Kevin, I am glad you are consistent and vigilant in your beliefs. But as usual, you paint with too broad a brush. I read the link you posted. Perhaps you should blame the other passengers on the plane. They are the ones who reported her. What if the three of them had been terrorists. No one was arrested. No one was hurt. It is a far cry from all Arab looking folks being rounded up and put in camps. "Even if you're an innocent bystander, you have no rights", is an inaccurate statement on her part. "No rights" would be more like what people deal with in Syria, or Myanmar, or or Gaddafi's Libya. Wrongful search and seizure has been happening in this country for a long time. This happened in an airport, so you are all over it. And that's fine. We need to be aware of it. I know folks who many years ago lost everything in a police raid, because of "suspicious behavior". Their stuff was impounded and they never saw it again. No apology no nothing. I would be more concerned about that story than about a woman who walked away clean.

Just read this on the CBC: Children 12 years old and younger soon will no longer be required to remove their shoes at airport security checkpoints, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told Congress on Tuesday.The new policy also includes other ways to screen young children without resorting to a pat-down that involves touching private areas on the body. It is amazing to me that they were even doing this in the first place. Their is absolutely no reason for a government agent to touch a child like that. This is a lot of the reasons why I was saying earlier that many people traveling back to Europe from New Zealand avoid going through LAX even though it is the most direct route. People would rather fly through Singapore or Hong Kong even if it costs an extra $1000 to send your family the other way then go through that crap in LAX. When people avoid the USA it costs the economy, and boosts the economy in other regions and for other airlines.

Just read this on the CBC: Children 12 years old and younger soon will no longer be required to remove their shoes at airport security checkpoints, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told Congress on Tuesday.The new policy also includes other ways to screen young children without resorting to a pat-down that involves touching private areas on the body. It is amazing to me that they were even doing this in the first place. Their is absolutely no reason for a government agent to touch a child like that. This is a lot of the reasons why I was saying earlier that many people traveling back to Europe from New Zealand avoid going through LAX even though it is the most direct route. People would rather fly through Singapore or Hong Kong even if it costs an extra $1000 to send your family the other way then go through that crap in LAX. When people avoid the USA it costs the economy, and boosts the economy in other regions and for other airlines.

Elections are held in November here.

Elections are held in November here.

Yep that's true....I am interested to see who the Republicans come up with. I have always been of the view that the countries I work and do business with being Canada, New Zealand and Australia always do better with a good US Republican in power. It opens up better trade between USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand with less barriers. Hopefully we get a good outcome this November. And good ridence to that Janet Napolitano, I don't think anyone, anywhere will miss her.

Kevin, I am glad you are consistent and vigilant in your beliefs. But as usual, you paint with too broad a brush. I read the link you posted. Perhaps you should blame the other passengers on the plane. They are the ones who reported her. What if the three of them had been terrorists. No one was arrested. No one was hurt. It is a far cry from all Arab looking folks being rounded up and put in camps. "Even if you're an innocent bystander, you have no rights", is an inaccurate statement on her part. "No rights" would be more like what people deal with in Syria, or Myanmar, or or Gaddafi's Libya. Wrongful search and seizure has been happening in this country for a long time. This happened in an airport, so you are all over it. And that's fine. We need to be aware of it. I know folks who many years ago lost everything in a police raid, because of "suspicious behavior". Their stuff was impounded and they never saw it again. No apology no nothing. I would be more concerned about that story than about a woman who walked away clean.

It's funny that that story somehow made you think of wrongful search and seizure. The reason I brought attention to that news story was because it is not wrongful search and seizure. What happened in that incident is completely normal, standard operating procedure now. The crew, the TSA, the FBI, the police, all those people, they all did exactly what they were trained to do. This is what our country has been brought down to. What a normal person would think of as wrongful search and seizure is now the norm. That is what is wrong here. You've brilliantly illustrated exactly what has bothered me most about what is happening in this country. And then again you dismiss it as even though it may be wrong, it just happens. You've accepted and normalized the deviance. Normalization of deviance is a dangerous thing to do as an airline pilot, as a manager in an organization, and as a citizen of a country. You're also correct in your assessment of the role played by the other passengers aboard that aircraft. None of this would have happened were it not for them. But since they were people who lived in fear, they found it rational to report those people on account of their brown colored skin and behavior that they did not understand. Never mind that the men weren't even Arabic. Never mind that she was part Jewish. They were brown and I don't know what they're saying, better tell the stewardess they might be terrorists. Fear and ignorance can be a pretty dangerous combination. "See something, say something" is a perfectly reasonable campaign. However, we need to take some responsibility for our actions as well. If you expect the citizenry to report terrorists, wouldn't you hope that they made those decisions based on intelligence instead of ignorance. Forget about a false accusation violating somebody's basic rights and dignity, since I know we don't want to talk about that. Think about the wasted resources spent responding to these sort of calls. The wasted time. The wasted money. And it is a result of the fear that we live in. People need to get a grip on themselves before this fear causes this country to lose its freedoms, its wealth, and its democracy.

