Pilot runs out of fuel waiting for security clearance

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?

"John Harlow" wrote in
:


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.

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?

2 - GA had *nothing* to do with 9/11, and GA is the *only* group
affected by TSRs.

GA is what the people are afraid of because the TSA has been able to
convince people that waving a metal detector wand in front of all the
passengers on airlines and taking away tweasers is security enough to
cover them, and now they are safe. "But what about those little planes
who don't go through security?" people ask. So the TSA's answer is, "We
put restrictions on them, and now you are safe again."

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?

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?

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?

Well, it has happend many times so far and I've seen no action taken (i.e.
blowing them out of the sky) which would have stopped a suicide bomber. So,
how have TSRs been effective? None whatsoever. They're just a nusiance.

2 - GA had *nothing* to do with 9/11, and GA is the *only* group
affected by TSRs.

GA is what the people are afraid of

Where do you get THIS from?

because the TSA has been able to
convince people that waving a metal detector wand in front of all the
passengers on airlines and taking away tweasers is security enough to
cover them, and now they are safe. "But what about those little planes
who don't go through security?" people ask.

What people? What is your source for such statements?

So the TSA's answer is, "We
put restrictions on them, and now you are safe again."

Take the kid who crashed into the Bank Of America building in florida. No
TSR would have stopped that, BTW. And actually it showed how little
capacity a small plane has for destruction. I believe a person's window and
desk was demolished. Frankly, it was good for GA.

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?

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?

Yes. This would definitely stop all law abiding suicide bombers.

Bottom line is: the only *real* way to prevent this is to ground all
aircraft and shoot down any which may get in the air.

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

Sidney

You are reading too much media hype.

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:32:22 GMT, Sydney Hoeltzli

----clip----

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?*************

Impossible in todays world with the ROE in effect and status and
location of Interceptors.

I spent 15 years intercepting 'unknown' aircraft and we sat on 5
minute alert 7/24.

Todays aircraft have been cut back from 9/11 status and are unable to
react soonest and in no way can meet your "10 minutes"

Sorry about that.


Big John

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

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

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

In the age of video conferencing it is high time that congress be disbursed
back their districts where they HAVE to talk to their constituents - instead
the professional procurers hanging out in the hallways...
Let the terroristas figure out how to have a mass event in hundreds of
individual districts...

Denny


Who, exactly, are they trying to protect? 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.

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!

Non sequitor.

That's effectively the same case you are making with the
Ryder Truck

I don't think so.

The point is: in an open society, there is the need to assess risk
accurately, in order to balance freedom and risk. There is also
a need for accountability, to demand that the effort and expense
put into security measures be properly directed to reduce risk
effectively.

IMO, the TFR and the Washington ADIZ fail both tests. That is the
point of bringing up the physical and economic damage a Ryder truck
full of explosives in the right place could do: we know this is a
method these groups might consider, because they've used truck bombs
in the past. Yet we've changed absolutely nothing in the truck
rental process. Driver's license, credit card, here's the keys,
there's the truck.

The "other side of the debate" is the fact that 500 lbs of
explosives in a Cessna is scary to the general public.

And why do you feel is this the case?

Sydney