Paul Baechler wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Captain Wubba) wrote:

Just like
if the scumbags had destoyed the WTC with a bunch of rented U-Hauls,
we'd be seeing restrictions on renting U-Hauls. You'd go in to rent
one, and you'd need to prove you were an American citizen, provide 3
forms of picture ID, have a background check, etc.

Bull****. We've had one partially successful attack on the WTC and one
very successful attack on the Murrah Building using rented trucks.
There's been no restriction on truck rentals.

BS right back at you. We had plenty of hijackings, and no meaningful
security was taken - no real rstrictions on planes. We had a nutjob
pilot try to hijack a FedEx DC-10 and try to do exactly what the
scumbags at the WTC did. Nothing was done - no real rstrictions on air
travel. We had one relatively trivial attack, and one attack on the
Murah building that didn't kill 1/10th of what the plans at the WTC
did. And little was done. The WTC was different. It *changed*
everything....Murrah didn't, the USS Cole didn't, the Embassy Bombings
didn't. The WTC did.

Whatever had been used at the WTC would have received a backlash. Had
rental trucks been used for that, there would now be restrictions on
rental trucks. Had a tanker truck been hijacked and blown up
destroying the buildings, there would be massive restrictions on
tanker trucks right now. That's just human nature. You restrict what's
been *shown* to be a threat. And those dirtbags prved quite well that
plans can be a threat. It's the sheer scope of the WTC that initiated
a backlash. The costs associated with the changes mandated since the
WTC (and ancillary actions) are in the hundreds of billions of
dollars. And what have we to complain about? 1/10th of 1% of US
airspace has some restrictions on it, and 1/2 of 1% of US public use
airports have some restrictions on them. You think *that* is a
backlash?

A backlash would be having to file flightplans a day in advance for
any flight. A backlash would be having all GA airports locked down
behind barbed-wire fences with 24/7 security. A backlash would be *no*
GA flights at all within 25 miles of a major city, with F-18s flying
around with shotdown orders. That would be a backlash.

And that is the kind of stuff we need to fight. We don't have some
constitutionally-granted right to pilot our planes. Flying is a
privilege...the courts are quite clear on this. And tings could easily
be much, much worse than they are now. Part of the reason they are not
s because groups like the AOPA know what to fight, and what not to.

What can't 99% of GA pilots do that hey could do before 9/11? What
*exactly* have we lost? I live in a Class B area...I fly all over the
country. I've had to alter a few plans, and avoid the stadiums near my
home airport. Yes, it would suck to be based at one of the DC-3, and
that is worth working on. But honestly...for all the b*tching and
moaning about how our rights have been trampled on and how this is the
beginning of a new fascism...what exactly is different for the average
GA pliot? Very little. And it won't help GA to go whinging about how
terribly we have been mistreated. Many folks already think of us
(wrongly) as rich folks playing with their toys. If we don't want
rstrictions that *do* dramaticaly affect our flying, then we need to
pick and choose our fights, and show the public over time how valuable
we are. And that won't happen by whining about 'poor me' bacause I
have to fly an 5000 feet above a stadium rather than 2000 feet.

Cap