"Enhanced Security" at various airports....

[Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo]

Recently I've had to make various trips down south [commercial] due to
my father's health. As he's 88 even a simple cold can and often does
turn into pneumonia, the bane of senior aged folks. And rather quickly.

Anyway, in my area, so-termed "enhanced security" is in effect. I
mention this because various of my weekends are spent with GA types and
machines therein and it's interesting to learn how many of the GA
fraternity have not been on the commercial scene [read: sitting behind
the 'office'] in quite a few moons!

Be prepared! As some already know, you MUST produce a valid [read: non
expired ---check!] photo ID which MUST be 'government entity' issued ---
photo ID drivers license OK. Or you don't fly! Period.

This last trip, 3 weeks ago, I was relieved by the GSA [Government
Security Administration] uniformed security folks [I could claim it upon
my return however] of my still kicking around circa "Class of '68-'70"
US Army Zippo lighter [Inscribed: MACVSOG...don't ask! Check the
website.... ] not due to any known no smoking regs or matters, no-no,
but rather the alleged potential of the passenger to use a lighter and
go bananas forthwith and suddenly begin setting fire to seats! Ohhh
yes...this is a but a taste of "enhanced security measures."

Do NOT lock your check-in baggage! Do NOT or else the locks can and WILL
be broken if your baggage is randomly picked for a look inside. When I
arrived in Florida, I noted a thin plastic seal where the two zippers
come together on the outside of the bag. Upon opening the bag, I was
greeted with a GSA printed flyer that said my baggage was selected for a
random inspection [Note: I did not have the bag locked] but the flyer
continued to say, "If locks had to be forced open to inspect your bag,
we [*GSA] " ... regret any inconvenience to you but GSA will not be
responsible for any damage therein." Note that well the next time you
fly commercial and also have any check-in at the counter baggage. Secure
the bag but don't lock it! The GSA website has the rules on their
website! Worth a look!

Lady in front of me had one of those day-of-the-week plastic drug
containers but did not have her Rx [or copy of same] with her so that
the meds could be identified. She was taken to a room and I don't know
what happen from there! In effect, while a good many of the GA brethren
are generally free from any Rx meds for obvious FAA mandated reasons,
folks you travel with may have meds they require for any number of
things so make sure you have a copy of the Rx to show what those meds
are or, better still, use the Rx bottle they came in! Again, this is
"enhanced security."

Finally...in the Philly hub...guy presented his photo drivers license ID
but it was expired. Bizzzzz! He argued the point rather vociferously to
the tune of 'what the $$#$ difference does that make..you can see it's
me...and assorted other comments...but the next thing I observed was a
veritable small army of ARMED folks making with the "This way, Sir..."
strong-arm thing. I didn't see the guy subsequent to his voiced
displeasure.

Lately...and this very recently in the news, they are thinking of
prohibiting all cell phones in the cabin [the 'reasoning' [!] behind
this one escapes me] but will allow same to be transported in the
check-in baggage. This one, so I understand, is pending approval.

Totally different ball game these days when you go [or have to] go
commercial.

Doc Tony


BTW..anyone in the group who is commercial connected for their
livlihood...WHY is it that all manner of deals can be found if one does
the round-trip [R/T] fare thing but the fare on the same plane and same
airline can almost TRIPLE in cost if you fly only one way? Sometimes,
when family emergencies strike and you have to get there FAST, hey,
commercial jet travel is the only way to go [unless of course you have
your own Citation or whatever --and-- the ticket/ratings to go with it]
but a one way trip is sometimes necessary and prudent because one just
doesn't know the extent of 'time' the emergency can last and so a R/T
ticket may have to be wasted. Yet one way fares are often prohibitive! Why?

My R/T from NY to FLA was a decent $458 [NOT waiting the usual 14 days
for the discount fare] BUT a 'one way' on the same plane and same
airline and same destination was a mind boggling $688! Why such a wide
disparity in fares between R/T tickets and a one way ticket?

[BTIZ]

I believe you mean TSA.. not GSA

>
> Lady in front of me had one of those day-of-the-week plastic drug
> containers but did not have her Rx [or copy of same] with her so that
> the meds could be identified. She was taken to a room and I don't know
> what happen from there! In effect, while a good many of the GA brethren
> are generally free from any Rx meds for obvious FAA mandated reasons,
> folks you travel with may have meds they require for any number of
> things so make sure you have a copy of the Rx to show what those meds
> are or, better still, use the Rx bottle they came in! Again, this is
> "enhanced security."
>

This has always been true..


