Pilot, possibly intoxicated, flies around Philly for 3 hours

[David Gunter]

Ugh!
-david

<http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Northeast/01/16/erratic.plane/index.html>

or

<http://snipurl.com/3v8l>

(I prefer snipurl to other short-URL providers since one is never
directed to an advertisement but rather straight to the original link.)
--
Replace spam with david in the email address if you want to send email
to me personally.

[Peter R.]

David Gunter ) wrote:

> Ugh!
> -david

I like this quote from the CNN article:

------------- start quote ------------------------------

Controllers at Philadelphia International Airport made radio contact with
the pilot and offered to clear him to land, but 'instead of landing, he
flew elsewhere,' Peters said.

------------- end quote --------------------------------


The couple of times I overheard someone bust class B airspace, the
controllers weren't in such a generous mood.

--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Harry Gordon]

I just saw the report on CNN Headline News. I'll say one thing for their
report - it wasn't sensationalized. They just reported the facts and then
went into their next story.

Nice job, CNN.

Harry
PP-ASEL

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> David Gunter ) wrote:
>
> > Ugh!
> > -david
>
> I like this quote from the CNN article:
>
> ------------- start quote ------------------------------
>
> Controllers at Philadelphia International Airport made radio contact with
> the pilot and offered to clear him to land, but 'instead of landing, he
> flew elsewhere,' Peters said.
>
> ------------- end quote --------------------------------
>
>
> The couple of times I overheard someone bust class B airspace, the
> controllers weren't in such a generous mood.
>
> --
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

[Rosspilot]

>Nice job, CNN.

Hasn't hit Fox yet--they are still riveted to Michael Jackson :-)
www.Rosspilot.com

[Rosspilot]

>
>>Nice job, CNN.
>
>Hasn't hit Fox yet--they are still riveted to Michael Jackson :-)


Just hit Fox--they performed true-to-form.

"he even flew next to a nuclear power plant"




www.Rosspilot.com

[Kevin McCue]

What else would you expect from "Faux News?"

--
Kevin McCue
KRYN
'47 Luscombe 8E
Rans S-17 (for sale)




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[G.R. Patterson III]

"Peter R." wrote:
>
> Controllers at Philadelphia International Airport made radio contact with
> the pilot and offered to clear him to land, but 'instead of landing, he
> flew elsewhere,' Peters said.
>
> ------------- end quote --------------------------------
>
> The couple of times I overheard someone bust class B airspace, the
> controllers weren't in such a generous mood.

CNN just did a little creative translation. It probably went more like "To the
idiot in the spam can over PHL, get your but down here immediately! And call the
tower."

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
(Rosspilot) wrote:
> >>Nice job, CNN.
> >
> >Hasn't hit Fox yet--they are still riveted to Michael Jackson :-)
>
>
> Just hit Fox--they performed true-to-form.
>
> "he even flew next to a nuclear power plant"


Did he fly next to a nuclear power plant? There's nothing wrong with
reporting the facts even though we may not like to admit that the facts
are the facts.

It sounds like this guy was as dumb as they come, yet the authorities
exercised restraint and didn't blow him out of the sky.

CBS apparently thought he should have been shot down, and then they'd be
running a story about how the government should have exercised restraint
because the guy wasn't a real threat.

As for GA airport security, I must admit that I am disappointed, at
least in some of the airports in my area. Many larger GA fields here
don't even have perimeter fencing, and many of those that do have
operable gates that aren't operating. Some of those airports who have
tried operating the gates have ended up with dead gate motors because
the morons who are using their hangars as personal storage for
everything but an airplane are staking the gates open so that they can
more easily move in and out. The bottom line is that if the small
fields don't get a grip on REASONABLE security, one of these days
something bad is going to hb_men and there is going to be UNREASONABLE
over-reaction.


JKG

[Robert M. Gary]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message >...
> CNN just did a little creative translation. It probably went more like "To the
> idiot in the spam can over PHL, get your but down here immediately! And call the
> tower."


"but" ??? Isn't that a conjuction?

[John T]

"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message

>
> The bottom line is that if the small
> fields don't get a grip on REASONABLE security, one of these days
> something bad is going to hb_men and there is going to be UNREASONABLE
> over-reaction.

Can you define "reasonable security" for us?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article m>,
"John T" > wrote:

> "Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
>
> >
> > The bottom line is that if the small
> > fields don't get a grip on REASONABLE security, one of these days
> > something bad is going to hb_men and there is going to be UNREASONABLE
> > over-reaction.
>
> Can you define "reasonable security" for us?

Reasonable security would include airport ID badges for those who have a
reason to be on the field, perimeter fencing that is tall enough and
sealed well enough to be a deterrent, gates that work, and some type of
continuous airport surveillence. Those are common sense things that, in
most cases, are SUPPOSED to be done anyway at most of these airports,
and actually serve to protect the aircraft owners based at the field
from theft and vandalism (it's happened around here). My home field has
perimeter fencing on only 3 sides and most of the fencing isn't much
more than waist high. Despite that, they put in gates with key-codes
that have been installed for quite a while but have never been
activated. "Reasonable" means that if you're supposed to be on the
field and can prove it then you won't be hassled. "Unreasonable" is
when they start forcing you to go through the "secure" terminal and have
to ride you to your airplane or hangar in an airport vehicle, watch you
extract your airplane and lock the hangar, and depart... and I'm sure
that wouldn't be the worst of it. Bottom line is that if something bad
happens and some news crew goes out to the local airport and finds
missing fence and gates that are wide open, the situation is going to
get overblown.

Oh, yeah, and enforce the terms of the lease that exists, in most cases,
for those who are using an airplane hangar as a U-Store by throwing them
out. One guy around here was actually bold enough to routinely drive an
18 wheeler through the gate, down the taxiways, and up to his T-hangar
so that he could load and unload things. None of those things were ever
aviation-related as far as I could tell, and if he ever had an airplane
in the hangar it certainly wasn't visible to the naked eye.



