My reading of this story, as much as we all know journo's can spin it, is that the report looked at many ways terrorists et al could get themselves and items into the UK un-noticed. Many areas have been noted, GA airfields are just one.
Rather than go straight on the defence, and blame everyone else and all the other failings, should we actually look at what has been said? INHO it’s our job to convince others we are safe and beneficial (in many ways). Trying to blame everyone else won't work.
The report lends itself (after media adaptation?) to the fact that with co-operation from the pilot, entry from the continent via smaller (and I would add a few larger) fields, even when following ALL the necessary regulations, could give illegal access with a minimum amount of risk of detection.
I would ask how many times, as a percentage of trips, have you been met by anyone even when informing all necessary authorities and filing all necessary flight plan details? And remember you are law-abiding individuals.
A weather diversion, a tech problem on the way to the small field on route? Just a plain landing at a trusting field with a heavy wallet??
The report doesn't look good for GA in general, but we aren’t the only ones singled out. The original thread was regarding NIMBYs using this against GA - we will only be able to counter that if we accept there may just be an issue here and then maybe have some practical solutions.
Regards,
LF