In reply to:
You are right, this latest blow to our perceived personal freedom by the federal government is terrible. The phrases Fascist, Gestapo tactics, etc. come to mind. However, these tactics have been part of the current administration’s…
And why has this happened?
Tolkien Lied! Frodo Failed!
We can change things for the better in early November 2004! As they say in Chicago, vote early and vote often.[:)]
Scott,
I think all of the issues related to the TSA are worthy of our attention, whether or not we think they affect us directly. We should bear in mind this famous http://www.bartleby.com/66/9/23009.htmlquotation from Benjamin Franklin: "We must indeed all hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately."
Cheers,
Roger
In reply to:
I think all of the issues related to the TSA are worthy of our attention, whether or not we think they affect us directly.
Roger,
If only it were that easy. To the contrary, these issues will be long forgotten, if not trival, as peace seems so distant.
In the words of Abraham Lincoln:
“And the war came … Fondly do we hope – fervently do we pray – that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away.”
To the contrary, these issues will be long forgotten, if not trivial, as peace seems so distant.
Scott,
It’s vitally important for us to NOT forget these issues as the Administration http://homepage.mac.com/leperous/.Pictures/careless.jpgdistracts us with war. There’s a long and sad history of U. S. civil liberties being tossed on the trash heap in wartime — let’s not simply knuckle under and let it happen again.
As regards the quote from Lincoln, all I can say is “Amen.”
Cheers,
Roger
In reply to:
It’s vitally important for us to NOT forget these issues as the Administration distracts us with war.
Distraction? Let me tell you about distraction Roger. Hardly a day goes by when I don’t think about my nephew (my Godchild) who I loved to chase around my house when he was two years old and is now a very scared young man because he has been called to duty to preserve, protect and defend our freedom – and my hope – to restore our peace. It is evident that this war will wring out his emotions, and upon his return will have changed his life forever. A tragedy that wrings my heart.
“The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew.”
– Abraham Lincoln
In reply to:
Yes, this can lead to an abuse of power, but our society and its institutions are designed to punish this when it occurs. The hard questions is where and how do you draw the line.
The problem is that the policies and institutions which normally are in place to prevent abuses of power are no longer in force.
It used to be that before a new FAR was adopted, a public comment period was available for all stakeholders to make their concerns known, prior to the rule going into effect. Now we see the government imposing new rules (current DC TFR, potential HUGE TFR, the license revocation issue that John mentioned) without any comment period and without any process at all. Just imposed, bypassing the normal due process that was put in place to facilitate rational rulemaking.
As I mentioned in another post, for most of us – at least those who do not fly for a living – these aviation-related transgressions are the least of our problems. General civil liberties issues, particularly (but not limited to) with respect to those who happen to be Muslim or Arab, are much more grievous in my opinion.
Yes, I have faith that at some point cooler heads will prevail and we can hope for a return to normalcy. (Maybe in 2 or 6 years?) but unfortunately our history is replete with examples of the government going overboard to protect us, and trampling on rights in the meantime. The Japanese internment camps and McCarthy hearings come immediately to mind but I’m sure that there are plenty of others!
Just my $0.02. Not trying to start a flame war here, and I certainly respect your opinion, but just not as convinced as you that the institutions in place will provide any relief in the short term. Although I fear history may have shown us otherwise, I do hope for all of us that you’re right!
Steve
Steve,
Thank you for an excellent post. Like you, I fervently hope Marty’s right — but the institutions of which he speaks are in the process of being systematically disassembled. And once disassembled, it will take years of effort to get them back.
Cheers
Roger
Are we forgetting that the terrorists used airplanes to bring down the World Trade Towers, to slam into the Pentagon, and if not for the bravery of those who “Rolled” would have destroyed the White House or the Capital? Are we already forgetting that they looked into crop dusters for chemical or biological attack?
Is everything always fair? No. Do I think, if somehow my license were pulled for some mistake, I wouldn’t be able to get it back? Yes, I do. Am I concerned that the TFRs will grow unmanageably? Yes, and for that I am grateful to the efforts of AOPA and those among us who communicate with our elected officials. I can only hope that those who “vote often”, and that isn’t a joke because it does happen, lose to those who are informed and vote their conscious, but only once.
Janes:
I generally agree with you but the incinsistencies really bother me. For example, it was 4 COMMERCIAL BOEING jets that hit New York and us here in DC. It was Dullles and Boston that was used as the launching pad. There was a story about crop dusters, otherwise ni implication of GA AT ALL in terrorist activity.
