Vehicular Ramp Access

[Marco Leon]

In the interest of security, our airport management wants to ban all
automobile access to our aircraft at Republic Airport (KFRG). It was the hot
topic of discussion during our last tenant meeting on 3/14--a meeting with
the largest turnout of pilots since its inception. Interestingly, other
topics on the agenda for discussion that would normally cause consternation
went unopposed (increase of tiedown fees by $35/month, photo ID badge
implementation for all pilots, and various large-aircraft centric
construction projects to name a few). I don't rule out the notion that this
issue was a strategy to get the others pushed through (if it was,
brilliant!)

This is a complicated issue with what seems to be many motives at play. The
general feeling among the small aircraft GA pilots is that management is
looking to turn the airport into a bizjet mecca like Teterboro. This hardly
surprising since they are both run by the same management company. Many of
the tenants also think that the denial of access is just another ploy to
make the airport more attractive to bizjet operators.

AOPA is involved and has sent them a letter outlining reasons why owners
need access to their aircraft and the little (and arguably DECREASED)
security issues it poses. Lots of rational, relevant, and passionate calls
for a cooperative approach to a solution by the pilots and I was pleasantly
surprised by the lack of disrespect during the 2-hour meeting attended by
about 100 interested parties. Kind of reminded me of this newsgroup--minus
the outlying rude ones.

If anyone has experienced a similar situation at their own airport I'd love
to hear what happened. From what AOPA has told us though, this has some
unique (and arguably inevitable) security aspects that may serve as the
precedent for other airports in the US going forward.

Here's a link to the AOPA letter:
http://download.aopa.org/epilot/2007/070314ny-letter.pdf

Marco

[John[_9_]]

On Mar 20, 3:39 pm, "Marco Leon" > wrote:
> In the interest of security, our airport management wants to ban all
> automobile access to our aircraft at Republic Airport (KFRG). It was the hot
> topic of discussion during our last tenant meeting on 3/14--a meeting with
> the largest turnout of pilots since its inception. Interestingly, other
> topics on the agenda for discussion that would normally cause consternation
> went unopposed (increase of tiedown fees by $35/month, photo ID badge
> implementation for all pilots, and various large-aircraft centric
> construction projects to name a few). I don't rule out the notion that this
> issue was a strategy to get the others pushed through (if it was,
> brilliant!)
>
> This is a complicated issue with what seems to be many motives at play. The
> general feeling among the small aircraft GA pilots is that management is
> looking to turn the airport into a bizjet mecca like Teterboro. This hardly
> surprising since they are both run by the same management company. Many of
> the tenants also think that the denial of access is just another ploy to
> make the airport more attractive to bizjet operators.
>
> AOPA is involved and has sent them a letter outlining reasons why owners
> need access to their aircraft and the little (and arguably DECREASED)
> security issues it poses. Lots of rational, relevant, and passionate calls
> for a cooperative approach to a solution by the pilots and I was pleasantly
> surprised by the lack of disrespect during the 2-hour meeting attended by
> about 100 interested parties. Kind of reminded me of this newsgroup--minus
> the outlying rude ones.
>
> If anyone has experienced a similar situation at their own airport I'd love
> to hear what happened. From what AOPA has told us though, this has some
> unique (and arguably inevitable) security aspects that may serve as the
> precedent for other airports in the US going forward.
>
> Here's a link to the AOPA letter:http://download.aopa.org/epilot/2007/070314ny-letter.pdf
>
> Marco


Hanscom Field, MA (KBED) used to have fairly liberal access with
vehicles but that all changed post 9-11. No unescorted access unless
your vehicle has a RAMP sticker and those are only available to
businesses with need of access like FBOs. It is possible to be
allowed access through a company controlled gate provided you are
escorted and monitored while on the ramp. In practice this means that
limos can drive up to the business jets to offload and load
passengers. The most onerous thing is that all recip aircraft are
required to have either a propeller lock or to be chained to a tie
down while on the airport. This includes the Twin Bonanza with half
the tail and one engine missing. Turboprop aircraft do not need a
propeller lock.

