Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Ralphski
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 4:29 am

RE: Texas Bans Offensive TSA Pat Downs.

Mon May 16, 2011 6:23 am

Quoting D L X (Reply 26):
You do realize that they do x-ray scanning and patdowns in Canada, right?

they do?
 
FlyPNS1
Posts: 5545
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:12 am

RE: Texas Bans Offensive TSA Pat Downs.

Mon May 16, 2011 11:33 am

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 31):
Most airports in the US are managed and serviced by municipalities. I don't know of any that are directly managed by a state.

There are a few notable examples. BWI is managed by the State of Maryland. PVD is managed by the state of Rhode Island.

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 41):
Anyone else think this is just political? States vs. Feds typical stuff that republicans love to do?

That's all it is. The folks in Texas don't care about airport security. They're just doing this for political theatre. Remember, if a terrorist does successfully take a plane down, those same folks in Texas will be screaming why weren't patdowns done....I guarantee it. It's also kind of ironic coming from a state where using the death penalty on people whose guilt is questionable is considered fine, but an airport patdown is offensive!!
 
D L X
Posts: 12722
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Texas Bans Offensive TSA Pat Downs.

Mon May 16, 2011 12:27 pm

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 49):
Quoting D L X (Reply 48):
The fact is, the 10th Amendment simply does not mean what I think you think it means.

It is more interesting that you claim it is abrogated, but provide absolutely no support for this statement. The 10th Amendment is fairly concise and clear.

It is a basic canon of constitutional law that any amendment abrogates the rest of the constitution as it currently stands. In other words, if the 100th Amendment says something inconsistent with the 99th, the 99th is abrogated and the 100th controls. This makes sense, because otherwise a new amendment to the constitution would mean nothing.

Dude, I can't teach you constitutional law every time you give this 10th amendment argument.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 49):
Quoting D L X (Reply 48):
but rather in writings of Thomas Jefferson (though I'm pretty sure you mean Madison),

Both wrote on the topic, so citing either is correct.

And neither wrote about whether a state could legislate to directly contravene federal power.

Nullification is. not. constitutional. This is a case where a little knowledge about something is dangerous.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10821
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Texas Bans Offensive TSA Pat Downs.

Mon May 16, 2011 12:32 pm

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 51):
It's also kind of ironic coming from a state where using the death penalty on people whose guilt is questionable is considered fine, but an airport patdown is offensive!!

Ahh, but now you get into the 10th Amendment that others are discussing, the pat downs are Federal regulations, the death penalty is local law allowed by the US Constitution, now if the Feds were to turn over the pat downs to the local authorities for them to claim as their own, the situation would be solved  
Quoting Lowrider (Reply 49):
Quote:
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

RE: Texas Bans Offensive TSA Pat Downs.

Mon May 16, 2011 1:09 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 52):
It is a basic canon of constitutional law that any amendment abrogates the rest of the constitution as it currently stands.

But there is nothing in the 14 amendment that affects the 10th. The language you cite clearly only applies within the confines of the 14th.

Quoting D L X (Reply 52):
Dude, I can't teach you constitutional law every time you give this 10th amendment argument.

You have yet to teach anything. So far all I have seen is a desperate twisting of context.

Quoting D L X (Reply 52):
And neither wrote about whether a state could legislate to directly contravene federal power.

And the federal government has no power beyond what is ceded to it. The states decided what powers were to be ceded.

Quoting D L X (Reply 52):
nd neither wrote about whether a state could legislate to directly contravene federal power.

Actually they did, and furthermore they wrote that the States have a duty to interpose between the federal government and citizens of those state if the Federal Government oversteps its bounds in such a way that affects those citizens.

Quoting D L X (Reply 52):
This is a case where a little knowledge about something is dangerous.


Nullification is. not. constitutional.Sort of like your little bit of knowledge of the 14th amendment?
Quoting D L X (Reply 52):
Nullification is. not. constitutional.

Might want to mention that to the Supreme Court, which has sided with states in recent history, over invalidating laws that violate the tenth amendment. Strange that they didn't get your abrogation memo, isn't it?

[Edited 2011-05-16 06:26:29]
Proud OOTSK member
 
D L X
Posts: 12722
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Texas Bans Offensive TSA Pat Downs.

Mon May 16, 2011 1:46 pm

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 54):
But there is nothing in the 14 amendment that affects the 10th. The language you cite clearly only applies within the confines of the 14th.