Yep that's true....I am interested to see who the Republicans come up with. I have always been of the view that the countries I work and do business with being Canada, New Zealand and Australia always do better with a good US Republican in power. It opens up better trade between USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand with less barriers. Hopefully we get a good outcome this November. And good ridence to that Janet Napolitano, I don't think anyone, anywhere will miss her.

I don't know if the security situation would change much if the Republicans gain more power. After all, it was the Republicans who put most of these things in place, while the Democrats campaigned against it and then did nothing once they gained power. No matter what, it is approaching election time and whoever is in power will relax some of these measure in order avoid bad press. Who knows, maybe after this election, John Mica might get a chance to undo his mistakes. http://wusa9.com/news/article/166888/77/Congressman-Says-TSA-Is-A-Failure-Should-Be-Dismantled

I think it would take the Republicans to recognize a fat cat when you see it and deflate it from within......Let's not look at the mistakes of the Bush administration and just move forward. It was the Dems that brought in the 'Touch your Junk' policies under Janet Napolitano. In my POV they have a worse record then the Bush administration. I am ready for a good Republican to move in and clean up house. Make government more effective again. Even take a look at how security is handled in other airports around the world to make LAX and JFK a model to the world, and not a hassle for guests in transit. Before Aviation a nation would show its wealth to the world be building grand Catherdrals. This is why you see massive catherdrals throughout Europe and all over the world. The reason why is because when people visited your nation they would go to the catherdals as we were more religous in the past. The greater your catherdral the more impressive you looked to the world. Today we don't build cathedrals anymore. We build grand airports. The reason why is every visitor to your nation travels through your airport. This is how you show your nations wealth to the world. Here are the top 10 airports in the world today: 1 Hong Kong International Airport 2 Singapore Changi Airport 3 Incheon International Airport 4 Munich Airport 5 Beijing Capital International Airport 6 Amsterdam Schiphol Airport 7 Zurich Airport 8 Auckland International Airport 9 Kuala Lumpur International Airport 10 Copenhagen Airport The USA builds the best airplanes in the world....but not the best airports. I only critisize because I know you guys can do a lot better....If New Zealand can make the top 10 then the USA should have no problem doing so too. And I don't believe for a second it is because the USA is a greater security risk then anyone else in the world. Every airport on that list is at just as much risk as LAX or JFK. It is just how these other nations handle security that makes a difference. All the best everyone

I'll humor you though. I see your propaganda and raise it with if the German people questioned their government, a whole lot more people would have made it to their birthdays in 1946. How about, the ##### were also very good at, ahem, internal security.

The persecutions of jews, Kristallnacht, and the Holocaust happened because of ###### propaganda dehumanising the jews. Those Germans who participated in them didn't do so because of fear of internal security. Just look at the faces of the ###### supporters in footage of the rallies and events - there's no fear there! No German was punished for simple staying queitly at home and not going out to beat up a jew. You missed my point that you imply people have liberty as long as they think as you think. Otherwise they must be re-educated either by propaganda or their leaders untilt think otherwise.

I'll not attempt to recall the specifics here as there is a long record of this sort of discussion over at the AOPA Forums. I asked earlier if you were an AOPA Member and a RW Pilot because the specifics are mostly found in RW Pilot Forums.Remember the thread starter is a RW Airman and generally not prone to exaggeration on these matters. PS I will mention I heard of one unique recent regulation placed upon Corporate Jet owners which requires them to have an air marshal on board if arriving at the 3 major New York destinations.Perhaps someone can verify...

