X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:43:49 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [69.146.254.20] (HELO arilabs.net) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.12) with ESMTP id 3515146 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 08:24:47 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=69.146.254.20; envelope-from=Kevin@arilabs.net Subject: RE: [LML] !IMPORTANT! New TSA Security Directive MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C9974C.58F071F8" Content-class: urn:content-classes:message X-Original-Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 06:24:10 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 X-Original-Message-ID: <7141427652BB3049A7DBF1084B67805B1E2FA3@penumbra.arilabs.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [LML] !IMPORTANT! New TSA Security Directive Thread-Index: AcmXStbdMmuXxO8KQ3iTaMlvezWuSwAAUF8w From: "Kevin Stallard" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9974C.58F071F8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I've had some time to really think about this and for me, it goes something like this: =20 1. We know we need to be careful about who is around commercial aircraft. They are the most vulnerable. =20 2. Yet, we also know that our stance has changed since 9/11, we no longer, passengers and pilots alike, are willing to be obedient to some nut case who tries to take control of an airplane. =20 3. In WWII, groups of citizens were asked to patrol beaches and do other things that we now only let military and police do. =20 4. To my knowledge, since 9/11, there hasn't been a threat to passenger aircraft from the small feeder airports (like ours, Walker Field in Grand Junction, CO). If there has, it hasn't materialized into any harm or any kind of hijacking. (Someone can correct me here if I'm wrong). So to me, it sounds like security already in place has been effective. =20 5. At our airport, there is a big red box painted on the ramp that is restricted, no one can go in except those that have gone through TSA's security. Seems to me that it would be easier to protect this box, than the entire airport. =20 =20 The government has a great resource, it's citizens. They are overlooking this resource (this is part of what is so frustrating to me) and are not factoring in the fact that most of us can be of great assistance in protecting commercial and public assets. =20 Additionally, the pilots of those commercial airplanes don't want bad people doing bad things to their airplanes. There are more stakeholders in protecting aircraft than just the Government, and I believe these stakeholders are more effective in deterring a threat than the Government will ever be. =20 The frustrating thing for me is that there are alternatives to blanket, draconian rules that make it difficult to enjoy aviation. While expressing our frustration at this problem and saying 'no' to the TSA's SD, we also need to help these guys understand that we can effectively take care of this problem, how we can do it, and why it is in their (TSA's) best interest to let us do so. =20 It just plain isn't acceptable for the TSA to secretly go about stymieing general aviation's access to public assets, there is a better way to do this. =20 We need our representatives to understand this. =20 Kevin =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9974C.58F071F8 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I’ve had some time to really = think about this and for me, it goes something like = this:

 

1. We know we need to be careful = about who is around commercial aircraft. They are the most = vulnerable.

 

2. Yet, we also know that our = stance has changed since 9/11, we no longer, passengers and pilots alike, are = willing to be obedient to some nut case who tries to take control of an = airplane.

 

3. In WWII, groups of citizens were = asked to patrol beaches and do other things that we now only let military and = police do.

 

4. To my knowledge, since 9/11, = there hasn't been a threat to passenger aircraft from the small feeder = airports (like ours, Walker Field in Grand = Junction, CO). If there has, it = hasn't materialized into any harm or any kind of hijacking. (Someone can = correct me here if I'm wrong). So to me, it sounds like security already in place = has been effective.

 

5. At our airport, there is a big = red box painted on the ramp that is restricted, no one can go in except those = that have gone through TSA's security. Seems to me that it would be easier to = protect this box, than the entire airport.

 

 

The government has a great = resource, it's citizens. They are overlooking this resource (this is part of what is so frustrating to me) and are not factoring in the fact that most of us can = be of great assistance in protecting commercial and public = assets.

 

Additionally, the pilots of those commercial airplanes don't want bad people doing bad things to their = airplanes. There are more stakeholders in protecting aircraft than just the = Government, and I believe these stakeholders are more effective in deterring a = threat than the Government will ever be.

 

The frustrating thing for me is = that there are alternatives to blanket, draconian rules that make it difficult to = enjoy aviation. While expressing our frustration at this problem and saying = 'no' to the TSA's SD, we also need to help these guys understand that we can effectively take care of this problem, how we can do it, and why it is = in their (TSA's) best interest to let us do so.

 

It just plain isn't acceptable for = the TSA to secretly go about stymieing general aviation's access to public = assets, there is a better way to do this.

 

We need our representatives to = understand this.

 

Kevin

 

------_=_NextPart_001_01C9974C.58F071F8--