No kidding. :)

Absolutely. Whereas a normal bomb going off may or may not be a national security issue, depending upon location for the most part.

Then it comes down to what level of damage a small plane can do, in and of itself. No more than a car or van could, if also loaded up with explosives (ala Oklahoma).

Yes it's still in the airspace but how big a threat is it? A commercial jet? A lot.

Also, private versus commercial plays a significant role. Governmental intrusions into private planes would be Constitutionally less than commercial. If it's open to the public the government can step in easier than if it's not.

Or it could be a cropduster with any number of unspeakable things in the hopper.

For sure. But then it's private, which means the G needs some type of reasonable suspicion for searches. Admin searches don't work on private planes.

Given their creativity with the Constitution lately, I'm sure they could weasel some way to make an admin search.

Do you want to fly that plane today?

FAA licenses pilots and issues certificates for airplanes, right? There is the ability of the Federales to impose administrative searches on private aviation. The feds could also claim Interstate Commerce Clause as basis for searches.

The FAA has little interest in searching GA - the TSA has claimed it has the right to search pilots, bags and aircraft, but so far no plan has been created since the entire concept of dispatching screeners to the literally thousands of GA airports across the country is beyond ludicrous.

Dispatching them only to 'key' airports or the FBOs at large commercial service airports would only harass customers and drive GA to other facilities - the economic backlash would end any such initiative quickly.

The first time a TSA person attempts to block a private aviator from flying his/her own aircraft will be the first time a TSA person ends up sprawled across the pavement looking like one big bruise.

Making misrepresentations to get "consent" to access private property and check it out is something that does happen.

And should be severely punished with fines and prison time. :mad:

I agree completely, but I have never seen a more articulate discussion of America's obsession with "security" than the recent opinion piece by James Carroll, recently published originally in the Boston Globe and subsequently in the IHT. The piece can be found here

Caroll focuses more on America's obsession with military power as a source of security, but I believe his observations apply equally to other facets of American society -- the misguided belief that societal disorders can be solved through the application of increased force (hence the huge prison population and the stubborn insistence on retaining the death penalty), the delusion that the answer to terrorism is to declare "war" on it, and of course, the elaborate government-funded security theatre carried out in airports, rail stations, shopping malls and other public places that is designed to create the appearance that the government is "doing something."

From Caroll's opinion piece:

"In this era, humans have been cut loose from ancient moorings of meaning and purpose. The context within which this condition is most manifest in the United States is the debate - or, more precisely, the lack thereof - over what is called "national security." The phrase is potent because it promises something that is impossible, since the human condition is by definition insecure. When candidates vie with one another over who is most qualified to be "commander in chief," and when they unanimously promise to strengthen military readiness, they together reinforce the dominant American myth - that an extravagant social investment of treasure and talent in armed power of the group offers members of the group escape from the existential dread that comes with life on a dangerous planet. That such investment only makes the planet more dangerous matters little, since the feeling of security, rather than actual security, is the goal of the entire project."

Yabut the DCA Access Program puts GA through TSA screening and requires an FAM aboard any plane flying into DCA. Further, when the Federales have tightened restrictions on the DC area GA airports, they've mandated that GA planes stop at a gateway airport for a search prior to being allowed in.

Here's an example from 2003:
As for the inspections, I am reminded of what the security idiots did at Meigs (before Daley closed it, but after 9/11, and pre-TSA).... in several cases, they took pens and pencils away from pilots that had to go through security clearance. Pretty tough to write down an IFR clearance when you have no pencil or pen (notwithstanding that these were the PILOTS.... what were they going to do? Stab themselves?)

Point taken, but I thought a good chunk of GA started avoiding the DC area after all this started anyway, and for this reason. I don't remember the last time a private GA aircraft flew to/from DCA because of the FAM requirement, and there are plenty of airports in suburban VA and MD which don't have these restrictions.

If the TSA tried to implement this as a system-wide program, you can bet there would be plenty of screaming.

I am surprised at the Meigs incident - perhaps it was close to 9/11 and pilots deferred more to the TSA, but why did they allow their stuff to be taken away from use on their own aircraft? Who established the TSA's authority to screen GA pilots/passengers at Meigs?

Exactly.
The basic law of system security is that a system can only be as secure as its weakest link. This applies to any system, from the infection-control in your car's air conditioning to a corporate intranet to the system of airspace control.
As governments seem hellbent on securing already reasonably good security procedures while keeping the weakest links every bit as weak as they've always been, the whole process will remain pointless at best and downright disingenuous at worst.

Ah Jeez. The dirty bomb myth and the little airplane specter. Trifecta anyone ? :rolleyes:

True, but what can they do? The Constitution is quite clear on the point. You must have some kind of line. And there is return on investment as well - which is the bigger threat? Where should you spend your money?

It's like the border - the Canadian border is bigger but has far fewer agents because the money is better spent at the southern because it's far busier.