well, don’t stew about it, just say ‘buh-bye’
We rock.
Piper down you guys. There’s a Bonanza of dangerous drafts here!
We can’t piper down. We have a turbulant relationship!
any port in the storm ya know.
it’s auto -matic, when I"m in my stealth mode.
well, this thread hasn’t been an advert for the SDMB high life.
No… he can’t stop me…
… BUT he could refuse to give me a raise, or harrangue me about this daily, or choose me first the next time lay-offs come around…
This is not as bad as the jackass who once called my flight instructor and claimed I was doing illegal drugs, but pretty close (That was before my present employment. And the instructor laughed in his ear and told him to fuck off). Yes, there are some people out there who can make your life very uncomfortable.
You realize that “concern for one’s safety” is an excuse used by folks who liked to restrict the movements and independence of people? That’s part of the rationale for Afghani women wearing burkas, and Saudi women being forbidden to drive - to “protect” them from contact with men who aren’t relatives, to keep them “safe” from rape. Or for shaving the genitalia off young girls in certain parts of Africa. Not that this man’s attitude is anywhere near that bad, nor is this sort of thing used solely against women. In fact, African-Americans were exluded from flying for much of the early third of the 20th century for their “protection” - many people believing they were inherently unable to tolerate high altitudes.
“Concern”, like anything else, can be taken to unhealthy extremes.
So now you are comparing your bosses comments to the monstrosities suffered by women who are victims of female circumcision or Afghani women being forced to wear burkas?
Good God, get a grip!
OK, two points:
He is NOT my immediate boss!!! He is my boss’s boss, an officer of the company, and therefore someone with a great deal of power over everyone else in the company below his level - that’s 90% of the company.
And NO, I was NOT saying my gripe is on the same level as various mentioned attrocities I was countering the “be glad he’s concerned for your safety” argument and pointing out that this can be an excuse for controlling people and actually downright sinister. Then I gave some rather extreme examples of how that attitude can, without question, cause great harm and suffering. YOU get a grip and actually read what I’m saying.
You don’t like that example? How about I relate a few anecdotes about the missionary students several years back who used to harass me at work: snatch a book out of my hands at lunch, throw it in the trash, and tell me I should be reading the Bible, as just one example. For about two months they were calling me in the middle of the night, at home asking me if I had found Jesus yet - that took a lawyer to stop. And they ALWAYS, I mean ALWAYS justified this because they were “concerned” for me. They were “worried” about me. They were doing it for my own good.
Yes, concern for the safety of others is a good thing - but NOT when it’s used to deprieve someone of freedom of movement, freedom of choice, freedom to travel, just basically freedom.
WHY is he so damned concerned about what I (or anyone else) do on my off hours? What is his motiviation? I’m not a relative. I’m not a friend. Yes, I’m a subordinate - one he sees maybe once every two months. What very few things I do directly on his behalf his secretary is more aware of than he is. He knows my name and face and who I do actually work for within the company and that’s about it.
So WHY is he so damned concerned? It strikes me as creepy and controlling. It comes across as he wants to stop me no matter what I think and yes, I am concerned about him pressuring me at work because there are all sorts of things he could do to make my life miserable.
As I also pointed out - it’s not just me. He tried to forbid another employee from taking her kids on vacation to Washington D.C. I found out yesterday that he is applying a great deal of verbal pressure on his secretary to get her to cancel her cruise with her spouse and mother because he doesn’t feel it’s safe for her to go out of the country (it’s a Carribean cruise). He found out the new girl in the office rides motorcycles and went into a diatribe against her. Nevermind she’s been riding them for 12 years, he insisted she couldn’t possibly be aware of the danger involved (my God, she used to work in an emergency room - she could probably lecture HIM on what motorcycle accidents can do) and she needed to stop immediately. (I can’t wait until he finds out she own a pit bull, too)
This is all out of line. Is it significant that all these incidents involve women? Maybe… but our division is predominantly women (75%) and maybe if he does this to the men they don’t talk about it. If our “extreme vacation” guy J gets leaned on he’d never, ever say it. I know the Big Boss is not happy he’s university-hopping over spring break (airplane travel, again) but his daughter is college-shopping and this is the only time of year they can really fit it into the family schedule.
