Docstoc

NORAD orders Web deletion of transcript

Document Sample
NORAD orders Web deletion of transcript Powered By Docstoc
					March 9, 2006 6:46 PM PST


NORAD orders Web deletion of transcript
By Declan McCullagh
Staff Writer, CNET News
Last modified: March 10, 2006 12:46 PM PST
  Related Stories

         Rumsfeld: U.S. propaganda needs to enter digital age
         February 17, 2006


         U.K. proposal to police the Web hits hurdles
         February 2, 2006


         Government Web sites are keeping an eye on you
         January 5, 2006


         Bloggers rally to cover Iraq elections
         December 14, 2005


         Journalists protest Web site clampdown
         January 8, 2004


         In the name of national security
         November 3, 2003


         Military worried about Web leaks
         January 16, 2003
           Government agency pulls Web site
           November 21, 2002

In an unusual follow-up to a public event, the Defense Department has ordered that a
transcript of an open hearing on aviation restrictions be yanked from the Web.
Maj. Gen. M. Scott Mayes, the head of the North American air defense command, ordered the
internal review that flagged the hearing's transcript as problematic and led to its deletion from a
government Web site, CNET News.com has learned.




The public hearing was held Jan. 18 at the Airport Marriott in Dulles, Va., and was discussed in
local news reports. Its purpose was to ask for public opinions about recent airspace security
restrictions near the nation's capital, which have cost local businesses some $45 million a year in
lost revenue and have even prompted some general aviation pilots to move elsewhere.

One of the pilots who testified was Lt. Cmdr. Tom Bush, a U.S. Navy F-18 Hornet pilot who
also flies a small civilian plane and said he was speaking as a private individual.

"Freedom and security are polar opposites, and I am not willing to give up my freedom for the
sake of terrorists," Bush said during the hearing, according to a report at AviationNow.com.

The report also said Bush suggested the airspace restrictions were irrational because a terrorist
could pretend to fly through the Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) to nearby Dulles
airport, make a right-hand turn at the last minute, and be over downtown Washington, D.C., in
four minutes. The ADIZ is a ring stretching almost 40 miles around Washington, D.C.




                Maj. Gen. M. Scott Mayes
"There may be some operational security concerns with the time line he laid out," Michael
Kucharek, the chief of media relations for the North American Aerospace Defense Command,
said in a telephone interview Thursday.
Kucharek said that "there were some operational security concerns revealed by this person who
had knowledge but appeared as a public citizen, which we think was out of line. The disclosure
of that information could go directly to national security concerns."

The Bush administration has been criticized in the past by open government advocates for its
aggressive efforts to avoid the disclosure of information that historically has been public. In
2003, the U.S. Army surreptitiously pulled the plug on one of its more popular Web sites after a
report embarrassing to the military appeared on it. In another example, the names of the
members of the Defense Science Board--an obscure but influential advisory body that influences
military policy and had a budget of $3.6 million a year--have vanished from the group's public
Web site.
A representative for the Transportation Security Administration said Friday that the agency
received a letter from the Defense Department requesting a review of the transcript and that
process is continuing.

The 369-page transcript of the event (part 1 and part 2), previously posted on the Federal
Aviation Administration's Web site, has been replaced with a notice saying it is "presently
unavailable."

Lt. Cmdr. Bush could not be reached for comment. One pilot who was at the hearing reported
that Bush said that Americans kicked out the British, tamed the West, won two World Wars, put
a man on the moon--and should start acting like it.

Some pilots expressed skepticism that Bush disclosed anything sensitive and suggested that the
deletion was because he criticized the government's security apparatus. Representatives from
NORAD, TSA, FAA, the Department of Homeland Security, the Secret Service, and Customs
and Border Protection were on the panel hearing testimony and remained silent during Bush's
testimony.

"The fact that TSA is an out of control dysfunctional agency is a given, so it may be just another
example of their ongoing buffoonery," Lee Schiek, the manager of Maryland's College Park
Airport, wrote in an e-mail message on Thursday. "On the other hand, this could be an attempt to
rewrite history to minimize the public record sentiment regarding the ADIZ. In any event, since
its inception, TSA has consistently demonstrated their inability to do the right thing, and this
latest example should not go unchallenged."

Amy von Walter, a representative for the TSA, said Friday that the review of Bush's comments
for so-called Sensitive Security Information was complete. "We did a review of the testimony to
make sure there was no SSI contained," von Walter said. "We did not find any."

