Aerobatics Server

ACRO E-mail Archive Thread: [Acro] Re: Why We're Punished

[International Aerobatic Club] [Articles etc] [Communications] [Contest and Patch Information] [Aviation Organizations] [Other Aerobatics Info] [Aerobatics Images] [Other Aerobatics Links] [Other Aviation Info (including weather)] [Search ACRO Website]

Disclaimer: These aerobatics pages are developed by individual IAC members and do not represent official IAC policy or opinion.

[Usage Statistics]

ACRO E-mail Archive Thread: [Acro] Re: Why We're Punished


Thread: [Acro] Re: Why We're Punished

Message: [Acro] Re: Why We're Punished

Follow-Up To: ACRO Email list (for List Members only)

From: "Andy Cooper" <andyc at>

Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 22:42:31 UTC


  You're missing the point: these people should not have gained entry to
the country in the first instance. The fact that they did demonstrates that
the background checks being done upon visa application and at immigration
checkpoints are not good enough. Secondly, those intent on avoiding
these kinds of checks demonstrably can do so easily. Flight schools doing
background checks does not change this fact, and is just a band-aid to
appease public opinion.

Background checks on pilots, potential students, whatever, do not
address the root cause of the problem either: hijacking is what started
the chain of events. Prevent the hijacking, and prevent the event. Congress
is better served by focusing on this than on attempting to institute
background checks in idiotic places.

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Cornwell" <jwcornwell at>
To: "Don Peterson" <autotech at>; "IAC Exploder" <acro at>
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 6:01 PM
Subject: [Acro] Re: Why We're Punished

> I now see that there is a second, similar bill, calling for background
> on prospective flight students.  I still don't see where the idea should
> dismissed out of hand.  Maybe Mohammed Atta and other filth would have
> such a check and not have received that jet simulator training.  As I
> understand it, he was on the FBI's "list" of potential bad guys.  I don't
> who failed to grab whom.  That is another debate.
> We have a problem.  Scumbag madmen murderers get into our country easily
> have the means at their disposal to kill thousands.  How do we stop this?
> Bombing them into oblivion won't work. It will just strenghthen their
> without solving the problem of easy entry and easy access.  I don't want
> give up any civil liberties (that is losing the war), but I want to take
> those liberties from those who abuse them and use them for mass and
> criminal actity.  I welcome background checks if it keeps madmen out of
> airplanes.  I want Big Brother looking at me if it helps clean the shit
> our streets.
> The bills introduced contain no restrictions on law-abiding guys like you
> me.  For Phil Boyer to claim that they would impose a "financial hardship"
> (max. $100) that would dissuade many from ever learning to fly is
> Why not sit down with the bill's sponsors and make it something AOPA can
> support?  I'm sure the first draft is not perfect.  What would be the
> Elected representatives who view AOPA as a reasonable organization  which
> be trusted as a source for expert advice and counsel with respect to
> aviation issues.  Mr. Boyer's very transparent argument that the bills
> penalize an entire industry (as I read it, flight schools and CFI's don't
> to do a thing) contribute to the opposite effect, and place AOPA in the
> category as the NRA, which has absolutely zero credibility outside of is
> (admittedly substantial) membership.
>  Don Peterson <autotech at> wrote:
> "As I think John said earlier, what's the big deal (compared with facing
> being told when and where we can fly)."
> And the pot begins to boil.  Now we are thinking in terms of what onerous
> intrusions into our lives can be tolerated in exchange for what, just a
> weeks ago, we were proud to think of as an inalienable right.
> Don't be so quick to compromise.  I saw a poll last night in which 67% of
> respondants said they would accept a reduction in their civil liberties in
> exchange for more security.  The problem is that this will encourage many
> the government to go busily about increasing my security while merrily
> reducing my liberties.  Each with their own agenda, and each with their
> interpretation of what is a trivial liberty.
> I don't terribly mind a key-pad entry gate to an airport.  This isn't
> a
> reduction of my "civil liberties", now is it?  But a background check?
> about psychological tests?  (Like many of us in the acro game would pass
> this).  How many of you realize that not terribly long ago the FAA
> that if you had ever been to marriage counseling, it must be reported on
> medical form?  Is that intrusive?  What about non-electrically equipped
> aircraft being exempt from transponders?  Any bet that is on the table?
> this mean that those of us who live under a class B at a residential
> (there are many of these around the US) will have to give up antique
> airplanes?  Remember that little bit in the constitution forbidding
> unreasonable search and SEIZURE?
> Please resist to the bitter end.  Our elected representatives live in a
> of compromise.  The only thing up for grabs is where the line is drawn.
> should let them know we don't want any compromises of our "civil
> Civil liberties.  Perhaps we have an extreme view of what this means down
> here
> in Texas.
> Don


If you have aerobatics related information that you would like to make available, please contact me at the email address below.

Last Update: Fri May 4 13:13:01 2012

© Dr. Günther Eichhorn
Springer 233 Spring Street New York, NY 10013 USA, Email Guenther Eichhorn