> Finally...in the Philly hub...guy presented his photo drivers license ID
> but it was expired. Bizzzzz! He argued the point rather vociferously to
> the tune of 'what the $$#$ difference does that make..you can see it's
> me...and assorted other comments...but the next thing I observed was a
> veritable small army of ARMED folks making with the "This way, Sir..."
> strong-arm thing. I didn't see the guy subsequent to his voiced
> displeasure.

The rules do say "valid" ID.. an expired ID is not "Valid".. ask the next
cop that pulls you over and writes a ticket for an "expired" license, along
with the ticket for the reason he pulled you over.

>
> Lately...and this very recently in the news, they are thinking of
> prohibiting all cell phones in the cabin [the 'reasoning' [!] behind
> this one escapes me] but will allow same to be transported in the
> check-in baggage. This one, so I understand, is pending approval.
>

The questions on "cell phones" is because one of the recent terrorist
bombings in the "middle east"?? could have been IRAQ... was denoted by
calling the cell phone.. when it rang... KABoom!!

BT

[Ron McKinnon]

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:1df_a.10262$2g.2219@fed1read05...>
> The rules do say "valid" ID.. an expired ID is not "Valid".. ask the next
> cop that pulls you over and writes a ticket for an "expired" license,
along
> with the ticket for the reason he pulled you over.

Interesting. This comes from the licence-as-id situation. The
licence may have expired and be therefore not usable for driving,
which is what the grant of license is about in the first place. But
does this necessarily mean the validity as identification should expire
also? If it was ever valid as a licence, it was not forged, and was
issued by a suitably-official source - if it ever identified the holder
it
would seem to still do so. This is not to say that you'd ever get
a security guy to buy it. You'd need a court case or two to establish
the point.

[Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo]

BTIZ wrote:
> I believe you mean TSA.. not GSA
>

Correct, BT, "TSA", I stand duly corrected on that one.

Point of the piece however was not an exercise in grousing but rather to
alert folks who have to go the commercial route that things are
different now. Since 9-11.

So too, and here we may have some disagreement, while I'm among the
first to recognize the critical need for airport security, it's also
true that there 'is' this tendency for the government to become
overzealous in their efforts a la the previous national 55MPH speed
limit which was supposed to be the alleged panacea for all manner of
motoring ailments and conservation efforts. So too, and in any agency
and any level, certain folks get a bit carried away with their
authority, as self-interpreted of course, and assume the demeanor of an
ad hoc Führer. It happens. But then that's the trade-off.

On the other hand, I have some difficulty with folks who say that the
tragedy of 9-11 had 'no effect' [!] on our way of doing business or
living the American dream. It's a whole new world and I can only hope
that we're not reduced to the 'stare' so to speak as if to say 'is
he/she or isn't he/she' one of 'them' ...whoever 'them' happens to be at
the moment.

Doc Tony

>
>>Lady in front of me had one of those day-of-the-week plastic drug
>>containers but did not have her Rx [or copy of same] with her so that
>>the meds could be identified. She was taken to a room and I don't know
>>what happen from there! In effect, while a good many of the GA brethren
>>are generally free from any Rx meds for obvious FAA mandated reasons,
>>folks you travel with may have meds they require for any number of
>>things so make sure you have a copy of the Rx to show what those meds
>>are or, better still, use the Rx bottle they came in! Again, this is
>>"enhanced security."
>>
>
>
> This has always been true..
>
>
>
>>Finally...in the Philly hub...guy presented his photo drivers license ID
>>but it was expired. Bizzzzz! He argued the point rather vociferously to
>>the tune of 'what the $$#$ difference does that make..you can see it's
>>me...and assorted other comments...but the next thing I observed was a
>>veritable small army of ARMED folks making with the "This way, Sir..."
>>strong-arm thing. I didn't see the guy subsequent to his voiced
>>displeasure.
>
>
> The rules do say "valid" ID.. an expired ID is not "Valid".. ask the next
> cop that pulls you over and writes a ticket for an "expired" license, along
> with the ticket for the reason he pulled you over.
>
>
>>Lately...and this very recently in the news, they are thinking of
>>prohibiting all cell phones in the cabin [the 'reasoning' [!] behind
>>this one escapes me] but will allow same to be transported in the
>>check-in baggage. This one, so I understand, is pending approval.
>>
>
>
> The questions on "cell phones" is because one of the recent terrorist
> bombings in the "middle east"?? could have been IRAQ... was denoted by
> calling the cell phone.. when it rang... KABoom!!
>
> BT
>
>

