You seem to be forgetting that this is in regards to the question about
regulation. That is, rule-making. In the activity of rule-making, the
pilot is NOT the one in control.

True. But the fact that the pilot is in control (of others) should
influence rulemaking (on behalf of others).

You don't [know of someone who has been killed by a meteor]?
There are a number of scientists who would take issue with your claim.

Scientists disagree that I don't know anybody who was killed by a meteor?

By what mechanism do you presume a kite will kill someone?

A dive into a person asleep on the lawn, where the strut penetrates
through the eyeball into the brain is one method. I will agree that
this is a difficult feat to accomplish, but I do not believe it is
out-and-out impossible.

If you are going to claim that a kite can kill, you ought to at least have
an example of when one has.

No, that is not only not true, it is foolish.

No amount of rule-making would have altered
the one time I'm aware of that a large airplane (two, actually) killed
thousands of people on the ground.

One, actually.

A second airplane killed another bunch of people right nearby.

And you are right, rulemaking would not have altered that. But my claim
was not that rulemaking would have saved anyone, it was that large
aircraft do have a risk of falling out of the sky. And that it was
deliberate is irrelevant also. The fact that they were large aircraft
attracted those who would use them as weapons. Small aircraft are not
as effective, therefore as attractive, a fact not recognized by the ADIZ
people.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.