I am beginning to wonder whether the enemy outside or the enemy within is the more dangerous to our liberty. The al Qaeda can kill me… but DHS can enslave me. Here is the latest loathsome attack on private property and our rights as free citizens, courtesy of Downsize DC:
The same one-size-fits-all regulations will apply to both passenger airliners and non-commercial, business-owned jets that are used to move cargo and personnel. For instance, the “no-fly” list and Air Marshall provisions will apply to business planes even though the pilots usually know everyone on board personally. The definition of “large aircraft” is arbitrary, applying both to planes as small as 12,500 pounds and to 747’s ten times that weight. Items that are prohibited in passenger jets will also be banned to employees in these smaller business planes, even if they are needed for their work. (Just think of what that will do to business
efficiency in this time of recession.) Airplane owners will be forced to pay, at their own expense, for audits of their safety compliance. The audits won’t even be done by government inspectors, but by private consultants. These rules can potentially expand to all aircraft and all airports.
Crazed Islamic fundamentalists cannot destroy our country. No one in the world, nor any alliance of enemies or ‘friends’ can destroy the United States.
Only we can do that… and ‘we’ are racing to see how quickly we can snuff the light of Liberty.
The whole thing is a scam,just like the “Food Champions”.A private contractor sets up a business and some politician or jobsworth gets convinced that,in the cause of prevention of terror of global warming the sorry mess gets foisted onto the public.
Less a conscious attempt to curtail liberty,rather a nice little earner.
Another attempt by our benevolent government to address a nonexistent problem.
But business jet owners, be they corporate or private, are evil. They sit around in their business jet cabins, in their yacht staterooms, and their boardrooms, dreaming of ways to oppress the poor. Little in the way of actual business gets done.
And I hate to admit it, but the American people are being dumbed down to the point where those who work in the manufacture and sale of these jets will support anything that punishes the “fat cats”, even to the detriment of their own jobs. “Why aren’t we selling as many jets anymore?”
Must be Bush’s fault. Or Halliburton.
As I read the post, the choice is:
1. Die by terrorist hands.
2. Live another day putting up with a few minor, temporary inconveniences while we address the terrorist’s use of airlines as a bomb delivery vehicle (regardless of how trivial/pointless the silly regulations are).
I’ll choose door #2, Alex.
You’re not REALLY equating the two are you?
Personally, I figure if I have to follow rules when I fly then everyone else should too. Maybe if important and powerful people are inconvenienced the rules will change.
“As I read the post, the choice is… die by terrorist hands, live another day putting up with a few minor, temporary inconveniences…”
Are you familiar with the concept of ‘risk’, Mrs du Toit? It is not a certainty that choosing to fly in a private jet will mean ‘death by terrorist hands’.
Domestic.
Foreigners affect us largely at our convenience. Never has a country had so many advantages over foreign enemies. That we go abroad looking for dragons to slay and people to save, as well as bring them here, is usually of our own fault.
And that is indeed the issue.
If all the state has to say is “it is a security matter”, whereupon they can get people to salute, disengage their critical judgement and simply accept anything regardless of how trivial/pointless the silly regulations are, the depth of just how fucked everyone is becomes more or less limitless.
“Are you familiar with the concept of ‘risk’, Mrs du Toit?”
{hah!} You’re talking to Nanny, son. Watch your lip.
“minor, temporary inconveniences ” ????
If you think the inconveniences are minor, you haven’t done much flying recently.
And it you think they’re temporary, just answer me this: when was the last time a temporary measure introduced by the State was actually repealed or removed when it was no longer needed? Has it ever happened?
“If you think the inconveniences are minor,…”
She does. And…
“…you haven’t done much flying recently.”
You’re wrong. She has. And she is here to tell you that since she is happy to line up like an animal, then you should be, too. Let me tell you something, for real: in Connie du Toit you are dealing with everything essential in the socialist impulse. She knows how to live your life, and she’s ready to vote in order to see that she gets to do it.
The truth is not in her, and neither is anything worth a damn that might be devoted to freedom.
Mark my words, and read her for yourself.
I’ve done quite a bit. That’s not the point.
Is a plane used by terrorists more or less dangerous if it is owned by a commercial airliner or a private pilot? If a plane is used as a weapon, the ownership of the plane makes no difference. Shouldn’t the same rules apply and the standards applied to planes used to ferry paying customers, regardless of who owns it?
IF you were arguing that there should be no restrictions on ANY planes, that would be a consistent argument. There is no inherent or magical difference in the ownership between American Airlines or Joe Smith, if they’re both engaging in the business of flying paying customers.
I ignore libelous and/or ad hominem attacks by Billy Beck.
