Pilot runs out of fuel waiting for security clearance

Captain Wubba wrote:
I don't think they will stand the test of time either. But that is
partly a point I was trying to make earlier. It takes time for
'appropriate' meausres to weed themselves out from the bogus ones. But
I disagree that GA is being 'unfairly' singled out. The last
significant attack on the US came from aviation. So it is quite
natural that the government will react *against* aviation. 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.

Would we?

The Murra building was destroyed by a rented truck.

A previous attack on the WTC involved a rented truck.

Two US Embassies and a marine barracks were taken out by trucks
(I hope you agree that's an attack on the US, even if it took
place overseas)

Since 9/11, several additional terrorist attacks using ground
vehicles have taken place.

See any restrictions on renting or purchasing trucks after
these events?

You can't protect against every possible threat. But the natural human
reaction is to protect against *demonstrated* threats.

Yep, looks to me as though using rented trucks to blow up buildings
is a demonstrated threat.

Where is the "natural human reaction" protecting against this
demonstrated threat?

So, over time, we show how GA
benefits people. We do Angel Flights, and Young Eagle Flights, and
people will see that there isn't a threat from my Cessna 172. And the
reluctance to eliminate silly TFRs will eventually disappear.

I hope you are right but I fear you are naive.

Sydney