Von Walter said TSA had not demanded the removal of the information, and that the Defense
Department had. After TSA completes its review of the remainder of the transcript, she said, all
or some of it will be reposted.
The ADIZ is opposed by general aviation pilots--that is, pilots who fly smaller aircraft such as a
Cessna, Mooney or Piper--because it imposes strict security rules that increase bureaucracy and
can overload air traffic controllers.

It was created as a supposedly temporary measure after Sept. 11, 2001, but the Bush
administration has suggested that it become permanent. More than 21,300 comments, almost
entirely critical of the ADIZ, were filed in the FAA proceeding that led to January's public
hearing in Virginia.

Many comments said that a terrorist could easily defeat the purpose of the ADIZ by filing the
paperwork, talking to air traffic controllers, and then turning toward Washington, D.C., at the last
moment. Others said it was odd to worry about general aviation aircraft that typically have two
to six seats and can carry less than most SUVs.

The FAA said Thursday the transcript might be restored soon. It is being reviewed "and no final
decisions have been made," FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said. "I think that you'll see
virtually all of that reposted fairly quickly."

See more CNET content tagged:
transcript, deletion, Transportation Security Administration, restriction, Virginia

16 comments

Join the conversation! Add your comment
Government Secrecy in Meetings a Problem
           The only government worth having at any level is completely open, transparent
           government. Here in Florida we used to have a concept called Government in the
           Sunshine, that legally required a high level of transparency in government dealings.
           Needless to say, when the Republicans took control of the state government, and
           especially after a guy named Bush became governor, the whole concept was
           progressively undermined. These are ultra-authoritarians who believe that once you
           get your hands on power, you become accountable to no one.
Posted by steven.randolph (24 comments )
           March 10, 2006 4:42 AM (PST) Like Reply Link Flag
           What a load of BS
           Yes, it's clear you think Republicans are Nazis. What a bunch of crap. So Lincoln was
           such an evil guy, so were all that followed according to you. You are clearly irrational
           and reactionary which means nothing you say can be taken seriously. I'm sure you
           think the Democrats are angels, like the Kennedy's or the Clintons? Please give us a
           break.

          As far as this article I think it's written with an agenda. Open societies are not
          completely open and never have been. Current levels of communication are a double
          edge sword. It's not like we Americans can have a conversation about something and
          the enemy isn't going to see it. Don't be stupid and don't tell them how to attack us.
          Seriously, how ignorant can people be!?
And it sounds like the hearing is mostly about self interest. Pilots don't want to have to
make the extra effort and feel they are loosing business and that's all they care about,
not about the country as a whole.
Posted by kxmmxk (309 comments )
March 10, 2006 7:04 AM (PST) Like Link Flag
*Government* secrecy is the problem
*Government* secrecy is the problem, and it's not all Republican. Here in San Jose,
CA, there's been a lot of talk about sunshine laws too, because of the repeated
problems with corruption in local politics. Only here, it's all Democrats. The problem
is if you don't hold politicians accountable, Republicans and Democrats both, they
become corrupt. So try voting third party for a change, if for no other reason than to
strike a little fear in both Republicans and Democrats elected to office. ...Keeps them
honest.

As for the story, come on. You really think terrorists are morons? They don't need to
have you or anyone else tell them that all they have to do is make a right turn and
they'll be over Washington DC. It's *obvious*.

The interesting thing though, is that it appears that a significant portion of our national
security efforts have involved the erosion of our rights, while few have dealt with the
obvious vulnerabilities. After all, you can still cross the borders at will, carrying
anything you want, without identifying yourself - millions do every year. Your safety
is raw and exposed because your politicians prefer to curry favor with certain ethnic
groups over keeping you safe. The NAFTA provision allowing Mexican trucks to
cross the border without the safety requirements of US trucks and without any
inspection whatsoever continues. You can still ship containers from foreign countries
to the US without worrying about them being exposed to any effective inspection. So,
really now, there is no security, and there is no interest on the part of our government
to get us there - it's been five years, after all.

All of this is because the war on terror the government is talking about is one that's
being fought in the media only, so the government can lull us into complacency and
stupidity.

Meanwhile, I remember laughing once when I was at the airport and the security folks
broke off the tiny one inch nail file that was attached to my nail clippers. I then got on
board the plane and was handed... a steel fork and *knife* to eat my meal.

So a little visibility is a good thing. It lets our politicians know that we aren't all idiots,
and we aren't all fooled by asinine regulations that make no sense.