[Greg Burkhart]

"Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo" > wrote in message
...
> This last trip, 3 weeks ago, I was relieved by the GSA [Government
> Security Administration] uniformed security folks [I could claim it upon
> my return however] of my still kicking around circa "Class of '68-'70"
> US Army Zippo lighter [Inscribed: MACVSOG...don't ask! Check the
> website.... ] not due to any known no smoking regs or matters, no-no,
> but rather the alleged potential of the passenger to use a lighter and
> go bananas forthwith and suddenly begin setting fire to seats! Ohhh
> yes...this is a but a taste of "enhanced security measures."

I have found the few times that I have flown on the airlines recently that
security is inconsistant. Sometimes they wouldn't take a second look at my
Zippo and other times told me to leave it behind or put it in my checked
baggage. Matches were OK to take...

>
> Totally different ball game these days when you go [or have to] go
> commercial.
>

The 'local' airport which has 3 or 4 airline fights per day installed may
new security features in the terminal. The thing is you can walk over to the
FBO 50 feet away to get onto the same ramp. A lot of the security at most
airports is so Joe Q Public thinks there is 'some' security.

> Doc Tony
>
>
> BTW..anyone in the group who is commercial connected for their
> livlihood...WHY is it that all manner of deals can be found if one does
> the round-trip [R/T] fare thing but the fare on the same plane and same
> airline can almost TRIPLE in cost if you fly only one way? Sometimes,
> when family emergencies strike and you have to get there FAST, hey,
> commercial jet travel is the only way to go [unless of course you have
> your own Citation or whatever --and-- the ticket/ratings to go with it]
> but a one way trip is sometimes necessary and prudent because one just
> doesn't know the extent of 'time' the emergency can last and so a R/T
> ticket may have to be wasted. Yet one way fares are often prohibitive!
Why?
>
> My R/T from NY to FLA was a decent $458 [NOT waiting the usual 14 days
> for the discount fare] BUT a 'one way' on the same plane and same
> airline and same destination was a mind boggling $688! Why such a wide
> disparity in fares between R/T tickets and a one way ticket?

The times that I flew one-way, I usually bought the round trip ticket for
cheaper and didn't use the return ticket. One time I wanted to buy a 1-way
ticket between Fort Dodge (FOD) to Mason City(MCW) but the $400+ cost for
the 52km trip was out of my budget. A round trip ticket between FOD and MSP
with a stop at MCW (each way) was 'only' $200+. Decided to drive instead...

--
According to the good folks at NASA, Mars will be closer to Earth than at
any other time in the last 50,000 years this coming August 27'th...

Plan on going outside that night and waving...
Hey, it's only neighborly, right?

[Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo]

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Point of the piece however was not an exercise in grousing but rather to
>>alert folks who have to go the commercial route that things are
>>different now.
>
>
> Really? Do tell.

I did, Peter!

>I wouldn't have guessed it.

Slow under-study?

>Amazing what one can learn
> with the Usenet.

Which de facto explains why you've come back!

Ta-Dum. ;-) [*Now Peter...I'm diligently trusting in your neurons
making the requisite synaptic leaps 'before' one of them gets mis-fired
and does a short final, as it were, and whispers to your auditory
channels, to wit, 'Hey! The Doc may not be kidding, man!' ....

Nahhhh. I wouldn't take this approach if I had you pegged for a yoyo.
But this you know.

That done, what....

>
> Seriously though, don't get me wrong.

I know your stuff, Peter, be assured....besides, if the crowd gets ugly
in the RAS av group, hey, you know how that can go!


> I love your rambling posts...you're
> the only hard-to-read Usenet poster

Cure: Less movement of the lips...more concentration! ;-)

Don Parker: "Hahahahhahahahaha!"

