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: Ron Horton <nancystouch at qwest.net>

Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 23:42:25 UTC


Message:

I certainly have to agree with you John.  I wouldn't mind background checks for
driver's licenses either... seeing as that is one of the Official Government Forms
Of Identification we are supposed to get from prospective travelers... boy are
they hard to come by..... yea right...
Ron

John Cornwell wrote:

> I now see that there is a second, similar bill, calling for background checks
> on prospective flight students.  I still don't see where the idea should be
> dismissed out of hand.  Maybe Mohammed Atta and other filth would have failed
> 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 know
> who failed to grab whom.  That is another debate.
>
> We have a problem.  Scumbag madmen murderers get into our country easily and
> 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 resolve,
> without solving the problem of easy entry and easy access.  I don't want to
> give up any civil liberties (that is losing the war), but I want to take away
> those liberties from those who abuse them and use them for mass and monstrous
> 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 off
> our streets.
>
> The bills introduced contain no restrictions on law-abiding guys like you and
> 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 ludicrous.
> 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 result?
> Elected representatives who view AOPA as a reasonable organization  which can
> be trusted as a source for expert advice and counsel with respect to future
> 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 have
> to do a thing) contribute to the opposite effect, and place AOPA in the same
> category as the NRA, which has absolutely zero credibility outside of is own
> (admittedly substantial) membership.
>
>  Don Peterson <autotech at flash.net> 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 few
> 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 the
> respondants said they would accept a reduction in their civil liberties in
> exchange for more security.  The problem is that this will encourage many in
> the government to go busily about increasing my security while merrily
> reducing my liberties.  Each with their own agenda, and each with their own
> interpretation of what is a trivial liberty.
>
> I don't terribly mind a key-pad entry gate to an airport.  This isn't really
> a
> reduction of my "civil liberties", now is it?  But a background check?  What
> 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 determined
> that if you had ever been to marriage counseling, it must be reported on your
> medical form?  Is that intrusive?  What about non-electrically equipped
> aircraft being exempt from transponders?  Any bet that is on the table?  Will
> this mean that those of us who live under a class B at a residential airport
> (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 world
> of compromise.  The only thing up for grabs is where the line is drawn.  We
> should let them know we don't want any compromises of our "civil liberties".
>
> Civil liberties.  Perhaps we have an extreme view of what this means down
> here
> in Texas.
>
> Don
Attachement 1: part2.html


                


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