Private Planes: Freedom, Security, and Responsibility

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.
|
|
|
|

Didn't the Kamikaze pilots crash into ships during WWII?


"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
| wrote:
|
| Come on, Sky-buffoon... Who could have ever imagined
airliners being
| used in such an insidious and evil way before 9/11?
|
| Didn't one of those "Jack Ryan" novels have an airliner
deliberately crashed
| into Congress?
|
| - Andrew
|

A small 5 shot S&W 38. The MAD doctrine still works.


--
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



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

"nrp" wrote in message
oups.com...
| You are getting very close to my originally flippant
answer to the
| aircraft 9-11 hijack etc thing:
|
| 1) Reinforce the cockpit doors including with kevlar to
make the
| bulkhead bullet-proof.
| 2) A simple loaded light weight single shot pistol under
every oxygen
| mask panel.
| 3) The pilots have a button.....
|
| At this point majority rules.
|

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.

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

Skylune wrote:

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

Nearly every pilot, with the exception of a few military types are
trained at GA schools. Ya gotta start somewhere. Nobody is going
to let you fly an airliner first.

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

And what about the INS who failed to oversee the visas properly.
Or the FAA to even pretend to scrutinize the existing watch lists
against the airline manifests.

Or the airport security at Dulles and Newark?

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

by Ron Natalie Dec 14, 2005 at 04:35 PM


Skylune wrote:

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

Nearly every pilot, with the exception of a few military types are
trained at GA schools. Ya gotta start somewhere. Nobody is going
to let you fly an airliner first.

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

And what about the INS who failed to oversee the visas properly.
Or the FAA to even pretend to scrutinize the existing watch lists
against the airline manifests.

Or the airport security at Dulles and Newark?

I agree with your statements and the sentiment of your questions. No
reasonable person wants to "stop" GA or GA flight schools. I certainly
don't.

We want them to be good neighbors. In my current case, they are not, and
hide behind FARs, anonimity provided by the planes, etc. In fact, I have
been threatened with harrassment, and worse, by certain of the pilots just
for raising the point that the Part 150 recommendations were never
implemented, and are routinely ignored. So now I am ****ed, and will
pursue any legal means to make THEIR lives a bit more difficult.

When I lived a few miles away from FRG, we did not experience any of these
problems. Sure there was some noise, but it was not a big deal because
that airport took noise abatement and neighborliness more seriously. (When
I did my short lived training years back at FRG, the instructor always
stuck to the published arrival/departure procedures, avoiding residential
areas.) Rarely, if ever, was my home buzzed, despite my proximity to a
very busy GA airport.

Sadly, that is not the case everywhere, as I now have the misfortune of
knowing first hand.

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 15:22:39 -0500, Andrew Gideon
wrote:

wrote:

Come on, Sky-buffoon... Who could have ever imagined airliners being
used in such an insidious and evil way before 9/11?

Didn't one of those "Jack Ryan" novels have an airliner deliberately crashed
into Congress?

"Debt of Honor" (paperback was published June 1994, I can't seem to
find the publish date for the hardcover offhand, but was likely late
93/early 94).

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:bL%nf.29034$QW2.18759@dukeread08...


BTW, Pilots on the airlines were required to be armed before
the mid-late 60's, to protect the mail. Your postman
walking the street also often had a gun in his big leather
bag. But LBJs postmaster general took them away.


Do you have a cite for that? I grew up at the airport hanging around the
Trans Texas Airlines (Later Texas International) office and I think I'd
remember after 65 or 66 if the pilots were carrying guns. I know TTA was
carrying airmail because one of my Grandfathers side jobs was taking the
mail from the post office to the airport.