Private Planes: Freedom, Security, and Responsibility

Would one expect GA schools to act responsibly and admit their failure to
provide adequate security previous to 9/11?

Come on, Sky-buffoon... Who could have ever imagined airliners being
used in such an insidious and evil way before 9/11? I suppose given
your known stance on GA this comment really shouldn't surprise anybody
(odd, in light of your admission to resume fight training at some
point, maybe). Feel free to find a new forum to rant and spew your
slanted nonsense - your postings are like so many mosquitoes buzzing
around my ear...

I suspect anybody with a (then) current copy of MS Flight Sim could
have done what the terrorist monkeys did after a few hours flying a 737
around in VR - it ain't rocket science.

by " Dec 14, 2005 at 11:49
AM


Come on, Sky-buffoon...

snip
I suspect anybody with a (then) current copy of MS Flight Sim could
have done what the terrorist monkeys did after a few hours flying a 737
around in VR - it ain't rocket science.

I also "suspect" this could have been done with MS Flight Sim. But, that
is not what really happened. Fact: The terrorists trained at GA schools.


I need to pull out the handy John Adams quote again: "Facts are stubborn
things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates
of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

I also "suspect" this could have been done with MS Flight Sim. But, that
is not what really happened. Fact: The terrorists trained at GA
schools

Yes they did. Many flight school students were/are Arabic. The
overwhelming majority are not terrorists. What do you suggest might
have prevented the attack? If you're going to suggest tighter screening
of foreign students, that's not up to the flight schools, that would be
a gov't function as it would involve the State Dept. So, tell me how GA
was responsible again?

Here's a parallel for you. Tim McVeigh rented a Ryder truck filled with
fertilizer that blew away half a building in OKC. Should the feds have
had tighter screening standards in place for truck rentals before this
happened? I doubt anybody would have suspected a rental being used for
such evil intent. Where do you draw the line? What reasonable standard
exists that won't curtail the rights & freedoms of law abiding folks?


I need to pull out the handy John Adams quote again: "Facts are stubborn
things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the
dictates
of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

You quote this as if it helps make your case somehow. It doesn't. Shoo,
fly...

by " Dec 14, 2005 at 12:30
PM


I also "suspect" this could have been done with MS Flight Sim. But,
that
is not what really happened. Fact: The terrorists trained at GA
schools

Yes they did. Many flight school students were/are Arabic. The
overwhelming majority are not terrorists. What do you suggest might
have prevented the attack? If you're going to suggest tighter screening
of foreign students, that's not up to the flight schools, that would be
a gov't function as it would involve the State Dept. So, tell me how GA
was responsible again?

Good points.

To clarify, I did not say GA was "responsible." I said that GA schools
provided the training.

There is plenty of blame to go around, with most falling on FBI
bureacracy, and airport "security" at Logan IMO.

I actually think the flight schools bear little of the responsibility,
even though they were roundly criticized right after the terrorist
*******s committed their cowardly attacks.

I'm fairly certain that new security requirements have been established
for foreign-born trainees.

I'm not buying the McVeigh/Ryder truck analogy. I'm pretty sure that
people purchasing large quantities of nitrogen based products such as
fertilizer face some type of restrictions or scrutiny today, but I'm not
sure.

All non-US citizens begin flight training are required to
submit a fee of $150 and a complete history and photographs
before beginning flight training. All CFIs/flight schools
are required to verify citizenship for all students and may
not train a non-citizen until they are approved by the TSA.
There is an exception for already certificated pilots just
getting recurrent training, etc.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P
CFI expires Jan 2008



--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm



"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
| by " Dec 14,
2005 at 12:30
| PM
|
|
| I also "suspect" this could have been done with MS
Flight Sim. But,
| that
| is not what really happened. Fact: The terrorists
trained at GA
| schools
|
| Yes they did. Many flight school students were/are Arabic.
The
| overwhelming majority are not terrorists. What do you
suggest might
| have prevented the attack? If you're going to suggest
tighter screening
| of foreign students, that's not up to the flight schools,
that would be
| a gov't function as it would involve the State Dept. So,
tell me how GA
| was responsible again?
|
| Good points.
|
| To clarify, I did not say GA was "responsible." I said
that GA schools
| provided the training.
|
| There is plenty of blame to go around, with most falling
on FBI
| bureacracy, and airport "security" at Logan IMO.
|
| I actually think the flight schools bear little of the
responsibility,
| even though they were roundly criticized right after the
terrorist
| *******s committed their cowardly attacks.
|
| I'm fairly certain that new security requirements have
been established
| for foreign-born trainees.
|
| I'm not buying the McVeigh/Ryder truck analogy. I'm
pretty sure that
| people purchasing large quantities of nitrogen based
products such as
| fertilizer face some type of restrictions or scrutiny
today, but I'm not
| sure.
|
|
|
|

