Got my BFR ahead of the TSA rule

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

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

"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

"Gig Giacona" wrote in message
...
[...]
Take the fight to the terrorist's backyard.... Of wait that's what W did.

No. He took the fight to the terrorist's neighbor's backyard.

How would you like it if your neighbor was operating a meth lab, and as a
consequence the Drug War cops busted down your door and shot you?