Pilot runs out of fuel waiting for security clearance

Captain Wubba wrote:
I don't think they will stand the test of time either. But that is
partly a point I was trying to make earlier. It takes time for
'appropriate' meausres to weed themselves out from the bogus ones. But
I disagree that GA is being 'unfairly' singled out. The last
significant attack on the US came from aviation. So it is quite
natural that the government will react *against* aviation. Just like
if the scumbags had destoyed the WTC with a bunch of rented U-Hauls,
we'd be seeing restrictions on renting U-Hauls.

Would we?

The Murra building was destroyed by a rented truck.

A previous attack on the WTC involved a rented truck.

Two US Embassies and a marine barracks were taken out by trucks
(I hope you agree that's an attack on the US, even if it took
place overseas)

Since 9/11, several additional terrorist attacks using ground
vehicles have taken place.

See any restrictions on renting or purchasing trucks after
these events?

You can't protect against every possible threat. But the natural human
reaction is to protect against *demonstrated* threats.

Yep, looks to me as though using rented trucks to blow up buildings
is a demonstrated threat.

Where is the "natural human reaction" protecting against this
demonstrated threat?

So, over time, we show how GA
benefits people. We do Angel Flights, and Young Eagle Flights, and
people will see that there isn't a threat from my Cessna 172. And the
reluctance to eliminate silly TFRs will eventually disappear.

I hope you are right but I fear you are naive.

Sydney

John Galban wrote:

Cap'n, you might disagree that GA is being unfairly singled out, but
you just proved it.

Terrorists attacked the WTC in '93 using a rental truck. The OKC
federal building was destroyed by a large fertilizer bomb in a rental
truck (both Ryder IIRC). None of the things you say above happened.
Why? Because a lot of people rent these trucks and it would have an
impact on a fairly large part of the population. Politically
speaking, it's not smart to **** off that many people. Pilots, on
the other hand, are a very small segment of the population. Most
people don't know much about what we do, therefore the government can
look like it's doing something, while only offending an insignificant
percentage of the electorate. While that's a smart move politically,
it's hardly what I would call "fair".

Pre-cisely.

And while it is a smart move politically, it is not an effective
security improvement. Effective security improvements must be based
on realistic and rational assessment of *demonstrated threats*,
regardless of who and how many are "****ed off".

Cheers,
Sydney

Paul Baechler wrote:

Bull****. We've had one partially successful attack on the WTC and one
very successful attack on the Murrah Building using rented trucks.

You're forgetting the US marines killed in the Khobar Towers truck
bombing and the US public servants killed in the African embassy
bombings (I hope no one would argue these were not attacks against
the US)

There's been no restriction on truck rentals.

Exactly.

Sydney

In article , Sydney Hoeltzli
wrote:

Class B and other restricted airspace (and the TCAs which preceded
them) were developed on very rational grounds, using objective
criteria: air traffic volume.

in addition, before 9/11flying thru Class B airspace often was not
much of a problem (with a few exception, like BOS TRACON controllers
not being particularly acommodating)


*Is* a stadium TFR an 'unreasonable restriction on somebody's
freedom'? Depends. If you ask the pilots here, they will say 'Sure!
It's terrible!

The stadium TFRs are objectionable in my view not because they
are unreasonable per se,

A question for you: do you actually think that stadium TFRs
are effective?

--
Bob Noel

Judah wrote:
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!!"

Well, this comes down to a disagreement in viewpoint.

Your viewpoint seems to be "don't complain about small restrictions,
your complaints will make big restrictions more likely to be imposed."

My viewpoint is "if we don't complain about small arbitrary
restrictions imposed for no clear reason, we open the door
and enable the easier imposition of big restrictions".

I believe the latter viewpoint to be more readily supportable
by extensive historical precedent, but I don't wish to engage in
extended historical debate.

So I'll leave it at, we disagree, and probably mutually find
each other's viewpoints unfortunate.

Sydney

Judah wrote:

1 - TSRs _only_ impact law abiding people. Circles on a sectional will
not stop someone out to kill themselves.

True for small TFRs like the stadium TFRs. But not true for the ADIZ and
larger TFRs (like 30NM Presidential ones). If a controller sees a 1200
squawk within 30NM of Washington, DC, what do you think happens next?

Why do you believe that someone bent on harm would be dutifully
activating their transponder and squawking 1200, flying a plane
with a large primary radar footprint, or flying in a manner which
would make them straightforward to intercept in less than 10
minutes?

What "restrictions" could they possibly put in place to effectively
prevent a "GA suicide bomber" anyway?

How about metal detectors and airline-style security systems in all
airports? Or Permanent Flight Restrictions in the areas that are now
Temporary, or more ADIZ Zones preventing GA pilots from flying over
populated areas without discrete transponder codes and two-way
communication with ATC?