Is the guy stressed out? Well, maybe - lot’s of other folks sure are - but it’s a fucking creepy way for it to manifest.
That’s a good and valid question and I’d like to take a moment to address it.
The short answer is yes, it’s possible - but I think it’s unlikely.
Small airplanes are routinely flown across the Atlantic between Europe and the US, and part of that involves installing monster-sized auxillary gas tanks. This is done in various maintenance facilities that have the experience and equipment to do so safely. Of course, these folks are NOT interested in terrorism and the modifications are plumbed into the engine fuel supply. But it is an illustration that even a small plane can be modified to hold tanks of stuff. In this case fuel, but yes, it could be something else.
However, a terrorist is NOT going to be able to get the modiifications for dispersement done in such a place - asking for that is likely to get the authorities called. He’d have to do it himself, or with a few henchmen. OK yeah - they have to get a plane (this is going to take time, so it can’t be a rental. The bad guys have to either buy it or steal it), find a secluded place to work, do the work without disturbing the neighbors, load the plane, and launch without detection. Airplanes tend to attract attention - this was true even before September 11 - and purchases of certain types of equipment (not limited to aviation) and chemicals are now being tracked.
Is the above possible? In theory, yes - but as a practical matter there are a few difficulties. An airplane can only lift so much off the ground and no more - and some of that total is fuel. The more fuel you carry the less Bad StuffTM you can haul. So if you go for lots of Bad StuffTM you can load less fuel, which means the flight has to start closer to the target. If you want to start in the wilderness (to avoid detection during the work phase) the fuel you require to get to the target will eat into the payload of Bad StuffTM. You could stop and refuel - but even before 9/11 if you stopped at a small airport SOMEBODY would show up just to say hi, and now all transients are routinely greeted after arrival. That vastly increases your risk of detection, because pilots like to look at airplanes AND they know what airplanes should look like. How well can you hide the “dispersal equipment”? Remember, pilots examine airplanes every time they fly, looking for things like small cracks and broken antennas - we’re used to looking at very small details. And I should also point out that the further you are from a big city the more likely the nice person riding to meet you in the golf cart or tractor is to be armed. For several decades rural America has had sporadic problems with airplane theft (drug runners steal airplanes sometimes) so armed personal at remote strips is nothint new. We’re not talking defenseless, clueless idiots here, but people awake and aware.
I don’t know what the ultimate load for a C172 or PA-28 actually is (this is opposed to the “safe” limit given by the manufactuter) but let’s say it’s 1000 lbs as a round number. That “1000” has to include not only Bad StuffTM but also the pilot and fuel and tanks to hold the Bad StuffTM and the weight of equipment to disperse the Bad StuffTM. And even if you do squish that much aboard, you are increasing your chances of having an out-of-balance airplane (which may become uncontrollabe and crash short of the target) or overstressing the airframe (which means if you turn too quick or hit turbulence along the way your wing could conceivably snap off or something else that drastic could happen.)
But yes, in theory it’s possible to spread Bad StuffTM with a small plane.
Now, lets consider the Ryder truck or U-haul situation. Rent truck. Open back of truck. Load lot’s of Bad StuffTM in back of truck. Close truck doors. Drive along highway openly, stop at gas stations and rest stops as needed. You blend right in - just another bunch of Joe’s moving. Maybe you’re college students. Drive to target. Disperse.
Or buy a panel truck, drive to some remote area to modify it for spraying or whatever (same detection problems as before, but trucks do not attract as much attention as airplanes), then, again, drive it away and deploy at destination.