JKG

[Ben Haas]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message >...
> "Peter R." wrote:
> >
> > Controllers at Philadelphia International Airport made radio contact with
> > the pilot and offered to clear him to land, but 'instead of landing, he
> > flew elsewhere,' Peters said.
> >
> > ------------- end quote --------------------------------
> >
> > The couple of times I overheard someone bust class B airspace, the
> > controllers weren't in such a generous mood.
>
> CNN just did a little creative translation. It probably went more like "To the
> idiot in the spam can over PHL, get your but down here immediately! And call the
> tower."
>
> George Patterson
> Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
> "Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

Where the hell is gravity when sociaty needs it most to weed out the
Darwin award winners ??

Ben Haas N801BH

[Judah]

There is a lot of talk in the article about charging him DWI for driving
drunk on the highway. But there is no mention of the 0.04 and 8 hours
bottle-to-throttle rule. Is the FAA not planning to charge him with flying
drunk?

David Gunter > wrote in news:m-ydnYFe9bJxeJrdRVn-
:

> Ugh!
> -david
>
> <http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Northeast/01/16/erratic.plane/index.html>
>
> or
>
> <http://snipurl.com/3v8l>
>
> (I prefer snipurl to other short-URL providers since one is never
> directed to an advertisement but rather straight to the original link.)

[Dave Stadt]

"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
...
> In article m>,
> "John T" > wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
> >
> > >
> > > The bottom line is that if the small
> > > fields don't get a grip on REASONABLE security, one of these days
> > > something bad is going to hb_men and there is going to be UNREASONABLE
> > > over-reaction.
> >
> > Can you define "reasonable security" for us?
>
> Reasonable security would include airport ID badges for those who have a
> reason to be on the field, perimeter fencing that is tall enough and
> sealed well enough to be a deterrent, gates that work, and some type of
> continuous airport surveillence. Those are common sense things that, in
> most cases, are SUPPOSED to be done anyway at most of these airports,
> and actually serve to protect the aircraft owners based at the field
> from theft and vandalism (it's happened around here). My home field has
> perimeter fencing on only 3 sides and most of the fencing isn't much
> more than waist high. Despite that, they put in gates with key-codes
> that have been installed for quite a while but have never been
> activated. "Reasonable" means that if you're supposed to be on the
> field and can prove it then you won't be hassled.

Your reasonable is totally UNreasonable in my book. For what reason are you
creating a prison like facility? What actual problems are you trying to
solve? I don't need an ID badge to drive my car why should I need one to
fly my plane? My garage does not have continuous surveillence why should
airports? I don't have a fence around my garage why should GA airports?
Can you provide a reference to support your statement that what you suggest
is SUPPOSED to be done at airports?

[C J Campbell]

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
| There is a lot of talk in the article about charging him DWI for driving
| drunk on the highway. But there is no mention of the 0.04 and 8 hours
| bottle-to-throttle rule. Is the FAA not planning to charge him with flying
| drunk?
|

Of course they will, as well as for violating class B airspace, refusing to
comply with ATC instructions, and reckless and dangerous operation of an
aircraft. The FAA does not move very rapidly, though, so it may be nearly
six months before the pilot gets a letter. The FAA may also propose an
emergency revocation of the pilot's medical certificate. I suspect that the
FAA may wait to see if the pilot reports his DWI within the mandatory time
limit. If he does not, then they will get him for that, too.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jonathan Goodish wrote:
> >
> > In article >,
> > (Rosspilot) wrote:
> > > >>Nice job, CNN.
> > > >
> > > >Hasn't hit Fox yet--they are still riveted to Michael Jackson :-)
> > >
> > >
> > > Just hit Fox--they performed true-to-form.
> > >
> > > "he even flew next to a nuclear power plant"
> >
> > Did he fly next to a nuclear power plant?
>
> He had to. His airport is located right next door to one.

Which one is that? Palo Verde Nuclear Plant, out here, has been restricted
airspace for years.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jonathan Goodish wrote:
>
> In article >,
> (Rosspilot) wrote:
> > >>Nice job, CNN.
> > >
> > >Hasn't hit Fox yet--they are still riveted to Michael Jackson :-)
> >
> >
> > Just hit Fox--they performed true-to-form.
> >
> > "he even flew next to a nuclear power plant"
>
> Did he fly next to a nuclear power plant?

He had to. His airport is located right next door to one.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jonathan Goodish wrote:
>
> Reasonable security would include ....

A whole bunch of things that are wildly UNreasonable, expensive, and useless.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

[Tom Sixkiller]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> >
> > > He had to. His airport is located right next door to one.
> >
> > Which one is that? Palo Verde Nuclear Plant, out here, has been
restricted
> > airspace for years.
>
> Pottstown, PA.
>

Is that the nuke plant in the upper left of the picture?

http://www.airnav.com/airport/KPTW

[Judah]

OK. The article said the FAA was going to cite him for busting the Class B
and that was it. Seemed to imply that there is no DWI limits on Pilot's
License.



"C J Campbell" > wrote in
:

>
> "Judah" > wrote in message
> ...
>| There is a lot of talk in the article about charging him DWI for
>| driving drunk on the highway. But there is no mention of the 0.04 and
>| 8 hours bottle-to-throttle rule. Is the FAA not planning to charge him
>| with flying drunk?
>|
>
> Of course they will, as well as for violating class B airspace,
> refusing to comply with ATC instructions, and reckless and dangerous
> operation of an aircraft. The FAA does not move very rapidly, though,
> so it may be nearly six months before the pilot gets a letter. The FAA
> may also propose an emergency revocation of the pilot's medical
> certificate. I suspect that the FAA may wait to see if the pilot
> reports his DWI within the mandatory time limit. If he does not, then
> they will get him for that, too.
>
>
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>
> > He had to. His airport is located right next door to one.
>
> Which one is that? Palo Verde Nuclear Plant, out here, has been restricted
> airspace for years.

