TSA has a fan

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


-- David Brooks
Believe!!!!!

Smileys? Moi?

"David Brooks" wrote in message
...
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

I am not sure what an IFR is in the context of her letter, but she does not
sound all that knowledgeable. She suggests that aliens should plan ahead
before beginning something as complex as flight training but that it is
unreasonable to make them wait before coming to the US, which seems
contradictory to me. Also, I don't follow the argument that we should not
complain because, after all, airport employees have to be fingerprinted. So
what? If they had to have their eyebrows surgically removed, should we cut
off our ears? Both would be just as effective security measures as
fingerprinting. (Look! That guy is a real pilot! He flies with such grace
and skill that the toreadors at TSA awarded him both ears and the eyebrows.
But I digress.)

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!

I'm a moderate here - I believe we have to expect, and even encourage some
rulemaking in light of the things that have happened. 9/11 proved that civil
aviation has become a method of choice for terrorists, and a continuing flow
of information indicates they still concentrate on such methods. The
regrettable incident in Florida, too soon after 9/11, proved to the public
that security lapses can exist in General Aviation, and the general public has
only a vague understanding of the fact that the plane he stole was not similar
to the ones hijacked on 9/11 - and if we're to be honest, GA "could" be used
by terrorists to disperse insidious products over populations. So we should
expect some new rules, and come forth with proposals for security enhancements
of our own - it's the best protection against scapegoating by thick-headed
government agencies.

But fingerprinting? Who can pretend that such methods have any useful or
effective applications? If Muhammed Atta had been fingerprinted before 9/11
are we supposed to believe he wouldn't have boarded the plane? Did you all see
the pictures of those FBI agents "dusting" every piece of debris from the twin
towers for prints? Big job!

Fingerprinting has all the trappings and attributes of presumption of guilt,
and unless I'm missing something, offers little serious or useful application
in modern security enhancement. It really looks like clueless agencies,
spending large sums of tax funds, "pretending" to do something about security.

I hope somebody is dusting those golf clubs - might pick up some prints to
help with some fraud convictions down the road.

G Faris

"G Farris" wrote in message
...
I'm a moderate here - I believe we have to expect, and even encourage some
rulemaking in light of the things that have happened. 9/11 proved that
civil
aviation has become a method of choice for terrorists, and a continuing
flow
of information indicates they still concentrate on such methods.

Same thing could be said for renting U-Haul trucks. But they continue to
operate their business unfettered.

Your "moderation" is ill-placed.

In article ,
says...

Your "moderation" is ill-placed.


Moderation offends extremists.
Yet it's the basis of reconciliation.

I do believe that in the times we live in, it is reasonable to expect a few
new rules, and in fact we should desire to participate in new rulemaking. Not
every new rule will make sense to everyone in every case, but then the old
ones sometimes didn't either.

Was I unclear about the fact that I was mocking this particular rule, as
inappropriate? Or is it the word "moderation" or the concept that you find
offensive?

G Faris

"G Farris" wrote in message
...
I do believe that in the times we live in, it is reasonable to expect a
few
new rules, and in fact we should desire to participate in new rulemaking.

Your beliefs are ill-placed. None of the new rules are making us safer, and
the old rules failed to do so not because the rules themselves were
insufficient, but rather because those in charge of implementing them failed
to do so.

If and when the government is availing themselves of *existing* rules, and
if and when those rules prove insufficient, then we can talk about what new
rules to create. But not until then, and when we do, only rules that
actually create a net benefit should be considered.

Not every new rule will make sense to everyone in every case,

Why is it so wrong to expect new rules to make sense? And remember, these
new rules haven't been cases of a new rule not making sense to everyone.
They are examples of new rules not making sense to practically anyone who
has actually taken the time to be educated about the issues (you can fool
lots of ignorant people into thinking the rule makes sense, but those people
are not worthy of consideration).

but then the old ones sometimes didn't either.

Past failure is an excuse for future failure?

I suppose when a building or bridge collapses due to an engineering failure,
we should just say "well, that's the way it goes...let's build the new one
just like we built the old one".

Was I unclear about the fact that I was mocking this particular rule, as
inappropriate? Or is it the word "moderation" or the concept that you find
offensive?

I find your docile willingness to agree to whatever ridiculous government
rulemaking it cares to pursue offensive.

Pete

In article , (G
Farris) wrote:

9/11 proved that
civil
aviation has become a method of choice for terrorists

Airlines, not all civil aviation.

The
regrettable incident in Florida, too soon after 9/11, proved to the
public
that security lapses can exist in General Aviation,

If anyone really cared, they would have noticed that there
are "security lapses" in GA long ago. One person stole
a C-152 from LWM and buzzed BOS while firing a semi-automatic
weapon.

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

"G Farris" wrote in message
...
The
regrettable incident in Florida, too soon after 9/11, proved to the public
that security lapses can exist in General Aviation,

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!

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:iJ7ed.229500$wV.153455@attbi_s54...
"G Farris" wrote in message
...
The
regrettable incident in Florida, too soon after 9/11, proved to the
public
that security lapses can exist in General Aviation,

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!

Well, let's drive the nail home, shall we? Even if fully implemented, the
new TSA rule would have had no effect on this incident. Unless maybe he
didn't have a birth certificate.

-- David Brooks
Believe!!!!!