Al Denelsbeck: "Shhhh! Go back to shaving, man!" [from the 'Flight of
the Phoenix' bit... ] Nice group that...like your buddy 'X' [you know
who]...passed-on some years ago however and is 'still' waiting to be
informed of his demise despite your best efforts of such PIREP
advisories. But then, Peter, 'De mortuis nil nisi bonum', yes?


>I bother to read through, just because
> it's fun to do so, and there's almost always something of interest in there.
>

That was the wind-up...and now for the 'pitch' ....


> But really, did we really need to be told that traveling by commercial
> airline is different since 9/11?

YOU read it!

> Is that really supposed to be some sort of
> breaking news? Who's out there claiming that 9/11 has had no effect on life
> in America? I know I wish it hadn't -- after all, most of the changes play
> right into the terrorists' hands

The operative word, of course, being 'changes' and I would agree!

>-- but I've yet to meet a person who
> actually thinks it hadn't.
>
> Just curious...
>

Well, that of course depends on just who you meet and talk to and I'm
not at al being facetious. Remember Peter, there were some who
vociferously felt that the Iraq thing was the 'only way' to go...I did
not...nor did various others. But that's another story and perhaps
stemming from my years as a member of the 'Green Machine' and wondering,
AFTER I saw the Wall in DC, and also remembering my homecoming BTW when
RVN ribbons and CIB's were targets for eggs and insults, what the hell
was it all for! Then we move up to Mr. Bush Jr. and his publicly telling
the UN it lacks a spine while launching his war based on more hype
rather than fact. Interesting how it became a 20/20 hindsight thing
'after' the fact and THEN come those voiced reservations previously not
to be heard.

Back to aviation, well, I believe the tragedy of 9-11 made a tremendous
difference in this nation but I've also met folks who do tend to
minimize its effect perhaps because they may not be directly effected by
same or their life centers around the armchair. Or the talk show
circuit. You know as well as I do Peter that it's a mixed bag out there
and I daresay that there are even a few floating around who would
comment 9-WHO? That happens too.

I like your stuff, Peter, because you say what you feel and are rather a
lone wolf as I am. But then perhaps we both subscribe to old Abe who had
it right..you know...'you can please some of the folks some of the time
but never all of the folks all of the time.' But then, when I write,
although I use a very colloquial style in usenet that de facto places
requisite blinders on our friends Messrs. Strunk and White, hey, it
causes its share of responses [or whatever] and I find that interesting.

As for scribbling for coin of the realm, ahhh, well, that's a bit
different but then usenet is for relaxing. Like flying. If one can
afford it. I know a few of the brethren who would not dare to mention
their monikers sans the N-numbers and rating yet the plane hasn't moved
from the tie-down in months or they are sunshine pilots while others,
hey, it's their profession. Like I said, mixed bag. But that's good!

Doc Tony




> Pete
>
>

[Tune2828]

yup -- there is absolutely zero continuity between airports, and even single
agents

before you needed the boarding pass to go to the gate i'd routinely print an
itinerary from an airline web site, and confidently present it with my license
- so i could meet my mom at the plane or see someone off. not once did they
check to see it was a PAID itinerary, or ask why i didn't even have a small
carry on with me.

from my experience the TSA agents are exactly like an airline gate agent, or
bank teller, from the aspect how thorough they are depends on their mood at the
time.

if i need a fee reversed in my checking account and told no, i just call again
and another agent might do it.

some airports need tickets and i.d. to get to gates, other just tickets.

i have more hassle at grand rapids, michigan visiting family, then denver or
los angeles. probably less people pass thru, hence more scrutiny for each one.
but again no consistency.

[Ted Huffmire]

"Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo" wrote:
>
> In effect, while a good many of the GA brethren
> are generally free from any Rx meds for obvious FAA mandated reasons,
> folks you travel with may have meds they require for any number of
> things so make sure you have a copy of the Rx to show what those meds
> are or, better still, use the Rx bottle they came in! Again, this is
> "enhanced security."
>

Yeah, the FAA is pretty meat headed about
prescriptions. They would rather pilots
not take their meds or lie about it
-- doesn't make sense.
If a 70 year old grandmother can land a
Cessna, what's the problem with someone
taking lipitor or nexium or prozac?
There are pilots with missing eyes and
limbs for gosh sakes. How many accidents
do we know for sure have been caused by banned
meds or by medical problems at all?
What do you think about this, doctor?

