States seek to limit flight training..

[weasil]

States' Bills Tighten The Noose.... .. . Fearing flight schools could yet be used to train more terrorists or otherwise sociopathic individuals, lawmakers in several states are seeking to limit instruction and require background checks for students. A bill introduced in New Jersey, for example, would require flight schools to conduct background checks and keep a register of applicants that could be made available to authorities. Students would be barred from taking classes if they had been convicted of crimes such as aggravated assault, arson or murder. South Carolina and Connecticut are considering similar legislation. In Michigan, lawmakers want schools to refuse lessons to anyone who is on probation or has had a felony conviction in the previous seven years. The FAA doesn't like having its authority usurped and believes that it should be the only agency to regulate and oversee flight school operations. "States cannot regulate students at flight schools," FAA spokesman William Shumann told the Associated Press. "The FAA has been adamant that we regulate aviation, not the states." Legislation is pending in Congress that would direct the FAA to review enrollment practices at flight schools and have them refuse instruction to students deemed a threat. Seems reasonable. After all, if background checks were required of lawmakers ... well, you know. . .. .from "Avweb" newswire service...

[CAVU]

Absolutely reasonable. It should not be, and should never have been, as easy to obtain a pilot certificate as it is. . .. .It is a great shame that this legislation has not been forthcoming from within the industry and that the states feel that they themselves must act to regulate pilot certification. The FAA is responsible for aviation security and flight crew licensing is clearly now part of that responsibility.. .. .Wonder what your thoughts are about Phil Boyer's article in this month's AOPA, where he states his intention to fight the introduction of pilot photo ID. He say's that it should be sufficient simply to carry your DL with you. I think he has rather missed the point. . .. .The idea of having a photo ID is to positively identify the holder has a licensed pilot. How does carrying a driver’s license achieve this? There is nothing to stop any felon who can drive from forging a small, drab DOT card with his name on it! . .. .AOPA has done much valuable lobbying on aviations behalf, but I think this is something they need to leave well alone. He states the reluctance of pilots to travel to FSDOs and to pay up to 60 dollars for certificate issuance. I doubt whether many people would mind taking a little extra time to help make aviation safer. I certainly do not. As he himself said, people have to travel to the DL Bureau to get a DL.

[weasil]

At first I thought it was a bad idea too like Phil Boyer.

But It really wouldn't be that hard for the FAA to issue pilot's licenses with photos on them, buy a new machine or at least just a laser printer right. I don't see it as a big expense. The DMV's been doing it for years, they just charge a small fee.

The amount of money AOPA is spending on fighting this legislation would probably pay for the switch to photo pilot's licenses. How's that for a bit of Irony.

I certainly don't agree with letting the states start regulating aviation though, it already has a governing body, that would just create confusion. Pilot's would have to start keeping up to date on the regs for flying in all the states then, now that IS ridiculous.

Weasil

[GlueBall]

In any case, it's pretty hard to get into people's minds. There's no "background check" for that. Mohamed Atta and his toadies didn't have any questionable backgrounds except that some had overstayed their student visas. And box cutters were not banned items from carry-on luggage.

A person with a squeaky clean background could one day be transformed into a suicidal religious fanatic. It's happening every week in the Mideast; ...whether Picture I.D.'d and "background checked" law abiding citizen or not.

Trusted FBI counter espionage agent Hansson with top secret clearance and multiple "background checks" and "polygraph checks" one day had decided to spy for the Soviets. And he did for 18 long years!

Any attempt to bulletproof security is impractical reality. We can take reasonable precautions. Because since the dawn of humans, and religion; war and terrorism have been part of the equation. Life includes an element of risk. :(

[weasil]

That's a good point,

I guess part of the solution is the US policy in the middle east. I know it's easier said then done but that's where the problem needs to tackled. I am always amazed to see so many countries protest US involvement in the Middle East but now that the proverbial sh*t has hit the fan they are all begging for America to get involved... at least that's what they are saying on CNN.

Personally I think it's about time America got uninvolved in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict but they say that our involvement helps our strategic interests RE: IRAQ by keeping our allies happy (Turkey, Jordan etc..) ANyway I get off the topic.

You are right, there is no fool proof method of security, there always has to be a compromise between practicality. That young 15 yr old may well have been carrying a photo ID when he flew his plane into the Bank of America building.

[pholooh]

I personally don't think terrorists will be trying to enroll in flight schools. it's much easier for them to enroll in a B.sc in chemical engineering or an m.sc in nuclear physics. I'm more scared of a biological , chemical or nuclear terrorist attack than of some loony flying a plane in to a building.
What next? Security clearance b4 you can buy FS2002?:D