If it's so important surely you could have provided hard examples? Also these are AVSIM forums not AOPA's - AOPA is a lobbying organisation. There's nothing wrong with that as long as it's remembered it has an agenda. The OP apparently sees Exxon's decision to stop production of GA fuel as part of a conspiracy to finally placate the airlines and get us pesky GA pilots (who comprise 80% of the daily US airtraffic) out of the way of the autopilot button pushing commercial fleet)?. Not prone to exaggeration?

The persecutions of jews, Kristallnacht, and the Holocaust happened because of ###### propaganda dehumanising the jews. Those Germans who participated in them didn't do so because of fear of internal security. Just look at the faces of the ###### supporters in footage of the rallies and events - there's no fear there! No German was punished for simple staying queitly at home and not going out to beat up a jew. You missed my point that you imply people have liberty as long as they think as you think. Otherwise they must be re-educated either by propaganda or their leaders untilt think otherwise. If it's so important surely you could have provided hard examples? Also these are AVSIM forums not AOPA's - AOPA is a lobbying organisation. There's nothing wrong with that as long as it's remembered it has an agenda. The OP apparently sees Exxon's decision to stop production of GA fuel as part of a conspiracy to finally placate the airlines and get us pesky GA pilots (who comprise 80% of the daily US airtraffic) out of the way of the autopilot button pushing commercial fleet)?. Not prone to exaggeration?

And you've completely missed my point as well. Millions and millions of people would not have been killed if the Germans who did believe that the rise of Nazism in Germany was wrong, did not just sit quietly home in fear or acceptance, but got out and fought the regime. No, I actually completely understood what you were trying to imply. I responded to it by giving you the example of why Obama had won the election. That people are free to make up their own minds here and did make up their minds. That is why Obama won on a platform that included the rescindment of these kinds of security measures. To address what you imply more bluntly, mgh, there are two ways of viewing anything, anything a leader says. Leadership by those who support the leader, and propaganda by those who oppose that leader. Obviously, you oppose anything I say, so what I say I accept is viewed as propaganda by you. I can say the sky is blue and you and I will find a way to turn that into a 12 page heated debate. People who agree with what a leader says are part of the choir, people who already don't are deaf ears. What matters are the undecided people who have an open mind. Those are the only ears that matter to anything a leader says. To them, it is neither propaganda nor leadership. To them it would be the reason to think one way or another. If those people fall in line with what that leader had to say, then it was leadership. When Roosevelt said that the only thing there was to fear was fear itself, was that just part of his reeducation campaign? When the bombs were falling on London and Churchill and the Queen walked amongst the ruins to show the people not to be afraid, was that just propaganda? Or was it leadership? I guess it all depends. When I say that people should not live in fear, I say that in the same vein that one says people should not drink and drive, or people should live clean lives, or people should be honest and truthful. It has nothing to do with press restrictions. If people did not live in fear, the attention given to terrorism by the press would decline on its own. Without any kind of govenment intervention. For you to continually argue that my position is about quashing free speech is a bit pedantic and myopic. I think that Americans are better than they have shown themselves to be. If they were provided better leadership (or propaganda and reeducation in your words) , I think that the war against terrorism can be won. In fact, the opening statements I made in this thread, about the point of terrorism, were not mine. They were made by Hillary Clinton last week. Leadership? Or Propaganda? If our leaders did a better job communicating to the population that way, maybe it can be the fear that gets quashed. Did you not see my post listing things like the DC SFRA, the growth of TFRs, etc in response to your question about whether or not anything actually had been done to restrict GA? Not everybody here has the time nor inclination to sit here and listen to themselves argue back and forth like you and I do.

