On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 00:01:24 GMT, Jose
wrote in ::

Agreed. [that the math doesn't scale this way] But the math
provides at least an inkling of what can be
expected unlike your "firecracker" analogy.

My analogy was intended as illustration, not proof.

It was inaccurate by several orders of magnitude.

The math does
not scale the way you purport so arguments based on it doing so are irrelevant.

Until you knew how much explosive was used in car bombs, you had no
idea how much was necessary for terrorist use. Now you have some
reference point to provide an approximation of the effects that can be
expected. That is why I introduced that quantified data point. If it
is correct, I think you'll agree that most GA aircraft are capable of
carrying enough explosive to be as effective as a car bomb many times
over. Personally, I don't see car bombs as being in the same class as
firecrackers.

To solve a problem, first the problem needs to be identified.
I think we are identifying two different problems as if they are
the same. Second, the goal needs to be agreed upon. I don't
think we are talking about the same goal. Only then can the
course of action be evaluated. Instead, what is happening is
that a course of action is taken. Based on this action, a goal
is identified, and then that goal is made to look like it relates
to something people might consider to be a problem.

Perhaps. But you and I are not privy the rationale used by the TSA in
reaching the decisions they have, so we are left to deduce them. This
deductive reasoning can easily be flawed, so it is not possible for us
to accurately evaluate the TSA's actions. So we guess...

The goal should be to stop terrorists from causing terror,
especially by death and destruction, without handing over
the very freedoms that make this country worth living in
in the first place.

That sounds about right.

To this end, my "diverting the discussion
to automobiles" is not a rhetorical tactic, but a way of pointing
out the mismatch of goals.

It appeared to be an attempt to justify removing GA security
regulations based on the existence of possibly more attractive
terrorist delivery means. Pointing the finger at automobiles/trucks
diverts attention from GA.

It is known that the 9/11 terrorists took flying lessons from
government regulated instructors in this country for the purpose of
inflicting terror. The TSA has apparently been charged with the task
of seeing that doesn't occur again. The solution they have
implemented is the best of which they are capable. It is flawed,
inadequate to achieve its goal, and a typical example of bureaucratic
incompetence. So if we airmen feel it is too restrictive and
ineffective, it would behoove us to provide improved solutions (self
regulation), or shut up. Complaining about TSA regulations without
offering better alternatives isn't going to help the TSA achieve their
goals nor lessen their impact on the pilot community, in my opinion.

Restrictions on general aviation have
very little impact on the ability of terrorists to cause terror.
Threrefore it does not accomplish that goal.

That premise may or may not be true. By what logic did you arrive at
it?

However,
it does accomplish the goal of restricting general aviation
(which is the wrong goal in the first place).

All regulations are restrictive unless they are being removed. But
regulatory power is the only tool the TSA has at its disposal.

The news media (probably at the instigation of the airlines) have
whipped public hysteria about the seemingly unfair lack of security
regulations applied to GA operations. The TSA is charged with
aviation security, but the funds are not available to put federal
baggage screeners at every airport in this country, so fortunately the
TSA is unable to require such an inane practice. But they can
publicly appear to be doing SOMETHING to curtail GA being used by
terrorists: screen aviation training applicants. It's all about
APPEARANCES, not effective security measures apparently.

When your house is made of straw, a bigger padlock doesn't really
increase security. You said this is irrelevant; I say it is a
perfect illustration of what I mean. If it is easy to come in
through the window, a lock on the door (even if it had no
lock to begin with) does little good.

As you stated, it depends on the intended goal. If the goal is to be
PERCEIVED by the lay public as taking action against terrorists,
registering flight training applicants is a relatively benign and
readily accomplished ploy. If the goal is to actually accomplish
increased security against terrorism by restricting GA, nothing is
going to work. But that answer is unacceptable to the public and the
administration; and it doesn't provide a necessity for increased
government funding to feed the bureaucracy and stage 1/2 million
dollar TSA dinners.... If the goal is to harm GA to prevent it from
becoming more attractive than the airlines to business air travelers,
it's a first step.

If it is easy to cause
terror with car bombs, it makes little sense to put a bigger
lock on general aviation. It won't increase our security.
The muscle needs to be put where it will do good while doing no (or
little enough) parasitic harm. General aviation is not such a place.

You and I know that, but the lay public doesn't. They feel that
'something' must be done about the potential 'threat' posed by GA.
Perhaps you could write a biting essay that would expose the folly of
the TSA's regulation, that would EDUCATE the lay public about the
futility of attempting to impose security measures on GA operations.

You even seem to agree with me:

The TSA ban you mention above is a feeble attempt to sterilize
the airspace in the vicinity of such events. But they've got to do
something to justify the billions of dollars in their budget. :-(

I agree that imposing additional regulations, in the name of
increasing security, on GA operations will be ineffective.

I do not agree that GA aircraft would not be useful for terrorist
purposes. No airman wants to admit that publicly, but if we are to be
perceived as credible, we must be honest.

So I'm unsure what your point really is. What would you recommend?

I am not qualified to recommend security regulation. I have no
experience in that field.

Or, more to the point,
1: What is the problem?

The problem is the need to increase security against future terrorist
activities. The problem for the TSA is to be PERCEIVED as
accomplishing that goal.

- 1a: Is it solvable?

Not without destroying our freedoms and way of life, in my opinion.

If so...
2: What is the goal of your solution?

To implement only those regulations that are actually EFFECTIVE in
reducing terrorist threat without destroying our way of life.

and then...
3: What is your proposed course of action?

Personally, to chat about it on usenet. :-)

Theoretically, to weigh the assured benefit of proposed security
regulations against the inevitable restrictions they undesirably
impose, so that only those with sufficient merit and minimal harmful
impact are enacted. But I don't have the administration clamoring for
the impossible, and the new media snapping at my heals for a showing
of apparent benefits as a result of the public funding being expended
at TSA.