Qwertplop
>I cannot understand why it's so hard for people to get their head around the notion of potential because that's all that has been identified. No-one has addressed my points about the other aspects of this issue, the potential to traffick individuals to do harm (any harm), the potential to engage in logistical flights in support of something dastardly, recon, delivery systems, et al.
I suspect anyone working against them is simply engaging in a futile struggle that will not carry one iota of public support. Your last point about documentation is interesting however, scrutiny and credibility based questioning is the key to dealing with such issues yet everyone says here that more scrutiny is not needed. All law enforcement investigative questioning techniques are based around the notion of credibility. So, immediately, we are in conflict with conventional investigative techniques.<
Potential ? There is a mass of potential everywhere you look "serious threat" is a word that is more appropriate.
I have met many MPs in my time and infact most have one gift and that is the gift of the gab and little else.
There are some very intelligent, very dedicated MPs who are nobodies fool and who research their subject thoroughly and without bias or agenda but there are also many who have their own agendas and regrefully there are some who are influenced by minority pressure groups and the votes they get in the ballot box.
This latest attack on aviation needs to be killed in in tracks as a waste of public money and time. There are far greater "potential threats to the safety of the public from terrorism than GA aircraft.
Please do take the London tube in the rush hour and you will see a massive potential to cause as much damage as 9/11 or Lockerbie and ZERO security to stop it happening.
That is where public money needs to be targeted at not some hair brained further targetting of aviation.
And yes AOPA needs to put this idea to bed as it has on other equally poorly thought out schemes against aviation.
Pace