A little side note: You know that you have to identify yourself before you get on a
plane, right? Did you know that you're not allowed to see the laws requiring you to do
so? That's right, all those airport regulations requiring you to forfeit your rights are a
secret. Shhhh. Meanwhile, answer me this: if you're flying domestically, how does
       providing identification help with security? You're already searched and X-rayed, so
       what security benefit is provided by showing identification? Umm, none? Check out
       <a class="jive-link-external"
       href="http://www.postgazette.com/pg/05058/462446.stm"
       target="_newWindow">http://www.postgazette.com/pg/05058/462446.stm</a> for an
       interesting article.
       Posted by airbns (32 comments )
       March 10, 2006 2:35 PM (PST) Like Link Flag
CNET HARMS NATIONAL SECURITY? STUPID CNET!
       Declan rises to a new height of arrogance in writing how to successfully attack
       Washington, DC. My wife just said he should be arrested. Personally, I liked reading
       the article and I'm sure it was also enjoyed by those guys planning to fly into the
       White House.

          TO CNET...This is really stupid and shame on you.
Posted by mosshaven (20 comments )
          March 10, 2006 8:22 AM (PST) Like Reply Link Flag
          He said nothing that wasn't obvious
          As a guy who has landed at Reagan National Airport hundreds of times, it is painfully
          obvious that the White House is mere seconds from the approach path to National.
          Any regular traveler to DCA knows that by the time the tower was trying to figure out
          what was going on, a light plane could be at the White House. It's not like we're going
          to put a missile battery up in the Rose Garden, nor are we about to shoot down aircraft
          merely because they've strayed from a path for 60 seconds. Mr. Moss is mistaken in
          supposing that this article reveals something that anyone wouldn't be able to discover
          by inspection.
          Posted by mminasi (3 comments )
          March 10, 2006 10:33 AM (PST) Like Link Flag
          Please tell me you are joking.
          No one is this stupid. Well I take that back no one who didn't vote for the Shrub is that
          stupid. What was stated in the article is pure unfiltered common sense. Something
          missing from an apparent majority of Americans these days. Which is why the
          suggestion that OMG OMG! You've let the terrorists know!!!11oneoneeleventy!||i
          Would you suggest that we now implement a new Shhhh policy? The don't talk about
          it and it might not happen defense. Moron.
          Posted by Jonathan (807 comments )
          March 10, 2006 10:53 AM (PST) Like Link Flag
          "harms national security?"
          How amusing! You must not have read these two paragraphs that were added to the
          article:

          Amy von Walter, a representative for the TSA, said Friday that the review of Bush's
          comments for so-called Sensitive Security Information was complete. "We did a
          review of the testimony to make sure there was no SSI contained," von Walter said.
          "We did not find any."
           Von Walter said TSA had not demanded the removal of the information, and that the
           Defense Department had. After TSA completes its review of the remainder of the
           transcript, she said, all or some of it will be reposted.
           Posted by declan00 (798 comments )
           March 10, 2006 2:07 PM (PST) Like Link Flag
Minitrue
          This story has the feel of the Ministry Of Truth in Orwell's 1984. The
          AdminCastration is forever morphing reality to fit their own agenda. Real terror, like
          the SUV driving, pedestrian mowing, Koran toting Chapel Hill student is conveniently
          ignored. So was the Mosque attending OK student outside the OK stadium who blew
          himself up prematurely. According to Minitrue, we have had no domestic terror
          incidents since 911. It must be true. Because they say so.
Posted by Stating (870 comments )
          March 10, 2006 8:59 PM (PST) Like Reply Link Flag
          Pardon Me for Being A Bit Symantical
          Not sure what you're trying to say there, Keith, but I'd like to offer one small
          clarification: What happened on Sept 11th was not a case of domestic terrorism.

          mark d.
          Posted by markdoiron (1100 comments )
          March 11, 2006 4:54 AM (PST) Like Link Flag
NORAD's order for deletion
          Any pilot used to reading a chart, terrorist or not, can compute distances and the time
          required to travel it. If you're passing close to the Capitol, it doesn't take a rocket
          scientist to figure out how long it would take from a given point to get to a given
          target. The ADIZ around the Capitol is a buracratic feel good not founded in reality.
          One of our Supervisors had a saying..."ignorance is correctable...stupid is forever". I
          find that often the explanation for many of the edicts from Washington agencies.
Posted by (7 comments )
          March 11, 2006 10:22 AM (PST) Like Reply Link Flag
Or maybe not
          "One pilot who was at the hearing reported that Bush said that Americans kicked out
          the British, tamed the West, won two World Wars, put a man on the moon--and
          should start acting like it."

