In article 9NVXc.58769$9d6.16659@attbi_s54, "Mr. Smith"
wrote:

[snip]

Regardless of what you and I may think about
what
small airplanes may or may not be able to accomplish in terms of a
terrorist
attack, it is certainly not anti-GA hysteria to discuss the possibility
and
to imagine scenarios by which a terrorist could employ a Cessna to wreak
destruction. In fact it would be irresponsible not to consider them.

agree.



There
are a lot of advantages to using a small aircraft to transport a bomb or
poison, they can go just about anywhere, and no road or other security
measure is of much use in stopping something that flies through the air.
We
may dismiss possible terrorist scenarios as the work of pin-headed
bureacrats in washington (to use everyone's favorite cliche) but I would
think that a small flying machine would offer a lot of enticing
possibilities. Maybe this is why all the interest by AlQaeda in crop
dusters
a few years back.

Have to disagree. Other than being spectacular, the use of a small
aircraft would be stupid. Pick a mission/objective that you think
a small aircraft could accomplish, and I'll find a cheaper, faster,
easier way to accomplish the same objective without using a small
aircraft, with the added bonus that the terrorist would likely survive
to attempt more evil.

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.