Photo Pilot Certificates

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...04-3-046x.html

Quote: "AOPA worked closely with the committee, including the senior
minority member, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), to make sure pilots
would not have only one option — the closest flight standards
district office (FSDO) — for having their pictures taken. The
bill would require the FAA to assign designees — most likely
aviation medical examiners (AMEs) — to take official photos."

The pros/cons of the measure notwithstanding, wouldn't it make sense
to work with state driver's licensing centers? I mean, aren't they
already in the business of issuing (semi) secure identification
cards... in somewhat convenient locations nationwide?

---
Kay
PP-ASEL
email: remove ns from aviationns

In a previous article, (KayInPA) said:
The pros/cons of the measure notwithstanding, wouldn't it make sense
to work with state driver's licensing centers? I mean, aren't they
^^^^^
already in the business of issuing (semi) secure identification
cards... in somewhat convenient locations nationwide?

I think the word "state" there is your big stumbling block. State
driver's license centers vary from state to state in the photographic
equipment they use and their standards. They probably want these things
to be the same across the country. Plus there's the little matter of
trying to get one level of government to work with another.

--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"God be between you and harm, in all the empty places that you must walk"

KayInPA wrote:

The pros/cons of the measure notwithstanding, wouldn't it make sense
to work with state driver's licensing centers? I mean, aren't they
already in the business of issuing (semi) secure identification
cards... in somewhat convenient locations nationwide?

It would make more sense to simply require that the pilot submit photos in exactly
the same format and method as that currently used for passports.

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

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


KayInPA wrote:

The pros/cons of the measure notwithstanding, wouldn't it make sense
to work with state driver's licensing centers? I mean, aren't they
already in the business of issuing (semi) secure identification
cards... in somewhat convenient locations nationwide?

It would make more sense to simply require that the pilot submit photos in
exactly
the same format and method as that currently used for passports.

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

That's what I was thinking but the post office would charge you $80.00 to
take and seal your info. unless you could have it done for free at a local
FSDO like at the passport agency

Quite honestly, in the day of Photoshop, photos don't mean a darned thing.

Really. Why not stop these terrorist people from getting into the country in the
first place? Seems like what we are doing now is hiring a bunch of government
employees to plug holes in the dike. When they run out of fingers they start
looking for civilian "volunteers".

Its a huge joke, because illegal immigration is the dirty little secret that
very damn few politicians will even talk about, much less do anything about.

Oh well... Nero fiddled while Rome burned.

C J Campbell wrote:
Quite honestly, in the day of Photoshop, photos don't mean a darned thing.

kontiki wrote:

Why not stop these terrorist people from getting into
the country in the first place?

The above comment you made is so vague and generic as to defy
description.

So why don't you come back to the group and specifically tell us all
just exactly you would do to stop any terrorist from getting into
your country in the first place.

Seems like what we are doing now is hiring a bunch of government
employees to plug holes in the dike.

Who is "we"..... All your doing is mouthing off in a newsgroup about a
problem your government is well aware of, and you are not giving any
specific examples of just what should be or could be done to plug all
the holes in that dike.

Rhetoric is one thing that everyone in a newsgroup is good at.

Specific and viable solutions to the problem are a different matter
altogether.

So hop to it kontiki, hoist that sail, grab your oar, and tell us
exactly how you would solve the problem..... and leave your
rhetoric behind.

Shiver Me Timbers wrote:

kontiki wrote:


Why not stop these terrorist people from getting into
the country in the first place?


The above comment you made is so vague and generic as to defy
description.

So why don't you come back to the group and specifically tell us all
just exactly you would do to stop any terrorist from getting into
your country in the first place.

Okay.. thank you for allowing me to elaborate. Every single day hundreds
of unknown, undocumented individuals enter this country across our borders.
The Border Patrol makes but a dent in this number. Who these people are, where
they come from and their exact intentions are totally unknown. Yes, many of them
come from Mexico and countries in South America looking for a better life.
An unknown quantity of other individuals, however, are coming here for other
purposes. These are the ones that would do us harm and they know they have a 50/50
chance of getting in here *totally* undetected. No paperwork... no way to
determine their motives... their intentions or their criminal or political history.

There is also a northern border that is just as porus. I submit that a reasonable
person would conclude that a good use of a percentage of US forces might be to
assist the Border Patrol monitor and secure these borders to a greater extent than
they are today. I bet if you took a poll of all troops in Iraq and asked them if
they would rather serve their tours assisting the border patrol HERE in the US or
in the deserts of Iraq would find a lot of volunteers for the program.

In fact.... I one might also conclude that critical monitoring of who GOT a Visa
and who didn't and just what these visa holders where actually DOING in this country
might have prevented 9-11. It was, after all, the responsibility of the INS to do
this very thing, which they utterly failed to do. The result was that the INS was
dissolved... I don't know about you but I feel better already.

Seems like what we are doing now is hiring a bunch of government
employees to plug holes in the dike.


Who is "we"..... All your doing is mouthing off in a newsgroup about a
problem your government is well aware of, and you are not giving any
specific examples of just what should be or could be done to plug all
the holes in that dike.

"WE" are American citizens and LEGAL immigrants/visitors. I just one specific
examples above, please read. If you desire more I will gladly oblige.