           Or maybe they should not start acting as if this were true, since it's not. The French
           did a lot of the heavy lifting in the Revolutionary war on land, and all of it at sea. The
           US played at best a supoporting role in WWI, and although the US ended up on the
           winning side in WWII, the British, Canadians and especially Russians made crucial
           contributions that the US has now almost airbrushed out of its own retelling of history.
           Even the Moon shots relied heavily on German technology.

          There is a cost to fictionalising your own history and refusing to acknowledge your
          debt to others. The cost is the risk of believing yourself to be invincible, and as a result
          taking on battles you can't win. Korea, VietNam and now Iraq come to mind.
Posted by njlivesey (1 comment )
          March 12, 2006 5:27 PM (PST) Like Reply Link Flag
Meeting Content Still Available Here ...
          <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://cryptome.org/dc-attack.htm"
          target="_newWindow">http://cryptome.org/dc-attack.htm</a>
Posted by booboo1243 (328 comments )




10 March 2006

A writes:

This is from the dcpilots list on Yahoo Groups.

The links below work, they just tell you the information has been removed.

From: Date: Wed Feb 1, 2006 3:27 pm Subject: January 12 transcripts posted

I just checked the FAA docket and found the 1/12 transcripts.

I expect that the 1/18 transcripts (the meetings I attended) will be added soon.

Afternoon session: <http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf95/383929_web.pdf>

Evening session: <http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf95/383930_web.pdf>

===========

For those of you who attended the ADIZ public hearings in January, you'll recall that the FAA
panel moderator started each session by explaining to us that the verbatim transcript of all
testimony would be posted on the DMS website, as well as be available for hardcopy
purchase. For a short period, the verbatim testimony transcript was in fact available online.

It is now missing from the website in its entirety, nor is it available for hardcopy purchase.

I have been advised by FAA reps that the complete removal of this documentation was done at
the initiative of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). The alleged purpose of this
action is to review the material for Security Sensitive Information (SSI). I have been unable to
locate a government rep who can say when, or IF, this public documentation will return to the
public domain.

Keep in mind that every word of every sentence of every presentation was spoken in the
presence of multiple TSA representatives who were either on the hearing panel or in the
room. Soon after, the transcripts were posted on the DMS website addressing NPRM 17005. A
few weeks later, TSA decided to retract all the information from public access.
The fact that TSA is an out of control dysfunctional agency is a given, so it may be just another
example of their on-going bufoonery. On the other hand, this could be an attempt to rewrite
history to minimize the public record sentiment regarding the ADIZ. In any event, since its
inception, TSA has consistently demonstrated their inability to do the right thing, and this latest
example should not go unchallenged.

If you're as outraged over this institutional arrogance as I am, I invite you to express your views
to Mr. Tony Fazio, FAA Office of Rulemaking, at: 202-267-9677. You might even try to locate
the appropriate troid within the TSA who is aware of this issue....(Good luck.... Been there-done
that.)

=========



Below are comments on an FAA proposed rule for Washington DC aircraft flight restrictions.
Transcripts of a public hearing on January 18, 2006, where similar comments were made, have
been removed due to alleged security concerns by NORAD (thanks to A):

http://news.com.com/NORAD+orders+Web+deletion+of+transcript/2100-1028_3-6048254.html

Declan McCullagh writes:

The public hearing was held Jan. 18 at the Airport Marriott in Dulles, Va., and was discussed in
local news reports. Its purpose was to ask for public opinions about recent airspace security
restrictions near the nation's capital, which have cost local businesses some $45 million a year in
lost revenue and have even prompted some general aviation pilots to move elsewhere.

One of the pilots who testified was Lt. Cmdr. Tom Bush, a U.S. Navy F-18 Hornet pilot who
also flies a small civilian plane and said he was speaking as a private individual. "Freedom and
security are polar opposites, and I am not willing to give up my freedom for the sake of
terrorists," Bush said during the hearing, according to a report at AviationNow.com.

The report also said Bush suggested the airspace restrictions were irrational because a terrorist
could pretend to fly through the Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) to nearby Dulles
airport, make a right-hand turn at the last minute, and be over downtown Washington, D.C., in
four minutes. The ADIZ is a ring stretching almost 40 miles around Washington, D.C.

"There may be some operational security concerns with the time line he laid out," Michael
Kucharek, the chief of media relations for the North American Aerospace Defense Command,
said in a telephone interview Thursday.

