"I will not fly."

[QuettaKid]

[Ripley]

1. Bravo!

I haven't flown since last July (2005) to Montreal. Wish I had stayed there.

[Sequoia]

18. That's a beautiful photograph of the Earth and Moon!

Also, what's with the plastic belt buckle? Like, I haven't flown in two years.

[MrCoffee]

2. KnFnR!

[wicket]

6. And another

:kick:

[Aviation Pro]

3. A suggestion....

...take a Discovery Flight (http://learntofly.com/howto/discovery.chtml), feel the freedom of taking control of a small airplane, and then work toward achieving a Private Pilot Certificate. While some guy is wading through security with his shoes off, I'm traversing a Victor airway on the way to my destination.

There is nothing like hearing the words, "cleared for takeoff" from ATC and being able to do something about it.

[pitohui]

it's cutting off nose to spite face, isn't it?

if you enjoy flying that's terrific but most of us don't have time or money for another expensive hobby

a lot of people in seattle find that tokyo is too far to walk :-)

[Aviation Pro]

10. If you treat it as a hobby....

...yes, it's expensive. If you treat airplane ownership as a business (part of your education is to find out how to treat it as a business) then it's a solid return on an investment.

[pitohui]

20. let me try this another way

i don't care if it's a business or a hobby or what the heck

i don't want another demand on my time and attention

i just don't think this is a practical answer for most of us

nor do i think most of these smaller planes can go transaltantic/transpacific altho if i'm willing to be proved wrong if, in fact, you do routinely make the trip over to japan, i am not pulling it out of a hat to be mean but because i have close relatives there

[karlrschneider]

24. You are quite right, transoceanic flight is impractical for a small plane

but then not too many people really have a need to make those trips. I've been to Japan probably
25 times and always took the airline - a trip of that length simply makes it a necessity. When you are going 6000 miles, a couple extra hours of inconvenience ain't that big a deal.

[Aviation Pro]

55. True....

...let me clarify. For the continental US, flying GA is far more efficient because the number of suitable airports available to a small aircraft far exceeds the number available to our Part 121 and 135 brothers. On the other hand trying to go overseas, although feasible if one wants to wade through the International Flight Information Manual, is impractical at best.

Personally, if I was to choose a single to own and fly in the US it would be a toss up between three planes: the Columbia 400, the Cirrus SR-22 with the turbo conversion or the workhorse Cessna Caravan. If it was a multi, I'd go with the trusty King Air 200.

[Aviation Pro]

52. Nope....

...I've never made the GA trip to Japan or over the North Atlantic, but several friends and acquaintances of mine have.

[lonestarnot]

46. I don't intend to fly for a while either, piss on em. And my nose is

still where it belongs.

[karlrschneider]

8. It takes 11 hours to get from here to my partner's mom's house by airline

We can hop in the plane and be there in 6. And take all the toothpaste and drinks we want.
;-)

[Aviation Pro]

12. What are you flying now?

nt

[karlrschneider]

21. I fly an MU2 professionally, but have access to a dozen or so

other planes...C310, BE55, C172, PA24 to name a few...and even a Lockheed 18 if I want but I
can't afford that one, 100 gallons/hour. :-)

The 310 is an old friend and my favorite, I guess I have 2500 hours in it.

[uppityperson]

43. want to come visit me and fly me around?

Been a while since I got to fly a private plane.

[karlrschneider]

51. We have family around Seattle, it could happen! We get up there

now and then but just spent a week there last month, not sure when we'll be that way again.
Feel free to PM or email me, I promise to let you know when we come again! :D
[e-mail]

[Aviation Pro]

54. Whew, if there's one plane that....

...scares the heck out of me it's the MU-2. I salute any pilot who successfully takes it on because I've read about many pilots who were completely out of their depth when an engine quit on that beast. I had one follow me into St. Augustine awhile back and it was all I could do to keep my speed up to keep from getting run over.

