As expected...............

[JBaymore]

Quote from MSN:

[i]

[Hagar]

If you let them get away with this paranoid way of thinking the "terrorists" have no need to do anything. They will have succeeded beyond their wildest imagination.

[Brett_Henderson]

Let's forget that you can carry four times the destructive material in a small car, compared to a C172.. And forget about large cars, vans or trucks.. As reason doesn't work on irrational fear.

The FAA could close that airspace to GA completely and it wouldn't stop an idiot meaning harm, from flying right into the heart of ANY city. Duck down to 100agl.. head straight for the skyline and be done before an F-15 could get off the ground. Even if the goofball flew figure eights at building-top altitude, for an hour, picking his spot...

[Saitek]

Why doesn't the government lock us all up in mental institutions wearing straight jackets!? Then all criminal activity would be avoided and all jails would soon be empty. Terrorism would disappear from the dictionary.... but so would a very precious word - liberty.

[beefhole]

I am deathly afraid this will be one of the final stakes in the heart of general aviation.  It's been under full assault in the states for five years now, but this may push it over the edge.

[beaky]

Let's forget that you can carry four times the destructive material in a small car, compared to a C172.. And forget about large cars, vans or trucks.. As reason doesn't work on irrational fear.

The FAA could close that airspace to GA completely and it wouldn't stop an idiot meaning harm, from flying right into the heart of ANY city. Duck down to 100agl.. head straight for the skyline and be done before an F-15 could get off the ground. Even if the goofball flew figure eights at building-top altitude, for an hour, picking his spot...  what's an F-15 going to do ?  Dispatch anti-aircraft ordinance  into the center of Manhattan ? That would do more harm  (especially if he missed) than the idiot could have done himself  ::)

I seem to recall a number of very deadly attacks in the last 10 years on office buildings, embassies, barracks, apartment complexes, and hotels... all of which involved a car or truck with a bomb aboard....and absolutely no attacks involving light aircraft... but maybe I remember wrong.

And it is amusing that some people seem to think that a line on a chart is some sort of barrier: it will deter the innocent, but not somebody who's intent on doing harm.

 I've also had numerous arguments with the "where were the fighters on 9/11?" crowd; they won't consider what could have happened if either of the two WTC-bound airliners had been "splashed" while racing at full-throttle at under 1000 MSL over the river or the harbor... they've seen too many movies where a single missile vaporizes large aircraft, leaving no debris whatsoever.
And fighters were dispatched... but too late. Even if they'd intercepted at the moment it became clear that the planes were being diverted towards the city, by the time they got approval to attack, they'd already be over densely populated areas.
 They got there as soon as they could, but I'm not sure it would have been best to shoot  under those circumstances.

[Chris_F]

Politicians are evil.

[beaky]

Politicians are evil.  They play to the electorate's emotions in a bid for votes.  There's no way that guy's ramblings make any sense.  There's no way that he actually believes this is a real risk to the citizens in his electorate (or if he does, I'm sure he'll get plenty of trustworth expert oppinion to the contrary).  But he doesn't care about that, all he cares about is scaring people in to voting for him.

"Vote for me because if my opponent is elected terrorists will eat your baby!".



And I don't think this is a D or R thing either.  Politicians from both parties play this dirty game all the time.  It's absolutely rediculous.

And who's laughing?  The actual terrorists.  We clamp down on liberties like crazy due to irrational fear and they succeed in their quest to make life miserable for everyone on the planet.

Here's a good example of a leader vs a politician:

In response to Schumer, I offer Franklin:

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.

One might argue that flying light aircraft, for business or pleasure, is not "essential"... but I don't think I'll get any  argument here.
Besides, the gist of Franklins' statement is clear. This country is supposed to be bold in its persuance of personal liberty, not reluctant to offer a given citizen trust and respect up front.

They're sleazy, these glorified ambulance-chasers, but the nation as a whole has gotten what it asked for. It's everybody's fault.

[Jakemaster]

I dont see why so many people fear GA as a terror threat.  I mean COME ON!  When was the last time a terrorist attacked someone with a cessna.  Was it..oh wait...its NEVER HAPPENED!  And yet people still get scared.  But lets look at what HAS happened and whats been done about it.

Big vans: Used to carry bombs for attacks and used to bomb the WTC.  Whats been done?  NOTHING!

Small cars:  Kill hundreds if not thousands of people in car  bomb attacks in the middle east, same thing could easily happnen here.  Whats been done?  NOTHING!

Suicide bombings:  Terrorists in the middle east have strapped bombs to themselves and killed hundreds.  Again, same thing could happen here.  Whats been done (outside of airports)?  NOTHING!

And yet, for some reason, people are willing to drive right next to big vans but at the same time they want to stop a cessna from flying near a big city because it might be a terrorist?  Thats bullshit!

[Souichiro]

How to avoid terrorist attacks? Implement a North Korea Style totalitarian regime which controls anything and in which you can get arrested for farting to loud

[Ivan]

I've also had numerous arguments with the "where were the fighters on 9/11?" crowd; they won't consider what could have happened if either of the two WTC-bound airliners had been "splashed" while racing at full-throttle at under 1000 MSL over the river or the harbor... they've seen too many movies where a single missile vaporizes large aircraft, leaving no debris whatsoever.

OK... I'll name a few ones that have been shot at (and be surprised about the survival rate if it happens inflight, expecially if it is done with regular Air-to-Air weapons or the feared MANPAD)

[*]KAL007, Boeing 747: was shot at with the usual dual shot practised by the PVO. One missile missed, the other did enough damage to cause the plane to land. 80-90% survived, the crash was staged to cover up a disasterous air battle over the same area a few hours earlier.
[*]Ariana DC-10 YA-LAL. Was shot with a MANPAD, lost an engine but survived. Repaired, went to British Caledonian and later to BA (as G-MULL). Maybe one of you has flown this specific aircraft when it was in service with BC or BA.
[*]DHL Airbus over Baghdad... Another MANPAD, plane was W/O but nobody hurt.

Ok now two that werent so lucky, but remember that both involved much larger surfece launched weapons like the SM-2 (70 kg warhead) and S-300(a 1800 kg monster with over 70kg of explosives)

[*]Iran Air 655 which was mistook for an F-14. Hit twice by SM-2 and exploded in midair
[*]Sibir 1812, shot down by accident by Ukrainian SAM (of S-300 series)

Conclusion: you cant reliably blow up an airliner with most of the systems that are small enough to be operated in a built-up area. Even using Manpads is just a matter of luck if you hit enough critical parts to take a plane down as these are mainly built to be used against planes that have narrow spaced engines (as most fighters have).