As much as I hate to say it clearly we AND the AMA might be our own worst enemies with this particular issue. Take a realistic look at the FACTS and present them to those asking questions and most action will move elsewhere rather than try to justify what we do for a hobby.


"Facts?" you say. Yes, FACTS. They are simple, available to any who are willing to engage their grey matter instead of running around shouting "The sky is falling DHS wants to stop us!" I hope someone in the AMA figures this one out before we are put out of business because of laziness.

Look at things from the goals desired by the terrorist and the tools R/C might be able to provide, but do it looking at the actual targeting and damage desired instead of the what if game. The goal of the terrorist is twofold, first to kill as many PEOPLE as possible and second to terrorify our complicit media into suggesting surrender. A 'device' that misses its target is a waste of time, effort, money, and exposes the cell to possible scrutiny. That is one of the limits on the use of R/C planes (of ANY size) that many seem to be ignoring.

Assume that as the base for all possible R/C borne attacks. Now look at what it will take to make some attack successful. First problem is that the target has to be known in advance or the terrorist must be in the target area. This limits the use of R/C equipment further because the success becomes very questionable. However, there ARE folks playing around with 'autopilots' and GPS systems which APPEAR to solve some of the problems. Let's talk about the use of those systems for a moment.

It IS possible to use a GPS to guide the aircraft to a target, sort of. If a 'guided' plane is launched at a target in a city, it must pass many structures before arriving at it's target. The obvious choice is to climb to altitude and dive on the target. Now the autopilot effort becomes more significant because the altitude issues are non trivial.

The next less than obvious issue is the 'weapons load' possible. Looking closely at that issue it becomes ludicrous that the AMA has apparently failed to communicate the lack of risks correctly. Look at the risks for yourself.

I am fairly sure we can forget HE because most models capable of gaining the altitude to get into the city would not be able to carry as much explosive as a small car bomb so would be ineffective. That exposes the terrorist cell to retribution with little damage done to the target.

We can forget chemical agents because they must be released in enough concentration at the target area to be effective and we KNOW there are not very many noses at 10 + feet. That means there will be very significant dilution unless the release point is on the ground, which is NOT on an R/C plane. The more obvious the attack is, the less damage it might do. That leaves biological which has more problems with contamination by the exhaust of the power plant and all the other problems with a chemical attack.

Anyone see any other observations I have missed?



Flame suit on!