kallend 1,625 #1 January 20, 2007 The Transportation Security Administration may need a larger staff to conduct more rigorous inspections of small private planes, lawmakers said Wednesday. Small private planes and similar types of aircraft in the general aviation community should undergo approximately the same security checks as commercial airliners, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said at a Senate Commerce, Science and transportation Committee hearing. About three-quarters of flights within the United States fall into the general aviation category, he said. > "We're not taking the lessons of 9/11 seriously," Rockefeller said. "There is nothing written... that small planes can't do catastrophic damage." Rockefeller used the example of former New York Yankees pitcher Cory Lidle, who in October 2006 was killed when his small plane drifted off-course and hit a Manhattan high-rise, to remind TSA chief Kip Hawley that even single-engine planes can cause significant damage. Rockefeller suggested that the agency bolster its staff so it can devote more resources to general aviation. Hawley responded that TSA is "looking at steps" to improve its general aviation tactics. He said "a more robust plan" is on the way. Maybe we'll have our rigs opened up, our shoes inspected and our hook knives confiscated before boarding the jump plane in future.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Meux 0 #2 January 20, 2007 Scary, very scary. There is nothing that big government can't screw up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stayhigh 2 #3 January 20, 2007 Yeah,, we should give guns to our pilots too,,, "If you guys don't get out after 6 sec separation, I'll have to shoot you!!"Bernie Sanders for President 2016 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
grue 1 #4 January 20, 2007 Oh, that'd be just great. More incompetence at every airport backed by a government who has no idea what they're doing. Anyone with an IQ higher than a fucking food processor can get a weapon on a plane.cavete terrae. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #5 January 20, 2007 Hey.. terroists could jump out of airplanes.. land on the balconies of the rich in their penthouses.... and do evil things to them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zing 2 #6 January 20, 2007 Six weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center, a landlord in Tucson called the Pima County Sheriff's Dept. about a condo that no rent had been paid on. When the deputies entered the condo, which had belonged to two of the WTC hijackers, they found guns and ammunition, flight manuals for the Boeing 757 and 767, and a bunch of flight training related materials being translated into Arabic. Also found, was information about the dropzones at Eloy, Buckeye and Marana. Larry Hill told me that a couple Arabic-looking guys had inquired at Eloy about flight training, but he turned them down. No one from law enforcement/TSA, FBI or any other agency ever followed up on the information. I recall standing on the tarmac at Eloy around mid-October of 2001 as we prepped 8 airplanes for one of the major competition boogies about to start. Now they want to do something about it? Five years later. The TSA is a joke.Zing Lurks Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnMitchell 14 #7 January 20, 2007 Almost any vehicle can become a bomb, the bigger and faster the vehicle, the more deadly and damaging. Skyhawks and C-182s, not extreme damage. A Twin Otter a bit more deadly. But none can compare to a jet airliner loaded with fuel. This latest "mission" for the TSA doesn't have a very good cost-to-benefits ratio. The time and money could be better spent elsewhere. Much needs to still be done to increase security and damage resistance of much of our infrastructure. Much of the money spent after 9/11 was wasted. Chain link fences, barb wire, and security cameras aren't sexy and novel, but are very effective security measures. X-raying skydivers would not be. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ScottTX 0 #8 January 21, 2007 TSA is a sore spot with me, I am employed in a business where a large number of our employees must interact with TSA on a daily basis, this includes employees who work behind the scenes in "secure" areas at the airport. Now another bureaucrat who probably has no idea what is happening in the real world sits on his fat ass behind a desk and wants to give the TSA more power to make up more of their useless, hassle filled, window dressing security measures . They must protect the public from those "evil skydivers"! TSA, aka, "Thousands Standing Around", The Shoe Approach", and a few others I wont repeat here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #9 January 21, 2007 The problem is that the idea has a grain of merit, but hasn't been completely thought through. John, as I'm sure you're well aware, General Aviation as it pertains to skydiving encompasses a wide range of aircraft; C-180s to DC-3s and even a DC-9. While a C-180 hijacking might simply be a amusing extension of "Fandango" if someone where to hijack a DC-3 or pack a Sky Van full of explosives. . . well, it becomes a bit more serious. So, I'm not saying it's something that should be blown off entirely.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #10 January 21, 2007 QuoteThe problem is that the idea has a grain of merit, but hasn't been completely thought through. John, as I'm sure you're well aware, General Aviation as it pertains to skydiving encompasses a wide range of aircraft; C-180s to DC-3s and even a DC-9. While a C-180 hijacking might simply be a amusing extension of "Fandango" if someone where to hijack a DC-3 or pack a Sky Van full of explosives. . . well, it becomes a bit more serious. So, I'm not saying it's something that should be blown off entirely. OK, but the example he quoted was a Cirrus, not a Skyvan or DC9.