More Anti GA hysteria

My response to the writer and editors of the Globe:

**************************************
Enough is enough! Your hysteria regarding the "threat to security" of General
Aviation is a shameful and irresponsible attack on innocent, hard-working,
tax-paying productive American citizens who earn their livelihood by flying
these aircraft.

We are among the most law-abiding and careful citizens you will find, as our
lives (and our passenger's lives) depend wholly on what we do.

Your story is an insult to us. There has never been a single incident of
terrorism using small planes--and using all the creative power I can muster, I
could not envision a scenario where my little 4 place- single engine Cessna
could do any serious damage to anything.

Your "stadium scenario" is nonsense . . . it is far more likely that any of the
millions of panel trucks, rental trucks, or other vehicles can be used for
attacks.

A single motorcycle rider with a backpack full of a nerve agent of other poison
can ride through Times Square and do a lot more damage. Even a single subway
rider with a backpack full of viral agent could infect thousands and thousands
of people. Why aren't you writing stories about UNCHECKED backpacks and
motorcycles?

It's time to stop "piling on" aviators . . . we have been scapegoated long
enough for the attack on the WTC.

Your heartless scare-tactics are simply to inflame and create more irrational
fear, and to sell more papers.

Shame on you!


Lee Ross
www.Rosspilot.com
New York


www.Rosspilot.com

Hey, Ross; as a former magazine editor, I applaud your article. Succinct,
to the point, and scorching. Very well done! Now, let's see if they have
the courage to print it.

-c

"Rosspilot" wrote in message
...
My response to the writer and editors of the Globe:

**************************************
Enough is enough! Your hysteria regarding the "threat to security" of
General
Aviation is a shameful and irresponsible attack on innocent, hard-working,
tax-paying productive American citizens who earn their livelihood by
flying
these aircraft.

We are among the most law-abiding and careful citizens you will find, as
our
lives (and our passenger's lives) depend wholly on what we do.

Your story is an insult to us. There has never been a single incident of
terrorism using small planes--and using all the creative power I can
muster, I
could not envision a scenario where my little 4 place- single engine
Cessna
could do any serious damage to anything.

Your "stadium scenario" is nonsense . . . it is far more likely that any
of the
millions of panel trucks, rental trucks, or other vehicles can be used for
attacks.

A single motorcycle rider with a backpack full of a nerve agent of other
poison
can ride through Times Square and do a lot more damage. Even a single
subway
rider with a backpack full of viral agent could infect thousands and
thousands
of people. Why aren't you writing stories about UNCHECKED backpacks and
motorcycles?

It's time to stop "piling on" aviators . . . we have been scapegoated long
enough for the attack on the WTC.

Your heartless scare-tactics are simply to inflame and create more
irrational
fear, and to sell more papers.

Shame on you!


Lee Ross
www.Rosspilot.com
New York


www.Rosspilot.com

"Rosspilot" wrote in message
...
My response to the writer and editors of the Globe:

**************************************
Enough is enough! Your hysteria regarding the "threat to security" of
General
Aviation is a shameful and irresponsible attack on innocent, hard-working,
tax-paying productive American citizens who earn their livelihood by
flying
these aircraft.

We are among the most law-abiding and careful citizens you will find, as
our
lives (and our passenger's lives) depend wholly on what we do.

Your story is an insult to us. There has never been a single incident of
terrorism using small planes--and using all the creative power I can
muster, I
could not envision a scenario where my little 4 place- single engine
Cessna
could do any serious damage to anything.

Your "stadium scenario" is nonsense . . . it is far more likely that any
of the
millions of panel trucks, rental trucks, or other vehicles can be used for
attacks.

A single motorcycle rider with a backpack full of a nerve agent of other
poison
can ride through Times Square and do a lot more damage. Even a single
subway
rider with a backpack full of viral agent could infect thousands and
thousands
of people. Why aren't you writing stories about UNCHECKED backpacks and
motorcycles?

It's time to stop "piling on" aviators . . . we have been scapegoated long
enough for the attack on the WTC.

Your heartless scare-tactics are simply to inflame and create more
irrational
fear, and to sell more papers.

Shame on you!