Kucharek said that "there were some operational security concerns revealed by this person who
had knowledge but appeared as a public citizen, which we think was out of line. The disclosure
of that information could go directly to national security concerns."
The proposed rule and 21,476 comments:

http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchResultsSimple.cfm?numberValue=17005&searchType=docket



Source: http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf92/342277_web.pdf

[Anonymous]

August 15, 2005

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty
nor safety." --- Benjamin Franklin, 1759.

While I am sure that the FAA and DHS believe that the proposed rulemaking for a permanent
SFRA around the nation's capital provides a certain degree of protection from an unknown
threat, the rational proposed for the SFRA is flawed on several fronts. The 'threats' that created
the existing ADIZ in 2002 could not be justified then, and continue to be unsubstantiated in the
rationale provided in the "Background", "Request To Permanently Codify Temporary Flight
Restrictions Over The Washington, DC Metropolitan Area", and "General Discussion of the
Proposal" sections of the NPRM.

It would be easy to debate the conflicting, and often unsubstantiated comments in these sections,
but that would not get to the point of the matter. The ADIZ exists because security personnel
believe that additional attacks will come from the sky. This is an emotional reaction of the Sept
11, 2001 attack. Security personnel are trying to make a case that future terrorists will use
General Aviation aircraft to cause this renewed terror. This fear (emotion) is not based on a
logical view of the world, of physics, or of aviation; otherwise security personnel would view the
existing ADIZ as ineffective. Putting an ADIZ or a SFRA around Washington, DC makes sense
only if one views the protection problem from an emotional perspective. It makes security
personnel, who appear to know very little about aviation and physics, comfortable in that
something has been done. In short, the ADIZ (or proposed SFRA) does nothing to prevent the
threats that security personnel believe that it (the ADIZ) protects us from. It does, however,
allow them to say "We did something, and I believe it is working."

If one closely looks at the type of aircraft used in the 9/11 attacks, one can clearly see that all
were commercial airlines, weighing 255,000 lbs, flying on IFR flight plans, with an encoding
transponder and a valid squawk code, communicating with ATC (until not), fully loaded for a
cross-country flight with up to 11,450 gallons of fuel, traveling at or above 470 knots (540
MPH). The damage potential of a large, fast, fuel-laden aircraft is quite good, as witnessed by the
attack on the World Trade Center. While the damage of the impact was great, it was the un-
extinguished fires from the heavily-laden jet that collapsed the towers. It is important to note that
the 4 aircraft involved technically met the criteria for entry into the ADIZ, with the exception
that ATC could not raise them on the radio.
A typical General Aviation aircraft, on the other hand, weighs about 2000 lbs, can carry about
500 lbs of weight (including the pilot), travels at about 120 knots (140 MPH), with up to 90
gallons of fuel. The damage potential of using this type of aircraft is relatively poor. An example
of the potential of using a small General Aviation aircraft as a weapon can be seen by viewing
the NTSB report #ATL02FA032, where a Cessna 172R crashed into the 28th floor of the Bank
of America building in Tampa, Florida on January 5, 2002. The pilot was killed. Windows in the
office building were broken. A couple of offices in the building had to be repaired. Very little
damage occurred. Another incident, where a small Cessna was used to crash into the White
House (September 12, 1994), resulted in the death of the pilot but caused very little damage.
Again, not an effective weapon. Yet there seems to be a persistent "belief" that great danger will,
and can happen, with the use of a small aircraft. A car, or a truck bomb will produce greater
damage than what can be carried on a small aircraft. Security personnel very likely do not
understand that while a car can be "packed" with explosives, a plane cannot. It can only lift off
the ground what the wings will permit. Again, 500 lbs MINUS the weight of the pilot. Expecting
the same type of 'threat' damage from a small, General Aviation aircraft that was experienced
from that of a commercial airliner, makes no logical sense.

When the Cessna 150 violated the airspace on May 11, 2005 it took intercepting aircraft over 30
minutes to reach the airplane whose best airspeed, on a good day, will be a sustained 90 knots
(103 MPH). The radius of the ADIZ from the prohibited airspace surrounding the White House
is about 30 miles. The violating aircraft covered the 30 mile radius in about 30 minutes, which is
about a 60 MPH closing velocity. Cars travel faster on the DC Beltway than this aircraft
achieved on closing the distance to the prohibited airspace from when it first entering the ADIZ.
If this were a Boeing 757 violating the rules (shown above to be a more effective weapon), the
distance from ADIZ entry to the prohibited airspace around the Capital would be about 3 to 4
minutes. Using this single piece of analysis, one has to conclude that the ADIZ doesn't exist to
prevent commercial aircraft from being used again as a weapon, as the intercepting aircraft could
never be expected to reach the aircraft in time to prevent a tragedy. One has to further conclude
that the "threat" has to be something other than to use a General Aviation aircraft as a cruise
missile.