The issue about passengers on part 121
flights carrying medicine goes to the issue
of air travel privacy. Do we turn the
security checkpoint into a one stop shopping
police check point to look for deadbeat dads
and other societal miscreants?

Ted

[Tune2828]

Do we turn the security checkpoint into a one stop shopping police check point
to look for deadbeat dads and other societal miscreants?

http://www.timesreporter.com/left.php?ID=21297&r=4

article on new passenger background checks.

[Newps]

Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo wrote:


>
> On the other hand, I have some difficulty with folks who say that the
> tragedy of 9-11 had 'no effect' [!] on our way of doing business or
> living the American dream. It's a whole new world and I can only hope
> that we're not reduced to the 'stare' so to speak as if to say 'is
> he/she or isn't he/she' one of 'them' ...whoever 'them' happens to be at
> the moment.

Hardly anything has changed. I can now check in on the internet before
I go to the airport, thus bypassing the front desk. Or I can go to
curbside check in at those airports that have those, again bypassing the
front desk. Then I go stand in the security line. It has been my
experience that it takes the same amount of time now as it always did.
Obviously this can be different at each airport. Although now I take
everything out of my pockets and my watch off as the detectors are set
much tighter. I have always carried my drivers license with me so that
was a nonfactor. It doesn't take any longer to fly anywhere today than
it ever did, and it takes less time than the summer of 2000, remember
all the delays that summer?

[Peter Duniho]

"Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo" > wrote in message
...
>
> [snip]
>
> As for scribbling for coin of the realm, ahhh, well, that's a bit
> different but then usenet is for relaxing.

Ahh, yes. Thanks for the reminder.

Anyway, once again, a long enjoyable ramble. I think you answered my
question, even. :) Who could ask for more?

Thanks,
Pete

[Big John]

Greg

----clip----

>The times that I flew one-way, I usually bought the round trip ticket for
>cheaper and didn't use the return ticket. One time I wanted to buy a 1-way
>ticket between Fort Dodge (FOD) to Mason City(MCW) but the $400+ cost for
>the 52km trip was out of my budget. A round trip ticket between FOD and MSP
>with a stop at MCW (each way) was 'only' $200+. Decided to drive instead...

I wish you would quit demeaning my POB (FOD).

Big John

[Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo]

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>[snip]
>>
>>As for scribbling for coin of the realm, ahhh, well, that's a bit
>>different but then usenet is for relaxing.
>
>
> Ahh, yes. Thanks for the reminder.
>
> Anyway, once again, a long enjoyable ramble. I think you answered my
> question, even. :) Who could ask for more?
>
> Thanks,
> Pete
>
>


[add gravel-like voice..requisite cotton....doleful horn cued...]

"When have I ever refused an accommodation?"

Later, Pete.

Doc Tony
;-)

[Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo wrote:
>
>
>>
>> On the other hand, I have some difficulty with folks who say that the
>> tragedy of 9-11 had 'no effect' [!] on our way of doing business or
>> living the American dream. It's a whole new world and I can only hope
>> that we're not reduced to the 'stare' so to speak as if to say 'is
>> he/she or isn't he/she' one of 'them' ...whoever 'them' happens to be
>> at the moment.
>
>
> Hardly anything has changed. I can now check in on the internet before
> I go to the airport, thus bypassing the front desk. Or I can go to
> curbside check in at those airports that have those, again bypassing the
> front desk. Then I go stand in the security line. It has been my
> experience that it takes the same amount of time now as it always did.
> Obviously this can be different at each airport. Although now I take
> everything out of my pockets and my watch off as the detectors are set
> much tighter. I have always carried my drivers license with me so that
> was a nonfactor. It doesn't take any longer to fly anywhere today than
> it ever did, and it takes less time than the summer of 2000, remember
> all the delays that summer?
>


Well, I think Tune2828 made a cogent point in re the matter of security
'consistency' which of course is to say INconsistently. Each airport
seems to vary as to the level of security with some being rather strict
[*some where using 'unleashed' canine sniffers to sniff both bags and
PAX within the terminal --and-- within the gate where the dog had this
leather sign notifying the folks that the pooch is obviously on the job
while, on the legal side of things, the courts seem to go for that
method because it eliminates concerns and claims of bias or 'profiling']
and others, depending on location and traffic so to speak, well, as I
heard one soul put it, 'hey, you get what you pay for.'

