Decius wrote:
] ] Congress is considering legislation this week to fix the
] ADIZ
] ] (basically, to remind the FAA and Transportation Security
] Administration it was
] ] supposed to be temporary) and re-open Reagan National
] airport to general
] ] aviation. If the FAA and TSA wanted to derail the
] legislation, this
] ] line of thinking goes, exaggerating the threat from a
] tiny Cessna would be
] ] a great way to do it.

IMO this incident illustrates a much larger issue within the entire modern security construct, whether it be information security, physical security etc. That issue is that we as a society have a great difficulty defining and recognizing what constitutes an acceptable level of risk. Only in a perfect world will there be 0 risk so given that, what should be deemed low enuf threat? I think I'd start with airline passenger shoe bombs. Surely they could pose some level of risk but such a low one that the expense and effort used to combat the risk looks assinine. An off-course Cessna seems just a tad more risky than your average pair of Pumas in my book.

RE: Two-seater airplane brings government to a halt: was alert justified? [Politech]