Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:41 PM - Fuel drains for 680 (WINGFLYER1@aol.com)
2. 07:11 PM - Re: Fuming Mad! (nico css)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Fuel drains for 680 |
I am looking for two sets of fuel drains Part #V104 and Gasket part 3
2630080. These drains are for the out board fuel tanks . Thanks for any info.
Gil Walker 615-373-5703
**************Choose the home loan that saves you the most $$$. Agents
available at ditech.com
1%2F)
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Hi Steve.
I am not complaining about the powers, I am complaining about the abuse of
those powers. Linking this abuse to the agencies, per se, just doesn't make
sense. The media ignoring the incident is the needle in the side and the
acceleration of the anger. Your local policeman has similar powers based
upon reasonable belief of a crime, which is a totally subjective call making
it nearly impossible to challenge. You can be locked up for several hours
without any cause whatsoever and you have no recourse at all. David Perry
and his passengers were detained for only about one hour, well within the
limit of ad hoc detention. I don't gripe about that. If you read my opinion
on the matter, you will see that I avoided the part where these officers
were within their rights; rights they did not acquire by any agency that was
created in '03 or any recent decade before that. Their abuse was with the
manner in which they executed their duties. Having firearms drawn on
civilians without cause is abuse of the highest order. This sets a decorum
of violence first, which is something that is totally foreign to the general
aviation community and in this country as a whole for that matter. Not even
police officers approaching suspicious vehicles during traffic stops draw
their guns. They are merely prepared to act quickly, which is reasonable.
Getting back to your local policeman. If he would arrest you at gunpoint
without any cause you would have a complaint of abuse, violating your civil
rights and unnecessarily endangering your life, which would be a legitimate
complaint and, in my (not always) humble opinion, something for which you
can sue.
The mere fact that they were released after only an hour's interrogation, is
clear proof that there was no cause and no prior information about the
pilot, the passengers or the plane or they would have been detained or at
least questioned for a longer period of time. Russ Niles' pathetic paint-job
of the incident in AvWeb is a disgrace.
Nico
The incident:
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1392-full.html#200528
and Russ Niles' blog:
http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/GA_A_Soft_Target_For_Security_200535-1.ht
ml
_____
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Steve
Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 8:07 AM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Fuming Mad!
NIco,
What a mess.
Where on earth were the conservatives when these agencies were being formed?
This department was created back in '03 when all I ever heard out of
conservatives was whining about keeping us safe. That's all that was spoken
about. Creating these giant agencies, bypassing courts, bypassing
surveillance laws on citizens. All of this was done in the name of keeping
us safe and being 'tough' on terrorists. Attempts to limit these powers and
support civil liberties were seen as 'soft'.
A couple months into the new guy's administration having inheriting these
things, and with the radicalization of the political climate, we're in a
box. If the new guy moves to defang border patrol and Homeland Security
he'll be slammed for making us more vulnerable.
Not trying to be funny here, I just really wonder why conservatives didn't
play their classic role of limiting these powers, and contributed instead to
their massive buildup.
See you didn't need to worry, with you not posting about art films I can go
back to normal.
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: nico <mailto:nico@cybersuperstore.com> css
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 2:08 PM
Subject: Commander-List: Fuming Mad!
Folks,
I am fuming mad.
The Long Beach action against private citizens is an atrocity. One can
understand if there were concerns for suspicious or dangerous persons on
that flight, but from all accounts this was a flight by all standards
similar to an outing with the family in one's automobile in the countryside.
Some brainless twit in Long Beach with a jackboot fetish decided to show his
or her prowess that day and ordered a full-scale scare initiative. I was
taught from childhood that you don't point a firearm at anybody unless you
are prepared to use it. There is no justification for assuming otherwise
with law enforcement.
Shame on Kelly Ivahnenko for defending this outrageous behavior of the rogue
priests of covert fascism. What would you have done, Kelly, if one of the
drawn weapons discharged accidentally? Or, suppose one of the passengers
lowered his hand to open the door or prevent from stumbling trying to get
out of the plane under extreme duress and one of the officers perceived that
as reaching for a weapon? I can already hear your sheepish and inadequate
response by extrapolating it from your answer here. What a shameful thing to
defend! Those who do not advocate for your dismissal and those at Long
Beach, for incompetence, is just as guilty.