Doc Tony

[Robert Perkins]

On 13 Aug 2003 02:48:43 GMT, (Teacherjh)
wrote:

>As to why, they make more money from desperate passengers.
>
>However, some airlines offer "greivance fares" if a close relative dies. Ask.

I have. 80% of the walk-up (highest priced) fare, with the gall to
call it a discount.

Rob

[G.R. Patterson III]

"Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo" wrote:
>
> Lately...and this very recently in the news, they are thinking of
> prohibiting all cell phones in the cabin [the 'reasoning' [!] behind
> this one escapes me] but will allow same to be transported in the
> check-in baggage. This one, so I understand, is pending approval.

Interesting. If that regulation had been in effect prior to 9/11, the plane
that went down in Pennsylvania would have taken out part of DC.

George Patterson
They say that nothing's certain except death and taxes. The thing is,
death doesn't get worse every time Congress goes into session.
Will Rogers

[G.R. Patterson III]

Ted Huffmire wrote:
>
> Yeah, the FAA is pretty meat headed about
> prescriptions. They would rather pilots
> not take their meds or lie about it

No, they insist that pilots don't NEED them. If they catch you lying, you
will never be PIC again.

George Patterson
They say that nothing's certain except death and taxes. The thing is,
death doesn't get worse every time Congress goes into session.
Will Rogers

[Teacherjh]

>>
I have [asked about grievance fares]. 80% of the walk-up
(highest priced) fare, with the gall to call it a discount.
<<

Yes, some are like that. Some are much better. It pays to shop. It also pays
to be flying to the right place. :)

Jose




(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Greg Burkhart]

"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> Greg
>
> ----clip----
>
> I wish you would quit demeaning my POB (FOD).
>
> Big John

I'm not demeaning FOD, just the airline that serves it...

[Newps]

Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo wrote:

> Well, I think Tune2828 made a cogent point in re the matter of security
> 'consistency' which of course is to say INconsistently.

But it was always like that. Some airports were just a pain in the ass.
I see no change.


Each airport
> seems to vary as to the level of security with some being rather strict
> [*some where using 'unleashed' canine sniffers to sniff both bags and
> PAX within the terminal --and-- within the gate where the dog had this
> leather sign notifying the folks that the pooch is obviously on the job
> while, on the legal side of things, the courts seem to go for that
> method because it eliminates concerns and claims of bias or 'profiling']
> and others, depending on location and traffic so to speak, well, as I
> heard one soul put it, 'hey, you get what you pay for.'

The airport here in Billings has had a lot of construction going on at
the security checkpoint. They just started to peel all the plywood off
so I can't tell yet if it is new machines or if they just slightly
rearranged things to make it all flow smoother. Haven't seen any dogs yet.

[Kyler Laird]

Judah > writes:

>What I'd like to know is what happens to the people who get the armed escorts
>out of the security line!

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/monahan1.html

>I love the one about the cell phones. A cell phone in your luggage is less
>likely to trigger a bomb than a cell phone in your carry-on? Doh!

You missed the funny part. They're banning mobile phones because they could
be used to trigger explosives. Uh...aren't *explosives* banned?!

I hope to go at least another decade before subjecting myself to airline
travel.

--kyler

[Ted Huffmire]

You mean I have to tell them about
the heart transplant? =)

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:
>
>
>
> No, they insist that pilots don't NEED them. If they catch you lying, you
> will never be PIC again.
>

[Gary L. Drescher]

"Greg Burkhart" > wrote in message
news:JHf_a.129888$o%2.56515@sccrnsc02...
> I have found the few times that I have flown on the airlines recently that
> security is inconsistant.

To put it mildly. Yesterday, three people accidentally beached a fishing
raft at JFK and then walked for a mile along a runway without being noticed!
(The airport is "concerned" about the security lapse.)

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/08/12/jfk.lost.boaters/index.html

[Tom S.]

"Newps" > wrote in message
et...
>
>
> Gary L. Drescher wrote:
>
> > "Greg Burkhart" > wrote in message
> > news:JHf_a.129888$o%2.56515@sccrnsc02...
> >
> >>I have found the few times that I have flown on the airlines recently
that
> >>security is inconsistant.
> >
> >
> > To put it mildly. Yesterday, three people accidentally beached a
fishing
> > raft at JFK and then walked for a mile along a runway without being
noticed!
>
> It was nighttime. Just how were they going to be noticed?

