Private Planes: Freedom, Security, and Responsibility

TSA rules only detect known terrorists and others with
criminal records.


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

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
| by Dylan Smith Dec 15, 2005 at
02:30 PM
|
|
| 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.
|
| Why? Jim M stated that flight schools are now required to
verify US
| citizenship, and not train non-citizens until they are
approved by TSA.
| If this is true, why would the terrorists have been
approved?
|
|
|
|

On 2005-12-15, Skylune wrote:
Why? Jim M stated that flight schools are now required to verify US
citizenship, and not train non-citizens until they are approved by TSA.
If this is true, why would the terrorists have been approved?

At the time, they were legally in the United States, and none of them
had a criminal background or other background that said 'terrorist'. Had
that condition existed, the people behind the attacks would have made
doubly sure the people used for the mission were squeaky clean. Only if
the US said "All foreigners are banned from flight training" would a
plan like this not worked - well, not worked in the same way (they would
have just trained in Canada instead, or perhaps any number of
countries). Or found a Timothy McVeigh type - it's not that far fetched,
there was an extensive radio programme about one of the London bombers
from July 7th, the remarkable thing about this bomber is that he was not
at all religious to start with and became radicalised only in the last
few years (and even his WIFE didn't know what he was planning or that he
was capable of such an act).

--
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

by "Jim Macklin" Dec 15, 2005 at
11:10 AM


TSA rules only detect known terrorists and others with
criminal records.


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


If this is so, it seems the new requirements WOULD HAVE detected the 9-11
terrorists. I say this because several of the hijackers were in the
country illegally, using forged documents (passports and visas) to
illegally obtain driver's licenses. (I confirmed this in a news search.)


Surely, the TSA would pick up forged passports, especially the new
passports now being required for foreigners entering the country.

Maybe, but in general background checks look for records of
known activity, they have to show [prove] that you are
forbidden with positive records. No records probably will
pass the test.

I can design a level of security that will prevent all crime
and terrorism, it will involve having at least 1 policeman
every 50 square feet in every town and city, 1 policeman for
every civilian on every train, plane or bus. Everybody will
be tattooed with a bar code on their face for
identification.
Everybody will need permission before leaving their house,
school or work.

But then who will protect us from the police?


--
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 "Jim Macklin"
Dec 15, 2005 at
| 11:10 AM
|
|
| TSA rules only detect known terrorists and others with
| criminal records.
|
|
| --
| James H. Macklin
| ATP,CFI,A&P
|
|
| If this is so, it seems the new requirements WOULD HAVE
detected the 9-11
| terrorists. I say this because several of the hijackers
were in the
| country illegally, using forged documents (passports and
visas) to
| illegally obtain driver's licenses. (I confirmed this in
a news search.)
|
|
| Surely, the TSA would pick up forged passports, especially
the new
| passports now being required for foreigners entering the
country.
|
|
|
|
|
|

by Skywise into@[EMAIL PROTECTED] Dec 14, 2005 at 11:01 PM


"Skylune" live-ski-or-die@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote in
news:41fa639112b9db427c25872b82d6d0ba@[EMAIL PROTECTED]

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."

Pot - kettle - black.

Brian

Name a single example of factual misstatement. One.

Apparently the airlines would like the get their pilots from pools of
applicants w/o any jet time. Charter is the only way for most to get
initial jet time. Even military pilot usually spend time with charter
outfits before going to the airlines.

In article
outaviation.com,
"Skylune" wrote:

by Skywise into@[EMAIL PROTECTED] Dec 14, 2005 at 11:01 PM


"Skylune" live-ski-or-die@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote in
news:41fa639112b9db427c25872b82d6d0ba@[EMAIL PROTECTED]

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."

Pot - kettle - black.

Brian

Name a single example of factual misstatement. One.



It is misstatement by implication. Saying that you can be killed if a
plane falls on you is a fact. Using that fact to say that airplanes
represent a public hazard is a misstatement by implication.

The same "logic" is used to excuse the Draconian measures taken around
the DC area.

--
Remve "_" from email to reply to me personally.

by Orval Fairbairn o_r_fairbairn@[EMAIL PROTECTED] Dec 19, 2005 at
09:28 PM




Name a single example of factual misstatement. One.



It is misstatement by implication. Saying that you can be killed if a
plane falls on you is a fact. Using that fact to say that airplanes
represent a public hazard is a misstatement by implication.

The same "logic" is used to excuse the Draconian measures taken around
the DC area.

OK, but who ever said an airplane is a public safety hazard? Certainly
not me. Ever.

Certain pilots create a nuisance, but that is clearly not the same thing.

Skylune wrote:

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.

IIRC, 2 of the Atta crew flew into Logan from Maine (Portland?). I
assume
they cleared in Maine, and were inside the "secure area" in Logan after
landing
and transfering to their 767.

Then there's Egypt Air 990, which went to the bottom of the Atlantic.

JG

wrote in message
ups.com...

Skylune wrote:

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.

IIRC, 2 of the Atta crew flew into Logan from Maine (Portland?). I
assume
they cleared in Maine, and were inside the "secure area" in Logan after
landing
and transfering to their 767.

Then there's Egypt Air 990, which went to the bottom of the Atlantic.

JG

A little different though as the plane was (reportedly) stuffed by a
legitimate badge-wearing crew member.

Jay B