More Anti GA hysteria

Courtesy of the Boston Globe:

The Bostom MASSACHUSETTS Globe, home of John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and the Boston
Red Sox. (The Patriots play in Focboro!), and $4 a gallon 100 octane low led
at BED.

Need I say more?

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 17:56:56 -0400, "Jeremy Lew"
wrote in ::

Courtesy of the Boston Globe:

http://snipurl.com/8oly


Given this excerpt from the Globe article:


Phil Anderson, a senior associate at the center who specializes in
homeland security issues, said the possible scenarios include
situations in which Al Qaeda members could use a small aircraft,
such as a single-engine, four-seat Cessna 172, to cause
catastrophe. One potential target could be a stadium packed with
tens of thousands of people.

''The no-fly zones over these stadiums are loosely enforced," said
Anderson.

Despite concerns expressed about general aviation after the Sept.
11, 2001, attacks, there are still no safety restrictions on these
smaller planes, no metal detectors or screening of luggage.

Anderson said terrorists could load a plane with explosives, add
shrapnel and possibly chemical or biological materials, and then
detonate a bomb inside a stadium.

''You just roll in low and go over the top of the rim of that
stadium and you can slow it down to about 45 knots so it's very
manageable, put it on the 50-yard line, and push the button," said
Anderson.

Any stadium could be a potential target. ''Just look at the
stadium where the Washington Redskins play," he said. FedEx Field,
in Landover, Md., seats more than 90,000 people. ''There's a
flight path that runs right by it and it's just right out there in
the middle of an open area, crimson and gold, just the perfect
target."

Perhaps the most rational approach to eliminate the "threat" this
scenario may pose would be to ban large public gatherings for the
remainder of the existence of the USA. And perhaps the think-tank
members who dreamt up these scenarios and provided them to the media
for publication should be held culpable in the event that one is
carried out.

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 02:58:45 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
wrote in ::


Seems to me that the person with "a hardon for GA" is named Karen Schaler and works
for the Globe.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies
http://www.csis.org/ now says:

http://www.csis.org/press/pr04_48.pdf
WASHINGTON, Aug. 26, 2004---An article in the August 26, 2004,
edition of the Boston Globe that suggests that the Center for
Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) is scheduled to release
soon a report on aviation security that has reached conclusions
regarding the general aviation industry is incorrect. ...

"AJW" wrote in message
...

Courtesy of the Boston Globe:

The Bostom MASSACHUSETTS Globe, home of John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and the
Boston
Red Sox. (The Patriots play in Focboro!), and $4 a gallon 100 octane low
led
at BED.

Need I say more?

Please don't, unless it's something intelligent.

Hey, Ross; as a former magazine editor, I applaud your article. Succinct,
to the point, and scorching. Very well done! Now, let's see if they have
the courage to print it.

-c

"Rosspilot" wrote in message
...
My response to the writer and editors of the Globe:

**************************************
Enough is enough! Your hysteria regarding the "threat to security" of
General
Aviation is a shameful and irresponsible attack on innocent, hard-working,
tax-paying productive American citizens who earn their livelihood by
flying
these aircraft.

We are among the most law-abiding and careful citizens you will find, as
our
lives (and our passenger's lives) depend wholly on what we do.

Your story is an insult to us. There has never been a single incident of
terrorism using small planes--and using all the creative power I can
muster, I
could not envision a scenario where my little 4 place- single engine
Cessna
could do any serious damage to anything.

Your "stadium scenario" is nonsense . . . it is far more likely that any
of the
millions of panel trucks, rental trucks, or other vehicles can be used for
attacks.

A single motorcycle rider with a backpack full of a nerve agent of other
poison
can ride through Times Square and do a lot more damage. Even a single
subway
rider with a backpack full of viral agent could infect thousands and
thousands
of people. Why aren't you writing stories about UNCHECKED backpacks and
motorcycles?

It's time to stop "piling on" aviators . . . we have been scapegoated long
enough for the attack on the WTC.

Your heartless scare-tactics are simply to inflame and create more
irrational
fear, and to sell more papers.

Shame on you!


Lee Ross
www.Rosspilot.com
New York


www.Rosspilot.com

"Rosspilot" wrote in message
...
My response to the writer and editors of the Globe:

**************************************
Enough is enough! Your hysteria regarding the "threat to security" of
General
Aviation is a shameful and irresponsible attack on innocent, hard-working,
tax-paying productive American citizens who earn their livelihood by
flying
these aircraft.