That is because you do not understand, nor are you willing to listen to someone help you understand how the Constitution works. And instead of asking questions to aid your understanding, you are holding a death grip on the understanding that YOU WANT to be correct because it leads to the result you desire: that Texas can override the feds.

The Amendments are not islands to themselves. The 14th Amendment is by far the broadest of the 27 Amendments precisely because it grants the Congress the power to force the states to act in a certain way. History should be your guide: we fought the Civil War because of a severe disagreement over the power of the states versus the feds. The states (the ones that were trying to exert power against the feds) lost, and the 14th Amendment was ratified to reapportion most power in the federal government to prevent states from abusing "states' rights" again.
Quoting Lowrider (Reply 54):
You have yet to teach anything.

You are simply choosing to ignore the facts I'm presenting to you.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 54):
And the federal government has no power beyond what is ceded to it.

That is true. However, the federal government has a large grant of power to regulate commerce, including the security at airports. In fact, if the federal government regulates it, the states are not allowed to regulate it.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 54):
Sort of like your little bit of knowledge of the 14th amendment?

I'm trying very hard not to sound snooty and elitist, but you're really pushing me now. This is something I have studied and practice as part of my job. I don't believe that this means I'm the only one with knowledge of the 14th Amendment, but your attempt to belittle my knowledge of it are getting ridiculous.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 54):
Might want to mention that to the Supreme Court, which has sided with states in recent history, over invalidating laws that violate the tenth amendment.

Okay Lowrider, name that case.

Please post a cite to a case where the 10th Amendment was used to override a federal law.
 
N867DA
Posts: 1368
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 12:53 am

RE: Texas Bans Offensive TSA Pat Downs.

Tue May 17, 2011 1:22 am

I can't believe the sheep in this country are taking the porno-scanners and pat-downs in stride. Flying is not a right, but that doesn't mean the government should be able to do whatever it wants with passengers. Frankly, given the TSA's gross inefficiency, lack of effectiveness, and spotty customer service, the entire organization should be scrapped and replaced with a more practical screening system. The TSA has not truly prevented any terrorist attacks, and is a very reactionary system. They come across as one of the government's most self-aggrandizing organizations and usurp power when they do not have any (read the tone of their blog for evidence of aggrandization; the fiasco with their clip-on fake badges is evidence of their need to project power).

Texas doesn't have a leg to stand on legally, but it reminds the public how disgustingly paranoid our own government has made us in the name of "security". I hope they somehow manage to find a miracle and abolish the AIT machines and pat-downs. Until then, the airlines receive fewer of my hard earned dollars, and I will enjoy Amtrak--a far more comfortable if lengthy mode of transportation.

This country needs to recognize a real boondoggle--it must, since this one is also a genuine threat to liberties held by Americans for generations.
A nation turns its lonely eyes to you
 
BN747
Posts: 7934
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

RE: Texas Bans Offensive TSA Pat Downs.

Tue May 17, 2011 2:29 am

The 3 most accurate statements on this subject...

Quoting ShyFlyer (Reply 3):
TSA hasn't a damn clue what it's doing. The only thing that has stopped another terrorist act aboard an aircraft is luck.
Quoting CurtisMan (Reply 21):
Nice to see one of your states finally taking a stand that makes sense. The pat downs do nothing to protect you folks from someone who really wants to do damage.
Quoting N867DA (Reply 56):
I can't believe the sheep in this country are taking the porno-scanners and pat-downs in stride. Flying is not a right, but that doesn't mean the government should be able to do whatever it wants with passengers. Frankly, given the TSA's gross inefficiency, lack of effectiveness, and spotty customer service, the entire organization should be scrapped and replaced with a more practical screening system

I can't stand much of what Texas does these day.. but on this, they are apot on regardless of the constitutionality of the law vs the Feds. Someone had to take stand for common sense...and who would have thought it to be Texas?!

Quoting Fly2HMO (Reply 23):
I could see this being abused. I bet some supposedly "prudish" closest-whore would take advantage of this law just to file a massive lawsui

As they should.. they should load the courts with suits to show just how silly this all is. At the same time force to the Federal Gov't to earn their paychecks and get cracking on some real intelligent solutions to this problem...not relying on some with a McDonalds-like mentality yet armed with the authority Federal Gov't to keep us safe. It's down right stupid.

Way to go Texas!

Quoting N867DA (Reply 56):
The TSA has not truly prevented any terrorist attacks, and is a very reactionary system. They come across as one of the government's most self-aggrandizing organizations and usurp power when they do not have any (read the tone of their blog for evidence of aggrandization; the fiasco with their clip-on fake badges is evidence of their need to project power).

