Private Planes: Freedom, Security, and Responsibility

http://www.fee.org/publications/the-...e.asp?aid=4469

/excerpt

These concerns overshoot the runway by a mile. The 9/11 hijackers used
commercial airliners, regardless of claims that they could easily have used
charter planes, because the superior security techniques used by private
charter companies were a sufficient deterrent. Rather than admit that
central bureaucratic control of airline safety has failed, government
officials seem more interested in forcing everyone under the same flawed
management. In other words, while the FAA's farm dog was guarding the
henhouse the fox stole the chickens-so the farmer wants to make his neighbor
use the same dog.

Not surprisingly, members of the commercial airline industry would also like
to see charter services brought under stricter control. According to the
Washington Post, "The Air Line Pilots Association . . . urged the [TSA] to
adopt one level of security for every type of flight, including charter and
small-aircraft operators." This is not the first time that the dominant
members of an industry have begged to be more heavily regulated by
government. Physicians, pharmacists, truckers, railroads, broadcasters-all
have been more than happy to use government power to squeeze out
competition, protect their chunk of the market, raise prices, or all of the
above. As Milton and Rose Friedman noted, "[i]nterested parties go to work
to make sure that [regulatory] power is used for their benefit." And, they
added, "They generally succeed."

/end

I started to read the article from the link, but when the author
mentioned "737 jumbo jets" I realized it probably wasn't worth my
time...

Except for the "737 jumbojet" the rest of the article is well written.

On 14 Dec 2005 07:44:38 -0800, "Andrew Sarangan"
wrote:

:Except for the "737 jumbojet" the rest of the article is well written.

News crews tested charter security. The charter companies won.

http://jetchartersmagazine.com/story...?storyid=46004

The freedom to travel inside one's own country is fundamental to a free
society. The day I fly my airplane and land at another airport and am
asked by uniformed personnel "papers please" and quizzed as to "what is
the purpose of your trip" is the day that freedom is lost.

I realize the 911 tragedy has changed our freedoms -- temporarily. Let
us not forget how freedoms were before the change and remember to try
and put those freedoms back when events have stabilized. Need to be
really careful we don't loose them altogether.

On 14 Dec 2005 08:16:20 -0800, "Doug"
wrote in .com::

The day I fly my airplane and land at another airport and am
asked by uniformed personnel "papers please" and quizzed as to "what is
the purpose of your trip" is the day that freedom is lost.

Given this quote from the story:

Not surprisingly, members of the commercial airline industry would
also like to see charter services brought under stricter control.
According to the Washington Post, "The Air Line Pilots Association
. . . urged the [TSA] to adopt one level of security for every
type of flight, including charter and small-aircraft operators."
This is not the first time that the dominant members of an
industry have begged to be more heavily regulated by government.

It would seem that it is our fellow airmen employed by the airlines
who would have our government impose that loss of fundamental freedom
of which you speak.

Given the current desperate financial situation airline competition is
creating for those professional airline pilots, it's easy to see their
fear of GA operations usurping their market, because GA is not
currently subject to the same absurd security measures as the
airlines. While the public may benefit financially from unregulated
competition, such competition does foster desperately vicious
behavior.

Would one expect the airlines to act responsibly and admit their
failure to provide adequate security previous to 9/11, and work
collaboratively to rectify their shortcoming? Only in a perfect
world. It's far easier for the airlines to acrimoniously strike at
each other and anyone else they see as bringing down their industry,
in a fear born fit of self destructive rage.

When will mankind learn, that only constructive endeavors can provide
the prosperity and thriving well-being we all desire?

Would one expect the airlines to act responsibly and admit their
failure to provide adequate security previous to 9/11, and work
collaboratively to rectify their shortcoming?

Commercial aviation provided the vehicles. GA provided the training.
Would one expect GA schools to act responsibly and admit their failure to
provide adequate security previous to 9/11?

It is all Bill Gates fault, Microsoft Flight Simulator
software allows any sky lune itic to practice the task of
flying into a building in their choice of aircraft. I think
the earlier versions even had the NYC skyline and WTC on the
box cover.

Certainly, it is not possible to learn how to steer and
airplane anywhere else in the world, except the USA. There
are no airplanes in the Mid-East, Far-East, Africa or any
place other than Florida, Texas, and California.

What I want to know is when will the government and the
anti-weapons/self-defense crowd admit that the security
rules themselves left the passenger and crew in an unarmed
and [mentally] defenseless state. Had every passenger had a
6 shot 38 or 45 revolver and instructions to , sit in your
seat and shot anybody who causes trouble, NONE of those
airliners would have been hijacked.
To those who will say that the possibility of gun fire in
the cabin would cause explosive decompression, remember that
FAR 25 airplanes are designed and have been so for decades,
to resist and handle damage to the structure and explosions
that can leave a 20 sq. ft. hole in the fuselage. The out
flow valve will just close a little bit for a few dozen
bullets holes.

But it is felt that death in a plane crash or with your
throat cut by a terrorists is better than having citizens
armed and acting in their own best interest.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm



"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
| Would one expect the airlines to act responsibly and
admit their
| failure to provide adequate security previous to 9/11, and
work
| collaboratively to rectify their shortcoming?
|
| Commercial aviation provided the vehicles. GA provided
the training.
| Would one expect GA schools to act responsibly and admit
their failure to
| provide adequate security previous to 9/11?
|

Would one expect GA schools to act responsibly and admit their failure to
provide adequate security previous to 9/11?

Come on, Sky-buffoon... Who could have ever imagined airliners being
used in such an insidious and evil way before 9/11? I suppose given
your known stance on GA this comment really shouldn't surprise anybody
(odd, in light of your admission to resume fight training at some
point, maybe). Feel free to find a new forum to rant and spew your
slanted nonsense - your postings are like so many mosquitoes buzzing
around my ear...

I suspect anybody with a (then) current copy of MS Flight Sim could
have done what the terrorist monkeys did after a few hours flying a 737
around in VR - it ain't rocket science.

Wow. Jim, you and I are definitely on the same wavelength here re
Microsoft : )

BTW, I think Glaser safety slugs are considered safe for ventilating
bad guys but not damaging aircraft..