We had a Lear 35 on the ramp today and I'd rather take my chances with it than the 2 (nope, I'm not typed in it, I just would take my chances with it....lol).

[karlrschneider]

69. They can be like wrestling an alligator at times

Engine out, ya better have a strong leg, there's not really enough rudder trim to stop the yaw...and
coming down the glide slope in rough air is interesting because the MU doesn't have ailerons, only
spoilers so it rolls around the wingtips instead of the longitudinal axis - and you lose altitude
every time you turn the wheel. But the school I went through down in San Angelo was excellent
(and hard as hell) they threw pretty much everything at us. Engine-out go-arounds under the hood,
emergency descents, simulated fires...all that good stuff. :D

[Aviation Pro]

72. Interesting design....

Not enouogh rudder trim to stop the yaw, spoilers substituting for ailerons. Just why in the hell a GA pilot would trade his Cessna 414 for one God only knows. It might simply be a case of an ego driven maniac with more money than brains. (Same thing applies to the Aerostar).

[karlrschneider]

73. I might have overemphasized the rudder issue a little...

it's only a problem with absolute full power on one engine and the other with an unfeathered prop,
as in a single engine go-around which is not a maneuver one would ever really want to do in any
2-engine plane and which I've never ever done except for training purposes. My approach (!) is to
treat an engine-out landing the same as I do with a glider - make it work the first time. The Garrett
engines on the MU are amazingly reliable if operated properly which means you keep a VERY sharp eye
on turbine temps. Some of the airframe design features that seem to be less than ideal from an
operational view do actually contribute to aerodynamic efficiency (and economy) - the spoilers have
less drag than conventional ailerons, for example. And the fully reversible props are fun sometimes
when you need to back up. :D

I never flew a 414, but I did make a couple trips in a 421 many years ago, I'm not really thrilled
with piston-powered pressurized airplanes. (I'm an aeronautical engineer and there are reasons
for that opinion other than from a pilot's viewpoint.)

But I don't really disagree with your last point in general...I didn't buy the thing, I just drive
it. If I had enough money to buy (and operate) an MU2 for myself, I'd get something else. But I
have no idea what, really. I owned a PT-22 for some years back in the 60s and other than my friend Bob Walker's P51, there aren't very many planes more purely enjoyable to fly. :-)

[kimmerspixelated]

4. Perfect!!

[INDIA]

5. Well...

I hope you like buses, trains, bicycles, walking etc. This isn't going to change.

I recently got surgery on my foot and I now have about 7 pieces of metal embedded in there. I've flown twice since then and they've pulled me aside to the "special area" both times for the extra search. To be honest, it wasn't all that bad. The security screens are very professional and friendly and it only takes an extra 5-10 minutes. I figure as long as I schedule those extra 10 minutes I shouldn't be late.

Just curious, what level of security would you be happy with on airlines? Since the 60's they have continuously adapted the security checks to specific threats. Universal X-rays for checked bags? Pan-Am bombing. No more scissors and nail clippers? 9-11. Removing shoes? Richard Reid.

My anger isn't directed to the government in this case, it's directed to wards the douchebags trying to attack the airlines. They're the REAL reason for all this extra hassle.

[MrCoffee]

7. Sigh...Airport screening is NOT about security

It's not about security. It's about keeping us scared. It's not about security.

[INDIA]

14. As I said before...

All the increases in security have been almost directly related to real threats. Richard Reid really does exist and he tried to detonate an explosive in his shoes. Do you disagree with the new procedure of removing shoes at security? It makes sense to me.

Sure it's overplayed in speeches and the MSM for political gain, but I think there is a real necessity to it. BushCO and the government don't care about American lives necessarily, they care about the tremendous hit the economy will take if an airliner is brought down. The next attack that hits the US, airlines or otherwise, will beat the hell out of the stock market and hurt the economy for months. Americans still aren't used to terrorism at home. Even a relatively small attack would cause a panic, unlike countries like Israel and India who can continue on after attacks without hiding in bomb shelters for weeks.