I have ZERO faith in the TSA..and anyone whose been around airports long enough can see right thru this charade that stands and poses as 'real security'. It's a joke and insulting to the intelligence of those who possess a moderate degree of it.


BN747
"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

RE: Texas Bans Offensive TSA Pat Downs.

Tue May 17, 2011 6:05 am

Quoting D L X (Reply 55):
Okay Lowrider, name that case.

New York v. United States 1992 505 US 144

I figure this is good for about 3 more rounds before it turns ugly. So far I remain unconvinced of your interpretation of the 5th Clause in the 14th Amendment. To me is seems to be a version of the same erroneous logic that is sometimes applied to the Necessary and Proper Clause. I don't think we will resolve it in this thread, so I will withdraw before I earn another trip to the penalty box.
Proud OOTSK member
 
EDICHC
Posts: 1545
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 9:38 pm

RE: Texas Bans Offensive TSA Pat Downs.

Tue May 17, 2011 8:28 am

Quoting D L X (Reply 55):
I'm trying very hard not to sound snooty and elitist, but you're really pushing me now.
Quoting Lowrider (Reply 58):
I don't think we will resolve it in this thread, so I will withdraw before I earn another trip to the penalty box.

Hey guys I have been enjoying this debate. I profess no knowledge whatsoever on the subject matter but I compliment both of you on your debating skills. I have found it quite enlightening. Please keep it going.
A300/319/320/346 ATR72 B722/732/3/4/5/6/8/742/4/752/762/3/772/3 BAC111 BAe146 C172 DHC1/6/8 HS121 MD80 PA28
 
D L X
Posts: 12722
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Texas Bans Offensive TSA Pat Downs.

Tue May 17, 2011 12:50 pm

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 58):
New York v. United States 1992 505 US 144

I figured this would be the case cited. The Supreme Court in NY v. US found that Congress had overstepped the Commerce Clause in one section of the law, because it had commandeered the state legislature by requiring it to take title of nuclear waste if it did not regulate its disposal. Specifically, the court said that the Tenth Amendment doesn't come in to play unless the Congress is doing something outside the scope of its powers. In other words, the Tenth Amendment doesn't GRANT any rights. It says the Congress cannot commandeer the state legislatures.

All along, the TSA is acting pursuant to the Commerce Clause. Congress has not commandeered the Texas legislature to do something they do not want to do. That's why the 10th Amendment does not come into play.
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

RE: Texas Bans Offensive TSA Pat Downs.

Tue May 17, 2011 4:21 pm

I may regret this, but...

Quoting D L X (Reply 60):
I figured this would be the case cited.

You said to "cite a case", not "cite a case relevant to the Texas situation". I did as you asked. I merely wanted to demonstrate that the 10th Amendment was still applicable and in effect today.

Quoting D L X (Reply 60):
In other words, the Tenth Amendment doesn't GRANT any rights. It says the Congress cannot commandeer the state legislatures.

The Constitution is not about granting rights, it is about limiting the intrusion of the Federal Government upon rights. In that sense, I agree that the 10th Amendment doesn't grant any rights, it merely reinforces the boundaries introduced by the concept of Enumerated Powers. The phrase "prohibited to it by the States" is where supporters of nullification ground their arguments. In a document designed to limit powers of an agency, it makes no sense to not have an ultimate check on power located outside that agency, namely with the states. In other words, we don't think the Federal Government should be the the final word on its own powers. That branches of the Federal Government would argue otherwise is so self serving that one cannot ignore the conflict of interests. The TSA is a great example of this in smaller scale.

Quoting D L X (Reply 60):
All along, the TSA is acting pursuant to the Commerce Clause. Congress has not commandeered the Texas legislature to do something they do not want to do.

Unless the powers exercised under the Commerce Clause come into conflict with Fourth Amendment. The TSA has never been forced to defend their actions in this context. They have always ran and hid behind the skirts of "security". Hopefully now we will get an open debate in court. It would not be the first time the Commerce Clause has been over reached.
Proud OOTSK member
 
D L X
Posts: 12722
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Texas Bans Offensive TSA Pat Downs.

Tue May 17, 2011 4:41 pm

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 61):
Unless the powers exercised under the Commerce Clause come into conflict with Fourth Amendment.

It has not. There are a great many Supreme Court cases that are firmly in line with the TSA. It's either consent (most likely), or it's a highly regulated area of life making the search not unreasonable.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 61):
phrase "prohibited to it by the States" is where supporters of nullification ground their arguments.