It's funny that that story somehow made you think of wrongful search and seizure. The reason I brought attention to that news story was because it is not wrongful search and seizure. What happened in that incident is completely normal, standard operating procedure now. The crew, the TSA, the FBI, the police, all those people, they all did exactly what they were trained to do. This is what our country has been brought down to. What a normal person would think of as wrongful search and seizure is now the norm. That is what is wrong here. You've brilliantly illustrated exactly what has bothered me most about what is happening in this country. And then again you dismiss it as even though it may be wrong, it just happens. You've accepted and normalized the deviance. Normalization of deviance is a dangerous thing to do as an airline pilot, as a manager in an organization, and as a citizen of a country. You're also correct in your assessment of the role played by the other passengers aboard that aircraft. None of this would have happened were it not for them. But since they were people who lived in fear, they found it rational to report those people on account of their brown colored skin and behavior that they did not understand. Never mind that the men weren't even Arabic. Never mind that she was part Jewish. They were brown and I don't know what they're saying, better tell the stewardess they might be terrorists. Fear and ignorance can be a pretty dangerous combination. "See something, say something" is a perfectly reasonable campaign. However, we need to take some responsibility for our actions as well. If you expect the citizenry to report terrorists, wouldn't you hope that they made those decisions based on intelligence instead of ignorance. Forget about a false accusation violating somebody's basic rights and dignity, since I know we don't want to talk about that. Think about the wasted resources spent responding to these sort of calls. The wasted time. The wasted money. And it is a result of the fear that we live in. People need to get a grip on themselves before this fear causes this country to lose its freedoms, its wealth, and its democracy.

Again with the "live in fear" stuff. You must have a different definition of that phrase. You seem to be comfortable speaking for everyone. "We live in fear." I can only speak for myself, and those around me. I do not live in fear, nor does anyone I know.I do not dismiss admittedly questionable regulations as the new norm. Only that they are nothing new. I never said they were OK.I am far more likely to be murdered by some drug addict breaking into my home. Am I concerned about that? You bet. Do I take precautions? What few I can. Do I live in fear of that addict? Absolutely not.And, of course, folks should question regulations they don't like. As you have. We can do that. Hence the change in child screening.Your whole argument with me came about because I said I would rather go through a scanner than a pat down. It was a simple, get on with my life statement. Somehow, that makes me un-American and a coward?

If it's so important surely you could have provided hard examples? Also these are AVSIM forums not AOPA's - AOPA is a lobbying organisation. There's nothing wrong with that as long as it's remembered it has an agenda. The OP apparently sees Exxon's decision to stop production of GA fuel as part of a conspiracy to finally placate the airlines and get us pesky GA pilots (who comprise 80% of the daily US airtraffic) out of the way of the autopilot button pushing commercial fleet)?. Not prone to exaggeration?

MGH, I will not do your homework for you.If you want to know what RW Pilots have expressed for the last three to five years regarding governmental "regulation/over regulation" of General Aviation then AOPA Members have a bit of a track record available.AOPA Members generally do not discuss political matters in public FS fora for the simple reason that it is often frowned upon or simply not allowed.You are correct that among other functions the AOPA serves as "Lobbying Organization" with the clear agenda of protecting the Political and Monetary interest of Aircraft Owners and Pilots in the United States of America.All Oil/Fuel Companies in the US are subject to the same political forces and Lobbying efforts by the major airlines and it is not suprising or far fetched that Exxons decisions are made under the political pressure brought by major airlines Lobbying efforts.A glance at the most recent public comments made by our "illustrious leader" regarding Corporate Jets and their Owners reflects a long standing political hostility towards the Corporate Jet and General Aviation Industry as a whole. The current administration has managed to nearly obliterate the Corporate Jet and General Aviation Job Market while pretending to "save or create jobs". These types of discussions often remind me of this quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson: "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

Again with the "live in fear" stuff. You must have a different definition of that phrase. You seem to be comfortable speaking for everyone. "We live in fear." I can only speak for myself, and those around me. I do not live in fear, nor does anyone I know.I do not dismiss admittedly questionable regulations as the new norm. Only that they are nothing new. I never said they were OK.I am far more likely to be murdered by some drug addict breaking into my home. Am I concerned about that? You bet. Do I take precautions? What few I can. Do I live in fear of that addict? Absolutely not.And, of course, folks should question regulations they don't like. As you have. We can do that. Hence the change in child screening.Your whole argument with me came about because I said I would rather go through a scanner than a pat down. It was a simple, get on with my life statement. Somehow, that makes me un-American and a coward?

