Pilot runs out of fuel waiting for security clearance

"Captain Wubba" wrote in message
om...
Standard emotional reaction to anything that bothers a person,
regardless of the merits.

What merits? Placating an ignorant populus does not qualify as a "merit".

The merit is CRYSTAL clear to me.

If the general public is not lead to believe that they are secure, they
will demand REAL security measures to protect them from GA pilots. Perhaps
airline-style security measures (metal detectors, bomb-sniffers, etc.) at
all FBOs for Ramp Access. Or PERMANENT restrictions on flying over
populated areas.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in
:

"Captain Wubba" wrote in message
om...
Standard emotional reaction to anything that bothers a person,
regardless of the merits.

What merits? Placating an ignorant populus does not qualify as a
"merit".

"Judah" wrote in message
...
The merit is CRYSTAL clear to me.

You have a funny definition of "crystal".

If the general public is not lead to believe that they are secure, they
will demand REAL security measures to protect them from GA pilots.

You are seriously confused. It isn't the nature of the security measures
that makes them absurd. It's the question of whether they are necessary.
GA is simply not a threat that warrants the kind of measures being
implemented. MORE security measures would be more absurd, and in any case,
the worry that those extra security measures might be implemented in no way
makes the existing ones any less absurd.

I repeat: placating an ignorant populus does not qualify as a "merit". It
is a foolish reason to implement security measures, and anyone who thinks
there's merit in security measures implemented solely to placate an ignorant
populus is a fool.

Pete

A suicide bomber in Jerusalem, with 30 pounds of explosives strapped to
his belt, can murder and injure dozens of innocent people in restaurants,
night clubs, markets, and bus stations. You don't believe that 500 pounds
of explosives in a suicide-bomber's Cessna is a potential security
threat?

Perhaps you don't believe that someone could fly a jet airliner into a
skyscraper and take it down completely, either.

Most people didn't, until it happened - twice. Now, most people are on a
high-security kick. You can say what you want about ignorance and
foolishness, but I think you should wake up and face reality a minute.

Absurd or not, those TFRs are probably saving you from much more serious
hassles and inconveniences.


"Peter Duniho" wrote in
:

"Judah" wrote in message
...
The merit is CRYSTAL clear to me.

You have a funny definition of "crystal".

If the general public is not lead to believe that they are secure,
they will demand REAL security measures to protect them from GA
pilots.

You are seriously confused. It isn't the nature of the security
measures that makes them absurd. It's the question of whether they are
necessary. GA is simply not a threat that warrants the kind of measures
being implemented. MORE security measures would be more absurd, and in
any case, the worry that those extra security measures might be
implemented in no way makes the existing ones any less absurd.

I repeat: placating an ignorant populus does not qualify as a "merit".
It is a foolish reason to implement security measures, and anyone who
thinks there's merit in security measures implemented solely to placate
an ignorant populus is a fool.

Pete

"Judah" wrote in message
...
A suicide bomber in Jerusalem, with 30 pounds of explosives strapped to
his belt, can murder and injure dozens of innocent people in restaurants,
night clubs, markets, and bus stations. You don't believe that 500 pounds
of explosives in a suicide-bomber's Cessna is a potential security
threat?

I'm not arguing that potential for harm doesn't exist. But why should
aircraft be restricted when numerous other methods of delivering 500 pounds
of explosives to any crowded area still exist?

We live in a free society, and with that freedom comes some risks. People
need to come to terms with that. The solution is NOT to impose meaningless
and unfair restrictions. After all, even if the Cessna was a more
significant risk than the numerous others that exist (and it's not) the
current restrictions do nothing to address that risk.

Perhaps you don't believe that someone could fly a jet airliner into a
skyscraper and take it down completely, either.

Most people didn't, until it happened - twice.

"Most people"? What the hell are you talking about? "Most people" didn't
even bother to think about it. Anyone who DID bother to think about it
should have recognized that that WAS a significant security risk. Even if
they didn't predict the collapse of the buildings, the potential for harm
was obvious.

Now, most people are on a
high-security kick. You can say what you want about ignorance and
foolishness, but I think you should wake up and face reality a minute.

No, YOU and the other idiots who feel that these security measures make any
sense need to wake up and face reality. Not for a minute, not for an hour,
but for their entire lives. The security you apparently desire is simply
impossible to obtain, and in the process of the futile attempts to obtain
it, you are undermining the very substance of what made our country so
great.

Absurd or not, those TFRs are probably saving you from much more serious
hassles and inconveniences.

Again, you are full of it. All these TFRs accomplish is to move me one step
closer to "much more serious hassles and inconveniences". The camel's nose
is under the tent. You are incredibly naive if you think that imposing the
current restrictions in any way help prevent us from suffering even greater
indignities.

Pete

In article ,
Judah wrote:

A suicide bomber in Jerusalem, with 30 pounds of explosives strapped to
his belt, can murder and injure dozens of innocent people in restaurants,
night clubs, markets, and bus stations. You don't believe that 500 pounds
of explosives in a suicide-bomber's Cessna is a potential security
threat?

500 pounds of explosives in a suicide-bomber's Cessna is a potential
security threat, but so is 30 pounds of explosives strapped to a belt.
Are you advocating we strip-search every person entering a public
building? If not, why single out the Cessna?

--
Paul Baechler

No. Not at all. Of course, I don't advocate that we strip-search every
private pilot before they get on their airplane.

I was merely responding to Mr. Dunihos statement that I was a jerk and an
idiot for believing that GA could pose a threat.


Paul Baechler wrote in
news
In article ,
Judah wrote:

A suicide bomber in Jerusalem, with 30 pounds of explosives strapped to
his belt, can murder and injure dozens of innocent people in
restaurants, night clubs, markets, and bus stations. You don't believe
that 500 pounds of explosives in a suicide-bomber's Cessna is a
potential security threat?

500 pounds of explosives in a suicide-bomber's Cessna is a potential
security threat, but so is 30 pounds of explosives strapped to a belt.
Are you advocating we strip-search every person entering a public
building? If not, why single out the Cessna?

"Judah" wrote in message
...
I was merely responding to Mr. Dunihos statement that I was a jerk and an
idiot for believing that GA could pose a threat.

I don't think I ever used the word "jerk".