And the Supreme Court has already knocked out that justification. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooper_v._Aaron

Nullification is unconstitutional.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 61):
In other words, we don't think the Federal Government should be the the final word on its own powers.

That's a strange anthropomorphic view of the federal government. The federal government is not some alien overlord - it is the other 49 states saying "Texas, fall back in line!"

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 61):
Hopefully now we will get an open debate in court.

If you wanted a debate in court, you as an individual should go to the court and allege that the TSA violated your Fourth Amendment rights. I personally think you would lose, but at least you'd be doing the correct procedure.

We are a nation of laws. Texas needs to get with the program and realize there is a correct and an incorrect way to air your grievance. There is nothing remotely legal about what Texas is doing.
 
FlyPNS1
Posts: 5545
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:12 am

RE: Texas Bans Offensive TSA Pat Downs.

Tue May 17, 2011 4:53 pm

Quoting N867DA (Reply 56):
The TSA has not truly prevented any terrorist attacks, and is a very reactionary system.

And you know this how?

Quoting N867DA (Reply 56):
the entire organization should be scrapped and replaced with a more practical screening system.

And what is this system? Everyone screams that they hate TSA, but no one seems to have a better solution. I'm not defending TSA as I don't particularly care for them either, but I've yet to see a better solution offered....other than basically do nothing.

Quoting N867DA (Reply 56):
gross inefficiency, lack of effectiveness, and spotty customer service, the entire organization should be scrapped
Quoting N867DA (Reply 56):
I will enjoy Amtrak

I hope you see the ironic juxtaposition of these two states considering Amtrak is the epitome of inefficiency, ineffectiveness and poor customer service.
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

RE: Texas Bans Offensive TSA Pat Downs.

Wed May 18, 2011 6:36 am

Quoting D L X (Reply 62):
And the Supreme Court has already knocked out that justification. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooper_v._Aaron

Ironically, that ruling lends itself to a previous criticism I had. The court could have simply said the fifth paragraph of the 14th amendment covers enforcement of the Equal Protection clause and stopped there. Instead they took the opportunity to try and grab far more power than what was needed.

Quoting D L X (Reply 62):
That's a strange anthropomorphic view of the federal government.

Governing bodies tend to look for ways to accumulate more power. What causes groups of people in power to behave this way could probably fill volumes, but it is not exactly a rare or new phenomenon.

Quoting D L X (Reply 62):
The federal government is not some alien overlord

Evil? Probably not most of the time. Alien? Turn the sound off on CSPAN and watch these people sometimes. I have my doubts on some of them. Overlord? No yet I hope, but if left unchecked?

Quoting D L X (Reply 62):
If you wanted a debate in court, you as an individual should go to the court and allege that the TSA violated your Fourth Amendment rights.

I suspect you know why I can't do this.

Quoting D L X (Reply 62):
is the other 49 states saying "Texas, fall back in line!"

Not since the 17th Amendment its not. I still think some good can come from scrutiny of and accountability for the decision making within the TSA.
Proud OOTSK member
 
D L X
Posts: 12722
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Texas Bans Offensive TSA Pat Downs.

Wed May 18, 2011 1:04 pm

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 64):
Ironically, that ruling lends itself to a previous criticism I had. The court could have simply said the fifth paragraph of the 14th amendment covers enforcement of the Equal Protection clause and stopped there. Instead they took the opportunity to try and grab far more power than what was needed.

Why, because 100 years later, you want it only to apply to the EPC?

I'm sorry, but Section 5 applies to the entirety of the 14th Amendment. It states: "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." You cannot pick and choose what provisions of the article it refers to. It refers to all of them.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 64):
but if left unchecked?

I don't think I'm breaking through to you on this. The Federal government is 49 states checking any 1.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 64):

I suspect you know why I can't do this.

No, I actually have no idea why you can't.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 64):
Not since the 17th Amendment its not.

This is the rote answer people who put too much faith in pre-Constitution writings give, but that doesn't actually give it credence. The same residents of the same states select our national government and our state governments.
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

RE: Texas Bans Offensive TSA Pat Downs.

Wed May 18, 2011 11:19 pm

i

Quoting D L X (Reply 65):
I'm sorry, but Section 5 applies to the entirety of the 14th Amendment. It states: "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." You cannot pick and choose what provisions of the article it refers to. It refers to all of them.

I believe I said the same thing earlier. But the distinction I made was that it applies only within the the confines of the 14th Amendment. As I understand the decision, the Equal Protection Clause and its enforcement was at the core.