We are among the most law-abiding and careful citizens you will find, as
our
lives (and our passenger's lives) depend wholly on what we do.

Your story is an insult to us. There has never been a single incident of
terrorism using small planes--and using all the creative power I can
muster, I
could not envision a scenario where my little 4 place- single engine
Cessna
could do any serious damage to anything.

Your "stadium scenario" is nonsense . . . it is far more likely that any
of the
millions of panel trucks, rental trucks, or other vehicles can be used for
attacks.

A single motorcycle rider with a backpack full of a nerve agent of other
poison
can ride through Times Square and do a lot more damage. Even a single
subway
rider with a backpack full of viral agent could infect thousands and
thousands
of people. Why aren't you writing stories about UNCHECKED backpacks and
motorcycles?

It's time to stop "piling on" aviators . . . we have been scapegoated long
enough for the attack on the WTC.

Your heartless scare-tactics are simply to inflame and create more
irrational
fear, and to sell more papers.

Shame on you!


Lee Ross
www.Rosspilot.com
New York

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 10:07:05 -0700, "gatt"
wrote in
::

Hey, Ross; as a former magazine editor, I applaud your article. Succinct,
to the point, and scorching. Very well done! Now, let's see if they have
the courage to print it.

-c


When Ross wrote:

"Your heartless scare-tactics are simply to inflame and create
more irrational fear, and to sell more papers."

It struck a resonate chord in my thinking about this issue.

Unfortunately, Ross's response to the Boston Globe contains more heat
than light. It appears to attribute the "information" provided by The
Center for Strategic and International Studies employees to the author
of Globe article. Ross goes on to proclaim the law abiding
responsibleness of airmen, but that wasn't questioned in the article
and seems irrelevant; for it would be amoral criminal terrorists
perpetrating terrorist acts not regular law abiding airmen. And while
Ross confesses to being unable to imagine a scenario for the use of
light aircraft in a terrorist plot, that says more about his feeble
creative powers than it does about the unsuitability of such aircraft
for terrorist purposes.

So while I don't like the sensational spin applied by Karen Schaler to
The Center for Strategic and International Studies' information, I am
happy to be informed that such a study is under way. If I were to
take the author of the Globe article to task, I would emphasize the
lack of naming the specific organizations that funded the "research."

I have a feeling. that that information would be enlightening, and
perhaps provide a valid basis for discrediting the conclusions reached
by The Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Ross goes on to proclaim the law abiding
responsibleness of airmen, but that wasn't questioned in the article
and seems irrelevant; for it would be amoral criminal terrorists
perpetrating terrorist acts not regular law abiding airmen.


Well that's the whole point now, isn't it?

Does any critically-thinking person believe that a suicidal zealot, hell-bent
on wreaking havoc, is going to pay any attention to "no fly zones" and TFRs?
NEWS FLASH!! The planes that flew into the WTC both busted the NY Class B.
Yet it is we careful, law-abiding, rule-obeying pilots who are the recipients
of all the punitive and restrictive "security precautions" perpetrated on us.
I hope to God I am preachin' to the choir here.


And while
Ross confesses to being unable to imagine a scenario for the use of
light aircraft in a terrorist plot, that says more about his feeble
creative powers than it does about the unsuitability of such aircraft
for terrorist purposes.



No wonder you're so popular here, Larry.



So while I don't like the sensational spin applied by Karen Schaler to
The Center for Strategic and International Studies' information, I am
happy to be informed that such a study is under way. If I were to
take the author of the Globe article to task, I would emphasize the
lack of naming the specific organizations that funded the "research."

I have a feeling. that that information would be enlightening, and
perhaps provide a valid basis for discrediting the conclusions reached
by The Center for Strategic and International Studies

So write your own letter.


www.Rosspilot.com

"Rosspilot" wrote in message
...
Ross goes on to proclaim the law abiding
responsibleness of airmen, but that wasn't questioned in the article
and seems irrelevant; for it would be amoral criminal terrorists
perpetrating terrorist acts not regular law abiding airmen.


Well that's the whole point now, isn't it?

Does any critically-thinking person believe that a suicidal zealot,
hell-bent
on wreaking havoc, is going to pay any attention to "no fly zones" and
TFRs?
NEWS FLASH!! The planes that flew into the WTC both busted the NY Class
B.
Yet it is we careful, law-abiding, rule-obeying pilots who are the
recipients
of all the punitive and restrictive "security precautions" perpetrated on
us.
I hope to God I am preachin' to the choir here.