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ltdiver 3 #11 January 21, 2007 Quote OK, but the example he quoted was a Cirrus, not a Skyvan or DC9. Fun plane to fly! Flew one from Redlands up to Santa Barbara one Sunday last year. You have to be a contortionist to climb in that thing, though! > ltdiver Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnMitchell 14 #12 January 21, 2007 Quotepack a Sky Van full of explosives. . . well, it becomes a bit more serious. Absolutely. The concern of scale was the point I made exactly in my previous post. And if someone were to do this, it would happen in a dark hangar out of the public's view, not a busy DZ running tandems through their paces. I still say the best strategy is to harden your targets against ground attack, such as truck bombs. In the case of the Sept. 11th attacks, there was intel available showing that the attacks were being planned, yet the reports were buried and no one followed up on it. That's where improvements are needed, not having TSA goons standing around DZ's and flying clubs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #13 January 21, 2007 QuoteI still say the best strategy is to harden your targets against ground attack, such as truck bombs. I agree it is way easier to train some one to steal a tanker loaded with fertilizer and drive it into the Holland tunnel. There are a million better ways to protect us from attacks, but our government wouldn't let common sense get in the way of bureaucracy."The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #14 January 21, 2007 The specific example quoted in the statement was the Cory Lidle crash. The damage done was miniscule compared with, say, Tim McVeigh's OKC Ryder truck, or the London subway bombers who used backpack bombs. Bringing TSA to the level of a Cirrus, C182 or Piper Cherokee is just silly.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #15 January 21, 2007 Quote "We're not taking the lessons of 9/11 seriously," Of course not, although small planes aren't what we should be looking at. Lidle's plane did almost no damage. Loaded with explosives, an 80,000 pound semi or even 6,000 pound SUV can carry a lot more explosives than a 3,000 pound C182. The legal limits can be exceeded on the semi and SUV; too much weight in back on the C182 means it crashes on takeoff. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
itllclear 1 #16 January 21, 2007 I flw with you in a Symphony--you've been doing a lot of flying to SBA?"Harry, why did you land all the way out there? Nobody else landed out there." "Your statement answered your question." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ltdiver 3 #17 January 21, 2007 QuoteI flw with you in a Symphony--you've been doing a lot of flying to SBA? Shhhh! Now you've blown our cover! Men.... ltdiver Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bob.dino 0 #18 January 21, 2007 QuoteMaybe we'll have our rigs opened up, our shoes inspected and our hook knives confiscated before boarding the jump plane in future. It's just more security theater. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shermanator 3 #19 January 22, 2007 QuoteYeah,, we should give guns to our pilots too,,, "If you guys don't get out after 6 sec separation, I'll have to shoot you!!" NOOO, I could actually see Jim doing that! haha.CLICK HERE! new blog posted 9/21/08 CSA #720 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Armour666 0 #20 January 22, 2007 QuoteThe problem is that the idea has a grain of merit, but hasn't been completely thought through. John, as I'm sure you're well aware, General Aviation as it pertains to skydiving encompasses a wide range of aircraft; C-180s to DC-3s and even a DC-9. While a C-180 hijacking might simply be a amusing extension of "Fandango" if someone where to hijack a DC-3 or pack a Sky Van full of explosives. . . well, it becomes a bit more serious. So, I'm not saying it's something that should be blown off entirely. So what about all the airports in the US are they goign to post some one at each and every grass strip and hanger where airplanes are kept 24/7 ? if they want it some one will get no if ands or buts about it. With all the hightend security they still havent stoped all the drug flights comming in to the country what do they thing this is going to solve ?SO this one time at band camp..... "Of all the things I've lost I miss my mind the most." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Broke 0 #21 January 22, 2007 They better be on the lookout. I heard that all over the country the coming weekened there will be a bunch of unsavory types of pople jumping from light A/C. Better get them right on it.Divot your source for all things Hillbilly. Anvil Brother 84 SCR 14192 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #22 January 22, 2007 Plagued with numerous instances of theft, harrassment of passengers, and wastes of money, it has been determined that the TSA's best line of action is to... ...expand its scope... ... ...well I guess it's no more ridiculous than any other decisions made regarding the TSA. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #23 January 22, 2007 >an 80,000 pound semi or even 6,000 pound SUV can carry a lot >more explosives than a 3,000 pound C182. Well, a grand caravan can carry 3500 pounds legally, which means it could probably get off the ground with over two tons of explosives. The attractiveness of aircraft to terrorists is that you really can't stop them. If a grand caravan took off from Republic in NY, and flew the regular sightseeing route towards Manhattan, it wouldn't even encounter any positive control airspace until the last 8-10 minutes of its flight. And that's not enough time to stop an aircraft from hitting the new Twin Towers. Heck, if you were willing to die for your beliefs, you could be cleared up the Hudson for a sightseeing flight and come within 30 seconds of the towers without even setting off any warnings. And if you didn't want to die? You could take off from Spadaro's (uncontrolled airport/drop zone) set the autopilot, get out over the barrier islands (deserted in winter) and let the plane fly along on its own. Again, it wouldn't even set off any alarms until the last few minutes of its flight. That corridor sees a lot of VFR flights. I use NY as an example because I'm familiar with flying in that area, but most any area has similar issues. You could target the White House, Congress, the Rayburn Building, the Pentagon and no one could stop you in time. You can "harden" the area around critical buildings with barriers against vehicular traffic, but it's much harder to do that with aircraft. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jraf 0 #24 January 22, 2007 I want a TSA agent posted by my lawnmower!jraf Me Jungleman! Me have large Babalui. Muff #3275 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #25 January 22, 2007 QuoteI want a TSA agent posted by my lawnmower! Yea.. it might be able to do this.... http://gprime.net/video.php/flyinglawnmower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