John Dupre'

[Robert M. Gary]

On Mar 20, 1:39 pm, "Marco Leon" > wrote:
> In the interest of security, our airport management wants to ban all
> automobile access to our aircraft at Republic Airport (KFRG). It was the hot
> topic of discussion during our last tenant meeting on 3/14--a meeting with
> the largest turnout of pilots since its inception. Interestingly, other
> topics on the agenda for discussion that would normally cause consternation
> went unopposed (increase of tiedown fees by $35/month, photo ID badge
> implementation for all pilots, and various large-aircraft centric
> construction projects to name a few). I don't rule out the notion that this
> issue was a strategy to get the others pushed through (if it was,
> brilliant!)
>
> This is a complicated issue with what seems to be many motives at play. The
> general feeling among the small aircraft GA pilots is that management is
> looking to turn the airport into a bizjet mecca like Teterboro. This hardly
> surprising since they are both run by the same management company. Many of
> the tenants also think that the denial of access is just another ploy to
> make the airport more attractive to bizjet operators.
>
> AOPA is involved and has sent them a letter outlining reasons why owners
> need access to their aircraft and the little (and arguably DECREASED)
> security issues it poses. Lots of rational, relevant, and passionate calls
> for a cooperative approach to a solution by the pilots and I was pleasantly
> surprised by the lack of disrespect during the 2-hour meeting attended by
> about 100 interested parties. Kind of reminded me of this newsgroup--minus
> the outlying rude ones.
>
> If anyone has experienced a similar situation at their own airport I'd love
> to hear what happened. From what AOPA has told us though, this has some
> unique (and arguably inevitable) security aspects that may serve as the
> precedent for other airports in the US going forward.
>
> Here's a link to the AOPA letter:http://download.aopa.org/epilot/2007/070314ny-letter.pdf
>
> Marco

No, in fact I've been happily surprised how many larger (including
airline and military co-use) airports still allow me to drive my
rental car up to the plane. They probably understand that we are not a
threat.
-Robert

[Marco Leon]

"John" > wrote in message:
> Hanscom Field, MA (KBED) used to have fairly liberal access with
> vehicles but that all changed post 9-11. No unescorted access unless
> your vehicle has a RAMP sticker and those are only available to
> businesses with need of access like FBOs. It is possible to be
> allowed access through a company controlled gate provided you are
> escorted and monitored while on the ramp. In practice this means that
> limos can drive up to the business jets to offload and load
> passengers. The most onerous thing is that all recip aircraft are
> required to have either a propeller lock or to be chained to a tie
> down while on the airport. This includes the Twin Bonanza with half
> the tail and one engine missing. Turboprop aircraft do not need a
> propeller lock.

Thanks for the info. A few questions if I may John.
1) How do the owners perform preventative maintenance on their aircraft?
Specifically, how do they get tools and supplies to the aircraft?
2) Was there an issue with handicap access?
3) Has there been any pedestrian accidents on the ramp that may have been
prevented if there was vehicular access?
4) Was there a fight before the airport took away access or was it close
enough to 9-11 that there was no pushback?
5) Does Hanscom have a photo badging system (or other security mechanisms)
for pilots/owners or is the removal of vehicular access the main security
measure?

There were other good questions that came up during the meeting but these
were the main ones. I'm curious as to if or how the airport addressed
similar issues.

I appreciate the post.

Marco

[Jay Honeck]

> No, in fact I've been happily surprised how many larger (including
> airline and military co-use) airports still allow me to drive my
> rental car up to the plane. They probably understand that we are not a
> threat.

Agreed. Best of all, common sense seems to have reared its ugly head
again, nationwide, since 9/11.

Right after the terrortist attacks on New York and Washington, nearly
everyone restricted drive-on traffic at airports. Now, on our recent
trip across the country (WV, NC, SC, AL, TN, MS), we were once again
able to pick up our rental cars right at our airplane at every airport
we visited.

I'm sorry to see Marco's airport going the other way, against the
grain.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Marco Leon]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>
> Agreed. Best of all, common sense seems to have reared its ugly head
> again, nationwide, since 9/11.
>
> Right after the terrortist attacks on New York and Washington, nearly
> everyone restricted drive-on traffic at airports. Now, on our recent
> trip across the country (WV, NC, SC, AL, TN, MS), we were once again
> able to pick up our rental cars right at our airplane at every airport
> we visited.
>
> I'm sorry to see Marco's airport going the other way, against the
> grain.

