As a pilot, I know that many of the airplanes are not locked when they are sitting on the tarmac. The keys are usually generic, so you can probably use a key to a similar aircraft to start the engines.
I never really thought about it before, but stealing a jet would probably be easier than stealing a car (minus, of course, the crazy militia who might kill you for repossessing the airplane).
While taking control of the aircraft might be easier, I'd imagine that you'd be a lot easier to track via radar. That's not to mention that the Air Force is probably going to assume you're a terrorist and I doubt you're going to outrun any fighter jets.
Edit: I was referring to outright theft above, not repoing.
Nonsense. Squawk 1200, and once airborne, you're free to use the radios. The point about not using the radio on the ground was to ensure that you could actually get the craft off the ground without the current owners or FBO knowing what you were up to.
The entire article appeared to be presuming that ATC was only concerned with "safe, orderly and expeditious" flow of air traffic and not with murky ownership of the aircraft. In my (non-repo man) experience, that is all that ATC cares about.
ATC won't care about #3 ever. If you're not in class B, ATC won't care about #2. Jets are allowed to fly VFR, too; they just don't very often. In class B, you can get your clearance by cell phone, and start using the radios once you get to the movement area (or at a non-primary class B airport, when taking the active).
In my opinion, a university education should only be about intellectual curiosity with the greatest research minds. If you are only interested in the practical aspects of programming, I don't think that a university fits your needs.
To extend this thought, I also believe that someone majoring in any field--from English to art history--should be able to become professional programmers. I feel that industry is trying to make universities technical schools, when they have an academic focus.
That is not to say that I don't agree with some of the previous posters. We do need more training centers for people with practical inclinations.
I feel that the problem with this whole system is that people are automatically expected to go to university if they did well in high school. If not they will violate a social norm, and shame their parents. There should be practical schooling options for students that are also hard and prestigious.
In my opinion, a university education should only be about intellectual curiosity with the greatest research minds. If you are only interested in the practical aspects of programming, I don't think that a university fits your needs.
I agree with this. I've been working as a programmer for a couple of years now and I'm planning to go to university to study computer science. I'm kind of annoyed that all of the universities I've looked at are all business now: the brochures are full of how students won't "miss out" on the practical, real-world side of things.
That's exactly what I'm not looking for, but unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any place to go if all you want is computer science.
As a Wharton student, I feel that contrary to what the professor says, top business school students (Wharton students) are still interested in creating another paper monster, because historically finance offered a much greater salary for the individual.
Operations, marketing, and the other essentials have a much lower salary and potential to growth. I feel that the traditional product-making firms should offer more "fast-track" positions to attract top students to create real products.
I feel that in our global society today, people are more interested in me than we.
Making things, aka being an engineer, is an art and a craft that takes time to master. Even if you work in software, there are no quick routes to riches. Zuckerberg may have been young when he hit it big, but he had been programming for a long time. I can't imagine that physical engineering takes less time to master (but hey, I don't really know.)
My point is "traditional product-making firms" probably fail to offer fast-track positions because there is no fast track to being good at traditional product making.
I think there is a difference between the engineers making the products and the people marketing and managing the companies. I acknowledge that it is not likely that the engineer will add huge value without substantial time to master his field, but I do feel that a bright creative business person could add substantial value. Unfortunately, I feel that they are lured away by the finance riches, so we never are able to see their impact.
I heard from some of my international friends that new regulation has been passed that makes it increasingly hard for foreign nationals to stay in the US after university for skilled professions.
If this, I think that this will only be a detriment to the US, as we need the best skilled workers to maintain our global edge.
What American shouldn't want to import more taxpayers? The income threshold over which a family is a net contributor to the government probably isn't much about $60K. So, importing just about anyone with a skill would lead to a lower tax burden for all. And, it would improve the lives of the lowest paid Americans by creating more demand for basic services (house cleaning, lawn mowing, etc.)
I understand the labor unions' reluctance to allow unskilled immigration, but they ought to press toward allowing more skilled people as it would increase the demand for their members' services. Interestingly, I think most unions are now in favor of legalizing illegal immigrants -- kicking out 10M people seems undoable, so they're best served by eliminating the illegal, un-unionizable underclass.
I heard from some of my international friends that new regulation has been passed that makes it increasingly hard for foreign nationals to stay in the US after university for skilled professions.
If this, I think that this will only be a detriment to the US, as we need the best skilled workers to maintain our global edge.
I think everyone overlooks the value of finding co-founders and ideas at top universities.
I do not have any experience at a state school, but I would posit that it is worth paying the premium for an Ivy just to meet some of the kids. I have often had this discussion of whether it was worth going to college with my friends. As I am from a small town and they are from different countries all around the world, we would have had no connection with each other. Additionally, the alumni base has helped me talk to tech CEOs and venture capitalists as an 18-year old.
Even though I think the classes are pretty much worthless for long-term success, the extracurriculars and connections you meet during your four-year experience are the shaping factors.
I never really thought about it before, but stealing a jet would probably be easier than stealing a car (minus, of course, the crazy militia who might kill you for repossessing the airplane).