Runway light?

[Peter Gottlieb]

It's a lot like the "tough on crime" insanity which took away judge's
discretion and caused a host of problems. Everyone wants to out-do each
other on how Tough On Terrorism they *appear* to be. This is unfortunately
another one of those uncontrollable government spirals which will waste our
money and cripple our economy and there is very little we can do about it.
It's almost better to just let it run its course and get so horrifically bad
faster, so it affects more of the public sooner, and some brave leader
stands up and asks why we are hurting ourselves like this.


"Aloft" > wrote in message
...
> We're approaching an election year; time to make this an issue for the
> politicians. If they get enough voters asking them where they stand on
> restoring passenger rights and dignity, it WILL become important to them.
>
>

[Peter Gottlieb]

I heard that the tower noticed them and called the police dispatcher several
times and no officers were dispatched, so a lot of questions about security
supervision are being asked.


"Newps" > wrote in message
et...
>
>
> Gary L. Drescher wrote:
>
> > "Greg Burkhart" > wrote in message
> > news:JHf_a.129888$o%2.56515@sccrnsc02...
> >
> >>I have found the few times that I have flown on the airlines recently
that
> >>security is inconsistant.
> >
> >
> > To put it mildly. Yesterday, three people accidentally beached a
fishing
> > raft at JFK and then walked for a mile along a runway without being
noticed!
>
> It was nighttime. Just how were they going to be noticed?
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

Ted Huffmire wrote:
>
> You mean I have to tell them about
> the heart transplant? =)

I think that's one of the deadly questions, yes.

George Patterson
Brute force has an elegance all its own.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Peter Gottlieb wrote:
>
> It's almost better to just let it run its course and get so horrifically bad
> faster, so it affects more of the public sooner, and some brave leader
> stands up and asks why we are hurting ourselves like this.

That strategy didn't work very well for the "war on drugs" insanity.

George Patterson
Brute force has an elegance all its own.

[Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo]

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:
>
> Peter Gottlieb wrote:
> >
> > It's almost better to just let it run its course and get so horrifically bad
> > faster, so it affects more of the public sooner, and some brave leader
> > stands up and asks why we are hurting ourselves like this.
>
> That strategy didn't work very well for the "war on drugs" insanity.
>
> George Patterson
> Brute force has an elegance all its own.



I think they've given up on the drug war thing as a losing battle as
appears to be chronic alcoholism and so the new culprit i which to go to
war is .... tobacco products. Now before any nasties drift in from
smokers [ciggs, pipes [*albeit 'sans' the rubber band and tin foil with
the pin holes on the bowl thing...;-)...] or cigars] , I'm still a
smoker as carried over from my former military days many moons ago [no
lectures please!] but our governor is going literally ballistic about
the thing.

An ex-smoker himself [the worst kind! Their standard motto: "I did it so
you MUST do it!"...] and notwithstanding his ongoing jihad of sorts with
the Native American sovereign nation and internet tobacco product
vendors [the gov wants his cut!], he pulled a sort of analogous Mayor
Daley II King of the Universe move and issued an Executive Order
forbidding national motor carriers [UPS, FedEx, DHL, etc.] from
delivering tobacco products within the state of NY at the risk of a
$5,000 fine per occurrence although his authority does NOT extend to the
federal post office.

So too, a law was passed just weeks ago that forbids smoking in any NY
bar --or-- restaurant whether they have separate smoker rooms or
facilities or not! Whew! Suddenly, the smoker [including pipes and
cigars] folks are akin to social pariahs, crack-heads and heroin addicts
on a par with Charlie Manson and Osama bin Laden! I've never seen
anything like it YET the gov' is literally gagging on his "Well, I'm
greatly concerned about 13 year old Johnny and Janey ordering and using
tobacco products" while he concurrently desires big time that tobacco
tax and surcharge [upon surcharge upon surcharge] revenue! Who is
kidding who...or is that 'whom'....