I don't think it makes you un-American. The coward term only came about after a long discourse between you and I. Perhaps it was too harsh. Can we call it apathy? For somebody who's position is that he can't be bothered by this, you do seem to care quite a bit. But I understand. You feel as though I am imposing my will upon you by arguing my case. I'm guessing you probably feel that it is quite inappropriate for anybody to be imposing upon anybody else. Well then, maybe you can understand how I feel then. Because what the government is doing is inappropriately imposing upon the citizens as well. That is why I argue against it as vigorously as you argue against me. Perhaps for you it is easier to be so apathetic or maybe so strongly agnostic about this because you only fly maybe once a few years, but I see it more often. It's easier for me to throw out the term "we" in regards to this because it does surround me. Hopefully, none of what I see happening in this country eventually reaches up to your neck of the woods. And the people of this country are allowing this imposition and giving up rights in return for nothing. If it meant winning a war or ending a disease, then I would be all for it. But it doesn't achieve any of that. You bring up the body scanners. The requirements of people to be scanned by these machines is supposed to make the aviation system safer by catching certain kinds of weapons. Then why are flightcrews completely exempt from having to go through them? Why is a metal detector good enough for them? What makes somebody dressed up in a white shirt, tie and epaulets, walking up to the checkpoint that much more trustworthy and less likely to be a terrorist than anybody else dressed in streetclothes and holding a ticket? Is it because they have an ID badge and epaulets? What does the State of Maine driver's license look like? Do you know? Has counterfeiting been a skill that has been eradicated? The TSA have nothing to compare the validity of this crewmember with just as they don't check the validity of your ticket before entering the sterile area. Crewmembers are no different than passengers when it comes to requesting access to the sterile area. They need to be vetted like anybody else before permission is granted in this type of security regime. The body scanners are like a watertight door with no bulkheads around it. There is an entire class of people who bypass it for no good reason. That means any added value of those machines to our security is imaginary. What have you gained in return for this imposition and rationalizing away your rights against unreasonable searches? If metal detectors are adjudged to provide a good enough level of security for this group of unknown persons, then why are we spending all this money on these body scanners and potentially violating the rights of all these people? There are better ways to provide the necessary security than what we are doing. The TSA could use CASS to verify the ID of each crewmember before they enter the sterile area. Maybe after that can a valid argument to rationalize away the right from unreasonable search and seizure be made in favor of the use of body scanners. As of now, the fact that crewmembers get to bypass those procedures invalidates the reason to have them. You've given away your rights for nothing. There are other problems within the standard operating procedures that go on at airports that utterly fail any basic test of controls and leave us open to attack. But I won't get into those details. The fact that crewmembers don't walk through scanners can be seen by anybody and the problems with that can be deduced by anybody. Again there are better ways. And they begin with a change in the national psyche to be unafraid of terrorists. I know you are unafraid, bobbyjack. But the people aboard that plane with the two Indians and the Jewish woman the other day were afraid. The news channels love to stoke the fears. The government will stoke the fears as it suits them. Members of the GA community feel they've been targetted by the fear mongering. Those who say they are willing to give up whatever rights is necessary to feel safe are afraid. There are better ways to deal with terrorism than this.

Kevin, I have no idea what will make us safer in the sky. You are in the airline business, and I must take your word for what works and what doesn't. I don't feel that you are imposing anything on me. I am enjoying the discourse. I just don't think about security as much as you do because I have taken a different route to try to make the world a better place than you have. That doesn't make me apathetic. I have my specialties, you have yours. I think that is the way things work. In my eyes I have given up no freedoms. I can only speak for myself. I don't know if you have given up anything or not.That doesn't make me apathetic. That is not wanting to reach a conclusion without careful thought. It isn't up to me to decide if you are free or not, anyway.

MGH, I will not do your homework for you.

I'm not surprised because you won't do your own homework. If someone makes a claim it's not unreasonable to expect then to provide some evidence to support it. Anyway, as this thread has wandered off into US politics it's lost any interest to me.

I'm not surprised because you won't do your own homework. If someone makes a claim it's not unreasonable to expect then to provide some evidence to support it.Anyway, as this thread has wandered off into US politics it's lost any interest to me.

Sorry if this offends you but I am a RW Pilot and a Card Carrying AOPA Member who has followed this sort of RW Discussion for well over 6.5 years.I've noted this sort of discussion is wide spread amongst RW Pilots and left it up to you to verify the evidence for yourself. Do your homework or not as you see fit but the entire thread does have MUCH to do with US Politics as it relates to General Aviation in the United States.Not surprising that you've lost interest if you are not a US Citizen or US RW Pilot/AOPA Member .