Pottstown, PA.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

[Tom Sixkiller]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> >
> > Is that the nuke plant in the upper left of the picture?
> >
> > http://www.airnav.com/airport/KPTW
>
> Yep.
>
Damn...Palo Verde has AA missiles on it's site now...and it's only 20 miles
from Luke AFB...with a load of F-16's. Of course, those F-16's are scattered
all over the landscape....

[G.R. Patterson III]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>
> Is that the nuke plant in the upper left of the picture?
>
> http://www.airnav.com/airport/KPTW

Yep.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

[G.R. Patterson III]

Judah wrote:
>
> OK. The article said the FAA was going to cite him for busting the Class B
> and that was it. Seemed to imply that there is no DWI limits on Pilot's
> License.

Actually, it implies that he was not intoxicated.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

[Judah]

I should have spoke more clearly...

The article was pretty clear that the local cops did a Breathalyzer and
found his blood alcohol level at 0.13.

The article spends a great deal of time talking about how the local
police are trying to find a way to get him for drunk driving, but that
the drunk driving statute specifies "on a highway."

But the comment at the end of the article notes that the FAA indicated
his bust of the class B, and leaves a gaping wide hole when it comes to
DWI. The slant that I think they were going for is that they were trying
to imply that the FAA doesn't prosecute DWI.

Because it's media, it's all about the slant...

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in
:

>
>
> Judah wrote:
>>
>> OK. The article said the FAA was going to cite him for busting the
>> Class B and that was it. Seemed to imply that there is no DWI limits
>> on Pilot's License.
>
> Actually, it implies that he was not intoxicated.
>
> George Patterson
> Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually
> said is "Hummmmm... That's interesting...."
>

[Snowbird]

Jonathan Goodish > wrote in message >...
> Reasonable security would include airport ID badges for those who have a
> reason to be on the field, perimeter fencing that is tall enough and
> sealed well enough to be a deterrent, gates that work, and some type of
> continuous airport surveillence.

This seems totally unreasonable to me.

The typical small airport I fly into is surrounded by farm
fields. It's a runway, a few dozen hangars, a fuel pump,
and an FBO building which may or may not be occupied by a
business. The fuel may be self serve, or there may be a
plastic-covered sign on it saying something like "call
###-#### for fuel" or even "call police for fuel". There
is typically a 6 button combination lock on the building
(or maybe a lock box holding a key, with a combination lock)
and a note posted saying enter the frequency of some navaid
or nearby tracon. Something someone with an aviation chart
for that area can easily look up, and get in to use the phone
and the restrooms.

At times, the airport is totally deserted. At times, it's
populated by a group of pilots who've known each other for
years if not decades. Fly in more than once and they recognize
you too. Any airplanes on the ramp are transients, because
hangars are quite reasonable in cost or rental.

The airport commission is a bunch of local pilots who take
care of mowing the grass next to the runway and fixing the
runway lights when they go out. Sometimes they get money for
major improvements like runway resurfacing from the state
DOT, but typically they are a low-budget operation.

Just EXACTLY what would "airport badges, perimeter fencing
with gates, and continuous airport surveillance" add to the
security of such an airport?

OTOH I can see a requirement to provide same putting such
airports TOTALLY out of business and putting aviation TOTALLY
out of reach for literally thousands of pilots.

> Those are common sense things that, in
> most cases, are SUPPOSED to be done anyway at most of these airports,
> and actually serve to protect the aircraft owners based at the field
> from theft and vandalism (it's happened around here).

SUPPOSED to be done anyway according to whom?

In what way would these measures protect the aircraft owners
at such airports from theft and vandalism? (hint: at work, I park
in a lot which is surrounded by a tall fence, gates operated by
individual badges, patrolled by security and under security camera
surveillance. we STILL have a problem with theft and vandalism.)

I'm afraid I see this as an example of the conundrum "why do they
call it 'common sense' when it seems so rare?"

Cheers,
Sydney

[David Reinhart]

This is the first I've heard on any nuclear plants actually being equipped with
SAMs. I wonder what unit it is and who is picking up the tab. Is there a NOTAM
anywhere that deadly force could be employed against aircraft getting too close,
or even a definition of what too close would be?

Dave Reinhart


Tom Sixkiller wrote:

> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> > >
> > > Is that the nuke plant in the upper left of the picture?
> > >
> > > http://www.airnav.com/airport/KPTW
> >
> > Yep.
> >
> Damn...Palo Verde has AA missiles on it's site now...and it's only 20 miles
> from Luke AFB...with a load of F-16's. Of course, those F-16's are scattered
> all over the landscape....

[Jack]

Yes that is a Nuke plant in the upper left, but those are only the cooling
towers.




"David Reinhart" > wrote in message
...
> This is the first I've heard on any nuclear plants actually being equipped
with
> SAMs. I wonder what unit it is and who is picking up the tab. Is there a
NOTAM
> anywhere that deadly force could be employed against aircraft getting too
close,
> or even a definition of what too close would be?
>
> Dave Reinhart
>
>
> Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>
> > "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > >
> > > Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Is that the nuke plant in the upper left of the picture?
> > > >
> > > > http://www.airnav.com/airport/KPTW
> > >
> > > Yep.
> > >
> > Damn...Palo Verde has AA missiles on it's site now...and it's only 20
miles
> > from Luke AFB...with a load of F-16's. Of course, those F-16's are
scattered
> > all over the landscape....
>

[Jonathan Goodish]

> In what way would these measures protect the aircraft owners
> at such airports from theft and vandalism? (hint: at work, I park
> in a lot which is surrounded by a tall fence, gates operated by
> individual badges, patrolled by security and under security camera
> surveillance. we STILL have a problem with theft and vandalism.)