These are examples of more restrictions which would impact only law
abiding people without effectively deterring someone bent on harm.

Cheers,
Sydney

Sydney Hoeltzli wrote:

My viewpoint is "if we don't complain about small arbitrary
restrictions imposed for no clear reason, we open the door
and enable the easier imposition of big restrictions".

Absolutely. Anyone who doesn't believe this knows nothing about the NRA.

George Patterson
The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist is afraid that he's correct.
James Branch Cavel

Paul Baechler wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Captain Wubba) wrote:

Just like
if the scumbags had destoyed the WTC with a bunch of rented U-Hauls,
we'd be seeing restrictions on renting U-Hauls. You'd go in to rent
one, and you'd need to prove you were an American citizen, provide 3
forms of picture ID, have a background check, etc.

Bull****. We've had one partially successful attack on the WTC and one
very successful attack on the Murrah Building using rented trucks.
There's been no restriction on truck rentals.

BS right back at you. We had plenty of hijackings, and no meaningful
security was taken - no real rstrictions on planes. We had a nutjob
pilot try to hijack a FedEx DC-10 and try to do exactly what the
scumbags at the WTC did. Nothing was done - no real rstrictions on air
travel. We had one relatively trivial attack, and one attack on the
Murah building that didn't kill 1/10th of what the plans at the WTC
did. And little was done. The WTC was different. It *changed*
everything....Murrah didn't, the USS Cole didn't, the Embassy Bombings
didn't. The WTC did.

Whatever had been used at the WTC would have received a backlash. Had
rental trucks been used for that, there would now be restrictions on
rental trucks. Had a tanker truck been hijacked and blown up
destroying the buildings, there would be massive restrictions on
tanker trucks right now. That's just human nature. You restrict what's
been *shown* to be a threat. And those dirtbags prved quite well that
plans can be a threat. It's the sheer scope of the WTC that initiated
a backlash. The costs associated with the changes mandated since the
WTC (and ancillary actions) are in the hundreds of billions of
dollars. And what have we to complain about? 1/10th of 1% of US
airspace has some restrictions on it, and 1/2 of 1% of US public use
airports have some restrictions on them. You think *that* is a
backlash?

A backlash would be having to file flightplans a day in advance for
any flight. A backlash would be having all GA airports locked down
behind barbed-wire fences with 24/7 security. A backlash would be *no*
GA flights at all within 25 miles of a major city, with F-18s flying
around with shotdown orders. That would be a backlash.

And that is the kind of stuff we need to fight. We don't have some
constitutionally-granted right to pilot our planes. Flying is a
privilege...the courts are quite clear on this. And tings could easily
be much, much worse than they are now. Part of the reason they are not
s because groups like the AOPA know what to fight, and what not to.

What can't 99% of GA pilots do that hey could do before 9/11? What
*exactly* have we lost? I live in a Class B area...I fly all over the
country. I've had to alter a few plans, and avoid the stadiums near my
home airport. Yes, it would suck to be based at one of the DC-3, and
that is worth working on. But honestly...for all the b*tching and
moaning about how our rights have been trampled on and how this is the
beginning of a new fascism...what exactly is different for the average
GA pliot? Very little. And it won't help GA to go whinging about how
terribly we have been mistreated. Many folks already think of us
(wrongly) as rich folks playing with their toys. If we don't want
rstrictions that *do* dramaticaly affect our flying, then we need to
pick and choose our fights, and show the public over time how valuable
we are. And that won't happen by whining about 'poor me' bacause I
have to fly an 5000 feet above a stadium rather than 2000 feet.

Cap

Paul Baechler wrote:

I didn't forget about them, or about the Marines killed in Beirut. But I
don't see the relevance of these attacks; if the possession of any
vehicle larger than a Vespa was completely banned in the US it would
have no effect on an attack carried out in Kenya.

My point was they are further demonstration of the interest
and capability these scum-balls have in using ground vehicles
to attack US interests and kill US citizens; further evidence
that the focus upon planes, and GA planes especially, as
security threats, is misguided.


Sydney

Bob Noel wrote:
In article , Sydney Hoeltzli
wrote:
The stadium TFRs are objectionable in my view not because they
are unreasonable per se,

A question for you: do you actually think that stadium TFRs
are effective?

No, of course not. Like other TFRs, they inconvenience law-
abiding folks without posing any effective deterrant to someone
bent upon destruction.

However, I would have to agree that unlike the DC gulag, they
don't pose a particularly onorous burden or restriction upon GA
pilots...PROVIDED information about where the durn things are
and when the TFR is in effect were properly disseminated, instead
of placing the burden of determining this upon the pilot. "You
must follow the rules or you will be punished" "OK, what are the
rules?" "I can't tell you that, you must determine them for
yourself" Aack!

Cheers,
Sydney