Pilot runs out of fuel waiting for security clearance

"Dennis O'Connor" wrote in message ...
There are 39 TFR's this morning at 0700 when I checked them so I could
legally go flying, with one other reported but not displayed (ahaaa, I knew
it was bound to happen - TFR incognito)....
And it is fine that they only cover some fraction of 1% of the airspace,
unless it happens to be your airspace/airport, and your business is
bankrupt, and Admiral Loy giveth not a tinkers damn...

shamelessly cribbed from the web
You may have seen this before. It was written by Martin Niemoller about what
happened in Germany in the 1930s.

"They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't
a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unions, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't
a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a
Protestant.
Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one to speak up."

Denny

Absolutely. But this isn't the only threat to GA. Avgas is $2.80 a
gallon! That isn't fair! We should do something about that! And
Insurance costs a fortune! And that isn't fair! We should do something
about that! And a new airplane costs $200,000! And that isn't fair! We
should do something about that! And I can't do aerobatics 3 miles from
the REILs of 36L at CVG! That isn't fair! It's a restriction on my
rights! We should do something about that!.

I'm not saying that we should simply let *everything* bad that happens
to GA go unchallenged. Don't know where you got that. But I *am*
saying we need to use discretion in what we do and what we fight for.
The scumbags on 9/11 used *airplanes* as their weapons. And fair or
not, there will be restrictions because of a public backlash against
that. No way around it. The only way to deal with it is to show (over
time) how beneficial GA is, and to attack the more egregious problems,
and pick our fights. You can't fight over everything.

It's like anyhing else. A 2% unemployment rate is fantastic...unless
you are one of that 2%. A 99% cure rate for cancer would be amazing!
Unless you are in that 1% that dies. It's unfortunate that the 0.1% of
restricted airspace affects people. But it's still 0.1% of all the
airspace we have. It's bad if the 0.5% of restricted airpors affects
you. But it's still only 0.5%. One has to keep perspective.

I'll certainly speak up..I'm not waiting until they come for me. But
speaking up against the DC-3 restrictions is different from going for
broke over the stadium TFRs. I'm picking what I want to fight for.

Cheers,

Cap





"Sydney Hoeltzli" wrote in message
...
Captain Wubba wrote:

Come on Pete. As much as we complain, how much is really different
from September 1, 2001? Looking at a graphical TFR map of the US, it
appears that well over 99.9% of US airspace is *not* restricted any

In the US the only real choices at the presidential level are
Democrats and Republicans

Unfortunately, it only seems that way because most people don't think
other
parties stand a chance. However, I think as more people get fed up with
personal liberties (and incomes) getting gobbled up by government, more
will
seriously consider alternatives.

Check out www.lp.org if you have a few minutes.

The Republicans would be in bad shape if they lost 300,000 votes to the
Libertarian Party. There is a suspision that the LP cost the GOP a couple
of
senate seats in the 2002 elections.

Thank goodness. At least a flicker of hope exists for a rational
government.

"Two Party System: A brilliant illusion craftily manufactured to give voters
the feeling of choice; choosing between the parties is like choosing between
being slapped with the front or the back of the hand. " - Mark Driver

"Captain Wubba" wrote in message
om...
Standard emotional reaction to anything that bothers a person,
regardless of the merits.

What merits? Placating an ignorant populus does not qualify as a "merit".

The merit is CRYSTAL clear to me.

If the general public is not lead to believe that they are secure, they
will demand REAL security measures to protect them from GA pilots. Perhaps
airline-style security measures (metal detectors, bomb-sniffers, etc.) at
all FBOs for Ramp Access. Or PERMANENT restrictions on flying over
populated areas.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in
:

"Captain Wubba" wrote in message
om...
Standard emotional reaction to anything that bothers a person,
regardless of the merits.

What merits? Placating an ignorant populus does not qualify as a
"merit".

"Judah" wrote in message
...
The merit is CRYSTAL clear to me.

You have a funny definition of "crystal".

If the general public is not lead to believe that they are secure, they
will demand REAL security measures to protect them from GA pilots.

You are seriously confused. It isn't the nature of the security measures
that makes them absurd. It's the question of whether they are necessary.
GA is simply not a threat that warrants the kind of measures being
implemented. MORE security measures would be more absurd, and in any case,
the worry that those extra security measures might be implemented in no way
makes the existing ones any less absurd.

I repeat: placating an ignorant populus does not qualify as a "merit". It
is a foolish reason to implement security measures, and anyone who thinks
there's merit in security measures implemented solely to placate an ignorant
populus is a fool.

Pete

More like, "Hey - your sacrifice is allowing me to be relatively
unaffected! Thanks, bro! But don't go waking up the TSA guys or they might
make it worse for ALL of us, dude!!"

This whole thing is either going to blow over in another year or two, or
it's going to get worse. Do you think that you are going to be able to do
anything about it if the TSA decides to put in Permanent Restrictions that
ARE effective at protecting the country from a GA Suicide Bomber?

Sydney Hoeltzli wrote in news:3F0C2462.1040103
@swbell.net:

"Hey, doesn't affect me, bro! Why should I sweat unreasonable
restictions on YOUR freedom, ain't bothering ME?"

Standard reaction from non-pilots. Sad to see it from a fellow
flier.

Cheers,
Sydney

This whole thing is either going to blow over in another year or two, or
it's going to get worse. Do you think that you are going to be able to do
anything about it if the TSA decides to put in Permanent Restrictions that
ARE effective at protecting the country from a GA Suicide Bomber?

You have totally missed the points.