Having no security is unreasonable in my opinion. Most of us who own
airplanes paid a good chunk of money for them and I, for one, am not
rolling in money. Sure, the airplane is insured, but having no
deterrent security at an airport is like leaving my car unlocked with
the keys in the ignition. More than one local airport in my area has
had vandalism and theft of aircraft and avionics. On more than one
occassion the airport locals recogized some folks whom they did not
recognize walking the airport and apparently mining people for
information. Despite the suspicions, what were folks supposed to do?
There was no crime committed so law enforcement wasn't interested.
Eventually stuff was stolen and the airport decided to hire a night
guard to patrol the field. and turn the gates back on to prevent
unauthorized vehicle traffic.

I also don't think that you can have one standard for larger airport and
another for smaller ones. For example, it's okay to have no security
beyond a padlock at Podunk Field, Midwest, but I doubt that you'd agree
that it would be okay to have no security at BOS or LGA or JFK.

Eventually, the bad guys are going to figure out that there is no
security at Podunk Field and capitalize on that fact.

I'm sorry, I just don't see what is so unreasonable about controlled
access to the field. I don't see what is so unreasonable about ID
badges. I don't see what is so unreasonable about surveillence.
Eventually the old guys are going to die off and a new generation who
doesn't spend all of their time at the airport is going to come along
and it will be more difficult to spot those who do not belong. If law
enforcement is to help secure these airports, they also need to know who
does or does not belong, and in most cases law enforcement isn't going
to be hanging out at the local airport all the time.



JKG

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote:

> Jonathan Goodish wrote:
> >
> > Reasonable security would include ....
>
> A whole bunch of things that are wildly UNreasonable, expensive, and useless.


How so? I guess my experience with theft and vandalism at local fields
must have been my imagination.

Quite the contrary, my suggestions are quite reasonable, not expensive
(except for the surveillence), and far from useless. If you don't agree
then I expect you to suggest alternatives for securing these fields. "A
bunch of guys who've been hanging out there since WWII" isn't an
acceptable answer.



JKG

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
"Dave Stadt" > wrote:
> Your reasonable is totally UNreasonable in my book. For what reason are you
> creating a prison like facility? What actual problems are you trying to
> solve? I don't need an ID badge to drive my car why should I need one to
> fly my plane? My garage does not have continuous surveillence why should
> airports? I don't have a fence around my garage why should GA airports?
> Can you provide a reference to support your statement that what you suggest
> is SUPPOSED to be done at airports?


I am not creating a "prison like" facility; quite the contrary, I am
suggesting common sense measures to PREVENT the creation of a "prison
like" facility.

Fact is, you do need an ID badge to drive your car, it's called a
driver's license. How you secure your garage is your problem, but I
suspect that you keep your garage locked and when you're not home
neither is your car. I don't live at the airport, so most of the time
my plane is unattended.

What I'm hearing from you detractors is that you don't believe there
should be ANY security at GA fields beyond, perhaps, local recognition
on those CAVU days. How are you going to prove to law enforcement that
you are supposed to be on the field if there is a problem? How are you
going to defend the airport that has no access control whatever if
someone should use the field as a lauching point for something
disasterous or stupid? I am curious.

Just as with securing your house, nothing you do is going to stop the
determined burglar. What you can do things to make execution of the
crime more difficult and time consuming while still retaining
unrestricted movement in your house. Maybe you can go to sleep at night
with the doors unlocked and the windows open and feel safe; if you can,
good for you. Honestly, I can't, and I don't live in a bad
neighborhood. If my neighbors and I all started leaving our doors
unlocked, though, pretty soon the criminals would find the easy target.



JKG

[Rosspilot]

My GA airport is pretty remote . . . isolated with relatively sparse
surrounding population. We have a totally fenced perimiter (3 weeks ago, I
watched a 6-point buck trying frantically to get over it unsuccessfully)--with
an electronic gate (that can be opened by anyone with the code such as we
owners based there). When you press the code to open the gate, your vehicle is
digitally photographed. ALL areas of the field are under 24 hour digital
camera surveillance, the tie-down and hangar areas are well-lit, and all the
recorded data is stored on computer, date and time-stamped. Try anything at my
field and it's going to be recorded.
I have no problem with this and am glad the system is in place.
www.Rosspilot.com

[Judah]

Jonathan Goodish > wrote in news:jgoodish-
:

> Having no security is unreasonable in my opinion. Most of us who own
> airplanes paid a good chunk of money for them and I, for one, am not
> rolling in money. Sure, the airplane is insured, but having no
> deterrent security at an airport is like leaving my car unlocked with
> the keys in the ignition.

Actually, leaving your plane unlocked with the keys in the ignition would
seem to me to be a more accurate equation.

> More than one local airport in my area has
> had vandalism and theft of aircraft and avionics. On more than one
> occassion the airport locals recogized some folks whom they did not
> recognize walking the airport and apparently mining people for
> information. Despite the suspicions, what were folks supposed to do?
> There was no crime committed so law enforcement wasn't interested.
> Eventually stuff was stolen and the airport decided to hire a night
> guard to patrol the field. and turn the gates back on to prevent
> unauthorized vehicle traffic.

Well, maybe you have a local crime problem in your area. At my airport, FBO
owners, personnel, and pilots alike are pretty vigilant about who they let
roam around the airport. I have seen people approached and asked who they
were and what they were doing there. I have seen FBO owners question retail
staff about someone they did not recognize, even when that person was
buying merchandise. And I have seen FBO owners and even pilots call police
to report someone suspicious that required investigation. And the police
responded happily and promptly, even though no crime had been committed.

> I also don't think that you can have one standard for larger airport and
> another for smaller ones. For example, it's okay to have no security
> beyond a padlock at Podunk Field, Midwest, but I doubt that you'd agree
> that it would be okay to have no security at BOS or LGA or JFK.

I don't know that I agree completely. Some airparks (like one that recently
was featured on a CBS News special) are a runway surrounded by homes where
each home has a hangar and a taxiway. Would you propose to require people
to have card-keys to get into their homes? Do you think that is reasonable?

