Adventures in TSA land

"Roger" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 13:44:39 -0700, "David Brooks"
wrote:

"Michael" wrote in message
. com...
Today is October 19, and...

a *great* summary of the TSA IFR, but:

snip

The Category 3 rule says "A flight school may not provide training... to
a
*candidate*... unless...".

The Category 4 rule (which covers BFRs) says "Prior to beginning
recurrent
training for a *candidate*..."


Not sure I understand that. A BFR is not recurrent training.
It is a flight review.

The Definitions section of the Rule says, in pertinent part, "Recurrent
training means periodic training required under 14 CFR part 61, 121,125,
135, or Subpart K of part 91", and that phrase embraces the Flight Review.
The definition completely undermines the discussion of the term in the
preamble. On the 20th, the TSA decided by fiat that they didn't mean it
(basically, they reaffirmed the definition in the discussion section).

-- David Brooks
Believe!!!!!

"David Brooks" wrote
I was referring to the contradiction between the preamble comments and the
actual text of the rule. They can't both be authoritative, and I was working
on the belief the rule overrides its own commentary

Well, not really. In any case, it no longer matters. I understand
now why the TSA decided to handle it that way - they're actually doing
us a favor. By your reading of the rule, BFR's and IPC's would be
Category 4. But by the TSA interpretation, they're not in any
category and require no paperwork, be it for citizens OR aliens.

Well, in a legal sense they are telling us what it means. Less kind
observers will say they are just plain changing the rule, wholesale, with
zero comment period.

You could say that - but in reality, all they are doing is narrowing
the scope of the rule. Our story so far:

A candidate is someone who APPLIES for flight training - so those who
have already started training are exempt.

TRAINING only covers what you need for a certificate or rating - so
BFR's, IPC's, aircraft checkouts, and just regular brushup trainign
with a CFI is exempt.

So yes, they're changing the rule - but always in our favor.

Now if I were an alien looking to get flight training, I would be
pretty unhappy - since these rulings are going to make most of the
opposition to the rule disappear.

Divide and conquer...

Michael

On 22 Oct 2004 06:46:32 -0700, (TD) wrote:

Roger wrote in message

Bush's fundamentalism, Born again Christian stance scares me

Scares me too.


as does
Kerry's anti-gun, ...stance.

Roger, this confuses me, and many others I am sure both in the US and
especially outside. Why do many americans view anti-gun laws as
frightening? Coming from a place where we have significant gun

Others have given some good answers and some not so good, but here's
my take or impressions at a rational explanation
:
First, I think Jose already gave a good start.

I think part of the philosophy over here stems not just from the
constitution which says "The Right of the People to bear Arms Shall
Not be Infringed", but a very large part of the Country is still
rural. A high percentage of us grew up with firearms and hunting as a
part of our way of life and think of them like any other tool which
can be misused. They are part of our culture and heritage.

Nearly any police officer will tell you that when it comes to some one
breaking in your home they can not get there in time to protect you.
Step one is hide if you can. If you can't then you resort to what
ever force you have available. Many of us have had firearms training
and see gun control as a means of preventing us from protecting our
homes and families, disguised as something that will... well protect
us. History just doesn't support that. Remember one of Hitler's
first acts was gun control in Germany.

I would add that with the freedom comes a very strong responsibility
that most of us take quite seriously.

With pressure of billionaires like George Soros apparently pushing for
the eventual abolishment of the private ownership of firearms many of
us wonder at the reason behind his motives of removing our ability for
self protection. I wonder particularly as it seems in contradiction
to his views of an open society.
http://newyorker.com/fact/content/?041018fa_fact3

Even the recent ban in Australia has reportedly resulted in an
increase of violent crime and break ins.


control mechanisms, which in my layman`s view, seems to "work"

The problem here is who is giving the statistics.
For instance in the US in every state where "Right To Carry" laws
have been passed violent crime has gone down. Not just firearms
crimes, but almost all classes of violent crime. Not a lot of people
"carry" but with even a few, the criminal has no idea who's packin"
:-))

We are in some rough financial times, yet violent crime is at its
lowest in I think 30 or 40 years. That should say a lot.

controlling violent crime, why would you favor upholding the 2nd
ammendment instead of supporting gun control, which many if not all
law enforcement agencies recommend strengthening?