by "Jim Macklin" Dec 14, 2005 at
03:08 PM


All non-US citizens begin flight training are required to
submit a fee of $150 and a complete history and photographs
before beginning flight training. All CFIs/flight schools
are required to verify citizenship for all students and may
not train a non-citizen until they are approved by the TSA.
There is an exception for already certificated pilots just
getting recurrent training, etc

Jim: The requirements for non citizens are new (post 9/11/01), aren't
they? They seem pretty reasonable to me.

Yes, they are new and no, they are not really reasonable,
they do not look at a Canadian of Irish descent and
differently than they do for a Muslim from a refugee camp in
Palestine.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
| by "Jim Macklin"
Dec 14, 2005 at
| 03:08 PM
|
|
| All non-US citizens begin flight training are required to
| submit a fee of $150 and a complete history and
photographs
| before beginning flight training. All CFIs/flight schools
| are required to verify citizenship for all students and
may
| not train a non-citizen until they are approved by the
TSA.
| There is an exception for already certificated pilots just
| getting recurrent training, etc
|
| Jim: The requirements for non citizens are new (post
9/11/01), aren't
| they? They seem pretty reasonable to me.
|
|
|

On 2005-12-14, Skylune wrote:
Jim: The requirements for non citizens are new (post 9/11/01), aren't
they? They seem pretty reasonable to me.

Except they would have been pointless then - even if those regulations
existed then, the terrorists would have all been approved.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

To clarify, I did not say GA was "responsible." I said that GA schools
provided the training.

Your tone was indicative (to me anyway) that GA was somehow responsible
for the attack

I'm not buying the McVeigh/Ryder truck analogy. I'm pretty sure that
people purchasing large quantities of nitrogen based products such as
fertilizer face some type of restrictions or scrutiny today, but I'm
not
sure.

Today, yes. I don't think that was the case in 1993(?) when the Murrah
building was wiped out. But you missed the point. What reasonable
standard exists to protect the public without infringing too much on
the right of the law-abiding.

I'm fairly certain that new security requirements have been established
for foreign-born trainees.

I recall hearing something about that as well not long after 9/11. A
day late and a dollar short, as my mother used to say

by " Dec 14, 2005 at 01:24
PM

Your tone was indicative (to me anyway) that GA was somehow responsible
for the attack


snip
Today, yes. I don't think that was the case in 1993(?) when the Murrah
building was wiped out. But you missed the point. What reasonable
standard exists to protect the public without infringing too much on
the right of the law-abiding.

snip
I recall hearing something about that as well not long after 9/11. A
day late and a dollar short, as my mother used to say

Sorry about the wise-ass tone.

My criticisms of GA are limited mostly to complete lack of community
control over any aspect of airport operations at many facilities. Noise,
and certain rude pilots who simply ignore noise abatement being my main
gripe...

No other industry/activity enjoys such protections from community noise
statutes. If I am wrong in this assertion, please correct me. No one
ever has, and I cannot find any facts that indicate otherwise.


Regarding security, I think you ask the $99 question: "What reasonable
standard exists to protect the public without infringing too much on
the right of the law-abiding?" Trade-offs suck, but when we have
psychotic terrorists killing our citizens, using our "freedoms" to their
twisted advantage, I think everyone would agree that their needs to be
some restrictions on personal liberty.

Regarding noise, I think people on the ground should have some "rights."
Presently, we have none. "Rights" to free skies (ficticious, really --
this just refers to FARs which people at the EAA and AOPA would like to
see enshrined in the Constitution, but aren't) needs to be balanced with
people's right to peace and quiet, IMO. I think this is especially true
for those unfortunates who live miles away from an airport and have no way
of knowing that they will suddenly be under a flight path (or acrobatic
training box) designated by some anonymous bureaucrat at an aloof federal
bureaucracy (the FAA) who doesn't give a hoot about them.

Sadly, compromise with the flight schools/pilots is obviously not possible
in my neck of the woods. So we, being stubborn New Englanders, will fight
back using all legal, political methods at our disposal.

Those who dismiss all of the "anti-noise/GA" activists as kooks and
looneys