerous subjects such as chemistry or driver ed
to students who are pursuing a government certification (such as a
high-school GED or a driver's license), unless the government approves those
students first.

And suppose the restriction's express purpose (however ineffectively
pursued) is to keep general knowledge out of the hands of people who fail to
prove their worthiness to the government's satisfaction.

Wouldn't you regard that as a frighteningly totalitarian tactic? Why is it
any different when the subject matter happens to be aviation?

--Gary

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Gig Giacona" wrote in message
...
My point is that there is that the rule in no way restricts the transfer
of knowledge.

Which makes the rule even more ridiculous. Granted, most US instructors
and schools will probably not offer instruction when it's specifically not
being logged and used for a rating, but honestly, for the purpose of
terrorism, that's not necessary.

All it would take is one terrorist to learn how to fly, who could then
teach everyone else how to fly. They don't even need to learn in the US.

IMHO, the FAA ought to be the filter. FBOs aren't in the habit of renting
airplanes to people who aren't pilots. The FAA ought to be doing whatever
security check they and the TSA deem necessary, and preventing those who
might not pass muster through the proposed rules from even getting a pilot
certificate. Same thing for medical certificates.

One of the most absurd things about these rules is that it puts the onus
on thousands of independent professionals, all of whom will have varying
ability to implement the rules, and none of whom ever intended to work for
the US government as their security officers. Since it's the FAA and TSA
who feel that they have the ability to correctly identify those who should
and should not get flight training, they should be the ones to deal with
the security checks (including verification of US citizenship).

Of course, as Jose pointed out, you don't even need to go to a flight
instructor to learn how to fly well enough to crash an airplane into a
building. You can sit at your PC and accomplish the same thing, for a lot
less money.

The whole thing is just dumb.

Pete

YOu act as if having the "People" do the government's job for them is a new
idea the TSA just came up with. If you are an employer you are required to
do a lot of the government's work. Including the very same thing that is
being required by the TSA... ie Make sure that people are either US citizens
or authorized foriegn nationals.

As an employer you are required to complete an I-9 form and it's
requirements are pretty damn close to what is required under the new rule.
Now that I think of it they ought to make the rule exactly the same. Hell,
they could use the same damn form and save millions of dollars.

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:ku7ed.229392$wV.11585@attbi_s54...
"Gig Giacona" wrote in message
...
I didn't say that the rule would do any good I was just disagreeing that
it was an example of totalitarianism

Suppose the government were to ban government-certified high-school
teachers from privately teaching dangerous subjects such as chemistry or
driver ed to students who are pursuing a government certification (such as
a high-school GED or a driver's license), unless the government approves
those students first.



THe case here is that the GOVERNMENT is controlling someone from using a
GOVERNMENT issued certificate to teach someone something that will lead to a
GOVERNMENT issued certificate.
Gig

THe case here is that the GOVERNMENT is controlling someone from using a
GOVERNMENT issued certificate to teach someone something that will lead to a
GOVERNMENT issued certificate.

.... and this will prevent GOVERNMENT sanctioned terrorists from getting a certificate.

What about terrorists that the US government =doesn't= sanction? How do we stop them?

Jose

"Jose" wrote in message
m...
THe case here is that the GOVERNMENT is controlling someone from using a
GOVERNMENT issued certificate to teach someone something that will lead
to a GOVERNMENT issued certificate.

... and this will prevent GOVERNMENT sanctioned terrorists from getting a
certificate.

What about terrorists that the US government =doesn't= sanction? How do
we stop them?

Jose

We go to there house with a GOVERNMENT owned aircraft and bomb them with a
GOVERNMENT owned bomb.


Take the fight to the terrorist's backyard.... Of wait that's what W did.

What about terrorists that the US government =doesn't= sanction? How do
we stop them?

We go to there house with a GOVERNMENT owned aircraft and bomb them with a
GOVERNMENT owned bomb.

No new rules needed.

Jose