MUCH less likely to attract attention. AND a small truck can carry a much heavier payload than a comparable plane, AND is cheaper to obtain. All which is why car and truck bombs are far, far more common than “plane bombs”
Hell, the sarin attack on the Tokyo subway used BAGGIES, for God’s sake. Are we going to outlaw THOSE? How about box-cutters - they sell those openly in hardware stores, right?
Small planes are a handy target - not many people give a damn about them, those of us who fly them are considered self-centered and spoiled (we see some of that in this thread) and probably deserve what they get.
Trucks though - “real people” use those. They “need” them. God forbid we ban or regulate them, even though they are MUCH MORE LIKELY to be used for terrorist purposes than an airplane.
But let’s say the Bad Guys got ahold of an airplane and modified it. Let’s further assume they’re now over a city of 3 million, having arrived without arousing suspicion. OK - if they fly high they can disperse over a wide area BUT the Bad StuffTM gets heavily diluted, and if they’re above a thermal inversion or simillar weather phenomena it may not fall to ground for some time, might even blow away from the target (and get further diluted). How much Bad StuffTM are they going to need to do the job?
OK, maybe they choose to fly low - NOW they’re going to attract attention. And the area of dispersement will be smaller. Maybe that’s what they want - keeps the Bad StuffTM from getting too diluted - but the lower you go the more likely people are to be aware Something Bad is occuring, at which point they flee for cover, making them less likely to be affected by the attack. Get low enough you’ll be in range of police weaponry - maybe they’ll shoot you down (it IS possible). Certainly, people will be tipped off. If it’s a gas attack that may not matter, but for a bio-attack, if people are warned before symptoms start they can be treated and illness may be prevented (such as with the anthrax attack after September 11 - exposed people were put on antibiotics which probably limited the number of ill by quite a bit), thereby defeating the attack.
They’ll cause alarm and fear - which might suit some of their purposes - but deaths will be few. Al Quaeda isn’t interested in just fear - they want cities reduced to rubble and lot’s of corpses littering the streets.
Yes, we need to secure airplanes. They’re a lot more secure than they used to be. Too much focus on small planes will obscure the dangers posed by OTHER common techonology. And that is not a good thing.
Huh… Mayor Daley seems to have a different opinion, judging by what comes out of his mouth. I’ve gotten a LOT of rude comments since 9/11 - many of which I’ve related in posts on this board.
New Jersey, Maryland, Michigan, Colorado, and California (and those are just the ones I recall off the top of my head) have all tried to pass laws requiring state and federal background checks and fingerprinting of ALL pilots in their states, and attempted to restrict who can train and even who can fly in their states. And you may think this is OK - but if someone passed a bad check 20 years ago and has stayed out of trouble since, is that a valid reason to ban them from the skies? That’s a damn high standard of behavior. These states are basically requiring that you have NOTHING on your record - not a even a traffic ticket - all the way back. Could YOU pass such a test? And if someone has been flying - perhaps as a commercial pilot - for 20 years with a spotless record, but you find they had a DUI at 17, 5 years before they even set foot into a flight school - is THAT a valid reason for depriving them of their livelihood? Can I point out that the President of the United States couldn’t pass that test! (Dubya has a DUI conviction on his record. Like a lot of other people. Unlike some, apparently he got smart and stopped drinking, or at least drinking and driving) In other words, with those rules New Jersey is saying that the Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces can’t be trusted with an airplane. (Do remember that Dubya is also a pilot, though I have no idea if he’s still active in aviation or not).
(To be fair - that legislation didn’t pass. But it was proposed as a serious anti-terror measure)
So yes, there HAS been some knee-jerk reactions of an extreme nature. And, fortunately, the worst has not come to pass (either with terrorism or aviation restrictions)
In Jack’s defense, you started the name calling. He made two funny and lighthearted posts and you replied with:
That was the first instance of name calling. If someone called me a jackass I’d be tempted to sling a few names back myself.
