TSA has a fan

There was no security lapse in that incident. A student was allowed to
pre-flight an airplane unescorted, shortly before the student was to be
signed off to solo anyway. Preventing such access would have been completely
pointless. Even under some of the more draconian new restrictions (at BED
now, we need to undergo a fingerprint background check in order to have
unescorted access to the ramp), that student would still have had the same
access privileges!

Of course TSA's alien training rule would not have had anything to say
about
that moron, Charles J. Bishop, who was a US citizen...
Speaking of morons, AOPA has some statements on its website about
TSA's chief who seems to be rather clueless about his department; or
maybe he was still recovering from TSA's $500,000 2-year-anniversary
party.

Nevertheless I think stealing GA aircrafts and using them for either
fly-by shootings or in combination with explosives is a real threat
(and even harder to counter than your Oklahoma-bombing truck). Making
sure that airports are properly fenced in and have a metal
detector/x-ray machine could be a reasonable deterrent.

- Marco

Nevertheless I think stealing GA aircrafts and using them for either
fly-by shootings or in combination with explosives is a real threat

Why do you think that?

Jose
--
for Email, make the obvious change in the address

In article ,
(Marco Grubert) wrote:

Nevertheless I think stealing GA aircrafts and using them for either
fly-by shootings or in combination with explosives is a real threat
(and even harder to counter than your Oklahoma-bombing truck). Making
sure that airports are properly fenced in and have a metal
detector/x-ray machine could be a reasonable deterrent.

How would that work in Alaska?

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

"Marco Grubert" wrote in message
om...
Nevertheless I think stealing GA aircrafts and using them for either
fly-by shootings or in combination with explosives is a real threat

Why steal an airplane? Isn't it easier just to rent one?

(and even harder to counter than your Oklahoma-bombing truck).

It's true that you can protect a specific target from a truck-bombing by
erecting barricades to prevent traffic from approaching. In that limited
respect, plane-bombings are harder to counter.

However, it's of no use to protect a specific target as long as many other
equally attractive targets remain accessible. Protecting all such targets
would require permanently shutting down traffic in entire cities, which is
impossible. Additionally, you can carry a much greater explosive payload in
a truck (or even a car) than in a typical GA plane. So on the whole, car-
and truck-bombings are the greater threat.

Making
sure that airports are properly fenced in and have a metal
detector/x-ray machine could be a reasonable deterrent.

Since car- or truck-bombings are a greater threat on the whole, should we
also have to fence in all parking lots and garages, and screen everyone
there with metal detectors and x-ray machines?

--Gary

"Marco Grubert" wrote in message
om...
There was no security lapse in that incident. A student was allowed to
pre-flight an airplane unescorted, shortly before the student was to be
signed off to solo anyway. Preventing such access would have been
completely
pointless. Even under some of the more draconian new restrictions (at
BED
now, we need to undergo a fingerprint background check in order to have
unescorted access to the ramp), that student would still have had the
same
access privileges!

Of course TSA's alien training rule would not have had anything to say
about
that moron, Charles J. Bishop, who was a US citizen...
Speaking of morons, AOPA has some statements on its website about
TSA's chief who seems to be rather clueless about his department; or
maybe he was still recovering from TSA's $500,000 2-year-anniversary
party.

Nevertheless I think stealing GA aircrafts and using them for either
fly-by shootings or in combination with explosives is a real threat
(and even harder to counter than your Oklahoma-bombing truck). Making
sure that airports are properly fenced in and have a metal
detector/x-ray machine could be a reasonable deterrent.

- Marco

Your thought process is terribly flawed. Fences, metal detectors or any
other technology will stop absolutely nothing. Do you honestly think
stealing is the only way to get a plane? Renting or buying are much more
viable options. You cannot stop a determined terrorist. That has been a
fact since forever and is simply something we will live with.

(Marco Grubert) wrote in message . com...

Nevertheless I think stealing GA aircrafts and using them for either
fly-by shootings or in combination with explosives is a real threat
(and even harder to counter than your Oklahoma-bombing truck).

Fly-by shootings? What is that? Have you ever tried to shoot
something from a plane? Sheesh!

As for explosives, the limited payload of GA aircraft tends to
counter it's advantages over a garden variety, fertilzer truck bomb.
With a big truck bomb, you can blow up a building, even if you can't
get right next to it. You'll never be able to do that much damage in
an explosive laden light single. Even if you fly it right into the
building.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

concentrate on such methods. The regrettable incident in Florida, too


As far as I'm concerned, the Florida incident only showed how GA really
ISN'T a threat. A damaged office does not warrant such idiotic mandates
from equally idiotic bureaucracies such as the TSA.

In article ,
says...

concentrate on such methods. The regrettable incident in Florida, too


As far as I'm concerned, the Florida incident only showed how GA really
ISN'T a threat. A damaged office does not warrant such idiotic mandates
from equally idiotic bureaucracies such as the TSA.


I agree - and one would hope, despite the tragic circumstances, that the GA
incidents that have followed 9/11 would convince the public in this manner.
Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case. Instead of saying "Look,
tiny airplanes don't knock down skyscrapers!" People appear to be saying,
"Boy, we got lucky there!!".

G Faris

"John Harlow" wrote in message ...
David Brooks wrote:
I just thought I'd bring it to the group's attention that
"Pam.Scott", of Aviation Institute (but also, apparently, "UNO
Library") has made some *very* good points. Perhaps everyone else
should calm down and pay attention:

http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf90/301045_web.pdf


But something has to be done!

"... with the good intention of deterring more hijackers and
terrorists from trying to take over another plane. Something has to be
done, so if not this rule, what then?"

This is a classic example of the pointless, hysterical attitudes
that are all to common today. It assumes that the regulation would
actually deter a hijacking terrorist from taking over a plane. If she
took a moment to put herself in the place of a hijacking terrorist, it
would be obvious that this rule wouldn't do a thing to deter him.

The last sentence is the kicker. Do something! However ineffective
or burdensome it is. She's an idiot.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)