Lee Ross
www.Rosspilot.com
New York

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 10:07:05 -0700, "gatt"
wrote in
::

Hey, Ross; as a former magazine editor, I applaud your article. Succinct,
to the point, and scorching. Very well done! Now, let's see if they have
the courage to print it.

-c


When Ross wrote:

"Your heartless scare-tactics are simply to inflame and create
more irrational fear, and to sell more papers."

It struck a resonate chord in my thinking about this issue.

Unfortunately, Ross's response to the Boston Globe contains more heat
than light. It appears to attribute the "information" provided by The
Center for Strategic and International Studies employees to the author
of Globe article. Ross goes on to proclaim the law abiding
responsibleness of airmen, but that wasn't questioned in the article
and seems irrelevant; for it would be amoral criminal terrorists
perpetrating terrorist acts not regular law abiding airmen. And while
Ross confesses to being unable to imagine a scenario for the use of
light aircraft in a terrorist plot, that says more about his feeble
creative powers than it does about the unsuitability of such aircraft
for terrorist purposes.

So while I don't like the sensational spin applied by Karen Schaler to
The Center for Strategic and International Studies' information, I am
happy to be informed that such a study is under way. If I were to
take the author of the Globe article to task, I would emphasize the
lack of naming the specific organizations that funded the "research."

I have a feeling. that that information would be enlightening, and
perhaps provide a valid basis for discrediting the conclusions reached
by The Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Ross goes on to proclaim the law abiding
responsibleness of airmen, but that wasn't questioned in the article
and seems irrelevant; for it would be amoral criminal terrorists
perpetrating terrorist acts not regular law abiding airmen.


Well that's the whole point now, isn't it?

Does any critically-thinking person believe that a suicidal zealot, hell-bent
on wreaking havoc, is going to pay any attention to "no fly zones" and TFRs?
NEWS FLASH!! The planes that flew into the WTC both busted the NY Class B.
Yet it is we careful, law-abiding, rule-obeying pilots who are the recipients
of all the punitive and restrictive "security precautions" perpetrated on us.
I hope to God I am preachin' to the choir here.


And while
Ross confesses to being unable to imagine a scenario for the use of
light aircraft in a terrorist plot, that says more about his feeble
creative powers than it does about the unsuitability of such aircraft
for terrorist purposes.



No wonder you're so popular here, Larry.



So while I don't like the sensational spin applied by Karen Schaler to
The Center for Strategic and International Studies' information, I am
happy to be informed that such a study is under way. If I were to
take the author of the Globe article to task, I would emphasize the
lack of naming the specific organizations that funded the "research."

I have a feeling. that that information would be enlightening, and
perhaps provide a valid basis for discrediting the conclusions reached
by The Center for Strategic and International Studies

So write your own letter.


www.Rosspilot.com

"Rosspilot" wrote in message
...
Ross goes on to proclaim the law abiding
responsibleness of airmen, but that wasn't questioned in the article
and seems irrelevant; for it would be amoral criminal terrorists
perpetrating terrorist acts not regular law abiding airmen.


Well that's the whole point now, isn't it?

Does any critically-thinking person believe that a suicidal zealot,
hell-bent
on wreaking havoc, is going to pay any attention to "no fly zones" and
TFRs?
NEWS FLASH!! The planes that flew into the WTC both busted the NY Class
B.
Yet it is we careful, law-abiding, rule-obeying pilots who are the
recipients
of all the punitive and restrictive "security precautions" perpetrated on
us.
I hope to God I am preachin' to the choir here.


Well I agree with Larry. Regardless of what you and I may think about what
small airplanes may or may not be able to accomplish in terms of a terrorist
attack, it is certainly not anti-GA hysteria to discuss the possibility and
to imagine scenarios by which a terrorist could employ a Cessna to wreak
destruction. In fact it would be irresponsible not to consider them. There
are a lot of advantages to using a small aircraft to transport a bomb or
poison, they can go just about anywhere, and no road or other security
measure is of much use in stopping something that flies through the air. We
may dismiss possible terrorist scenarios as the work of pin-headed
bureacrats in washington (to use everyone's favorite cliche) but I would
think that a small flying machine would offer a lot of enticing
possibilities. Maybe this is why all the interest by AlQaeda in crop dusters
a few years back.

The responses in this group are far more "knee-jerk" than anything that
appeared in the Globe article. They sound like the typical response of a
special interest group --- lets fight terrorism, but god forbid it might
impinge on my hobby.

Of course we should not let increased anti-terrorist measures erode our
personal liberties and freedoms we enjoy, including being able to fly our
own machines. Same can be said for right to privacy, freedom of speech etc.
But simply to demonize anyone who discusses the possibilities of using GA in
a terrorist attack, seems to me to be very close-minded.

-Marc

In article 9NVXc.58769$9d6.16659@attbi_s54, "Mr. Smith"
wrote:

[snip]

Regardless of what you and I may think about
what
small airplanes may or may not be able to accomplish in terms of a
terrorist
attack, it is certainly not anti-GA hysteria to discuss the possibility
and
to imagine scenarios by which a terrorist could employ a Cessna to wreak
destruction. In fact it would be irresponsible not to consider them.

agree.



There
are a lot of advantages to using a small aircraft to transport a bomb or
poison, they can go just about anywhere, and no road or other security
measure is of much use in stopping something that flies through the air.
We
may dismiss possible terrorist scenarios as the work of pin-headed
bureacrats in washington (to use everyone's favorite cliche) but I would
think that a small flying machine would offer a lot of enticing
possibilities. Maybe this is why all the interest by AlQaeda in crop
dusters
a few years back.

Have to disagree. Other than being spectacular, the use of a small
aircraft would be stupid. Pick a mission/objective that you think
a small aircraft could accomplish, and I'll find a cheaper, faster,
easier way to accomplish the same objective without using a small
aircraft, with the added bonus that the terrorist would likely survive
to attempt more evil.

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 11:31:39 GMT, Bob Noel
wrote in
::

Pick a mission/objective that you think
a small aircraft could accomplish, and I'll find a cheaper, faster,
easier way to accomplish the same objective without using a small
aircraft, with the added bonus that the terrorist would likely survive
to attempt more evil.

How about this one offered by The Center for Strategic and
International Studies:

Anderson said terrorists could load a plane with explosives, add
shrapnel and possibly chemical or biological materials, and then
detonate a bomb inside a stadium.

(Keep in mind the fact that a reported 250 pound car bomb was adequate
to blow off the front of a building and kill many people in Iraq
recently.)

Obviously a UAV could be employed instead of C-172, but the
distinction would be insignificant. What (non-aviation) "cheaper,
faster, easier" delivery method do you think might accomplish the same
objective?

The realization that is ultimately reached by anyone attempting to
implement security, be it national or computer, is, that at some point
the imposition of security measures necessary to achieve REAL security
render the system effectively unusable. At that point security
becomes a matter of degree of inconvenience weighed against degree
security provided.

The media exploits this limitation by fanning the flames of public
hysteria to elicit a visceral response in its viewers/readers, so as
to create a desire in them to consume the media product in the vein
hope of becoming informed. Such unethical Yellow Journalism tactics
committed by immoral, exploitive, ignoble and self-serving New
Journalists border on actionable libel, and are certainly a betrayal
of the public trust granted news media to impartially expose
government and corporate fraud and corruption. Such abysmal behavior
is tantamount to a religious priest sexually abusing the children of
congregation members.....

Regardless of what you and I may think about what
small airplanes may or may not be able to accomplish in terms of a terrorist
attack, it is certainly not anti-GA hysteria to discuss the possibility and
to imagine scenarios by which a terrorist could employ a Cessna to wreak
destruction. In fact it would be irresponsible not to consider them.


There is a huge difference between "discussing" them in an academic context,
rationally and analytically with a sincere desire to add a measure of security,
and the obvious media exploitation of the "aviation-phobia" for ratings and
sales revenue. Where did you see any "discussion" taking place?


There
are a lot of advantages to using a small aircraft to transport a bomb or
poison, they can go just about anywhere, and no road or other security
measure is of much use in stopping something that flies through the air. We
may dismiss possible terrorist scenarios as the work of pin-headed
bureacrats in washington (to use everyone's favorite cliche) but I would
think that a small flying machine would offer a lot of enticing
possibilities. Maybe this is why all the interest by AlQaeda in crop dusters
a few years back.


