X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2009 13:41:40 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imo-d20.mx.aol.com ([205.188.139.136] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.12) with ESMTP id 3532464 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 07 Mar 2009 20:39:20 -0500 Received: from VTAILJEFF@aol.com by imo-d20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v39.1.) id q.d18.3f30cff0 (65098) for ; Sat, 7 Mar 2009 20:39:15 -0500 (EST) From: VTAILJEFF@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2009 20:39:17 EST Subject: Re: [LML] Re: The TSA and MTJ (Montrose, Colorado Airport) X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1236476357" X-Mailer: AOL 9.1 sub 5003 X-Spam-Flag:NO -------------------------------1236476357 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit So I have to get a security check that an illegal immigrant, a green card visa holder, or that a foreign visitor is not required to get? Ironic. In a message dated 3/7/2009 7:33:21 P.M. Central Standard Time, marv@lancair.net writes: Posted for William Wilson : I would have absolutely no problem getting a one-time, nationwide security clearance, though I find it unnecessary, I also think it could be painless enough to not really be a problem. Such clearance could be modeled on the Brady law; whatever your feelings on gun control (and I certainly don't want to start such a discussion), certainly the Brady law demonstrates that nationwide background checks can be done in an efficient manner. The best way to attack this law is on safety grounds. NTSB statistics show that two of the most common causes of accidents are flight into severe weather and running out of fuel. By discouraging pilots from making precautionary landings in the face of severe weather, low fuel or possible mechanical trouble, this law will cause pilots to continue fly in such inappropriate situations. These precautionary landings are very common, not currently reflected in statistics or even considered out of the ordinary. *This rule will get pilots killed *and that is the best way to oppose it. This is especially true in Colorado, Alaska and other areas where severe weather can appear out of nowhere. Not coincidentally these are the same areas where there are the most airports that would be affected by this law. -- For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html **************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1219957551x1201325337/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26hmpgID %3D62%26bcd%3DfebemailfooterNO62) -------------------------------1236476357 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

So I have to get a security check that an illegal immigrant, a green ca= rd=20 visa holder, or that a foreign visitor is not required to get? Ironic.

In a message dated 3/7/2009 7:33:21 P.M. Central Standard Time,=20 marv@lancair.net writes:

<= FONT=20 style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size= =3D2>

Posted for William Wilson=20 <fluffysheap@gmail.com>:

I would have absolutely no pro= blem=20 getting a one-time, nationwide security
clearance, though I find=20= it=20 unnecessary, I also think it could be painless
enough to not real= ly=20 be a problem.  Such clearance could be modeled on the
B= rady=20 law; whatever your feelings on gun control (and I certainly don't=20 want
to start such a discussion), certainly the Brady law=20 demonstrates that
nationwide background checks can be done in an=20 efficient manner.

The best way to attack this law is on= =20 safety grounds.  NTSB statistics show
that two of the m= ost=20 common causes of accidents are flight into severe
weather and run= ning=20 out of fuel.  By discouraging pilots from=20 making
precautionary landings in the face of severe weather, low=20= fuel=20 or possible
mechanical trouble, this law will cause pilots to=20 continue fly in such
inappropriate situations.  These=20 precautionary landings are very common, not
currently reflected i= n=20 statistics or even considered out of=20 the
ordinary.  *This
rule will get pilots kill= ed=20 *and that is the best way to oppose it.  This is
especi= ally=20 true in Colorado, Alaska and other areas where severe weather=20 can
appear out of nowhere.  Not coincidentally these ar= e=20 the same areas where
there are the most airports that would be=20 affected by this law.

--

For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html<=
/PRE>

A Good Credi= t Score is 700 or Above. See y= ours in just 2 easy steps! -------------------------------1236476357--