"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Peter R." wrote:

the better question is if the security people are ever going
to grasp how little danger GA poses.

True, but the issue is not what is reality, but what the public
perceives.
If the general, non-flying public perceives GA to be a danger
(incorrectly
reinforced by silly comments made by unthinking FBO owners), they will
pressure their congressmen/woman to push for even more restrictions over
GA.

There are at least two issues. We (GA) cannot survive if we allow the
security
folks to misrepresent the dangers of GA. But we also must address the
gross
ignorance of the non-flying public. ****ing away resources to address
imaginary
security concerns drains resources from addressing actual security
problems.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

Just a quick comment from Oz that we are going thru exactly the same crud.
As well as a photo licence that requires a three way security check we now
are going to require an ASIC card to get onto many airports. Airports have
to implement security fences etc.
All aircraft have to be visibly locked. This stuff is all window dressing.
But, it keeps the mug voting public from looking at the deficit balance of
trade and jobs going offshore, so the Government is spending figures like
AUD$400M to beef up security - results best summarised in my final paragraph
below.

I have done some media releases and get their attention when pointing out
the GA versus RPT comparison.
Here is an extract for your interest. It is written in simple terms because
I did not want the journo to stuff it up!!!!
"So, using simple arithmetic, we can make two immediate comparisons.

First, the 747 is around 340 times the weight of the Cessna.

Second, the 747 carries around 1280 times the explosive weight of fuel
(boom!)



The comparison shows why terrorists will seek out a 747 to maximise impact
damage.



However, it becomes frightening when we calculate the actual impact force of
a 747 versus a Cessna. Impact force is represented by the kinetic energy of
the object and kinetic energy is calculated by the formula "half the mass of
the object multiplied by the velocity squared" (which is why a high speed
car accident does innumerable times the damage of one at half the speed).



When we do the calculations for the 747 and the C172 we find that the 747 at
cruise speed hits a building with 5920 times the force of a C172 at cruise
speed. This is a horrific impact and explains the extent of the skyscraper
damage on Sept 11.



My Army training reminds me of the "expendability" factor. In infantry
attacks, there is a predicted manpower loss; therefore the gaining of the
objective must justify the loss. On the terrorist side, it stands to reason
that a terrorist planning to sacrifice all to get to Allah will likewise
desire maximum "impact" in exchange for his or her life.



The Pareto Principle suggests that we concentrate on the 20 percent of
important issues rather that the other 80 percent of trivia. However, it is
not so easy for the Government on the terrorist front - to date our only
results in capturing terrorists have been picking up their pieces after the
bomb blasts."