Rhetoric is one thing that everyone in a newsgroup is good at.

Please highlight ANYTHING I just said that any reasonable person would consider
to be simply "rhetoric".

Specific and viable solutions to the problem are a different matter
altogether.

I just gave one. I could give more if you are really interested.

So hop to it kontiki, hoist that sail, grab your oar, and tell us
exactly how you would solve the problem..... and leave your
rhetoric behind.

Balls in your court... diagram all of my rhetoric to the rest of the group.

So are you suggesting that we pull the troops out of Iraq and station them
on the US borders? That makes perfectly good sense, the news media love it.
They can drastically cut their costs of covering the terrorist attacks. They
won't have to go overseas for the daily "car bombing at a border crossing"
report, they can go to our Southern border during the winter and our
Northern border during the summer. Nice scenery and decent weather -- not
bad working conditions for the news crews.

I agree with SMT that almost everything you wrote is rhetoric. I could find
only the one tangible suggestion in your whole post. So how about a few
more?

1. Implement RFID tagging of identity documents. We already have magnetic
strips on most driver licenses, but they are too easy to defeat. RFID would
add another layer of security and can be scanned from as far away as 25'
when properly configured.

2. Establish a single, central repository of the identity records. It is way
too difficult for the states and feds to share documentation in the current
environment and in today's technological world, it is ridiculous that our
officials don't implement something from this century.

3. Divert the ridiculous funding allocations from the GA security
initiatives and put them into bolstering our border defenses. I don't mean
gun emplacements, but how about some much more efficient ID verification
systems, more control points, more airborne surveillance, and a system that
identifies welcome visitors rather than forcing them to swim a river to get
in.

4. Stop trying to win hearts and minds until the battle is over and the
field is secured. With the press documenting every step a soldier takes, our
peacekeepers are having to watch their backs as much as anything. We need to
understand that war is messy, brutal, and not politically correct. Find the
*******s, kill the *******s, secure the field, and then rebuild the country.
(Can you imagine trying to use the same strategy on Japan in WW2 as we are
using on Iraq now?)

5. We are dealing with a small group of people (I use that term liberally)
that place no value whatsoever on human life. They demonstrate that fact on
a daily basis, yet we are reluctant to brutally use their own methods in
retaliation. We need to selectively kill (not capture) this vermin because
they are a threat to the entire human, civilized race. Let's quit playing
nice and quit talking about a kinder, gentler war. How asinine!

6. Pull the civilian and government contractors out of areas where security
can't be guaranteed. Let the military finish the job of dealing with the
insurgents, and let the contractors work in other parts of Iraq. Let
elections go forward in secure areas and let the other areas continue to
live under martial law until they are secured.

Okay, here are my first 6 suggestions. I'm sure others will find more; some
will disagree (violently probably) while yet others will nod knowingly. But
hey, let's talk specific solutions and quit just complaining about the
problem.


--
Jim Carter
"kontiki" wrote in message
...

Okay.. thank you for allowing me to elaborate. Every single day hundreds
of unknown, undocumented individuals enter this country across our
borders.
The Border Patrol makes but a dent in this number. Who these people are,
where
they come from and their exact intentions are totally unknown. Yes, many
of them
come from Mexico and countries in South America looking for a better life.
An unknown quantity of other individuals, however, are coming here for
other
purposes. These are the ones that would do us harm and they know they have
a 50/50
chance of getting in here *totally* undetected. No paperwork... no way to
determine their motives... their intentions or their criminal or political
history.

There is also a northern border that is just as porus. I submit that a
reasonable
person would conclude that a good use of a percentage of US forces might
be to
assist the Border Patrol monitor and secure these borders to a greater
extent than
they are today. I bet if you took a poll of all troops in Iraq and asked
them if
they would rather serve their tours assisting the border patrol HERE in
the US or
in the deserts of Iraq would find a lot of volunteers for the program.

In fact.... I one might also conclude that critical monitoring of who GOT
a Visa
and who didn't and just what these visa holders where actually DOING in
this country
might have prevented 9-11. It was, after all, the responsibility of the
INS to do
this very thing, which they utterly failed to do. The result was that the
INS was
dissolved... I don't know about you but I feel better already.

... clipped for brevity

"WE" are American citizens and LEGAL immigrants/visitors. I just one
specific
examples above, please read. If you desire more I will gladly oblige.

you already have terrorists in the country.. and they are US citizens...
remember Oklahoma City

BT

"Shiver Me Timbers" wrote in message
...
kontiki wrote:

Why not stop these terrorist people from getting into
the country in the first place?

The above comment you made is so vague and generic as to defy
description.

So why don't you come back to the group and specifically tell us all
just exactly you would do to stop any terrorist from getting into
your country in the first place.

Seems like what we are doing now is hiring a bunch of government
employees to plug holes in the dike.

Who is "we"..... All your doing is mouthing off in a newsgroup about a
problem your government is well aware of, and you are not giving any
specific examples of just what should be or could be done to plug all
the holes in that dike.

Rhetoric is one thing that everyone in a newsgroup is good at.

Specific and viable solutions to the problem are a different matter
altogether.

So hop to it kontiki, hoist that sail, grab your oar, and tell us
exactly how you would solve the problem..... and leave your
rhetoric behind.