> Eventually, the bad guys are going to figure out that there is no
> security at Podunk Field and capitalize on that fact.

Exactly how? What do you think they will do?

More importantly, do you think if a determined "bad guy" wants to gain
access to your airport, a chain-link fence with the cardkey is going to
stop him?

> I'm sorry, I just don't see what is so unreasonable about controlled
> access to the field. I don't see what is so unreasonable about ID
> badges. I don't see what is so unreasonable about surveillence.
> Eventually the old guys are going to die off and a new generation who
> doesn't spend all of their time at the airport is going to come along
> and it will be more difficult to spot those who do not belong. If law
> enforcement is to help secure these airports, they also need to know who
> does or does not belong, and in most cases law enforcement isn't going
> to be hanging out at the local airport all the time.

As with most security, it does a great job of making you feel good and
safe. And it may deter the "casual" vandal or thief. But like the locks on
your doors at home, if someone is intent on gaining access, it is just a
placebo and a waste of money.

[Peter Gottlieb]

No, no ROE that I've seen anywhere.


"David Reinhart" > wrote in message
...
> This is the first I've heard on any nuclear plants actually being equipped
with
> SAMs. I wonder what unit it is and who is picking up the tab. Is there a
NOTAM
> anywhere that deadly force could be employed against aircraft getting too
close,
> or even a definition of what too close would be?
>
> Dave Reinhart
>
>
> Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>
> > "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > >
> > > Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Is that the nuke plant in the upper left of the picture?
> > > >
> > > > http://www.airnav.com/airport/KPTW
> > >
> > > Yep.
> > >
> > Damn...Palo Verde has AA missiles on it's site now...and it's only 20
miles
> > from Luke AFB...with a load of F-16's. Of course, those F-16's are
scattered
> > all over the landscape....
>

[Dave Stadt]

"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote:
> > Your reasonable is totally UNreasonable in my book. For what reason are
you
> > creating a prison like facility? What actual problems are you trying to
> > solve? I don't need an ID badge to drive my car why should I need one
to
> > fly my plane? My garage does not have continuous surveillence why
should
> > airports? I don't have a fence around my garage why should GA airports?
> > Can you provide a reference to support your statement that what you
suggest
> > is SUPPOSED to be done at airports?
>
>
> I am not creating a "prison like" facility; quite the contrary, I am
> suggesting common sense measures to PREVENT the creation of a "prison
> like" facility.

ID cards, gates and fences sure sound like a prison to me.

> Fact is, you do need an ID badge to drive your car, it's called a
> driver's license.

And I have one for flying called a pilots certificate. In fact we need to
forms of ID to fly, remember?

>How you secure your garage is your problem, but I
> suspect that you keep your garage locked and when you're not home
> neither is your car. I don't live at the airport, so most of the time
> my plane is unattended.

My plane is in a locked hangar. Sounds just like a locked garage to me. If
you can't afford a hangar don't expect everyone else to pay for your
imagined need to protect your property.

> What I'm hearing from you detractors is that you don't believe there
> should be ANY security at GA fields beyond, perhaps, local recognition
> on those CAVU days. How are you going to prove to law enforcement that
> you are supposed to be on the field if there is a problem?

The airport owners will verify that I belong at the airport. Much more
effective than an an ID card which can be counterfit in minutes. Besides
why does law enforcement care if I "belong" at the airport. Most airports
are public facilities. How would you deal with transients? I see
absolutely no history of these gremlins you seem to see around every corner.

>How are you
> going to defend the airport that has no access control whatever if
> someone should use the field as a lauching point for something
> disasterous or stupid? I am curious.

Same as any other mode of transportation facility does. You really are not
thinking clearly if you believe fences and ID cards can prevent such a thing
and besides, where is the history of "something disasterous or stupid" to
warrant the implementation of your suggestions.

> Just as with securing your house, nothing you do is going to stop the
> determined burglar. What you can do things to make execution of the
> crime more difficult and time consuming while still retaining
> unrestricted movement in your house. Maybe you can go to sleep at night
> with the doors unlocked and the windows open and feel safe; if you can,
> good for you. Honestly, I can't, and I don't live in a bad
> neighborhood. If my neighbors and I all started leaving our doors
> unlocked, though, pretty soon the criminals would find the easy target.

So lock your doors and put your plane in a locked hangar. Hate to be the
one that tells you but locks and closed windows only stop amateurs. Locks
don't slow the pros for more than a few seconds.

> JKG

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jonathan Goodish wrote:
>
> Just as with securing your house, nothing you do is going to stop the
> determined burglar. What you can do things to make execution of the
> crime more difficult and time consuming while still retaining
> unrestricted movement in your house.

Fine, but that doesn't give YOU or anyone else the right to force me to hire a
security outfit, put chainlink around my property, or do any of the other expensive
things you're proposing that I pay for at my airport.

Keep your cotton-pickin hands off my wallet.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jonathan Goodish wrote:
>
> Quite the contrary, my suggestions are quite reasonable, not expensive
> (except for the surveillence), and far from useless.

Then you haven't priced any of them lately. Fencing alone could run 100 grand at
a small airport.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

[Tom Sixkiller]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jonathan Goodish wrote:
> >
> > Quite the contrary, my suggestions are quite reasonable, not expensive
> > (except for the surveillence), and far from useless.
>
> Then you haven't priced any of them lately. Fencing alone could run 100
grand at
> a small airport.


And it's only a deterrent; not a failsafe system.

[John T]

What do you propose for privately owned airfields on private property?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[Snowbird]

Jonathan Goodish > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote:

> > A whole bunch of things that are wildly UNreasonable, expensive, and useless.

> How so? I guess my experience with theft and vandalism at local fields
> must have been my imagination.

Jonathan,

No one is saying your local fields don't have a problem with
theft and vandalism. If so, then maybe you and the other local
pilots need to get together with airport management and implement
changes that will solve the problem.