Okay, so a wealthy supporter of terrorism (let’s call him, oh, Osama bin Laden) buys a LearJet, registering it in the name of a third party who has no police record.
He files a flight plan from Teterboro Airport in New Jersey to Chicago. Then, because the LearJet is private property, and therefore (to Loony Librarians International) exempt from any scrutiny, he can ferry
explosivespassengers at will to the jet’s final destination — which, in case anyone missed the news in mid-September, might not actually be the destination as filed.Sure thing. Private property is always a guarantee against malfeasance — only commercial property should be examined.
Never mind reality: let ideology rule.
And we laugh at the socialists trying to manage the economy in the same way.
Is a privately owned plane unavailable for use by the general public more or less likely to fall into the hands of terrorists than one obliged to take aboard all who pay for service?
If the rights of the owner to protect, defend and appropriately use his own property are properly respected, the property — the plane — is not apt to be hijacked and misused. Where in any case is the precedent or imminent danger of terrorists stealing private jets and using them as weapons?
The corporate and other privately owned jets aren’t generally transporting fare-paying members of the public, but yes, the same cardinal rule should apply: The owners and operators of aircraft have the right and responsibility to ensure the safety of their clients, customers and craft and to minimize the risk of damages to the public at large for which they would be liable.
It’s not a difference in ownership, it’s a difference in scale.
We know a 757 weighing 125+ tons can take down a skyscraper. It’s worth being careful about who gets on one.
A ~7 ton private plane… not so much.
The giveaway that this was suggested to a friendly legislator by a lobbyist is that this is going to be foisted off on the airplane owners, who will be required to pay for this at their own expense. Um, yeah. I wonder who just went into this business…
But there is no out-clause if American Airlines flies an eight seater puddle jumper or a 747, or if it is Bob’s Airlines, which flies 4 seater Cessnas from Reno Nevada to Lake Tahoe. The same rules apply to them, regardless of the plane’s size.
A commercial airliner IS STILL PRIVATE PROPERTY. It isn’t owned by the government. It is owned by a person or corporation.
The distinguishing factor is not the private vs public ownership of the plane. The factor is the type of business conducted. If the plane is being used to ferry passengers or carry cargo, the regulations apply EQUALLY to all, because there is no difference in what they do. If it is being used as a crop duster, then it isn’t ferrying cargo or passengers, and the rules do not apply.
Did I miss something in the linked post? If not, then “private ownership” is a red herring, as ALL commercial planes are “privately owned.”
The screening/security measures used in public airports are part of the overall impulse to “security theater”: they bear little resemblance to any attempt to truly interdict terrorists. The commercial airlines have as much, and probably more, incentive to protect their passengers and property as does the government, which is why many of us argued vehemently against the federal takeover of airport security in the aftermath of 9/11. So yes, we should be eliminating all government-managed security and leave it to those who actually have an interest in doing it properly. However, we all know that is never going to happen, so the best we can do is try to limit the expansion of this idiotic policy. Drawing the line between common carriers and private aircraft not available to the general public is a good place to start.
“I ignore libelous and/or ad hominem attacks by Billy Beck.”
A lawyer would laugh your hokey ass right out of the room on the first point, and on the second I am identifying what you are. It’s tough shit if you don’t like it. There is nothing you can do about it.
“Sure thing. Private property is always a guarantee against malfeasance….”
Those are your words, du Toit: no one else’s. You’re a fraud.
And you’re going to have to do something about twenty-ton truck rigs rolling around the country without federal agents clearing them for you.
Are you getting the picture of your folly yet? These people cannot protect you. You’re an idiot if you think they can.
Good plan, Laird. Define “general public” and a strategy for determining if the definition is being equally and fairly applied.
If I walk into Joe’s Charters and ask to book him and his plane to fly me and 10 others to Cuba, am I “general public”? What background checks should he be required to perform, if any? The same as American Airlines, or different? How/why is it different if the same rules apply to American Airlines, regardless of the size of the plane (or the number of passengers booked), or American Airline’s personal relationship with me as a frequent or one-off customer?
Why/how is it different if I buy a single ticket, a group ticket for x number of friends, a 1 year ticket to fly anywhere, or buy a time share in a plane where I can bring along X number of passengers?
If Joe’s Charters refused to take my booking because I’m wearing an Islamic religious garb, is he immune from discriminatory business practices that American Airlines is not immune from? Does American Airlines have a different set of rules/rights with respect to being able to refuse to to business with anyone, for any reason?
If Joe’s Charters is not required to perform any checks, doesn’t that give him an unfair, government-mandated advantage over American Airlines, who gets no exemption for doing exactly the same thing, but is required by law to fulfill all those obligations, as part of their operating costs?
I would think that folks who profess a desire for liberty would want it applied equally to all, and any onerous regulations also applied equally, so that the infamous free market is not favoring one business structure over an other.
