TSA has a fan

[the firecracker image] was inaccurate by several orders of magnitude.

It was a cartoon for chrissakes, not a physics lesson! It doesn't =make= my point, my point is made (or fails to be made) elsewhere.

Personally, I don't see car bombs as being in the same class as
firecrackers.

Well, in comparison with the airliners hitting the twin towers, they are.

Yes, I agree GA aircraft can be used to deliver an explosion that would make the New York Times. So will a bicycle or a motorcycle.

It is known that the 9/11 terrorists took flying lessons from
government regulated instructors in this country for the purpose of
inflicting terror.

It is also known that those instructors informed the appropriate agencies of the United States Government that this was occuring, and our government didn't care. So the fault is not with the instructors, or the instructing infrastructure. It is
with the government itself. The solution they have imposed completely misses the problem, since the problem is with the agency imposing the solution. It is not only flawed, it is unconscionable.

Restrictions on general aviation have
very little impact on the ability of terrorists to cause terror.
Threrefore it does not accomplish that goal.

That premise may or may not be true. By what logic did you arrive at
it?

The same logic that says if you have two doors on your house, and one of the doors is open, locking the other one twice doesn't stop a robbery. Restrictions on general aviation do not affect non-GA methods of causing terror, of which there are many.
Do you disagree?

However,
it does accomplish the goal of restricting general aviation
(which is the wrong goal in the first place).


All regulations are restrictive unless they are being removed.

All regulations accomplish the goal of regulating; in that sense they are always said to accomplish a goal. That is the hypocracy I was putting in contrast to my other statement.

If the goal is to be
PERCEIVED by the lay public as taking action against terrorists,
registering flight training applicants is a relatively benign and
readily accomplished ploy.

That's the key. "Perceived", "readily accomplished" and "ploy" are key words, as is your comment about making GA less attractive than the airlines, and perhaps allowing the airspace to be controlled by fewer FAA controllers. But I digress.

Or, more to the point,
1: What is the problem?


The problem is the need to increase security against future terrorist
activities. The problem for the TSA is to be PERCEIVED as
accomplishing that goal.

No, this is not the problem. It is not =a= problem. Rather, it is a goal. What is the problem that this goal supposedly addresses? That is where we need to be crystal clear. I don't argue that there is no problem, just that it is important to be
clear as to exactly what that problem is, and not confuse a problem with a goal, which is a typical lawmaking error (or ploy).

- 1a: Is it solvable?


Not without destroying our freedoms and way of life, in my opinion.


I agree fully.

If so...
2: What is the goal of your solution?

To implement only those regulations that are actually EFFECTIVE in
reducing terrorist threat without destroying our way of life.

Again you're a step ahead. Implementing regulations is a method, not a goal. Goals might be "prevent terrorists from getting knowledge of chemistry" or "prevent people from complaining about terrorists" or "make terrorists easy to identify". Each
of these goals might then have several methods that can be used to accomplish the goal.

and then...
3: What is your proposed course of action?

Theoretically, to weigh the assured benefit of proposed security
regulations against the inevitable restrictions they undesirably
impose, so that only those with sufficient merit and minimal harmful
impact are enacted. But I don't have the administration clamoring for
the impossible, and the new media snapping at my heals for a showing
of apparent benefits as a result of the public funding being expended
at TSA.

Evaluating proposals does not accomplish anything in itself, though it helps to choose the things to accomplish.

My evaluation is that restrictions on GA, including the tracking of flight students' citizenship status by flight instructors, is ineffective, both in the accomplishment of any goal I believe should be accomplished, and also in the image department.

Jose
--
for Email, make the obvious change in the address