Stressing that this experience is not what most pilots should expect when
they are checked by the CBP is a shameful and ignorant statement, insulting
everybody's intelligence including yours. Tell us, then, Kelly, what should
pilots expect when they are checked by the CBP? What percentage could expect
drawn weapons pointed at their parents or children that happen to be with
them that day? And don't say that it will happen only when there is
justified belief of a suspicious passenger or pilot involved because you
already defended an action where such prior knowledge was not present; on
the contrary, all indications were that there were no suspicious persons on
board that flight. If your agency embarked on a course to totally destroy
general aviation, you have certainly shown the methods by which you want to
accomplish that goal.
I would sue their friggin' pants off, Perry, not to inhibit legitimate
pursuit of security but to eradicate this and exactly this kind of tyranny.
Nico
_____
From: owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of rocketman
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 7:22 AM
Subject: Rocket-List: Back in the USSR!
So tell me what does this mean for us peons?
As seen in AVweb
A total of 454 airports will be subject to the TSA's latest Security
Directive (SD-8G) restricting the movements of transient pilots, EAA said
<http://eaa.org/news/2009/2009-06-09_list.asp> this week. The list includes
airports in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Guam as
well as in the U.S. Click here for
<http://eaa.org/news/2009/2009-06-09_tsa_airportlist.pdf> the full list
(PDF). The directive took effect June 1 and requires pilots to "remain close
to their aircraft," leaving it only for trips to and from the FBO or airport
exit, according to
<http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2009/090528tsa.html> AOPA, although
some airports may also offer escorts to transient pilots.
Since individual airports may develop a variety of programs that would
satisfy the TSA directive, pilots need to call ahead to their destinations
and ask the airport operator or an FBO on the field for information about
that airport's security requirements, EAA says. The TSA is expected to
provide future guidance regarding self-fueling and emergencies. The full
text of the security directive has not been made public. The new listing of
airports is not the same as a list
<http://www.avweb.com/pdf/general_aviation_affected_airports_2009-01.pdf> of
airports (PDF) released by the TSA in January for the Large Aircraft
Security Program.
CUSTOMS
<http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1392-full.html#200528> AND
BORDER PROTECTION JUSTIFIES RAMP CHECK
A spokeswoman for the Washington headquarters of U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) says the drawing of weapons in the ramp inspection of an
aircraft in Long Beach, Calif., last month was justified but not "normal."
Kelly Ivahnenko also told AVweb that general aviation pilots can expect more
ramp checks by CBP agents thanks to the newly-instituted Electronic Advance
Passenger Information System (eAPIS). She stressed it's unlikely many of the
checks will have the level of intensity employed May 22 with Long Beach,
Calif., pilot David Perry and his three passengers. Ivahnenko said in an
interview on Tuesday that there was a "heightened alert" involved in the
Long Beach operation but she also said she could not discuss the
circumstances that led to a more aggressive posture than normal by the CBP
and local police. She also said that while eAPIS had nothing to do with the
Long Beach inspection, information provided through eAPIS could result in
more frequent GA inspections. The system, which involves the online filing
of flight and passenger information for transborder flights, became
mandatory on May 18. In an interview
<http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/PilotProtestsCustomsCheck_200519-1.htm
l> and podcast <http://www.avweb.com/alm?podcast20090608&kw=RelatedStory>
with AVweb, Perry said he and his passengers were put in unnecessary peril
by gun-wielding enforcement officials. Ivahnenko stressed Perry's experience
is not what most pilots should expect if they're checked by the CBP. "This I
would not classify as common or routine," she said. She said the Long Beach
action was justified, even though the search turned up nothing illegal.
"While the involvement of more than one law enforcement agency and the
heightened alert of the situation were slightly unusual, it is within
(CBP's) authority to inspect inbound and outbound travelers, vehicles,
planes, cargo, etc.," she told AVweb. She also said that only the Long Beach
police officers assisting the operation actually drew weapons and CBP agents
kept theirs holstered, something Perry vehemently disputes. "Every one of
them had their weapons out," Perry said. More...
<http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1392-full.html#200528>
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List">http://www.matronic
s.com/Navigator?Commander-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|