What seems to be missing from the discussion is that a type of commerce is being regulated, equally. Whether it is Joe’s Charters (which is incorporated), John Smith (not incorporated), or American Airlines (a publicly traded company), shouldn’t matter, should it, as it is the industry of ferrying passengers and cargo that is being regulated?
I can understand an argument that says that there should be NO regulations of any kind, to use ANY public airspace. I might not agree with it entirely, but it would be consistent.
And all planes, using public airspace, are subject to the same requirements/rules. Isn’t that the way it should be? It is similar to the difference between registration requirements of a passenger car used ONLY on private property versus one that uses the public roads. You don’t have to register the car, pay registration fees, or comply with safety standards if the vehicle never leaves your private property (equivalent to a farmer who owns his own crop duster), but it is subject to public standards, the minute it touches a public road. There are similar differences between a car and a commercial vehicle. If an airplane is being used to ferry passengers and cargo, then it is by definition “commercial” as opposed to a plane I own, to fly myself to and from work, but I don’t earn any revenue by taking others anywhere.
What distinction is being used here to justify different treatment under the law? It isn’t “commercial.”
Those who fly general aviation are following the rules for general aviation. The airlines have different rules they must follow. So everyone else is following the rules. To suggest that business aviation be subjected to the rules for the airlines just because it makes somebody feel good is foolishness.
Nope. (1) The rules don’t need to change, insofar as the TSAs proposals are concerned; (2) That line sounds like something out of the leftist playbook.
This is all an opportunity some bureaucracy saw to use a nonexistent problem to expand federal control. And I suspect that given the knowledge base of the American people, any chance to “screw the man” will meet with broad public acceptance, merit notwithstanding.
I was going to post a lengthy comment about this, but the following article points out the absurdities of this NPRM (notice of proposed rule making) better than I could.
http://www.generalaviationnews.com/2009/01/news/“stop-lasp”-group-formed/
From the link Joe provides:
Wow. Let
freedom ringonerous regulations be equally applied!Mrs. du Toit, you either missed my point or didn’t understand it.
Airport “security” as currently practised is a fraud. It’s all form and little substance. The airlines should be permitted (required) to handle their own security, as they’re the ones with the most direct interest in seeing that it’s done properly (such as not being forced to hassle elderly grandmothers purely for reasons of “political correctness”).
That said, it’s not going to happen. The general public (more fools, they) has apparently bought into the idea of governmental control of airport security, and that’s not going to change any time soon. But just because we suffer one form of monumental idiocy doesn’t mean that we have to expand it to two just to satisfy your strange conception of parity.
Joe’s Charters is going to screen its passengers as it deems proper, because it’s in their interest to do so. And far from giving them some sort of competitive advantage by not requiring their adherence to irrational and expensive security regulations, the opposite is the case. Do you really think the airlines pay for all that security? We taxpayers do. Sgt Hardkill is correct; this is nothing but a power grab by government. It serves no legitimate security purpose.
(Oh, and “common carrier” has a well-defined legal meaning. If you don’t know what it is, look it up.)
“Is a privately owned plane unavailable for use by the general public more or less likely to fall into the hands of terrorists than one obliged to take aboard all who pay for service?”
Given sufficient funding, yes it is. Exempting corporate jets from scrutiny simply creates an avenue for mischief.
And Laird: with respect, the topic is not whether airline security is “theater” — it is, mostly — but whether smaller aircraft should be exempt from security scrutiny, just because they may be owned by an individual.
On a side note: the Washington Post once called for the execution of anarchists. I find myself becoming increasingly supportive of the idea.
(Cue bleats of: “Aha! Now we see the violence inherent in the system!”)
Linda,
What is especially spectacularly absurd about the whole matter is that I, as a pilot, may be flying my own airplane – not a corporate jet, mind you, but one that exceeds the arbitrary weight limit of 12,500 lbs. As such, I have may have to have an air marshal ride with me. This air marshal, paid for by me, is not the pilot in command (let alone even a pilot, most likely). How is he supposed to stop me from, on approach to land, veering suddenly off into a crowded terminal?
I suppose what we should do here in the States is to pair up, every man, woman and child, one to one with a security apparatchik. This person is then responsible for preventing us from committing an act of terrorism, or less onerously, briefly exceeding the posted speed limit.
Kim,
Sensible procedures that have before and in the 7+ years since 9/11 been safe and sufficient you now see fit to describe as an “exempting…from scrutiny” that “creates” potential dangers. Telling use of language.
And let’s see. “Given sufficient funding,” terrorists might break into your home, steal all your guns and ammo and use them to slaughter the tots in a neighborhood day care. Should we exempt you from paying government approved contractors to periodically inspect your home and perhaps be on hand when you unlock your gun cabinet?