Yet, today, it is GA that has all the resrtictions. COMMERCIAL BOEING jets fly in and out of National Airport, 30 seconds from the White House; GA is BANNED. Last year airplanes UNDER 12,500 lbs. were banned from flying within 10 miles of nuclear plants. The airport that had nothing to do with 9/11 (National) is closed to GA traffic; Dulles and Boston are not.
It seems someone decided that picking on GA was an easier target to make it look like the Feds were doing something about security. WE all know a GA plane CANNOT bring down the World Trade Center nor significantly damage the White House.(it has been tried twice in the last 25 years with no damage). ONly very large planes couls compromise a nuclear plant. And, obviously, commercial planes HAVE to fly for our economy and commerce.
So, I have come to the conclusion that our restrctions on fllying do NOTHING to enhance security. We are merely SCAPEGOATS and an easy target because our numbers are few compared to the rest of the population. General Aviation’s economy has been ruined in the DC area. College Park Airport, the oldest continuously operating airport in the world, is no longer continuously operating. Only a handful of pilots can use that airport now. All facilities on the field have left. It is a TRUE TRADGEDY. The airport belongs on the protected list of historic places. It has every bit of significance as Kitty Hawk as the Wright Brothers themselves started the place.
So, whether we call flying a “right” or a “priviledge”, the fact remains that illogical focus on GA as a security threat hurts us all.
<<Are we forgetting that the terrorists used airplanes to bring down the World Trade Towers, to slam into the Pentagon>>
I’m sure I will be corrected immediately if I am wrong, but I am not sure that any of the terrorists you mentioned had U.S. pilot licenses to begin with!
The real terrorists in this scenario are those who would attempt to deny constitutional freedoms to U.S. citizens, because they have found themselves so inept at accomplishing real progress.
The TSA, at its very best, are a bunch of opportunistic beer-bellied converted burger slingers who are an embarrassment. Surely no one on this list, having witnessed TSA’s best at our airports, sleeps or travels any better knowing these folks are on duty.
John Stewart
Right on Brian.
Here in Chicago our intrepid Mayor has been trying to get GA aircraft banned from flying anywhere near downtown while airline traffic landing at ORD on 27R and 27L as well as departures off 9L fly right over downtown on a routine basis. Those aircraft could do real damage but are not restricted presumably because those on board have gone through security (as did 19 terrorists on 9/11) but politicians and bureaucrats need to show the public they’re doing something and GA is an easy target.
By the way, from a philosophical standpoint flying is a privilege, not a right. You never need a license to exercise a right. Furthermore, rights are all associated with corollary obligations and there is no obligation on anyone’s or the government’s part to allow you to fly. It clearly is a privilege.
Regardless, our government has an obligation to treat its citizens fairly and in accordance with due process. That obligation correlates with our right to be treated in that manner. It is disheartening and, frankly, scary, to see how the government can and does ignore that obligation when it chooses to do so. I suppose if the government could demonstrate that it was imperative for security reasons to suspend some rights we could voluntarily give them up, but I’ve seen absolutely no evidence that the security regulations are anything more than window dressing to make it look like something positive is being done.
While everyone would like to see terrorism stopped in its tracks we must never let our cherished liberties be infringed.
Otherwise as you or another poster said, Bin Laden won.
I’m sure I will be corrected immediately if I am wrong, but I am not sure that any of the terrorists you mentioned had U.S. pilot licenses to begin with!
John,
Indeed, this was one of the main points of http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/suncommentary/la-op-garrison2feb02,1,5838891.story?Peter Garrison’s editorial (which is where this thread started in the first place). To quote: "No one who actually wants to use an airplane to attack a building or public assembly will be deterred by lack of a pilot’s license, any more than the driver of the getaway car for a gang of bank robbers would call off a heist because his driver’s license had expired."
http://www.klydemorris.com/strips.cfm?strip_ID=1032Phil Boyer and the valiant crew at AOPA are doing their best, but we need to be making the public aware of the http://www.klydemorris.com/strips.cfm?strip_ID=1020truly un-American aspects of the [Transportation Stupidity Administration. (And yes, please click on the links.)
Cheers,
Roger](http://www.klydemorris.com/strips.cfm?strip_ID=1029)
In reply to:
I’m sure I will be corrected immediately if I am wrong, but I am not sure that any of the terrorists you mentioned had U.S. pilot licenses to begin with!
However, they did train at our flight schools here in the US if I remember correctly!
However, they did train at our flight schools here in the US if I remember correctly!
