It's true that some people jump out of tiny planes like a cessna but I was thinking of the larger ones like this: http://www.skydivephiladelphia.com/wp-content

It's true that some people jump out of tiny planes like a cessna but I was thinking of the larger ones like this: http://www.skydivephiladelphia.com/wp-content/themes/asc/images/gallery/skydiving-aircraft/skydive-georgia-aircraft-01.jpg http://www.skydivephiladelphia.com/wp-content/themes/asc/ima... Even less than fully fueled that thing could put a pretty big hole in a building and the cockpit doesn't even HAVE a door separating it from the main cabin. Yes, it might prove tricky to take over a flight full of instructors and students in the air, but given that legitimate customers have easy access to the airfield at ground level before and after a jump and there's no real security there it's not hard to imagine ways a sufficiently motivated and unscrupulous person could take over such a plane at relatively minimal risk to themselves and weaponize it. But yeah, that's just one of a zillion possible threats anybody with half a brain can come up with. The current airport security model assumes the existence of terrorists who have a really weird set of characteristics such that they are simultaneously: (1) sufficiently driven and resourceful to successfully bring down a plane via a bomb or weapons if there were no security (this is pretty hard) (2) NOT sufficiently driven and resourceful to find a way AROUND the current security measures (even though this is easy) (3) also NOT sufficiently driven and resourceful as to find some OTHER way of causing a similar amount of terror and damage, such as blowing up 5 busses or funding a half-dozen "DC snipers" around the country or blowing up the security line itself.