1 - TSRs _only_ impact law abiding people. Circles on a sectional will not
stop someone out to kill themselves.
2 - GA had *nothing* to do with 9/11, and GA is the *only* group affected by
TSRs.

What "restrictions" could they possibly put in place to effectively prevent
a "GA suicide bomber" anyway? Pull a Daley and bulldoze all the grass
strips and farms in the country?

A suicide bomber in Jerusalem, with 30 pounds of explosives strapped to
his belt, can murder and injure dozens of innocent people in restaurants,
night clubs, markets, and bus stations. You don't believe that 500 pounds
of explosives in a suicide-bomber's Cessna is a potential security
threat?

Perhaps you don't believe that someone could fly a jet airliner into a
skyscraper and take it down completely, either.

Most people didn't, until it happened - twice. Now, most people are on a
high-security kick. You can say what you want about ignorance and
foolishness, but I think you should wake up and face reality a minute.

Absurd or not, those TFRs are probably saving you from much more serious
hassles and inconveniences.


"Peter Duniho" wrote in
:

"Judah" wrote in message
...
The merit is CRYSTAL clear to me.

You have a funny definition of "crystal".

If the general public is not lead to believe that they are secure,
they will demand REAL security measures to protect them from GA
pilots.

You are seriously confused. It isn't the nature of the security
measures that makes them absurd. It's the question of whether they are
necessary. GA is simply not a threat that warrants the kind of measures
being implemented. MORE security measures would be more absurd, and in
any case, the worry that those extra security measures might be
implemented in no way makes the existing ones any less absurd.

I repeat: placating an ignorant populus does not qualify as a "merit".
It is a foolish reason to implement security measures, and anyone who
thinks there's merit in security measures implemented solely to placate
an ignorant populus is a fool.

Pete

"Judah" wrote in message
...
A suicide bomber in Jerusalem, with 30 pounds of explosives strapped to
his belt, can murder and injure dozens of innocent people in restaurants,
night clubs, markets, and bus stations. You don't believe that 500 pounds
of explosives in a suicide-bomber's Cessna is a potential security
threat?

I'm not arguing that potential for harm doesn't exist. But why should
aircraft be restricted when numerous other methods of delivering 500 pounds
of explosives to any crowded area still exist?

We live in a free society, and with that freedom comes some risks. People
need to come to terms with that. The solution is NOT to impose meaningless
and unfair restrictions. After all, even if the Cessna was a more
significant risk than the numerous others that exist (and it's not) the
current restrictions do nothing to address that risk.

Perhaps you don't believe that someone could fly a jet airliner into a
skyscraper and take it down completely, either.

Most people didn't, until it happened - twice.

"Most people"? What the hell are you talking about? "Most people" didn't
even bother to think about it. Anyone who DID bother to think about it
should have recognized that that WAS a significant security risk. Even if
they didn't predict the collapse of the buildings, the potential for harm
was obvious.

Now, most people are on a
high-security kick. You can say what you want about ignorance and
foolishness, but I think you should wake up and face reality a minute.

No, YOU and the other idiots who feel that these security measures make any
sense need to wake up and face reality. Not for a minute, not for an hour,
but for their entire lives. The security you apparently desire is simply
impossible to obtain, and in the process of the futile attempts to obtain
it, you are undermining the very substance of what made our country so
great.

Absurd or not, those TFRs are probably saving you from much more serious
hassles and inconveniences.

Again, you are full of it. All these TFRs accomplish is to move me one step
closer to "much more serious hassles and inconveniences". The camel's nose
is under the tent. You are incredibly naive if you think that imposing the
current restrictions in any way help prevent us from suffering even greater
indignities.

Pete

Judah wrote:
IMHO the Ryder Truck story ain't it. If you don't believe me, next time you
get pulled over for running a traffic light, call your governor and ask him
to dismiss your case. After all, there is no light at the busy intersection
a few blocks down! That's effectively the same case you are making with the
Ryder Truck, and I think if you took a step back from your emotional
connection to the situation, you would see it is a fairly foolish approach
to making a case for removing the TFRs.

The "Ryder" analogy pertains to relative risk, destructive capacity, and
accessability. A truck is significantly more dangerous in all three of
those areas than a GA aircraft. In fact, the average SUV or minivan is
significantly more dangerous in all three of these areas. So, why haven't
we banned all vehicles from operating within 30 miles of any populated
area?

The "other side of the debate" is the fact that 500 lbs of explosives in a
Cessna is scary to the general public. The TSA seems to believe that their
restrictions make the public feel safer (apparently, regardless of the
ACTUAL effectiveness of the restrictions). I am not intimately familiar
with the methods that the TSA is using to protect the general public from
Ryder Trucks carrying thousands of pounds of explosives, but it would seem
to me that it is only marginally relevent to the argument, and definitely
not a strong argument on its own.

Who, exactly, are they trying to protect? If they're trying to protect
the average citizen in DC, then why aren't they protecting the average
citizen of New York, Chicago, LA, or Iowa City? If the only motive is to
protect individual elected officials, then I contend that a Cessna with
500 lbs of explosives is a very BAD weapon. The pilot would have to know
exactly where the official(s) was, and would have to get relatively close
to them (in aeronautical terms). In addition, our Constitution provides
for the replacement of elected officials in an orderly fashion. It would
be a very unfortunate terrorist attack, but it would do absolutely nothing
to unseat or disrupt our government. Finally, how much of our personal
liberties are we willing to give up for absolute security? By the nature
of living in a free society, we accept some level of risk.

-- Jay

__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino/ ! ! !

Checkout http://www.oc-adolfos.com/
for the best Italian food in Ocean City, MD and...
Checkout http://www.brolow.com/ for authentic Blues music on Delmarva