[MrCoffee]

23. You see security where I see terrorism

I don't agree with the basic premise of your argument, which is that increased airport surveilance has anything to do with security. Taking away grandma's nail clippers isn't making anyone safe. Prohibiting hair gel in the cabin isn't making anyone safe. ANYONE can move pretty much ANYTHING through an airport checkpoint fairly easily. Nathaniel Heatwole smuggled box cutters, knives and blades on airliners in September 2003, then wrote an email to TSA telling them about it. There was another instance (I can't remember the guy's name) where someone smuggled a gun on an airplane, not to hijack it, but to prove the point that airport surveilance can be beaten, and pretty easily.

I ABSOLUTELY disagree with the new procedure of removing shoes at security, because it's irrelevant. It's not going to stop a determined terrorist. It will, however, keep that baseline level of terror terror terror percolating nicely through the general public.

[INDIA]

30. Believe me when I say this..

I WISH we could allow security screeners to use discretion. In a perfect world they wouldn't throw out a teenage girl's perfume or search my 94 year old Grandmother. They can't use discretion for two reasons.

1. There needs to be uniformity to ensure a universal standard of security. While one screener may use wise judgment, another may ignore signals and warning signs because he has a different standard of discretion. It would be luck of the draw to catch bad guys, even more so than the current system of random checks. There would also be lack of accountability.

2. The legal reason. If screeners used a terrorist profile (young arabic/muslim males), they'd get the shit sued out of them, and rightfully so. Let's be realistic, it's about a 99% chance that the next attack on the airlines will be carried out by a relatively young arabic/muslim male. Common sense would dictate that people fitting that profile should receive extra screening. This common sense is unconstitutional though, and the only way to make it legal is to ratchet up security for ALL passengers, including those least likely to be a threat, (old women, young children.)

"I ABSOLUTELY disagree with the new procedure of removing shoes at security, because it's irrelevant. It's not going to stop a determined terrorist."

I have to disagree with you there. The new shoe removal procedure almost certainly would have stopped Reid, as the banning of liquids will almost certainly stop attempts to smuggle liquid explosives on board. Are you saying that since nothing will stop a determined terrorist, we should drop security all together and let it happen? Instead of finding fault with the current situation, what would you do differently if YOU were in charge? Please answer, because I haven't heard a single alternative idea for how we should be running security at airports.

[uppityperson]

45. x-ray/check ALL cargo in commercial jets.

That is a good place to start.

[mike_c]

61. making everyone fly in strait jackets and ball gags...

...chained to the deck so they're immobilized is even safer. The point is that in a free society we accept some risks in exchange for our dignity and our rights. Sure the risks are real-- in a free and open society some people might get blown up occasionally by nutcases like Richard Reid-- but that is a price that I'm willing to pay in order to have my freedom. I do not want the safety if it comes in the form of a security state. I'm with the OP-- I avoid flying now unless ABSOLUTELY necessary, not because I'm afraid, but because I deeply resent the security measures, and I've cut my flying from several times a year to once every several years.

[uppityperson]

44. we got pulled out for extra screening, double x-rays, hand searched.

still missed the pocket knife. And have had knife go through screening x-rays at several airports too. I try to make sure no one has any, but often one gets missed. We have often wondered why CD's are allowed since they make such dandy knives also. Security is a sham, to make it look like something is being done. It keeps the honest mostly honest. That's about all. Yes, sometime someone(s) will do something bad and people will die. It will happen as will suicide bombers, etc as there are people like that in the world, some with better reasons than others, none with good enough reason to murder like that.

[fleabert]

59. I have also flown with a pocket knife, several times...since 9/11

It was accidental, discovered at my destination upon unpacking, in my carry on- after going thru metal detectors in three airports at least 5 times. (smoke breaks, matches in my pocket on every flight as well) Knife made it home just fine too.

'security screening' is a sham.