I think diligent research and not the national news media would show
the majority, if not the vast majority of law enforcement agencies do
not recommend strengthening gun control. I know a number of law
officers including one who is a neighbor and none are in favor of "gun
control". It would be more correct to say they oppose it. We have
far more laws than necessary on the books now and many are not
enforced. All of the officers I know are frustrated in how fast the
criminals get back on the street.

The highly publicized "Assault Weapons Ban" was strictly a show piece
of legislation that did almost nothing. It banned some firearms based
solely on looks. Many were touting it removing fully automatic
weapons from the streets. It didn't! Those have been illegal for many
years. It did ban large detachable magazines which really did nothing
except to cause manufacturers to stop producing them. That resulted in
our troops being unable to easily obtain extra magazines.

Many unknowing, or those intentionally trying to mislead, rail the
failure of the Assault Weapons Ban to be renewed, but most of the
members of Congress realized it had done nothing to reduce crime as
even the semi-automatic versions of these are seldom used in crime.
They may be ugly, but they are also just too big and obvious.

I can understand some people not liking firearms, or even being afraid
of them, but they are just a tool which is not necessarily a weapon.
A hammer is a tool, but some have been used as weapons. My 12 Ga
shotgun (trap gun) is not a weapon. It has never been used on anything
except clay pigeons. It's long straight stock would be a handicap for
hunting. It is strictly a tool for competitive trap shooting. It's
done right well too. :-))

Although it's not thought of in that light, for many violent crimes
the weapon of choice is probably the automobile. With over 42,000
deaths on the highways last year and many times that many maimed
The cost of the automobile to society is staggering. It runs in the
billions of dollars per year in medical costs and lost productivity on
top of all those deaths. We have no real way to come up with a figure
as to just how many of those deaths were intentional, but one officer
says it has to be substantial. Road Rage, murder, or accident? Only
a tiny percent are not the fault of a driver. Run over some one, or
force some one off the road? You didn't see them and it was just
another accident. Highway deaths are so common, no one even gives
another crash a second thought unless it was someone they knew, or it
was really spectacular.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Tien

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 15:43:31 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
wrote:



Peter Duniho wrote:

"Roger" wrote in message
...
No, that one is true. Kerry claims to be a hunter and pro gun rights,
but his voting record is decidedly anti-gun.

Again, you are oversimplifying the issue, labeling as "anti-gun" anyone who
doesn't approve of carte-blanche access to guns. "False" was correct.

No, Kerry's voting record is 100% anti-gun. As some highlights,

-- He voted this year for a ban on centerfire rifle ammunition. That would
immediately make most deer hunting weapons useless.
-- He voted for the Schumer ammendment to spend millions for gun buyback programs.
-- He's a co-sponsor of legislation to ban semi-automatic rifles and shotguns.
Ironically, his bill would make the shotgun he received as a gift in West Virginia
illegal.
-- He's voted several times to ban legitimate sales of firearms by private owners.
-- He's voted for Federal firearms registration.
-- He voted for a measure that would make a firearms owner responsible if his
weapon is stolen and used in a crime.
-- He voted to kill the Civilian Marksmanship Program.


And this is just a small number of the anti-gun bills he's voted for.

He's voted the same way as Ted Kennedy on gun issues and the same way as Chuck
Schumer nearly 100% of the time. That is *not* a moderate stance on gun ownership.

I head one description of him being more Ted Kennedy than Ted Kennedy.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

"W P Dixon" wrote in message
...
Well Tien,
The Second Amendment was written in order to keep the government in
check. The power of the people was meant to be stronger than the power of
the federal government.

I believe that you are quite correct. Unfortunately, it was written at a
time when the weapons possessed by the government were more or less similar
to the weapons possessed by the people (muskets, horses, wagons). The 2nd
amendment loses some of its relevancy for that purpose today, since the
People's assault rifles, grenade launchers, and mortars now have to stack up
against the government's nuclear arsenal, air power, laser-guided bombs, and
the like.


Australia and Great Britain have enacted severe gun control laws , and
their crime rates have sky rocketed. Check out the numbers on numerous web
sites...it's amazing!


Where do you get this stuff?
Would you please post the URLs of some of these sites showing the
sky-rocketing crime rates in Australia.

