The amount of physical damage is inconsequential; it's irrelevant. The issue is psychological damage, and the fact that a terrorist is able to do it, weather he or she succeeds in causing damage, irn't material. That's what the public is interested in. The fact that the terorrist manages to take the airplane and do something with it, is cause enough to shut down aviation as we know it. If your'e memory is too short, it just barely happened, a couple of years ago. REMEMBER??
Avbug...you give examples of things to improve security...then you backtrack and say that maybe they aren't the way to go and that you aren't advocating restricting our freedom. So what are you saying exactly?
I did NOT backtrack. I stated a few random examples of things that can be done with little or no change to our lifestyle, at little or no cost; thousands more possibilities exist. I then went on to state that any of my suggestions may or may not be valid or appropriate, but as examples, they demonstrate that the field is wide open for improving security. Essentially now, we have none. My statement is consistant throughout, and does not waver.
A 135 op is inherently more secure than GA. The majority of passengers flying charter are either known to the pilot or to a "lead" passenger. This fact simply makes it more secure than some random GA pilot who has a death wish or the airlines where any crazed terrorist may be lurking.
Garbage. Seldom when I have flown 135 have passengers been known to me. Some were repeat customers, but in many cases, individuals of whom I had no knowledge were on board. On several occasions during charter flights in turbojet airplanes, I have had passengers produce firearms that were unknown to me at the time of departure. In one case, the passenger began racking the slide of an automatic pistol right behind my head, in a Learjet. We were carrying him to the destination to appear in federal court. He asked if we thought he ought to leave the pistol on board while he appeared in court.
On another occasion, the passenger tripped while walking out to the airplane, and a handgun fell out of his jacket onto the ramp. he had been informed that this was not permitted. No security or screening was in place; many such people charter because they can do things on a charter flight that they cannot do on an airline flight, and they can do it in privacy.
On another occasion, after returning from an international leg, upon entering customs in the US, the passenger confessed he had a firearm on board. Then another passenger did the same. It was news to me. I will not go into that story, but it's one of the most bizarre I've yet encountered, which is also exactly what two agents attending the subsequent interrogation said. One, who had done 25 years of work in Miami and who thought he had seen everything, commented that it was the most "**CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED**ing" bizarre thing he had ever heard.
Point of fact; any one of those passengers could have put a bullet in the back of my head...and don't you think a terrorist is willing to spend a few dollars from a relatively unlimited fund, to get that access and security? Think about it. Don't be naive.
Charter is just, if not more vulnerable than any other segment of aviation.
If you think it can't happen, whitness what happened to the ag industry following september 11. The damage was staggering, not only to ag pilots and operators, bu to farmers, and ultimately consumers. Unlike most airplanes, an ag aircraft isn't something that a trained private pilot can simply jump in and go fly. Of any potential threat, it was the most absurd...but the public paranoia that followed ag operators all over the country had the FBI forcing operators to remove their propellers, to blocade hangar doors, to cause police to meet ag pilots while they returned to load following dispensing of a common, lawful chemical.
Think it can't happen again, and happen to you? Think again.
)
I feel better knowing I'm just "probably" one, though. 