[Ravy]

57. About the shoes...

You don't have to take them off in most places unless they have metal shanks in them. Some screening facilities actually have a little metal detector outside the screening area (where you are taking your computer out of the bag. etc.) that you can step on to see if you have metal in your shoes.

As a frequent flyer, I agree that it is window dressing, and it is mostly to make us afraid.

[fleabert]

58. so when someone invents a pants bomb will you strip down to your

underwear if told to do so? How far does it go? I see Naked Airlines in our future, UPS at every airport check-in so we can mail our clothes in a separate plane to our destination...

read the recent reports on what security checks routinely allow thru the gates and then get back to me on how successful security is at actually making us safer...

[momster]

67. With this hefty nation,

and speaking personally, having to strip off to fly might just be the thing to make us all lose weight.

I do agree that so long as they are not examining cargo -- whether by hand or by machine -- all the security lines at airport are there simply to a) make us *think* TSA and DHS are worth the money and b) to keep us uneasy so we are ready prey for the next step toward totalitarinism. I heard a lot of people during this last panic say 'I'd rather be standing in line than dead' or "I don't mind missing my plane; it's better than dying'. C'mon people, these are not your only two choices!

[Richard Steele]

64. Bull. Shoes are inspected, while cargo in the same plane is not.

No more proof is needed that those who are making
these rules are NOT truly concerned about terrorist bombs
destroying planes.

End of story.

[Starfury]

42. Yup: security theater vs. real security

From Bruce Schneier's most recent crypto-gram (they cover a variety of topics):

Banning box cutters since 9/11, or taking off our shoes since Richard Reid, has not made us any safer. And a long-term prohibition against liquid carry-on items won't make us safer, either. It's not just that there are ways around the rules, it's that focusing on tactics is a losing proposition.

It's easy to defend against what terrorists planned last time, but it's shortsighted. If we spend billions fielding liquid-analysis machines in airports and the terrorists use solid explosives, we've wasted our money. If they target shopping malls, we've wasted our money. Focusing on tactics simply forces the terrorists to make a minor modification in their plans. There are too many targets -- stadiums, schools, theaters, churches, the long line of densely packed people in front of airport security -- and too many ways to kill people.

Security measures that attempt to guess correctly don't work, because invariably we will guess wrong. It's not security, it's security theater: measures designed to make us feel safer but not actually safer.

Airport security is the last line of defense, and not a very good one at that. Sure, it'll catch the sloppy and the stupid -- and that's a good enough reason not to do away with it entirely -- but it won't catch a well-planned plot. We can't keep weapons out of prisons; we can't possibly keep them off airplanes.

The goal of a terrorist is to cause terror. Last week's arrests demonstrate how real security doesn't focus on possible terrorist tactics, but on the terrorists themselves. It's a victory for intelligence and investigation, and a dramatic demonstration of how investments in these areas pay off.

http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0608.html

[karlrschneider]

9. X-raying checked baggage is WAY WAY less than 100%.

Fact.

[INDIA]

17. Didn't say it wasn't...

before Pan-Am though it was 1000 times more lax. BTW, it's interesting that opinions on DU vary from "security is too much" to "the security isn't good enough."

[karlrschneider]

25. I think, if you read critically, you'll see it's more of a qualitative

assessment more than quantitative. My belief is that they're wasting resources (of which there probably are sufficient) in the wrong way and in the wrong places.
YMMV

:-)

[flyarm]

35. ACTUALLY ALL CARGO AND BAGGAGE X-RAYING IS 10%..OR

LESS!

FLY

[Ninga]

15. A picture is worth a million words. The woman "pouring her unsafe liquid

into the barrel with all of the other liquids too unsafe to fly."


Or how about the gel toothpaste, lip gloss, etc. etc.etc, etc,.......and all of the other "dangerous" carry on items that are being confiscated and

GIVEN TO THE HOMELESS FOR GOODNESS SAKES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Our attention is diverted daily.

I blame the government.

