Of course if anyone uses a Bugsmasher 150 to kill more than three people, the hue and cry for greater restrictions will be deafening. But we will never, ever hear anyone seriously suggest the same restrictions for truck rentals or SUV drivers to ‘prevent’ their use in terror attacks.
I would point out that with a small plane, you can deliver your 150Kg warhead onto many more targets than you can hit with a Volkswagen.
Let your imagination run wild. A few years ago we had a thread on what would be the most cost-effective terrorist attack. It was creepy because Dopers are very clever. Just let me note several of the ideas involved GA aircraft being used to ignite large industrial complexes.
Also, they’d tried trucks several years earlier and fallen short, and the WTC had made itself harder to attack in that way.
And in general, between the 1993 WTC bombing and OKC in 1995, plenty of buildings put barriers, bollards, etc. up to block a potential truck bomber. Airplanes are obviously of interest in that they are immune to those defenses.
ETA: And they made the components that were used to create those bombs harder to obtain, too. That’s another thing that using the airplane as the bomb was a workaround to.
So?
The author of the Atlantic piece is lying about not being screened? Or was this the exception that proves the rule?
So if someone’s a suspected terrorist already, he can’t rent a jet. I’m deeply reassured.
In nine years since that day, this is the first I’ve heard about it. But this isn’t the first time I’ve heard about well-connected private aviation folks ensuring that they’re exempt from the rules that apply to commercial aviation.
He was screened. He’s not some schmoe who showed up and said, ‘May I please have a ride?’; he was invited aboard the flight by a friend. He was not an unknown person. He probably also had some sort of journalist credentials.
As they should be. There’s a reason there are Private certificates, Commercial certificates, and ATP certificates. With greater responsibility come greater restrictions. Or should anyone who rents a U-Haul have to load it in a secure area and be screened going to and from the vehicle?
That’s not ‘screening’ in the sense that the term is generally used.
Did he say he showed those credentials to, or was otherwise screened by, anyone acting in an official capacity, even if just an official capacity with the charter company?
Being screened by a friend isn’t being screened.
Read post #43.
Should you and your wife have to pass through a metal detector whenever you take the car to the store?
Read post #43.
If I am the pilot of the airplane you are about to board I am, in fact, an official person. I will be responsible for everything to do with that flight. You do not get on my airplane unless I know you and have reason to believe you will not be a threat.
If I don’t know you well, I might let you on my airplane… but I’ll also have a trusted fried sitting in the seat next to me keeping an eye on you the whole time. That’s not just security, that’s also to hand you a barf bag before you puke on the back of my head if you get airsick. But the point is, no matter how small the airplane, the pilot IS an official person as far as the FAA and TSA are concerned.
So yes, if your friend is a pilot then yes, being screened by your friend really is being screened.
General aviation airplanes weighing more than 12,500 pounds are subjected to greater security procedures than 2 and 4 seat Cessnas. I hope you find that reassuring. As I do not fly airplanes that large I am not personally privy to the additional details.
Several flight instructors who had contact with the 9/11 highjackers during their flight training at various locations reported suspicious behavior to the FAA, FBI, and INS but no action was taken except in the case of Zacarias Moussaoui who was arrested in Minnesota and is now serving a life sentence without parole in the Florence, Colorado ADX “supermax” facility. So even if you haven’t heard of it, there were general aviation people who tried to sound a warning and were ignored.
Small general aviation is “exempt” from the security rules of commercial aviation for the same reason your private car is “exempt” from the rules applied to semi-trucks hauling things from state to state - it’s not hte same thing, and the same rules do not apply.
And dammit, people like you! 
The first known airliner bombing occurred in 1933. Given how few people flew then (there were only 7 aboard, all killed) and how dangerous everyone knew flying was, it really didn’t cause much of a stir. In fact, the case remains unsolved.
So when posed with spending thousands of dollars to rent a jet or a few hundred to rent a truck capable of carrying explosives it is more cost effective to rent a truck.
You are worrying about a small jet being commandeered which requires more money and significant skill yet unconcerned by a more dangerous vehicle that could be acquired significantly cheaper with little skill.
Yes, if John Travolta goes crazy and decides you done him wrong you’re going to get a 707 shoved up your ass.
What’s your point?
Now thats fucking funny 