[_Jim]

Nope, any aircraft that has deviated from its flight plan should be considered a threat.

Overly broad generalization made without regard to and outside the realm of reality ...

You have been watching too many movies.

[snopercod]

About 13 years ago, I quit the AOPA because Phil Boyer insisted on using the phrase "our flying privileges" in his magazine. I took him to task for that in a long letter, and told him he should substitute "our right to fly".

It took him until recently to come around to my way of thinking. Here is his latest:

The TFRs may help revelers to feel safer, but AOPA prez Phil Boyer says they are unfair to GA pilots. "Security-related TFRs usually single out general aviation aircraft, which have never been used in a terrorist attack," Boyer said yesterday, in a news release. "The restrictions are an additional burden for pilots to carry. AOPA believes they should only be issued based on credible threats -- not on a political need to be seen taking strong measures." AOPA noted that in both New York and Las Vegas, air carrier operations are not restricted from operating in the no-fly zones.

"AOPA and all GA pilots understand the need to maintain national security in the face of credible threats," said Boyer. "But ever since the airlines were allowed back in the air after the attacks, GA has been the scapegoat -- the victim of unfounded fears. ... We've got to help decision-makers better understand GA if we want to see realistic regulation of the nation's airspace."