[Solo_in_MD]

27. I am soooo tempted to drop some Menthos in that barrel, just to see

what might happen.

[flyarm]

36. OR BEING SOLD ON EBAY..THINK OF ALL THE LIPS THAT ARE

GOING TO BLOW UP ALL OVER THIS COUNTRY!

FLY

[Xenotime]

41. I call it theft.

[angstlessk]

11. Trains are GREAT..and Amtrak could use the increased income

I love to take trains. The freedom to walk between cars is such a difference from being confined to a seat. Diner cars and Club cars...what a great experience!

[damntexdem]

19. I do have to travel sometimes for professional reasons,

And I don't have the time to take the train.

But I hate the thought of flying under police-state rules.

[electron_blue]

70. I feel bad for those of you who have to travel for work. However, I wonder

how far would you be willing to be screened before you would balk? Or are you in the unfortunate situation that you'd fly even if you were patted down each and every time, and even strip searched? Not trying to be sarcastic, just wondering ..

[donco6]

31. They may be great in Virginia

But don't take one out here. The Zephyr is anywhere from 1 to 8 hours late on EVERY trip. It's an ordeal just to wait for the damn thing to show up. I'll never ride it again.

[flyarm]

37. AND THEY GO INTO LITTLE TOWNS ALL OVER THE USA AND

NOTHING GETS CHECKED!!

i know i take auto train between my homes twice a year..nothing in the car gets checked..and as a retired flight crew i have watched specifically for that..never seen one car checked!

fly

[Union Thug]

13. I have to fly to SF because of work..

BUT - I have cancelled all other travel plans that involved airlines (another trip to SF, and a trip to europe).

I simply do not want to deal with the police-state mentality.

[PATRICK]

16. It's making sure

that security on the cheap makes customers non-supportive of security in principle. Making the customer suffer inane token panic responses is a symptom of their lousy attitude toward cost and security from day one. Either they do it on purpose or out of habit- same results.

Real security? Just trust us, say the nervous bottom line managers.

[elliswyatt]

22. i won't let it stop me

don't let the strict measures intimidate you. i dont understand why the government "fears" attacks on airplanes. drunk drivers kill more people than terrorists. same goes with any type of murder. why don't they do something about that? it's about instilling fear in us. don't fall for it. and don't stay locked up here just because some idiots are imposing idiotic standards on the safest mode of transportation.

[savemefromdumbya]

26. I won't sail either

[SeattleGirl]

28. America WAS a great country, and I want it back, too.

Great post!

[brokensymmetry]

29. K&R! I haven't flown in years - nor will I.

I refuse to submit to TSA.

[snappyturtle]

32. K&R

I haven't flown since May of 2002 and I never intend to again, ever. I was so-o angry the last trip I took with all the crap and hoops we paid to jump through I just quit. I was on a trip to see my father who was in the hospital. The morning I finally got there I told him what ridiculous procedures I had been through and he just shook his head in dismay. This was from a former SAC of the F.B.I. and private attorney who even had made it to the U.S. Supreme court. He had the greatest respect for the law and yet this 90 year old man was aghast at what was going on in this country. He died within twelve hours of our conversation. No, I will not be an experimental rat for the TSA.

[brokensymmetry]

33. Amazing.

When a Special Agent in Charge starts thinking we've
gone overboard....

I'm glad you got to have that last conversation. I
know it must mean a lot.

[snappyturtle]

71. More than you could ever guess....thank you for your kind response. nt

[Spinoza]

34. As an (above knee AK)

amputee, flying is a real burden for me since 9/11 as I am unable to take off my (prosthetic leg) shoe (still required for amputees) without taking off the entire leg. So I have to go to a dressing room blah blah blah, for an extra 45-60 minutes of BS befoe I can board. Since this is all very public and the the airport employees are usually complete idiots, there are often public scenes which are embarassing.

However, I have never objected or felt that my inconvenience was the fault of anyone outside of the fucking terrorists.