"W P Dixon" wrote
The Second Amendment was written in order to keep the government in
check. The power of the people was meant to be stronger than the power of
the federal government.

Careful there. These days we consider that a hazardous attitude - "anti-authority."

Unfortunately "We The People" has become more like
"We The Sheeple". Slowly law after law takes away the freedoms of the
people.

But it's all for our safety.

Michael

"Jose" wrote in message
om...

1: because it's part of the Constitution of the United States.

And maybe it should be amended to reflect the realities of the times. It
forms the basis of law, but itself is not immutable. Just saying it is a
right protected under the constitution is to hide behind what may be an
obsolete law and seemingly absolves the proponent of further reasoning and
questioning.

2: because it's one of our defenses against government going bad

So the right to bear arms is to serve and to protect the masses from a bad
government? Are you talking about during times of revolution to overthrow
the government? So we are dumping hundreds of millions of weapons onto the
streets as self-defense against the laws and actions of our government? At
what point in time and by which mechanisms would these weapons serve as
protection against the government going bad? Will they serve as a deterrent
to politicians from voting and enacting laws that we do not like? I just
don`t get it.

3: because gun control is another way of ensuring that we no longer need
to be responsible for our own actions; this helps destroy society from the
inside

As opposed to being a responsible society that is trying to weigh in balance
the pleasure of gun hobbies versus increased availability of guns to fall
into criminal`s hands or by their very possession, escalate a crime from one
level of violence to a completely different level? Except for a few, gun
ownership is mainly used by the public as either a hobbie or misguided sense
of security. For those who actually think they will use a gun in self
defense, how many are able to keep current in the skills necessary to 1.
use the gun responsibly and accurately in a life-death emergency 2.
prevent their own guns from being stolen and falling into "enemy" hands or
used against them during the emergency or used intentionally or accidentally
by their family or own children 3. control their emotions and keep them in
check enough to prevent themselves from using their own gun in an attack
against someone else, instead of solely as a defense of last resort as they
purport? Without a gun, a family squabble may end with a knife stab. It
may or may not be fatal, but with a gun, well, that exacts a much higher
level of punishment.

4: because law enforcement should not have too much power over us

So we should defend ourselves against the police by arming ourselves and
threatening armed conflict will serve as a deterrent to police abuse? So
you get pulled over by a bad cop for alleged speeding and you politely show
him your own shiny 357 Python and he`ll let you go? How does having a gun
help the average law abiding citizen escape from law enforcement abuse?

Also, the comparison between automobiles and guns is again, imho, a
comparison between apples and oranges. Automobiles are an essential part of
the daily life of our nation. Until public transportation is improved
10,000 fold, I don `t foresee our ability to rid ourselves of the pragmatic
obligation to use the car. Thus, we have to put up with inevitable
accidents. Guns, imho, do not serve the daily essential pragmatic functions
that automobiles do. Certainly, I agree that laws both regarding cars and
existing laws limiting gun ownership should both be enforced much much
better. Where I live, it is much more likely that my daughters will get
killed by an asshole with a 5 time history of DUI than being shot by someone
(knocking hard on wood here...) And that asshole will get, at the most, 2
yrs minus 1 day in a low security free room and board complex. What about
a decent background screen on everyone who desires to purchase a firearm?
It takes about 2 months to do that where I live and you must have completed
a weekend training session to obtain a certificate on the safety issues
involved with gun ownership.

On the other hand, I am not insensitive to the need to feel the sense of
protection. If I lived in the US, god forbid, I might succumb to fears and
arm myself to the teeth, getting my wife and kids trained by private
security companies as well. As one Michael here puts it, the cow already
left that barn, in the US. You can`t remove the hundreds millions of
firearms from the streets. Or can you? Slowly, one at a time? Will fear
always over-rule "commone sense"?

Tien

1: because it's part of the Constitution of the United States.

And maybe it should be amended to reflect the realities of the times. It
forms the basis of law, but itself is not immutable. Just saying it is a
right protected under the constitution is to hide behind what may be an
obsolete law and seemingly absolves the proponent of further reasoning and
questioning.

The Constitution is not immutable, but it is =very= well thought out, and changing it, especially in the manner to =remove= rights from the people, should not be done lightly. Our freedoms may =seem= obsolete, but the idea that we should have these
freedoms is not.