Quoting D L X (Reply 65):
The Federal government is 49 states checking any 1

The case can be made that the Federal government has become such a distinct entity that it is disconnected from the State governments in most aspects.

Quoting D L X (Reply 65):
The same residents of the same states select our national government and our state governments.

True, but it has had the effect of isolating state governments from national affairs and has distorted the functioning of the Legislative branch, making it entirely a slave to populist politics. And while I don't know how much is too much faith in pre-Constitution writings, I think they are important to an understanding of the Constitution.
Proud OOTSK member
 
Curtisman
Posts: 938
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:31 pm

RE: Texas Bans Offensive TSA Pat Downs.

Thu May 19, 2011 7:06 pm

Not sure if this is an update or not - but I found the read interesting.

--------------------------------------

TSA versus Texas
Posted: May 19th, 2011
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Texas is gearing up for a fight with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) over its perverse airport screening tactics. Last week, the state House of Representatives unanimously approved legislation holding TSA agents accountable for their conduct under sexual harassment statutes.........


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/18/tsa-vs-texas/

--------------------------------------

Cheers!
Citizen of the World
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Posts: 25409
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: Texas Bans Offensive TSA Pat Downs.

Thu May 26, 2011 6:06 am

Texas wakes up to reality.

The feel good legislation was withdrawn today from legislature when law makers finally understood they have no authority to regulate federal agents in the performance of their duties or to pass a statute that conflicts with federal law.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
User avatar
fxramper
Topic Author
Posts: 5839
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 12:03 pm

RE: Texas Bans Offensive TSA Pat Downs.

Fri May 27, 2011 6:15 pm



Utah to follow in Texas foot steps with banning TSA pat downs.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/utah-to-...lead-in-tsa-grope-down-revolt.html
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 22208
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Texas Bans Offensive TSA Pat Downs.

Fri May 27, 2011 8:29 pm

Quoting fxramper (Reply 69):

Utah to follow in Texas foot steps with banning TSA pat downs.

This is going to get nowhere.

If they really want these rules gone, then coalitions of states need to simply pass state laws banning any party from operating an aircraft for passenger travel within the state, barring medical emergencies with a stipulation that the laws will expire when the strip-searches are rescinded.

That most certainly IS within the power of the states to do since nowhere does Federal law stipulate that states must permit air travel.

The problem is that it's a prisoner's dilemma. A bunch of states are going to have to go at it together, because any state that takes that action alone will simply sign its own economic death certificate. But if a bunch of states simply shut down all their airports, especially states like UT, CA, CO, TX, FL, NY and others with major hubs, the feds will have to take some action to prevent a major national economic crisis.

Of course, there is the problem that the public has already voted on this. Over Thanksgiving weekend, the "Opt Out" protest was spectacularly unsuccessful. The American people have become sheep who are only too willing to hand over their fundamental 4th amendment rights to the feds. The lame guise of "case law" has turned the Bill of Rights into a piece of Swiss cheese and made much of it meaningless.

We have become a true police state. More of our population (by percent) is in prison than in any other country, even those like Myanmar. You cannot travel anywhere by any means barring foot where you are not subject to search for simply having the nerve to travel. You cannot defend your home against illegal home invasion if the person doing the invading is wearing a uniform. Your calls can be tapped, your car can be tracked, etc. all without a warrant. It's getting really scary since 9/11.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
Maverick623
Posts: 4727
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:13 am

RE: Texas Bans Offensive TSA Pat Downs.

Fri May 27, 2011 9:02 pm

Quoting doclightning (Reply 70):

That most certainly IS within the power of the states to do since nowhere does Federal law stipulate that states must permit air travel.

No, but by putting wording into the law mentioning the acts of the Feds and the nature of interstate commerce and national security, the laws would be overturned.

Also, states have zero control over airspace. They would have to pass a law banning any state-operated airport from accepting aircraft carrying more than x amount of passengers-for-hire. Anything else would be an infringement on the very right to travel you and I believe in, and violate the Commerce Clause.
"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Posts: 25409
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: Texas Bans Offensive TSA Pat Downs.

Fri May 27, 2011 9:22 pm

Quoting fxramper (Reply 69):
Utah to follow in Texas foot steps with banning TSA pat downs.

There is nothing to follow. The proposed Texas bill is dead and was withdrawn due lack of support.

Same thing here. Its simply law makers spinning their wheels over a subject they have zero authority.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Airontario, ArchGuy1, luckyone, MaverickM11, NIKV69, skyservice_330, TheF15Ace and 30 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos