Got my BFR ahead of the TSA rule

"Gig Giacona" wrote in message
...
But, Gary, what they are requiring is that you prove US citizenship, or
the authorization from the US government if you are not a citizen, to
receive instruction from a person certificated by the that same US
Government to give said instruction. Plus, that particular instruction,
not on could be, but has been used in an attack on the citizens of the US.

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

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:yKQdd.297056$3l3.52975@attbi_s03...
"Gig Giacona" wrote in message
...
But, Gary, what they are requiring is that you prove US citizenship, or
the authorization from the US government if you are not a citizen, to
receive instruction from a person certificated by the that same US
Government to give said instruction. Plus, that particular instruction,
not on could be, but has been used in an attack on the citizens of the
US.

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.

I know how to fly and have been certificated to do so in both Fixed Wings
since 1980 and Helicopters since 1996. I am not however a CFI. Could I teach
you how to fly? Probably. Could I sign you off for a check ride? No. There
is nothing in that rule that stops me from teaching you what I know. It does
stop a CFI from using a privilege he has been granted by the US government
to certain people that government has decided it doesn't want to have that
information.

Basically what they have done is restrict a privilege they provided in the
first place.

"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

"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

"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.

"Gig Giacona" wrote in message
...
[...]
YOu act as if having the "People" do the government's job for them is a
new idea the TSA just came up with.

Why would you say such a silly thing? Does the fact that there is precedent
somehow make it okay? And what in the world did I write that makes you
think I'm unaware of any precedent?

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.

I know how to fly [...] I am not however a CFI. Could I teach
you how to fly? Probably. Could I sign you off for a check ride? No. There
is nothing in that rule that stops me from teaching you what I know. It does
stop a CFI from using a privilege he has been granted by the US government
to certain people that government has decided it doesn't want to have that
information.

That's all well and good, but it certainly does not stop a CFI from (like the public school chemistry teacher) teaching on their own, with no logbook endorsement. They would not then be using the privilages of their CFI certificate.

In the end, it makes it harder for legitimate (but private) people from learning to fly, but doesn't stop terrorists at all. Terrorists don't need a logbook endorsement. They just need FlightSimulator 2004.

Jose

"Jose" wrote in message
om...
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.

I know how to fly [...] I am not however a CFI. Could I teach
you how to fly? Probably. Could I sign you off for a check ride? No.
There is nothing in that rule that stops me from teaching you what I
know. It does stop a CFI from using a privilege he has been granted by
the US government to certain people that government has decided it
doesn't want to have that information.

That's all well and good, but it certainly does not stop a CFI from (like
the public school chemistry teacher) teaching on their own, with no
logbook endorsement. They would not then be using the privilages of their
CFI certificate.

In the end, it makes it harder for legitimate (but private) people from
learning to fly, but doesn't stop terrorists at all. Terrorists don't
need a logbook endorsement. They just need FlightSimulator 2004.

Jose


I couldn't agree more. 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.

I get real twitchy when people start using words like that when it not the
case.

"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