2: because it's one of our defenses against government going bad

So the right to bear arms is to serve and to protect the masses from a bad
government? [...] At
what point in time and by which mechanisms would these weapons serve as
protection against the government going bad? Will they serve as a deterrent
to politicians from voting and enacting laws that we do not like?...

That is one reason, yes. There are others (the "well regulated militia" referred to in the consititution, which would come in handy at 30,000 feet is another). And yes, they do serve as a deterrent against laws "we don't like", inasmuch as once we
are completely disarmed and at the mercy of law enforcement, it would be quite easy to promulgate and enforce all sorts of laws that are a bit problematic even now.

3: because gun control is another way of ensuring that we no longer need
to be responsible for our own actions; this helps destroy society from the
inside

As opposed to being a responsible society that is trying to weigh in balance
the pleasure of gun hobbies versus increased availability of guns to fall
into criminal`s hands or by their very possession, escalate a crime from one
level of violence to a completely different level? [tragic gun use dangers snipped]

Replace "guns" with "airplanes" and tell me what is so different about your stance and the stance of the TSA against private aircraft flying around willy nilly? Both aviation and gun ownership require responsibility, including the responsibility to
decide whether it is really a good idea to pull the gun on the intruder or to fly through a "thin" icing layer to make an approach as the weather goes down. Without an airplane, the tragic scene at the end of the runway would be avoided, as the
person would have used a car instead.

A free society is not one whose people are protected against itself. We argue for aviation freedoms (which are not protected in the consitution), why are gun freedoms (which are) different?

4: because law enforcement should not have too much power over us

So we should defend ourselves against the police by arming ourselves and
threatening armed conflict will serve as a deterrent to police abuse? So
you get pulled over by a bad cop for alleged speeding and you politely show
him your own shiny 357 Python and he`ll let you go? [...]

LOL! I wish! g

No, what happens is that with a populace that is disarmed and docile, it is much easier for laws to be passed, little by little, that eventually remove our ability to act as a free people. In an aviation context, it's like requiring VFR flight plans
for cross country flights at night over mountains... then all night flights, then all flights, then requiring prior approval and a squawk code for all flights, and eventually shutting down "unapproved" aviation.

On the other hand, I am not insensitive to the need to feel the sense of
protection. If I lived in the US, god forbid...

It's not about protection. It's about freedom... the freedom for =me= to decide what I want to do, rather than have some other entity decide what would be good for me, or good for society.

I see you're not from the US. Where are you from?

Jose
Note - though replied to r.a.student and r.a.piloting, I don't follow the student newsgroup

I agree with everything you said, and although you probably know, full
auto, sawed offs, silencers, et al, are NOT illegal. Also the ownership,
selling, or purchase of high cap mags, or "assault" weapons was not banned
during the assault weapon ban. As you pointed out, the "ban" was so that
manufacturers and importers could not produce "new" weapons, mags for the
non military/leo's. Like I said, I agree with what you said. In my opinion,
the ban was a feel good legislation for the uninformed.

"Roger" wrote in message
...

solely on looks. Many were touting it removing fully automatic
weapons from the streets. It didn't! Those have been illegal for many
years. It did ban large detachable magazines which really did nothing
except to cause manufacturers to stop producing them. That resulted in
our troops being unable to easily obtain extra magazines.

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 10:05:31 -0700, "David Brooks"
wrote:

"Roger" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 13:44:39 -0700, "David Brooks"
wrote:

"Michael" wrote in message
. com...
Today is October 19, and...

a *great* summary of the TSA IFR, but:

snip

The Category 3 rule says "A flight school may not provide training... to
a
*candidate*... unless...".

The Category 4 rule (which covers BFRs) says "Prior to beginning
recurrent
training for a *candidate*..."


Not sure I understand that. A BFR is not recurrent training.
It is a flight review.

The Definitions section of the Rule says, in pertinent part, "Recurrent
training means periodic training required under 14 CFR part 61, 121,125,
135, or Subpart K of part 91", and that phrase embraces the Flight Review.

The way I read it and the way it was defined today it specifically
excludes BFRs.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
The definition completely undermines the discussion of the term in the
preamble. On the 20th, the TSA decided by fiat that they didn't mean it
(basically, they reaffirmed the definition in the discussion section).

-- David Brooks
Believe!!!!!