G-EMMA wrote:
OK qwertyplops, lets throw the argument back your way -
Take the club I fly at.
I need to have flown within the last 28 days to be current before I can get near an aeroplane.
I plan a terrorist attack, lets say we are going to fill a PA-28 with explosives and fly it into some soft target.
I have to have a licence, a medical, the ability to fly the aeroplane, navigate accurately and the weather has to be good for VFR else I will be in IMC and crash any way. Or I need an instrument rated pilot to do the deed for me.
So I have all of this and somehow in the view of the entire club and any members of the public I have to load the aircraft with said explosives... have you not realised yet that the whole scenerio is pure fantasy. I doubt if you have ever been around light aircraft as your entire argument is based from some entirely hyperthetical stance that a light aircraft could be used by terrorists. Yes it could, but it isn't likely and isn't practical. Terrorists could also dump azo dyes in the London water supply, that hasn't happened either and I doubt anyone would suggest that nobody use tap water just in case it did one day. Terrorists could hijack and strategically place fuel tankers under all the major intersections leading into London and blow them up... hmmmmm lets ban tankers or at least make them fill in a form before they can go on the road (or do they already???)
Terrorist acts are aimed to have an affect on the whole nations sense of security and lifestyle, I do not see light aircraft as a likely tool, neither do I see any way of sensibly preventing the possibility that they could be used anymore than I believe that the tube could be sensibly protected other than by permenantly shutting it down, best ban buses as well as the ex service vehicles...
The point is lots of things could be done by terrorists and to mitigate all of them gives you Squeegee Longtail's point. What a horrendous world it would be to live in. Safeguard one and the terrorist will turn to another.
The only reason GA is being highlighted is that it will be dead easy to mandate any silly restrictions the government can dream up and probably we will also have to pay for the administration in the process, all for a percieved threat that never existed anymore than any other. You still couldn't stop a terrorist purchasing a light aircraft and flying it out of a strip could you? So it will be all those that posed no risk that will suffer the consequences with no real reduction in the potential 'threat'. (which in my opinion only exists in fantasy) Today 18:58
Why the need to be so patronising G-EMMA?
You fly a light aircraft and all of a sudden you are an expert on national security and intelligence? With the greatest of respect, you and I know as much as the Daily Mail tells us about these things, we all do.
Why, as I keep saying, are you focusing on simply the aircraft as a method of delivery? There are so many more angles to this. You are missing the point with respect, the point is that the debate is upon us and it's time to make sensible points to the right people. Just because your club does things in a certain way and that they are all decent folks does not mean a thing anymore. That's the reality of this issue. How can this have passed you by?
Trying to belittle me for simply saying 'I get it' is pointless.
I have given an opinion, it's unlikely to change, and that's that.