If you feel a six foot tall fence, security gates, airport IDs,
and surveillance cameras will solve the problem, I suggest you
and a group of fellow pilots who feel that way should get together
and demand them. Find out what it would take.

> Quite the contrary, my suggestions are quite reasonable, not expensive

With all respect, your definitions of "quite reasonable"
and "not expensive" seem to differ from the standard.

Just what do you think the yearly operating budget of a small
rural airport is?

Just how much do you think 2 miles of 6" tall top-and-bottom bar
chain link, an automatic gate, and credentialling 100 pilots
actually costs?

> If you don't agree then I expect you to suggest alternatives
> for securing these fields.

My suggestion is that there is no need to secure "these fields".

My suggestion is that as a society, we react and implement sensible
measures proportionate to a realistic assessment of risk.

I don't think it's rational to suggest that all airports pose the
same security risk. A light single or twin does not carry the
same payload nor have the same range as a corporate jet. A corporate
jet does not carry the same payload or have the same range as a
commercial aircraft. The 9/11 terrorists didn't choose commercial
jets because little Cessnas could do the job just as well.

I don't think it's rational to suggest that we should go around
fencing in every GA airport while anyone with a driver's license and
a major credit card can rent a rather large truck and drive it anywhere
in a major city with no background check or limitations, while and
while many sites critical to our modern infrastructure have minimal
security -- nothing that a truck modified by a couple hours of
welding couldn't penetrate.

If it's escaped you that while our national security gurus blather
about terrorist 'fixation on possible uses of airplanes', the terrorists
have repeatedly demonstrated actual USE of car and truck bombs, it
hasn't escaped others including me.

I think we are way overdue for rational risk assessment and reaction
in accord with that risk assessment -- instead of 'blowing snow'
security measures which appear motivated by the size of the constituent
groups likely to be inconvenienced.

Sydney

[Tom Sixkiller]

"John T" > wrote in message
ws.com...
> What do you propose for privately owned airfields on private property?
>
What do people do for their garages (i.e., large trucks...).

Where do people park their 3/4 ton pickup trucks and large panel trucks?

[Rob Perkins]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote:

>I don't need an ID badge to drive my car why should I need one to
>fly my plane?

Uh, what's that state-issued thingy with your picture on it, if not an
ID badge?

Rob

[Snowbird]

Jonathan Goodish > wrote in message >...
> > In what way would these measures protect the aircraft owners
> > at such airports from theft and vandalism? (hint: at work, I park
> > in a lot which is surrounded by a tall fence, gates operated by
> > individual badges, patrolled by security and under security camera
> > surveillance. we STILL have a problem with theft and vandalism.)

> Having no security is unreasonable in my opinion.

Well, I don't think my airport has no security. My plane is in a
locked hangar. My plane is locked. It requires a key to start.
Perhaps most important, it's a community, where pilots know each
other and someone unfamiliar is watched and questioned if it seems
warrented.

If your local law enforcement was unwilling to respond to reports
of suspicious persons asking suspicious questions, perhaps your
local pilots need to cultivate better relationships with your
local law enforcement. "Law Enforcement Day at the Local Pilot's
Meeting" and a few boxes of donuts might go a ways.

> having no
> deterrent security at an airport is like leaving my car unlocked with
> the keys in the ignition.

Um, actually, I think leaving your car unlocked with the keys
in the ignition is more like leaving your plane unlocked with the
keys in the ignition.

> I also don't think that you can have one standard for larger airport and
> another for smaller ones.

Why not? How far do you take this "one standard" bit? Should we
impose one standard for the security of federal buildings and small
businesses, even though the purposes they serve and the traffic they
handle is vastly different? Should we have one standard for all
public gatherings -- pro football games vs. my child's dance recital?

Makes not a jot of sense to me, but that seems to be what you're
suggesting for airports.

> For example, it's okay to have no security
> beyond a padlock at Podunk Field, Midwest, but I doubt that you'd agree
> that it would be okay to have no security at BOS or LGA or JFK.

I think that's an eminently sensible situation. The planes which
frequent Podunk Field vs. LGA or even SUS have different capabilities.
The population is different.

> Eventually, the bad guys are going to figure out that there is no
> security at Podunk Field and capitalize on that fact.

Maybe. Maybe they are going to capitalize on a whole host of
freedoms of our society which are also security risks. How far
are we willing to go in sacrificing myriad daily freedoms because
they could, in theory, be exploited to cause harms? For example,
do you feel that rental of large trucks should immediately be banned
and sale restricted to those who have undergone special background
checks? Eventually, the bad guys are going to figure out that what
worked for McVeigh and in Africa could work here for them.

> I'm sorry, I just don't see what is so unreasonable about controlled
> access to the field. I don't see what is so unreasonable about ID
> badges. I don't see what is so unreasonable about surveillence.

Then I will try to spell it out for you, though I lack confidence
in my abilities.

What is so unreasonable is that it would pose a large burden of
cost for what seems to be a very negligable benefit.

Nothing stops a determined terrorist from gaining access to a
secured field which requires ID badges. Yes, he could cut the
fence and take his chances with the typical low quality of
surveillance cameras and their monitors. But why?

All he needs is a confederate who has cleared the required security
and obtained the required credentials.

Do you really think it's reasonable to put thousands of small
airports out of business and ground tens of thousands of pilots
with your "reasonable" security measures, when they would do little
or nothing to deter a well-planned attempt?

Sheesh! If I've ever heard of an "I've got mine, Screw You"
attitude!

Sydney

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "Tom Sixkiller"
> wrote:

> > > Quite the contrary, my suggestions are quite reasonable, not expensive
> > > (except for the surveillence), and far from useless.
> >
> > Then you haven't priced any of them lately. Fencing alone could run 100
> grand at
> > a small airport.
>
>
> And it's only a deterrent; not a failsafe system.

not even a deterrent, just a tiny speed bump.