I feel the same way about the new rules on liquids, etc (which is far less intrusive for YOU then the shoe situation is for me.) And now, since ALL passengers have to remove shoes for every flight, I will go thru this on every flight I take instead of some of them.

Again, I blame those fuckers in the U.K.--who wanted to kill me if I was unfortunate enough to be on a flight with them-- for what I have to go thru at airports. Noone else.

[uppityperson]

47. f* them. Just drop your drawers in line, undo your prosthesis and

embarrass the heck out of them. I suppose a letter from a doctor doesn't work anymore. What a pain and bother for you. :hug:

[Richard Steele]

63. Your acceptance of the current Administrations rationale makes me sad.

They aren't doing ANYTHING to actually make us safer,
and everyone ought to know that by now.

And blaming their actions on others is nonsense.

Are you NOT aware that the case against "those fuckers in the UK"
has turned out to be NOTHING?

[mainer]

38. My friend, a commercial pilot, got HIS nail-clippers confiscated!

He was on his way to fly the plane, and they stopped him at security and took away his nail clippers. At which point he lost it and said, "Ok, asshole, now I'm gonna walk INTO that COCKPIT and TAKE THE CONTROLS of that PLANE. Didja think I was gonna CUT MYSELF IN THE THROAT with my OWN FUCKING NAILCLIPPERS?

He got pulled aside and told he needed anger counseling.

[uppityperson]

48. too funny, thank you for that story.

:rofl: reminds me of Blazing Saddles

[dalaigh lllama]

49. Ve must obey ze law

Even when it makes no sense. :silly:

Great story. :rofl:

[Catchawave]

39. Oh, I'll fly.....

But I respect your right not to want to....:hi:

[Bushfire]

40. Airline industry must fight back against this regime too

it's in their best interest "bottom line" as well, and I'm sure as hell not taking any flights if I can't take a couple bottles of water on board to stay hydrated in their recirculated air pressurized cabins. If I'm going to go on vacation, I sure as hell don't want to be sick the whole time. I'm already delaying a trip to Europe now because of this.

[derby378]

50. So when the hell are you turning this into a T-shirt?

I'll buy one. Seriously. I'll even wear it to the airport if I have to pick someone up there.

[AZBlue]

53. Wait...why are you punishing the airlines' employees...

...for the actions of the US government? Do you think that the government cares if you fly, drive, skateboard or become a hermit and never leave your house again??

The people who lose their jobs or who won't get hired for the jobs that are cut will indeed care though. And so will the rest of us when the economy as a whole is hurt. Your plan isn't logical.

[tomreedtoon]

56. May I suggest...you remake the poster so it WORKS???

What size is the original? 8 1/2 x 24? What the heck kind of Xerox machine can copy that? Where do you get affordable paper in that size?

Now, if you redid the poster in a standard paper size - 8 1/2 x 11 or 8 1/2 x 14 - then ordinary people could afford to Xerox them and distribute them. And they'd be large enough and clear enough to read. And we could put them EVERYWHERE that tourists roam...especially here in Orlando, where tourists come from all over.

And a hint - on a Windows computer, you can get the Copyright symbol in most fonts by typing ALT plus the numbers 1 6 9 on the keypad part of the keyboard. Doing (R) is necessary on an ignorant thing like this post, but in page layout you should do better.

[Warren DeMontague]

60. Yeah. And more fucking legroom, too!

That's it, I'm buying a Winnebago.

[midnight]

62. That's how I feel.

Get these folks to move on.

[Hubert Flottz]

65. Nope Too Skeerd!

The Terraists have won! Everything has changed since 9/11...thepResident said so himself...Would he lie?

[QuettaKid]

66. good morning kick.nt.

.

[treestar]

68. Every time they "foil" a "terror plot" there are new restrictions

Wouldn't a truly good system work without having to be readjusted itself every time something happened?

It's not like every time the cops arrest someone the law has to be rewritten.