Originally Posted by
LuvAirFrance
Skip the searching. Require a background check to fly private aircraft. There's no constitutional right to fly your own plane. If the government takes the position that a private plane is a potential danger to society, they've the obligation to insure no one takes the control of one who is unsafe in it.
Actually, you are quite correct. I've read the constitution very carefully and there is no right to fly your own airplane. Or drive your own car, or ride your own horse, or drive a ski boat on your own lake.
However, that very same constitution in Article I Section 8 has a list of things the government is allowed to do.
It can borrow money, an activity it has perfected beyond belief;
It can tax to pay back the money it borrows (or not--pay back that is);
It can regulate commerce between nations and between the states;
It can coin money and punish counterfiters;
It can construct post roads; establish patent laws; declare wars;
It can establish armies and navies and courts inferior to the supreme court;
It can even call for the Militia to put down insurrection and repel invaders, which basically means you and me;
It can govern the District of Columbia.
No, I've searched and searched and I can find no constitutional right to fly, drive, pilot a boat, or even walk across the street.
You and others who repeat that phrase are right on the mark. "There is no constitutional right ..." to do anything at all. Not even breath. Didn't see it in the document. And it's a document I've studied since I was in 6th grade. But Congress cannot take away your right to breath without following a very explicit and strict procedure detailed in the 4th and 5th amendments, and certainly not for exercising a right to talk and assemble and petition.
On the other hand, that list above, Article II Section 8 is an all encompassing list of things the government can do. I read it over several times and I simply have been unable to find out where the government has any right to restrict my ability to fly an airplane. I simply cannot find it. Perhaps my reading skills are failing me, but it is a relatively simple document.
Where does it say that Congress is allowed to make laws to restrict a private citizen from going about his lawful business, that the Executive Branch may carry out and make regulations and enforce? Please help me here, because I cannot see it. Congress is not allowed to make a law, and the executive is not allowed to make regulations beyond what the constitution allows. It really is simple. Otherwise, our constitution would be bigger than the IRS code with what is, and what is not allowed to individuals. Those powers are left to the states, or to the people. The constitution but a limited grant of powers to the government, from the people it is to serve.
Oh, and by the way, FAR 61.18 does require a background check and approval by the TSA for pilot certificate issuances (14 CFR 61.18)
Originally Posted by
LuvAirFrance
If the government takes the position that a private plane is a potential danger to society, they've the obligation to insure no one takes the control of one who is unsafe in it.
The government in fact, has taken precisely the opposite position. Thus, by your reasoning, the government should rightfully revoke FAR 61.18.
In 2009, in response to a request from the TSA's favorite fan, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas, the DHS Inspector General issued a report. This report observed that general aviation accounts for 77% of our air traffic. and stated
The IG noted TSA has tailored its security strategy to the range of airfield environments and classes of aircraft and operators, rather than introducing overly broad regulations that are costly to implement. The agency also analyzes credible intelligence information to prioritize existing threats and identify practical, targeted measures to reduce risks in the aviation sector.
"Although [TSA's Office of Intelligence] has identified potential threats, it has concluded that most [general aviation] aircraft are too light to inflict significant damage, and has not identified specific imminent threats from [general aviation] aircraft," the IG stated.
Richard Skinner, the DHS IG concluded his report with
The current status of [general aviation] operations does not present a serious homeland security vulnerability requiring TSA to increase regulatory oversight of the industry
It seems to me that the government has researched and based on that research concluded that general aviation is not a threat.
Originally Posted by
LuvAirFrance
Loops misses a poiint is trying to construct an analogy. There is far more access to targets from the air than there is from a landbound vehicle. Now they could arm sensitive sites with antiaircraft to blast planes out of the air that fail to divert, but how popular would that be?
And you can better believe they have.
Originally Posted by
LuvAirFrance
I think it comes down to a simple question. Will we take steps to secure potential targets or not? I've seen some people who've never met a security measure they like. The government will never satisfy them unless it ceases and desists from every activity to make things secure. To them, nuclear power plants are fine as they are, no one could possible want to explode one. Sports crowds? Totally safe. Shopping malls? Impregnable.
Ever been inside a nuclear reactor? Ever tried to get into one? As far back as the 1970s I worked in a nuclear reactor. There were very interesting and rigorous security precautions then. I am sure there are much more rigorous precautions now. Know what happens if you fly a fully loaded, fully fueled general aviation airplane into the containment building of a power reactor? It might leave a scorch mark on it. Power reactors create copious amounts of neutrons when they are running. They must be shielded to prevent surrounding areas from being exposed to radiation, and the cheapest shielding available is concrete. Not just any concrete, but high density concrete. Lots and lots of high density concrete. As for the airplane, any airplane, it will bounce off and by the time the fuel is burned, there will be nothing left but some oxidized flakes of aluminum foil. ...and the scorch mark on the intact concrete surface of the containment building.
Originally Posted by
loops
Fortunately, the government has not taken the position that GA aircraft pose such a threat.
GA aircraft are unsuitable for mass destruction, Al Quaida does not have a military Air Force and Kamikazi pilots are a dying breed.
In fact the DHS-IG has studied this issue at length and after considerable study has taken the position that they are not a threat.