You didn't ask...

Actually, by posting the draft, I was implicitly asking. I
appreciate the feedback, and will incorporate many of the changes as is.
However...

My Cherokee 235 had a useful load of 1,400 lbs, and could probably
become airborne carrying substantially more weight.

.... and this can make a fair sized bang. No argument. But what
triggered this whole thing was not a "fair sized" bang, but a "humongous
boom", next to which 1400 lbs of explosive is a firecracker. (anybody a
demolition expert that could quantify the destructive power of a
commercial jet vs a cherokee with 1400 lbs of bang in it?)

Although any sized bang is bad for the people in it, there needs to be a
threshold of bang required before we consider imposing strong
restrictions in an attempt to avoid it.

I might reword
[does not increase security by any appreciable amount,
although at the same time it imposes an inappropriate burden...]
as: ...
does not increase security by an amount
commensurate with the financial and bourdons...

My point is that if a bang can be delivered several ways, one needs to
close =all= those doors before security is appreciably increased.
Unless the roads are closed, the airplane provides little advantage.

I would rethink suggesting "a huge amount of airspace ...
completely sterile - no flights no aircraft ..." to an agency capable
of enacting that.

You think they haven't thought of it? My point is that this, which
would be necessary, would also be (obviously) too burdensome.

Second, our government may consider collateral damage associated with
any shoot-down acceptable, and certainly preferable to having the
aircraft impact their offices.

You are right. But (my point is that) the likelyhood that the
alternative to a rain of aircraft parts and flaming avgas is an airplane
in the White House lobby. The most likely alternative is a peaceful
sightseeing flight with four patriotic US citizens awestruck by the
beauty of our Capitol. Ok, a little rhetoric there, but it's an
important point. To this, collateral damage is =not= acceptable. I
suppose I need to state that more forcefully.

Thanks for your comments; I look forward to more. To wit:

1: The FAA is required to "consider" the points being raised. To me
this means "to rebut them before enacting the rule anyway". (Ok, the
cynic in me!). In any case, what would their likely rebuttals be, so I
can anticipate them in the letter itself?

2: Does it matter how many people sign such a letter? i.e. does it
make sense to make a petition out of it?

3: Would it make sense to get an organization like MoveOn.org to read
it and perhaps generate an action item?

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.