--
Bob Noel

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Tom Sixkiller"
> > wrote:
>
> > > > Quite the contrary, my suggestions are quite reasonable, not
expensive
> > > > (except for the surveillence), and far from useless.
> > >
> > > Then you haven't priced any of them lately. Fencing alone could run
100
> > grand at
> > > a small airport.
> >
> >
> > And it's only a deterrent; not a failsafe system.
>
> not even a deterrent, just a tiny speed bump.
>
I call still lug my 51 year old ass over one of 'em.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>
> What do people do for their garages (i.e., large trucks...).

Around here, they're typically parked in large open lots. A good example would
be the local UPS depot.

> Where do people park their 3/4 ton pickup trucks and large panel trucks?

Well, my truck is only 1/4 ton, but it's in my driveway. The nearest U-haul outfit
is an open lot on route 35.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

[G.R. Patterson III]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>
> I call still lug my 51 year old ass over one of 'em.

Cowboy boots help. The toes fit well in chainlink.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

[Dave Stadt]

"Rob Perkins" > wrote in message
...
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote:
>
> >I don't need an ID badge to drive my car why should I need one to
> >fly my plane?
>
> Uh, what's that state-issued thingy with your picture on it, if not an
> ID badge?
>
> Rob

It sure as hell isn't an ID badge.

[Snowbird]

Jonathan Goodish > wrote in message >...

> Fact is, you do need an ID badge to drive your car, it's called a
> driver's license.

Um...so, since I need a pilot's license to fly plus another
form of govm't issued photo ID --- you're actually arguing
that no further identification is necessary?

Jonathan, your analogies seem to need a little buffing-up.

> What I'm hearing from you detractors is that you don't believe there
> should be ANY security at GA fields

Really? Where are you hearing that?

What I'm hearing is that I, and apparently some others, don't
feel your suggested security measures are "reasonable".

It seems rather a cognitive leap to go from "they don't
think my ideas are reasonable" to "they don't believe
there should be ANY security at GA fields.

<snip>

> Just as with securing your house, nothing you do is going to stop the
> determined burglar. What you can do things to make execution of the
> crime more difficult and time consuming while still retaining
> unrestricted movement in your house.

I really think the "house" analogy for an airport is not quite
apt.

A public-use airport is not a house. It is a business, and
as such must provide access to everyone who needs to use it.
Charter customers, line boys, student pilots, flight instructors,
custodians, mechanics so forth and so on.

Therein lies the weakest point of any security system for a public-
use facility. It's often not strangers breaking down the doors,
but people who've been granted access who commit illegal acts.

So exactly how much deterrent value does that fence and security
system provide, and how does that compare to its cost and the
effect that cost will have on small airports and the small businesses
trying to make a living there, if you try to enforce "one standard
to fit all"?

At some airports, security systems such as you describe seem
justified and reasonable. At others, why on earth?

Cheers,
Sydney

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Rob Perkins" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Dave Stadt" > wrote:
> >
> > >I don't need an ID badge to drive my car why should I need one to
> > >fly my plane?
> >
> > Uh, what's that state-issued thingy with your picture on it, if not an
> > ID badge?
> >
> > Rob
>
> It sure as hell isn't an ID badge.


If it's in your wallet in your back pocket, would that be "mooning" someone?

[Snowbird]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message >...
> Tom Sixkiller wrote:

> > I call still lug my 51 year old ass over one of 'em.
> Cowboy boots help. The toes fit well in chainlink.

You guys need the Shrimpette perspective. While I can
haul my a** over a 6 ft fence, it's a very rare chain link
fence of any length which doesn't have several areas where
it's quite easy, and usually less noticable, to slip *under*
the fence. And of course, 2 minutes with a bolt cutter can
assure this. Fencing can be done to prevent both, but it's
a significant added expense.

And even so, nothing stops someone from gaining access to
a secured field quite deliberately.

Cheers,
Sydney

[lardsoup]

Not to add fuel to the fire, but please do not think that the locks on
planes offer any security at all!!! Most of the locks found on airplane
doors and ignitions are nothing more than 4 or 5 wafer cam locks that can be
picked or forced in under 10 seconds. Most can have a key impressioned for
them in less than five minutes. And unless you have a Medeco or equivilent
type high security lock on your hanger, the cheap locks I've seen on hanger
doors are not keeping anyone out.

"Snowbird" < wrote in message >
>Well, I don't think my airport has no security. My plane is in a
> locked hangar. My plane is locked. It requires a key to start.

[Snowbird]

"lardsoup" > wrote in message >...
> Not to add fuel to the fire, but please do not think that the locks on
> planes offer any security at all!!! Most of the locks found on airplane
> doors and ignitions are nothing more than 4 or 5 wafer cam locks that can be
> picked or forced in under 10 seconds. Most can have a key impressioned for
> them in less than five minutes. And unless you have a Medeco or equivilent
> type high security lock on your hanger, the cheap locks I've seen on hanger
> doors are not keeping anyone out.

Dear Lard,

Everything is relative. I appreciate your comments on the general
quality of airplane and hangar locks, but the fact is while they
don't keep out determined people who've made a plan, they *do*
keep out casual, opportunistic people. At least, I've certainly
watched frustrated pilots who locked their keys inside the plane
or who left their keys at home, be quite unable to access their
own plane. I grant your point that it's not high security, but
it's not the same as leaving your car open with the keys in the
ignition either.

OTOH, anyone who thinks that a 6 ft fence and security gating
is going to keep out a determined person with a plan for evil,
think again. Under the fence; over the fence; through the fence
with bolt cutters; through the gate with proper credentials.

Cheers,
Sydney

[C J Campbell]

"Snowbird" > wrote in message
om...
|
|
| OTOH, anyone who thinks that a 6 ft fence and security gating
| is going to keep out a determined person with a plan for evil,
| think again. Under the fence; over the fence; through the fence
| with bolt cutters; through the gate with proper credentials.
|

The fences around here don't seem to slow the deer down much.

