Pilot runs out of fuel waiting for security clearance

In article , Judah
wrote:

So you are saying there have been no changes in commercial (airline)
aviation since 9/11?

there have been changes, which primarily affect the passengers.
But there are no massive restrictions on commercial airliners,
especially in terms of when and where they fly.

--
Bob Noel

"Judah" wrote in message
...
But in response to your point, why do you complain so bitterly about GA
security, but I haven't heard you mention how people's rights are violated
when they fly commercially at all! Clearly, that's unfair also, isn't it?

There are any number of restrictions imposed on us that I think are unfair,
including the additional security measures in place at commercial airports.
However, the topic at hand is the flight restrictions affecting general
aviation.

In case you hadn't noticed.

Surely you're not suggesting that, in order for one's point to be valid,
they must comment on every single similar situation that exists? No
wait...I suppose you might actually be saying that. After all, it's no more
absurd a position than your other comments exhibit.

Pete

"Judah" wrote in message
...
I don't think I ever used the word "jerk".

Sure you did. Earlier on in the thread...

Ahhh, yes, you're right. I forgot that the idiot who thinks that we ought
to just accept the TFR's is the same jerk who needs a law to tell him to not
throw trash out the window of his car.

Thanks for reminding me...

Because the security measures were implemented at the terminals before the
passengers and crew board the planes.

If you'd prefer, I am sure the TSA could arrange it to require private
pilots to stand in line at metal detecting and bag-searching security
stations at local FBOs so they can collect all of your tweezers and protect
the airways that way. Then they wouldn't need to put restrictions on our
flying, since we will be secured from the ground. Of course, all FBOs would
be required to comply, and to come up with the cash to purchase the
equipment, just like the larger airports were made to do.

Frankly, I prefer a few bullsh*t stadium TFRs.

Ideally, I would prefer pre-9/11 procedures, but pragmatically speaking, I
think it will take more time.


Bob Noel wrote in news:ihatessppaamm-
:

In article , Judah
wrote:

So you are saying there have been no changes in commercial (airline)
aviation since 9/11?

there have been changes, which primarily affect the passengers.
But there are no massive restrictions on commercial airliners,
especially in terms of when and where they fly.

Judah wrote:

No, I don't. Again, I am simply responding with facts. My opinion on the
effectiveness of the security measures is irrelevant.

The fact of the matter is that the reason that the airlines will never have
another attack similar to 9/11 is because the crew and passengers will
handle a hijacking properly this time.

Absolutely. I started preparing for defensive/offensive options
before 9/11 since even before then some lunatics tried to break into
cockpits.

Ron Lee

Actually, the topic at hand was a pilot who mismanaged fuel. Since neither
of us has been talking about that topic for a very long time, I guess we
don't belong on this thread.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in
:
There are any number of restrictions imposed on us that I think are
unfair, including the additional security measures in place at
commercial airports. However, the topic at hand is the flight
restrictions affecting general aviation.

In case you hadn't noticed.

No, the topic is about how the flight restrictions are affecting GA. The
pilot had more than enough fuel for his INTENDED flight. He did not expect
having to circle for an hour while ATC found his ADIZ flight plan that had
been lost in the system. His fuel mismanagement started when he expected them
to resolve the issue in short order and he got sucked into the "they will find
in any minute" syndrome. Yes, the pilot should have left his entry position
and gone off to get fuel (and gotten on a land line to clear up the mess), but
had it not been for the restrictions he wouldn't have gotten into the mess in
the first place.

Margy

Judah wrote:

Actually, the topic at hand was a pilot who mismanaged fuel. Since neither
of us has been talking about that topic for a very long time, I guess we
don't belong on this thread.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in
:
There are any number of restrictions imposed on us that I think are
unfair, including the additional security measures in place at
commercial airports. However, the topic at hand is the flight
restrictions affecting general aviation.

In case you hadn't noticed.

In article ,
Sydney Hoeltzli wrote:

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.

They don't demonstrate that there's no interest in using aircraft;
general aviation was non-existent in Lebanon in 1981, and is for all
practical purposes non-existent in Saudi Arabia. You can't reasonably
argue that failure to use a non-obtainable weapon is evidence that
there's no interest in using it. And the question is really the focus on
GA planes; airliners were used in 20% of the attacks attributed to
al-Qaeda.

--
Paul Baechler

Paul Baechler wrote:

They don't demonstrate that there's no interest in using aircraft;
general aviation was non-existent in Lebanon in 1981, and is for all
practical purposes non-existent in Saudi Arabia. You can't reasonably
argue that failure to use a non-obtainable weapon is evidence that
there's no interest in using it.

I'm not trying to make the above argument. Where and why did
you get the impression I had?

The point is, this is a group which has demonstrated an interest
in using car and truck bombs.

So if the real issue is security, why the focus on GA, a minor
part of the threat picture? Why not impose restrictions on
all vehicles, ground and air, commensurate with the demonstrated
and potential threat?

OTOH, if the real issue is political: creating an appearance
that action has been taken, while focusing on actions which
impact only a numerically small group of people, rather than
the large numbers of people who make daily use of cars and
trucks, focus on GA makes sense (from the viewpoint of strictly
the most politically beneficial action)

Cheers,
Sydney

Sydney Hoeltzli wrote in message ...
Captain Wubba wrote:

Sydney, it's simply reality.

Wubba, despite my tender concern for inducing pac player's
migraines (duly reported on his medical application, no doubt *g*)
I decided I had to answer this.

Many things are and have been "reality", which are not morally,
ethically, or rationally defensible.

Do you truly find it persuasive that one should not argue
against something which falls into one or more of these
indefensible categories, simply because it is current "reality"? snip good stuff

Sydney, an excellent post. You dids left out nothin' ;-) No
sarcasm, no emotionalism; all things considered a very well reasoned
perspective. Although I also like certain elements of Captain Wubba's
position, I must agree especially with your assertion that the
existence of TFR's are not "rationally" disseminated. Thank you, my
migraine has gone away.

Cheers,

pacplyer