Joe,
Shhhhhh. Do you want this for Homeland Security’s next big initiative? Or as an employment booster in a stimulus package?
“On a side note: the Washington Post once called for the execution of anarchists. I find myself becoming increasingly supportive of the idea.”
(laff, laff, laff) You imbecile: you wouldn’t know who to shoot first because you don’t know what you’re talking about. I established this beyond doubt over at Kevin’s place.
Be quiet, Fat-boy.
“[T]he topic is not whether airline security is ‘theater’ . . .”
That is precisely the topic. One idiocy is bad enough; adding a second will not cancel out the first. Most of what presently passes for “airport security” is pointless; expanding its reach to non-common carriers moves beyond that into the realm of the senseless.
I’ve seen enough of your posts to know that you’re not unintelligent, so I have to conclude that you’re being intentionally obtuse. I’m finished with this foolish argument.
“On a side note: the Washington Post once called for the execution of anarchists. I find myself becoming increasingly supportive of the idea.”
You are ‘increasingly supportive’ of murdering people whose political views are not the same as yours – and for that reason?!
Allow me to recommend that little ‘side note’ to Mr DeHavilland as a Samizdata quote of the day – appropriately cited to Kim du Toit, of course.
I’d never had anything stolen from me at an airport security checkpoint until a year and a half ago at one of Logan’s (Boston) faux-security machines. Maybe the TSA needs fatter prey.
[points the gentle readers of samizdata.net, including the Dwarf Anarchist Still Living With his Mother, towards dictionary definitions of “Irony” and “Sarcasm”.]
“when was the last time a temporary measure introduced by the State was actually repealed…?”
March, 1996. Congress voted to abolish the Tea Tasting Board. And there are those who want it back…
For the children.
“[points the gentle readers of samizdata.net, including the Dwarf Anarchist Still Living With his Mother, towards dictionary definitions of ‘Irony’ and ‘Sarcasm’.]”
Hey, slug: you sound like today’s commies. There is no outrage they’ll perpetrate that they won’t try to paper-over with a lie about their audience’s sense of humor.
Par for the course with you. It’s cool: I, for one, can take your admission that you are not a serious man at face value. I’ve seen loud-mouth gun wavers before.
Listen; now that you’ve closed your blog, how are you going to beg money for your kids’ trips to Europe now?
Ok gents… that will do. Take it outside.
The point was made that for consistency we should either agree with enforcing the TSA program on all aircraft owners or should call for removal of the rules from Commercial Aviation.
Well, I do so call. But that is a battle which cannot be won at this time. On the other hand, the battle to save General Aviation from this Statist encroachment might be winnable. AOPA is no slouch when it comes to fighting off monsters. They win far more often than they lose.
So I am attacking this measure on pragmatic grounds. It is a potentially winnable fight.
You must also understand that aviation is split into different categories which are under very different rules and regulatory environments. General Aviation, ie ‘private aviation’ is very, very different from ‘Commercial Aviation’. The commercial side was pretty much a state controlled industry for most of its life. It was not until Carter that it was at least mostly deregulated. (Yes, it was Carter… but I believe it did not take effect until Reagan was in power.)
This TSA measure is also a serious threat to the Warbird community. It will mean you cannot buy a ride on a B-17 at an airshow any more. They fly passengers to try to defray the costs of keeping them flying, not to make enough money to feed voracious bureaucrats.
We have already seen how destructive this breed is in the EU. Now they American cousins are trying to wreck aviation in the US by a slightly different but equivalent means.
As to TSA, it is a farce. The security should never have been placed under the government. I did not like it at the time and I am pretty sure I prophesied its failure then. TSA has accomplished nothing. No terrorist attack has been stopped by them. The only ones that *have* been stopped were by passengers. Individuals doing their duty. TSA will never work and can never work. Their security is a sieve so bad that college students can smuggle anything they want through it.
The only accomplishment that can be laid at the feet of the TSA is that they have made flying in America an onerous activity. They have increased the traffic on AMTRAK. They have made people think twice about going on trips at all.
Having failed at their first task, they now want to extend their failures to a new arena. Government organizations never pay for their incompetence. They just blame it on someone else and get more funding and more power.
So who is the worse enemy? Someone who can merely kill me or someone who is out to turn America into an effing police state?
Dale,
I see strong similarities behind the probable motivation for this and for the closing of Meigs Field in Chicago. Scuttle I heard was that the people who used Meigs were people that were not loyal to the machine. Closing Meigs was about controlling people and Meigs users were not controllable.
The Obama administration will probably take a similar (but nationally scaled) line towards general aviation. This is about control, not air safety.