Well I agree with Larry. Regardless of what you and I may think about what
small airplanes may or may not be able to accomplish in terms of a terrorist
attack, it is certainly not anti-GA hysteria to discuss the possibility and
to imagine scenarios by which a terrorist could employ a Cessna to wreak
destruction. In fact it would be irresponsible not to consider them. There
are a lot of advantages to using a small aircraft to transport a bomb or
poison, they can go just about anywhere, and no road or other security
measure is of much use in stopping something that flies through the air. We
may dismiss possible terrorist scenarios as the work of pin-headed
bureacrats in washington (to use everyone's favorite cliche) but I would
think that a small flying machine would offer a lot of enticing
possibilities. Maybe this is why all the interest by AlQaeda in crop dusters
a few years back.

The responses in this group are far more "knee-jerk" than anything that
appeared in the Globe article. They sound like the typical response of a
special interest group --- lets fight terrorism, but god forbid it might
impinge on my hobby.

Of course we should not let increased anti-terrorist measures erode our
personal liberties and freedoms we enjoy, including being able to fly our
own machines. Same can be said for right to privacy, freedom of speech etc.
But simply to demonize anyone who discusses the possibilities of using GA in
a terrorist attack, seems to me to be very close-minded.

-Marc

In article 9NVXc.58769$9d6.16659@attbi_s54, "Mr. Smith"
wrote:

[snip]

Regardless of what you and I may think about
what
small airplanes may or may not be able to accomplish in terms of a
terrorist
attack, it is certainly not anti-GA hysteria to discuss the possibility
and
to imagine scenarios by which a terrorist could employ a Cessna to wreak
destruction. In fact it would be irresponsible not to consider them.

agree.



There
are a lot of advantages to using a small aircraft to transport a bomb or
poison, they can go just about anywhere, and no road or other security
measure is of much use in stopping something that flies through the air.
We
may dismiss possible terrorist scenarios as the work of pin-headed
bureacrats in washington (to use everyone's favorite cliche) but I would
think that a small flying machine would offer a lot of enticing
possibilities. Maybe this is why all the interest by AlQaeda in crop
dusters
a few years back.

Have to disagree. Other than being spectacular, the use of a small
aircraft would be stupid. Pick a mission/objective that you think
a small aircraft could accomplish, and I'll find a cheaper, faster,
easier way to accomplish the same objective without using a small
aircraft, with the added bonus that the terrorist would likely survive
to attempt more evil.

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

Regardless of what you and I may think about what
small airplanes may or may not be able to accomplish in terms of a terrorist
attack, it is certainly not anti-GA hysteria to discuss the possibility and
to imagine scenarios by which a terrorist could employ a Cessna to wreak
destruction. In fact it would be irresponsible not to consider them.


There is a huge difference between "discussing" them in an academic context,
rationally and analytically with a sincere desire to add a measure of security,
and the obvious media exploitation of the "aviation-phobia" for ratings and
sales revenue. Where did you see any "discussion" taking place?


There
are a lot of advantages to using a small aircraft to transport a bomb or
poison, they can go just about anywhere, and no road or other security
measure is of much use in stopping something that flies through the air. We
may dismiss possible terrorist scenarios as the work of pin-headed
bureacrats in washington (to use everyone's favorite cliche) but I would
think that a small flying machine would offer a lot of enticing
possibilities. Maybe this is why all the interest by AlQaeda in crop dusters
a few years back.


An idea abandoned when they themselves determined that it was impractical.
BTW, what goes on at your airport, anyway? Don't you think if someone wanted
to load up his C-172 with explosives and shrapnel or poisons someone MIGHT
notice?

The responses in this group are far more "knee-jerk" than anything that
appeared in the Globe article. They sound like the typical response of a
special interest group --- lets fight terrorism, but god forbid it might
impinge on my hobby.


It's a lot more than "a hobby" for me. It is how I earn my living, and how I
pursue happiness. I am a proponent of "fighting terrorism", but not of
senseless, ineffective, punitive, restrictive, life-altering and MEANINGLESS
political gestures.


Of course we should not let increased anti-terrorist measures erode our
personal liberties and freedoms we enjoy, including being able to fly our
own machines. Same can be said for right to privacy, freedom of speech etc.
But simply to demonize anyone who discusses the possibilities of using GA in
a terrorist attack, seems to me to be very close-minded.


As I said, enough is enough. No new ground being covered--this has been going
on for 3 years now.


www.Rosspilot.com