The NRPM mentions using an aircraft for dispensing chemical or biological weapons. Although
not specifically presented, this is very likely the threat that the ADIZ is trying to prevent. It
would make sense to use a slow-moving airborne vehicle to dispense a chemical or biological
agent from the air, as it would allow for the most area coverage in the shortest time. However,
for most of these agents to be effective, they have to come in contact with skin. I suspect that the
chemical and biological threat is the likely scenario that worries the DHS, otherwise there would
be restrictions on rental trucks and cars allowed into the city (suspicions of being packed with
explosives). Unfortunately, I cannot conclude this, as the reactions of the security personnel on
the day of the May 11, 2005 ADIZ incursion was to get everyone from the buildings into the
street, where they were more likely to be exposed to a chemical or biological threat than if they
remained in the protection of the building. Logically, I still have to question the purpose of the
ADIZ since it doesn't address the real threats to which we could be exposed. The NPRM appears
is preparing to make permanent a system of rules and procedures that do not thwart a real threat,
but one that is designed to thwart an imaginary threat. Otherwise, a 'protection' system that is
being implemented by people who do not understand physics, aviation, or NBC (Nuclear,
Biological, Chemical).

However, something has to be done to address the emotional need. What makes sense?

If I were a terrorist, bent on inflicting harm over the nation's capital, I could still use a General
Aviation aircraft to drop a chemical / biological agent within the ADIZ and SFRA rules. I could
plan a flight and file a flight plan through the ADIZ, following all of the rules, and then suddenly
turn into the FRZ to disperse my agent(s) or crash into a building before an aircraft could be
launched. Transiting the 15-mile FRZ radius will take about 8 minutes before the aircraft is over
the capital. A 30-minute ADIZ intercept time won't work. A 15 minute ADIZ intercept time will
not work. If the intent is to deliver a bomb or a chemical or a biological agent, the same math /
process applies. Nothing can be done to prevent this, unless all aircraft, including commercial
aircraft, are permanently grounded (probably the desired DHS draconian solution). If a terrorist
is bent on killing themselves, there is nothing anyone can do on the ground or in the air to
prevent the tragedy, unless sufficient intelligence is obtained prior to the event. All a terrorist
needs is the material and the opportunity to inflict the terror before security personnel can react.
They will take the path of least resistance, that is likely to obtain the best result. Since the ADIZ
(SFRA) does very little to nothing to prevent the 2 most obvious threats, why should we make it
permanent?

I forgot. The DHS needs to do something.

High-level officials in the Federal Government acknowledge that the threat form General
Aviation aircraft is low to non-existent. Why therefore, is there a continuing process to put
something in place that has no value (other than the very large direct and indirect implementation
and operational cost outlined in the NPRM analysis)? Why are General Aviation aircraft being
singled out as the weapon of choice when excellent examples of car and truck bombs and
backpack bombs are on the news every night?

I forgot. The DHS needs to do something.

I recommend that something of value be done to address real threats. The majority of pilots using
the National Airspace are good people and are very concerned about the nation's security. We
want to help. We also want to make sure that the right solution is established to address the right
problem. The ADIZ (SFRA) doesn't do this. We will be just as safe in preventing an airborne
attack without the ADIZ as we were before it was invoked.

Although I don't think it is effective, I could accept Alternative 4 as a compromise. I recommend
that the millions of dollars that will be spent to implement something that will not work (SFRA)
be spent on intelligence gathering and analysis, along with sensor systems to aid in the detection
of explosives and chemical and biological agents. Focusing on only one option of delivery will
do little to prevent a determined terrorist. Focusing on catching terrorists in the acquisition or
fabrication of a terrorist device will be money well spent.
The SFRA is a bad idea. Is doesn't address the threat. It doesn't provide protection. It lulls us into
a false sense of accomplishment and satisfaction; "that we are safe". I recommend that we (the
FAA and DHS as well) do the right thing, and do what makes sense. The SFRA isn't the answer.
It only permits the DHS to say that "something" was done, and "that we are safe".

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty
nor safety." --- Benjamin Franklin, 1759.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:5
posted:6/21/2012
language:English
pages:13