He wasn’t wearing his Mod Suspenders so it’s not an official ruling of your behaviour, but one mod did weigh in and state that he thought you had a (broom)stick up your ass regarding this issue.
Let’s see, you were kind enough to list them at the start of this post: there were 5 insults in your list. Two involved male genitalia. Two of five is not a “significant” portion, it’s not even half.
You seem pretty worked up over some one/thing that “distresses [you] not at all”.
For what it’s worth, Jack, your repsonse of “That’s the spirit!” back on the first page was laugh outloud funny!
Holy shit you are a hysterical thing with a stick up your ass, aintcha?
At the risk of overplaying my horrible puns (the second one you obviously missed) - Take off your pants and get a grip before you fly off the handle. I mean that sincerely.
BTW Mr. Batty, bwahahahahahahahahahaha!
Actually C/S I haven’t missed a thing…this was a sarcastic comment hypothetically made from the opposing point of view. Important thing is that **Broomstick ** seemed to get the idea.
The reference to vacations was not initiated by me. Ownership of the plane is actually irrelevent in regards to the job being performed. The “BOSS” likely feels that he IS paying for the plane indirectly and therefore has a say in the matter. The pig in question probably does not see his comments as sexist or out of line, because he feels like he is doing the “right thing” w/ respect to her and AMERICA.
BTW, if you haven’t read the whole thread, I suggest you reread ALL of my responses. If you think I am defending this MORON…think again…:smack:
There seems to be an abundance of assholes flying 'round here. :rolleyes:
I just have one question for broomstick.
How does your father feel about your flying?
I get the distinct impression that you are more irate about the fact that a man attempted to comment on your hobby than the the fact that it was a supervisor.
I get it, you are woman watch you fly or some such shit. So you do something out of the norm. Big deal. I just don’t think that people are lying awake nights trying to figure out ways to ground you. Here’s a news flash for you. NO ONE CARES, NO REALLY.
You make all this noise about YOU CAN’T STOP ME as you pound your fists and wail that nobody understands you. Fer chrissakes get ahold of yourself girl.
One should not place so importance in one particular aspect of their life. Piloting should be just another thing you do, it’s not what you are. If it is, I feel sorry for you. Perhaps you should work on being a bit more well rounded instead of nurturing a persecution complex.
I am a wife, mother, Registered Nurse, writer, gardener and a multitude of other things but ulitmately I am just Cindi.
broomstick, Johnny L.A.: the whole truck thing still makes no sense to me. Suppose you’re trying to disperse some deadly chemical agent over a good chunk of a city. OK, you fix up the truck in your garage so that it will carry your toxins and spray them. Now you drive into NYC or DC or Chicago or L.A. and get stuck in traffic. If you’re ‘successful’, you might kill a few dozen people. IOW, via truck, we don’t remotely have a WMD.
For something like this to be anything like a WMD, it’s got to have a dispersal means that exposes many thousands of people to your agent. A truck won’t do it. An airplane can. This is why you worry about airplanes, and not road vehicles.
My assumption about commercial aviation is that that universe is controllable. When is someone going to outfit a United Airlines jet to spray sarin or VX? It isn’t gonna happen. And using a fully-loaded (fuel-wise) plane as a bomb - we’re already guarding against that, or trying to, anyway.
Now GA - well, there’s plenty of GA airports within 50-75 miles of any major city, right? It can’t take very much fuel to fly that far. Do any of them have private hangars available?
Dozens and any GA aircraft can go at least 100 nm. And guess what? No regulation is going to stop someone who wants to spray a city from a GA aircraft. The terrorists aren’t going to say, “Oh, drat, flying below 3,000 over this city is illegal. I guess we got to try something else.” Contrary to popular belief, cities are not ringed with anti-aircraft sites and approach controllers cannot scramble fighters at a push of a button.