An idea abandoned when they themselves determined that it was impractical.
BTW, what goes on at your airport, anyway? Don't you think if someone wanted
to load up his C-172 with explosives and shrapnel or poisons someone MIGHT
notice?

The responses in this group are far more "knee-jerk" than anything that
appeared in the Globe article. They sound like the typical response of a
special interest group --- lets fight terrorism, but god forbid it might
impinge on my hobby.


It's a lot more than "a hobby" for me. It is how I earn my living, and how I
pursue happiness. I am a proponent of "fighting terrorism", but not of
senseless, ineffective, punitive, restrictive, life-altering and MEANINGLESS
political gestures.


Of course we should not let increased anti-terrorist measures erode our
personal liberties and freedoms we enjoy, including being able to fly our
own machines. Same can be said for right to privacy, freedom of speech etc.
But simply to demonize anyone who discusses the possibilities of using GA in
a terrorist attack, seems to me to be very close-minded.


As I said, enough is enough. No new ground being covered--this has been going
on for 3 years now.


www.Rosspilot.com

Well I agree with Larry. Regardless of what you and I may think about what
small airplanes may or may not be able to accomplish in terms of a
terrorist
attack, it is certainly not anti-GA hysteria to discuss the possibility
and
to imagine scenarios by which a terrorist could employ a Cessna to wreak
destruction. In fact it would be irresponsible not to consider them.

The irresponsibility is in the media searching for easy ratings and the
government for poll bumps by focusing so narrowly on what gets an easy
response from the public. This deflects attention from the reality that no
one is paying attention to.

I was driving behind a big propane truck the other day. On the back is a
three inch pipe with a butterfly valve, the kind that is full open with a 90
degree turn. The pipe had a cap but it had big grips on it so it could be
easily removed. I've designed piping systems and had several miles to study
it so I could see that it would only take about 20 seconds to remove the
cap, turn the valve, and dump the tank's contents. There was no locking
device of any kind. A passerby could dump this truck.

Jump out, run up and point a gun at the driver, put him on the ground and
put a bullet in his head so he can't describe the truck, drive it somewhere
and back it up to the storm drain system the runs under a building or back
it into a mall. Light a match.

As long as we have a society that remotely resembles ours, creative and
determined people will have hundreds or even thousands of ways to create
havoc. These scare stories keep the public from realizing that. The only
safety will be in identifying the people that wish to terrorize and keeping
them out. If we focus on denying them the means, of which the GA
restrictions are only the first baby step, it will eventually be a society
none of us want to live in.

Catching terrorists is best done where they live. That requires lots of
help and cooperation from other countries which is what makes our current
"We don't need any stinkin' alliances, we call all the shots" foreign policy
such a disaster.

--

Roger Long

Roger,
Propane trailers, as well as anhydrous ammonia trailers have what
is called an "excess flow valve" buried in the tank, unseen to the
naked eye. It works like a one way check valve but allows a
controlled amount of flow before it checks off and stops the flow.
It is there in case an unloading hose ruptures and specifically keeps
the tanks contents from "dumping".
Not to **** you or anyone else off in this group but, I will argue
that there is some irresponsibility involved in talking about of
effective means of terrorism in a public forum. Take the transponder
hijack code discussions after 9/11 that broadcast to the world
something that had been known mainly to pilots and not to the general
public until after that fateful day, for instance. Or the fact that
since the Oklahoma City bombing, the general public now knows how to
build anfo bombs. It is bad enough when law enforcement releases this
kind of information to the public. Please, lets not educate these
radicals ourselves.

Joe Schneider
8437R
Large scale chemical manufacturing industry for over 25 years.
Ammonia, methanol, ammonium nitrate, etc.

"Roger Long" wrote in message
...
snip

The irresponsibility is in the media searching for easy ratings and
the
government for poll bumps by focusing so narrowly on what gets an
easy
response from the public. This deflects attention from the reality
that no
one is paying attention to.

I was driving behind a big propane truck the other day. On the back
is a
three inch pipe with a butterfly valve, the kind that is full open
with a 90
degree turn. The pipe had a cap but it had big grips on it so it
could be
easily removed. I've designed piping systems and had several miles
to study
it so I could see that it would only take about 20 seconds to remove
the
cap, turn the valve, and dump the tank's contents. There was no
locking
device of any kind. A passerby could dump this truck.
snip