[G.R. Patterson III]

C J Campbell wrote:
>
> The fences around here don't seem to slow the deer down much.

You'd need at least an 8' fence to stop a full-grown whitetail, and even that
won't slow down a muley.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

[lardsoup]

Well, my point was that the locks on planes are so cheap that they will not
keep out the casual crook or vandal. Many people live by the phase that
locks only keep out honest people. Well that's just not true. And I am
only pointing this out so that any airplane owner that wants to protect
their property is aware of the level of security they are leaving their
plane in when they leave the airport. Those throttle and prop locks from
Sportys ARE a good idea. Better yet, change the door locks to a high
security cam lock. Oh, and don't forget your keys. ;-)

>"Snowbird" wrote in message
> Everything is relative. I appreciate your comments on the general
> quality of airplane and hangar locks, but the fact is while they
> don't keep out determined people who've made a plan, they *do*
> keep out casual, opportunistic people.

[C J Campbell]

"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
...
| In article m>,
| "John T" > wrote:
|
| > "Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
| >
| > >
| > > The bottom line is that if the small
| > > fields don't get a grip on REASONABLE security, one of these days
| > > something bad is going to hb_men and there is going to be UNREASONABLE
| > > over-reaction.
| >
| > Can you define "reasonable security" for us?
|
| Reasonable security would include airport ID badges for those who have a
| reason to be on the field, perimeter fencing that is tall enough and
| sealed well enough to be a deterrent, gates that work, and some type of
| continuous airport surveillence. Those are common sense things that, in
| most cases, are SUPPOSED to be done anyway at most of these airports,
| and actually serve to protect the aircraft owners based at the field
| from theft and vandalism (it's happened around here).

It would be interesting to see how this would improve the security at, say,
Ocotillo Wells in California. This is a dirt strip out in the middle of
nowhere built on a dry lake bed. There are no buildings, no fuel, etc. There
is a diner across the highway, but that is the only building for several
miles.

Or what about Copalis Beach in Washington State? This is a state operated
airport located on a stretch of beach. The 'runway' is just the damp sand
near the water's edge and it is under water at high tide. For me, security
at that airport would be arresting the lady who throws rocks at airplanes
that land on 'her' beach. There is no fuel there, no buildings, not even any
road access.

Or the airports scattered around the Frank Church Wilderness in Idaho? The
firefighting emergency strips in Montana, Wyoming, or other western states?

What about Apex Air Park near Silverdale, WA? They have something like a
gazillion Marines guarding the place. But no one would argue that that
airport is any more secure than Sequim Airport.

At Tacoma Narrows we no longer let the neighbors walk their dogs around the
approach lights any more, but that hasn't kept local kids from vandalizing
the lights. If anything, the effect of the policy was to eliminate witnesses
and make it easier for the vandals.

[G.R. Patterson III]

lardsoup wrote:
>
> Better yet, change the door locks to a high
> security cam lock.

If your fuselage is fabric-covered tubing, new door locks won't help.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

[lardsoup]

True. In that case just have Paul keep an eye on it for you.

>"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message>
> If your fuselage is fabric-covered tubing, new door locks won't help.

[Dennis O'Connor]

All of this is an illusion... No amount of badges, fences, lights, signs,
whatever, will stop someone who is willing to die for his 'cause'...
Only slaves, and cattle being fattened for the slaughter, have the security
of knowing their fate...To have a free society you must accept that freedom
contains risks, and from time to time the tree of liberty will be watered
with the blood of it's patriots... I am willing to take the risks of freedom
in order to be free... I am not willing to watch my country become a Gulag,
so that the neurotic who are willing to sell my freedoms in order to assuage
their insecurity, may feel safe...
denny

"C J Campbell"

[Snowbird]

"Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message >...
> All of this is an illusion... No amount of badges, fences, lights, signs,
> whatever, will stop someone who is willing to die for his 'cause'...
> <....> To have a free society you must accept that freedom
> contains risks, and from time to time the tree of liberty will be watered
> with the blood of it's patriots... I am willing to take the risks of freedom
> in order to be free... I am not willing to watch my country become a Gulag,
> so that the neurotic who are willing to sell my freedoms in order to assuage
> their insecurity, may feel safe...

Wow! Well said, Dennis.

Brought a tear to my eye. If you ever bring Fat Albert
near the Gateway Arch, I'll buy you a brew on the
strength of it.

Now, being pragmatic -- I think it's reasonable to take
"reasonable" precautions, just as I lock the doors of
my house and my car and my hangar and my plane.

But part of what makes a precaution "reasonable", is
giving careful thought to what threat one is trying
to deter, how probable that threat is, how effective
a deterrant is likely to be, and what impact it will
have on legitimate users.

I just don't see that happening.

Cheers,
Sydney

[Dennis O'Connor]

If I have a reason for the fat boy to grunt his way to the Arch, I'll give
you a buzz on here...

"Snowbird" > wrote in message
> But part of what makes a precaution "reasonable", is
> giving careful thought to what threat one is trying
> to deter, how probable that threat is, how effective
> a deterrant is likely to be, and what impact it will
> have on legitimate users.

Exactly!

denny

[John Galban]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message >...
>
> Which one is that? Palo Verde Nuclear Plant, out here, has been restricted
> airspace for years.

and

>Damn...Palo Verde has AA missiles on it's site now...and it's only 20
miles
>from Luke AFB...with a load of F-16's. Of course, those F-16's are
scattered
>all over the landscape....

Sorry 'bout coming in late on this one, but I was catching up on the
newsgroup and this caught my eye.

Tom, as far as I can tell, there is no restricted airspace currently
around Palo Verde. I certainly don't recall it from years past
either. As for AA missiles, I flew past the plant last weekend and
didn't see a single smoke trail. Where did you get this info?

As far as I know, there's only that catchall NOTAM requesting that
you avoid loitering over the plant.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)