Doc Tony

[Peter Gottlieb]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Peter Gottlieb wrote:
> >
> > It's almost better to just let it run its course and get so horrifically
bad
> > faster, so it affects more of the public sooner, and some brave leader
> > stands up and asks why we are hurting ourselves like this.
>
> That strategy didn't work very well for the "war on drugs" insanity.
>

So what's to be done? Have we become a nation of sheep to be herded my
manipulative "leaders?"

[Dave Stadt]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Peter Gottlieb wrote:
> > >
> > > It's almost better to just let it run its course and get so
horrifically
> bad
> > > faster, so it affects more of the public sooner, and some brave leader
> > > stands up and asks why we are hurting ourselves like this.
> >
> > That strategy didn't work very well for the "war on drugs" insanity.
> >
>
> So what's to be done? Have we become a nation of sheep to be herded my
> manipulative "leaders?"

Yep. Life according to soccer moms driving SUVs.

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
>
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Peter Gottlieb wrote:
> > >
> > > It's almost better to just let it run its course and get so
horrifically
> bad
> > > faster, so it affects more of the public sooner, and some brave leader
> > > stands up and asks why we are hurting ourselves like this.
> >
> > That strategy didn't work very well for the "war on drugs" insanity.
> >
> Nor it's grandparent; prohibition.
>

But with the new police state mentality (matched by the new attitude in
business of the customer as enemy), aided by vastly improved tracking and
spying abilities, prohibition of "drugs," tobacco, and shortly to follow,
alcohol and guns, may just succeed. Of course, by then, it will be too
late.

[Tom S.]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> "Tom S." > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > >
> > > Peter Gottlieb wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It's almost better to just let it run its course and get so
> horrifically
> > bad
> > > > faster, so it affects more of the public sooner, and some brave
leader
> > > > stands up and asks why we are hurting ourselves like this.
> > >
> > > That strategy didn't work very well for the "war on drugs" insanity.
> > >
> > Nor it's grandparent; prohibition.
> >
>
> But with the new police state mentality (matched by the new attitude in
> business of the customer as enemy), aided by vastly improved tracking and
> spying abilities, prohibition of "drugs," tobacco, and shortly to follow,
> alcohol and guns, may just succeed. Of course, by then, it will be too
> late.

Hate to alarm you, but I think it's already too late, and has been for a
couple generations.

U(P)SA - United Police States of America ??

[Bob Noel]

In article et>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> Unlikely. We can't even keep drugs out of prisons.

heck, some people can't even figure out why you would
want to keep drugs out of prisons.

--
Bob Noel

[Kyler Laird]

"Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo" > writes:

>I think they've given up on the drug war thing as a losing battle

If "they" give up on the drug war, it's just because they have new
jobs. The drug war was a way to keep a lot of people employed and
in power. The "war on terrorism" should be a decent substitute
for many.

I think it'll be a lot easier for power mongers to justify their
actions using the "war on terrorism" than the "war on drugs."

--kyler

[Teacherjh]

>>
the new culprit i which to go to
war is .... tobacco products.
<<

In my view it's a little different, as my issue with smoking is that it is
smelly, obnoxious, filthy, and grossly inconsiderate., not only to those around
the smoker, but to those that will occupy the same space in the future (long in
the future if it's indoor). It has a big adverse aesthetic impact. I would be
pleased if smoking was banned for those reasons alone. However, if people want
to chew tobacco, or take it intravenously, I don't care.

However, we are bandying about this health thing like a mantra - another
example of society protecting us from ourselves, which makes me angry. If I
want to put MYSELF in danger, I should be able to. In fact, if I want to harm
myself, I should be able to. I should be able to choose my own risk vs.
benefit relationship and live with the consequences. Seat belt laws are
another example, and the fact that society pays for health care costs of those
that choose "wrong" does also enter into this. I could go on for many
paragraphs (but won't).

I have a lot of respect for the FAA regs inasmuch as they respect the idea that
pilots should be able to make their own (informed) risk vs. benefit decisions
on their own behalf. The rules are stricter as pilots make these decisions on
the behalf of others, as they should be. But from a safety point of view,
pilots have an enormous amount of discretion (and responsibility).

This security thing turns everything upside down. It takes advantage of the
fact that people are ill-informed, and don't really care about the consequences
of these decisions, to advance the political agenda of those in power. (have I
said anything new here? :) We're so afraid of our shadows that the most
effective thing terrorists could do now is throw shadows. It will shut us down
in a week.

Jose



(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)