RTFirefly: There are basically two terrorist weapons, bombs and toxins. A rental truck makes much more sense as a bomb than a Cessna or a Piper. Rental trucks have been used as terror weapons in the United States – in New York, and in Oklahoma. GA aircraft have not been used as terror weapons (except for the two – unsuccessful – instances I’ve already mentioned). You say “My assumption about commercial aviation is that that universe is controllable.” The airliners that were used on 09/11/2001 were under positive control. They were on IFR flight plans and had to maintain radio contact with controllers and follow their instructions. To even leave the ground they needed to be dispatched. The terrorists had to pass though security checkpoints. Yes, commercial aviation is under the control of many agencies and people. And still they were used as terror weapons. So it makes absolutely no sense to restrict GA aircraft which are really unsuited to being made into flying bombs capable of killing thousands until you’ve restricted the airplanes that have been used as terror weapons from getting off of the ground, and the trucks that have been used as terror weapons from getting into the hands of terrorists. A commercial jet or an explosives-filled truck makes a dandy guided missile; a light aircraft does not.
But what about toxins? As Broomstick pointed out, the Japanese terrorists used Baggies. You really need to be fairly close to your target to be effective. Have you ever watched a cropduster? They don’t fly 500 feet over the fields to spray them; they get right down on the deck. They have to get to within a few feet of the crop in order for the chemicals to be effective. If they fly higher, the chemicals are dispersed in the air and are not effective. How is a light plane going to dust a city like that, when you have 40- 50- 100-storey buildings, light standards, power lines, and so forth in the way? You just can’t get low enough in a GA aircraft to “cropdust” effectively. The main – and unfounded – fear the public have is that GA aircraft will be used as guided missiles. And it has been demonstrated that they are ineffective for such a use.
I have a lot of experience riding motorcycles. Being in L.A., I have a lot of experience getting through stopped traffic and into and out of tight spaces. Suppose some terrorists get some motorcycles. They fix tanks of toxins to them and either rig a sprayer attachment or have a confederate handle a hose like an exterminator. You have a half-dozen of these guys ride around Manhattan or someplace spraying as many people on the street as they can. I think for spreading toxins that this would be more effective and less expensive than trying to do it from a thousand feet in the air. So if this happens, what then? Background checks for motorcyclists?
Most people don’t know a thing about airplanes – especially “little airplanes”. To most people they are dangerous contraptions that only a complete idiot would get into. When people don’t understand something, they tend to be afraid of it. If they’re afraid of something, they want to do something about it. Unfortunately they are irrational. They will make rules and then say, “Well, we took care of that!” But then they’re shocked when something bad happens.
A slight tangent. For years residents of a California town were trying to get the local airport closed. It wasn’t their fault if someone built houses next to the airport. It wasn’t their fault if they bought a house next to an airport, knowing that there was an airport there. No, it was the airport’s fault for having been built in a place that decades later would be populated. It was the pilots’ fault for flying someplace where there are houses. Well, along comes the Loma Prieta earthquake. Wanna take a guess where emergency supplies and search-and-rescue teams and relief workers flew into? They were plenty glad to have that airport there then.
So my points are these:
[ul]
[li]GA aircraft are unsuited for use as “flying bombs”.[/li][li]“Cropdusting” noxious chemicals over a large city would be difficult and/or ineffective.[/li][li]There are easier, cheaper, and less conspicuous means of making terror attacks.[/li][li]People are misguided if they want to do something just for the sake of doing something.[/li][li]People take notice of small aircraft, as has been seen when security personnel flew a light plane around a city doing surveillance. A terrorist wants to be inconspicuous until the fatal moment.[/li][/ul]
So restrictions on GA aircraft would make life difficult for the pilots who fly them, while at the same time doing nothing or as-good-as-nothing to increase the safety of the general population.
Well, not all cities. 
Since we’re getting into a debate over whether GA aircraft should have more restrictions on them, I’ve started a thread in GD.
Broomstick is annoying. Make him stop.