It was really close...

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message ...

Sorry, but me thinks you live in a dream world. The "security" is window
dressing, nothing else. It looks good to voters. That's it.

When have you last flown commercially?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)


We all need to get the word out to the voters that this IS window dressing and nothing more. The threat is from the
person, not the aircraft or the box cutter. Good police work is the key here, not mass searches and detainments. We need
to know who the bad guys are; they definitely are not us!

On 16 May 2005 13:34:12 -0700, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:


I don't have a problem with an ADIZ. The problem I have is that
airliners which can carry more explosives than a Ryder truck are
allowed to fly in it, but GA planes are not.

They have made it inconvenient enough I refuse to fly commercial.

The they implement a security system bass ackwards.
They have a watch list.
They wait for someone on the watch list to try to board a plane.
If the terrorist doesn't get on a plane the list does nothing.
If the terrorist strikes a non aviation target the list doesn't work.

Were it me (and I'm already paying for it) why not investigate the
people on the list? Clear the ones proven not to be a threat and go
after the ones who are. I'd like to get something for my money.

If you read the security journals you see how many things we have
implemented from over reaction. Things where the investment far
outweighs the return.

Here are a couple of links related to security, national id cards
better know as the uniform drivers license act, and secure flight.
:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.00418:
http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0502.html#1
http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0410.html#3

This guy puts out a pretty good news letter.

It's a *lot* of reading, but for those interested in security on
multiple levels it should prove interesting.


Commercial air carriers have tightened their security to the point
where (I suspect) it would be impossible for a 9/11-style attack to
succeed again using commercial airliners as weapons.


There are those who would share a difference of opinion here. Yes, it
would be more difficult.

Not to mention the fact that the passengers would immediately and
violently resist, as opposed to the pre-9/11 hands-in-your-lap approach
to a hijacking.

I think you give the average citizen far, far to much credit.

It takes some one with a fair amount of aggression, or some one really
scared to fight. Now, on a good sized airliner I would assume there
would be enough of such individuals to take down one, maybe two
individuals even if they are armed with something sharp.

One thing most people don't realize is when faced with a fight for
your life (guns fight, knife fight, some one trying to hijack the
plane you are on.. just pick a situation), your fine motor skills
desert you like rats leaving a sinking ship. Not realizing what is
happening many people just cease to function at that point. It's not
really by choice either. For a person who has never experienced it
the first time is much like being in one of those dreams where trying
to catch some one or something, or running from some one or some thing
and every thing seems to be in slow motion along with a feeling of
futility. Not that things happen in slow motion, but it's about the
best analogy I can think of at 3:00 AM.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Bottom line: It's relatively easy to secure land targets from
Ryder trucks,
but it's very difficult to secure them from a Cherokee Six filled
with
anthrax and C-4.

THAT is why we have an ADIZ over D.C., and anyone who argues
otherwise is
only fooling themselves.

Following that line of reasoning, there should be a no-fly zone
around
DC, and a huge ADIZ around every major city in the country.

Chicago's King Daley's assertions notwithstanding, no other city in
America has the concentration of power that presents such an obvious
and inviting target for (another) terrorist attack.

As with so many things in a democracy, the ADIZ currently in place is
an imperfect compromise between absolute freedom, and absolute
prohibition.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

Bottom line: It's relatively easy to secure land targets from

Ryder trucks,

but it's very difficult to secure them from a Cherokee Six filled

with

anthrax and C-4.

THAT is why we have an ADIZ over D.C., and anyone who argues

otherwise is

only fooling themselves.

Following that line of reasoning, there should be a no-fly zone

around

DC, and a huge ADIZ around every major city in the country.


Chicago's King Daley's assertions notwithstanding, no other city in
America has the concentration of power that presents such an obvious
and inviting target for (another) terrorist attack.

Well, there probably are more pilots who would like to see Daley out of
power than would like to see Bush out of power, so Daley's concern may
be real. :-)

Matt

Jay Honeck wrote:
Chicago's King Daley's assertions notwithstanding, no other city in
America has the concentration of power that presents such an obvious
and inviting target for (another) terrorist attack.

The greatness and longevity of our country is in the CONCEPTS embodied by
our Constitution, not in the particular people who are PRESENTLY holding
particular offices, or a bunch of historic buildings. Our country would
survive even if DC was attacked.

As with so many things in a democracy, the ADIZ currently in place is
an imperfect compromise between absolute freedom, and absolute
prohibition.

I suspect that if an ADIZ/FRZ was permenantly plopped on top of Iowa City,
you'd be singing a different tune.



--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

Chicago's King Daley's assertions notwithstanding, no other city in
America has the concentration of power that presents such an obvious
and inviting target for (another) terrorist attack.

Oh, I disagree very strongly with that. DC is mainly a bunch of
government workers who produce little more than TFRs. New York is the
financial capitol of the world, let alone the United States. New Jersey
probably has more noxious chemicals in one place than anywhere else in
the country. Drop a 747 on MIT (near Boston) and you'll do more damage
to our scientific and engineering leadership than obliterating =all= of
our illustrious capitol.

And don't forget the terror potential of wiping out a random, small town
in Iowa. What small town would feel safe after that?

As with so many things in a democracy, the ADIZ currently in place is
an imperfect compromise between absolute freedom, and absolute
prohibition.

"imperfect" is right. It is very expensive in terms of freedom, and
gives little return in terms of safety.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:

The price of freedom is... well... freedom.

Great! That's going in my sayings file.

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

Jay,

THAT is why we have an ADIZ over D.C., and anyone who argues otherwise is
only fooling themselves.


Oh! If you say so, sir!

Nope, you got it wrong. With that line of reasoning, you'd be living in a
dictatorship real quick.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Bottom line: It's relatively easy to secure land
targets from Ryder trucks,
but it's very difficult to secure them from a Cherokee
Six filled with anthrax and C-4.

Which is why it's so silly that they had people run OUT into the
streets when the Cessna approached. That's fine for the last attack
style (huge airliner hitting buildings), but a very poor idea for small
planes. In the latter case, going to the basement or inner rooms
and/or closing windows might be smarter. And less disruptive as well.

Kev

"Kev" wrote in message ups.com...
Bottom line: It's relatively easy to secure land
targets from Ryder trucks,
but it's very difficult to secure them from a Cherokee
Six filled with anthrax and C-4.

Which is why it's so silly that they had people run OUT into the
streets when the Cessna approached. That's fine for the last attack
style (huge airliner hitting buildings), but a very poor idea for small
planes. In the latter case, going to the basement or inner rooms
and/or closing windows might be smarter. And less disruptive as well.

Kev


But you would have missed all the photo ops!