… which is evidence that the screw-up was with the Immigration and Naturalization Service. I have a number of friends who work in law enforcement and have had to cooperate with INS, and all of them swear that the INS has been in a very sad state for years. So — let’s fix the INS instead of creating a new, unconstitutional, and fundamentally un-American set of bureaucracies that answer to no one.
From cartoonist http://www.claybennett.com/images/archivetoons/nat_o_al_ecurity.jpgClay Bennett
… which is evidence that the screw-up was with the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
Roger,
You are absolutely right. The federal government is acquiring more power over citizens and restricting our freedoms. Why? Because the State Department grants visas to potential terrorists from unfriendly nations without appropriate background checks and the INS is so unbelievably incompetent that our borders leak like a sieve. Even if State doesn’t issue a visa, it is a simple matter for a would-be terrorist to slot into the illegal immigration flow and invade the USA. Why isn’t the Bush administration focusing more on keeping the bad guys OUT, rather than restricting the freedoms of the good guys? IMHO, political calculation (lots of different interest groups from universities to businesses support open borders while very few people fly light aircraft) is trumping sound security policy.
Bob,
Thanks for bringing this to everyone’s attention. There’s more on this DOJ atrocity at
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/08/attack/main539929.shtmlhttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/08/attack/main539929.shtml.
This would be an excellent time for everyone to write to their senators and representative to voice their opinion. Otherwise, the Soviet-like powers granted to the TSA will be just the beginning of intrusions into all aspects of our lives.
Cheers,
Roger
Thank you Roger. I have forwarded your post to my non-pilot friends.
Exactly the point I made here. Terrorists aren’t going to care whether they have a licence - they’re going to get in the plane and fly.
The comment made about being afraid terrorists using GA aircraft would do some sort of damage just illustrates how uninformed people are. Anything smaller than an executive jet or KingAire just doesn’t have the payload capacity to deliver a significant amount of explosive (i.e. my SR20 would carry approx 400 lbs plus me and full fuel - enough to do some significant damage to a smallish office building or factory, but nothing like was done using commercial jets. Add in the form-factor required for any explosive device to be useful, and you realize that your typical SEL aircraft just isn’t going to work well compared to other, more easily procured, transportation. Crop dusters spraying some sort of toxin have similar limitations. Chemical toxic agents would disperse to subeffective (read sublethal) concentrations within minutes and/or a few hundred feet of altitude. To have any effect as a terror weapon (e.g. mass casualties or mass panic), they would have to be sprayed over a large concentration of people (i.e. an outdoor football game) at altitudes lower than 50-100 feet AGL, and in a no-wind environment. Biological agents (i.e bacteria, viruses, fungal spores) have even higher critical concentrations required for a de novo infection, plus they have to be very carefully prepared to maintain viability in an aerobic aerosol environment. Anyone who wanted to actually use chemical or biological agents with any efficacy would disperse them in a crowded, limited airflow environment - such as an office building, commercial airplane or airline terminal building, cruise ship, or subway. Our defense dept. knows these facts - they actually wrote the books on the subjects! They’re just feeding the mass paranoia so it looks like they’re doing something other than just twiddling their collective thumbs.
In reply to:
Hold on a second . . . won’t anybody be honest enough to admit that we GA pilots have no rights. We sold our rights long ago! We fly at the mercy of our federal government precisely because we’ve accepted the gift of federally subsidized aviation. Let me ask a question. Do you favor a privatized ATC? Most of us would say no. We can’t live on both sides of the street. If GA wants flying to be a “right” then GA has to be willing to own it and fund it.
Rick,
Are you suggesting that a privatized ATC would stand up for our rights more than the FAA? On the contrary, I think privatized ATC would get the most revenue per employee handling only airline flights. Thus, they’d be looking for any way to stop handling light GA - “security” would be a perfect excuse.
I would much rather we have the FAA running things as best they can, as compared to a corporation.
Steve
Hold on there. Those who use ATC voluntarily are accepting the gift of a federal subsidy, just as those who drive down the street are accepting the subsidized paved roadways, sewer systems, lighting, police protection, etc. It is far easier to fly (almost anywhere in the country using private-owned airports) without benefiting from any federal subsidies, than it is simply to drive to the grocery store. So, I don’t accept the premise that flying is inherently a subsidized privilege. It should NOT be a privilege, it should be a right. The fact that there is some federal subsidy doesn’t change this anymore than it means walking down a sidewalk should be a privilege rather than a right.