The timing is what makes it all suspect. There hasn't been any significant
events that would prompt such an action. It can be argued that the Cory
Lidle crash was one but that can be argued by both sides quite convincingly.

The Airport Director keeps citing the "security experts" as "they" refuse to
name them but will only divulge that they are on the "state" level. Yeah,
OK..experts.

The max payload that any plane on the ramp can easily be stuffed into a
couple of suitcases (if it's dense enough, only one) that can be rolled
across the ramp with nary a suspicious glance. That goes for bad people as
well. The thing is, I think most if not all of the tenants will be open to a
significant increase in security short of the complete denial of vehicular
access. I even think there will be little pushback if they made us foot the
bill for vehicle passes (they have a gate system already and would just need
new card readers). It seems illogical that they would cause a firestorm of
resentment and probably a host of lawsuits when they could avoid it by
coordinating a common solution that will still maintain virtually the same
target level of security.

Unless, of course, there are other factors at play here...

Marco

[Denny]

These things have a rhythm and cycle.. The Bush administration is now
having the courts finally move against some the the decisions they
made early on, so 6 to 8 years is aobut what it takes for these things
to wind through the judicial system...

What it will take for GA to loosen the shackles of the tyranny of the
Patriot Act is someone with the money and determination to make a
court challenge against an airport authority on either constitutional
grounds or of simply not having the authority to arbitrarily restrict
the access of legitimate users of public spaces when there has not
been a single incident of having vehicle access to the ramp having
caused a terrorist incident...
The plaintiff will lose in the lower courts (they almost always side
with government/city hall) but the superior courts tend to take a
longer view and sooner or later some federal judge will vaguely
remember that powers not specifically allocated to the government are
reserved to the people <gosh, what a surprise> and that discriminating
against vehicle access by pilots while allowing limo drivers, etc., is
discrimination by class of person, etc...

denny

[Robert M. Gary]

On Mar 21, 8:47 am, "Denny" > wrote:

> What it will take for GA to loosen the shackles of the tyranny of the
> Patriot Act is someone with the money and determination to make a
> court challenge against an airport authority on either constitutional
> grounds or of simply not having the authority to arbitrarily restrict
> the access of legitimate users of public spaces when there has not
> been a single incident of having vehicle access to the ramp having
> caused a terrorist incident...

Hmmm, how did you go from GA ramp access to Patriot Act. The ability
to listen to terrorist place calls to Iran has nothing to do with ramp
access. How in the world do you find the Patriot Act affecting ramp
access?

-Robert

[pgbnh[_1_]]

MHT went through this process starting about 8-9 years ago, basically
coincident with MHT becoming a viable alternative to BOS. We used to have
free access to ramps. Then access was permitted by airport-issued passcard.
Somewhat inconvenient, but given the possibility that someone COULD drive
onto the ramp and then onto an active runway, and there were big aircraft on
said runway, not a big deal. Cars had to meet certain insurance
requirements, and cars had to display airport-issued stickers.

Then 9/11 happened. Current situation is tht I can still get my vehicle on
the field (to plow, do maintenance, or carry luggage) but I must call the
communications center and the gate must be opened for me. My vehicle is
occasionally subject to inspection, and still must meet insurance,
registration, and sticker requirements.

Bottom line - not as nice as it used to be, but not too terrible. Biggest
issue is the occasional need to wait 10-15 minutes for access. Normally not
that long. Give there are probably 100-125 part 135 operations/day, keeping
a craze-o from doing something terrible needs attention.
"Marco Leon" > wrote in message
...
> In the interest of security, our airport management wants to ban all
> automobile access to our aircraft at Republic Airport (KFRG). It was the
> hot topic of discussion during our last tenant meeting on 3/14--a meeting
> with the largest turnout of pilots since its inception. Interestingly,
> other topics on the agenda for discussion that would normally cause
> consternation went unopposed (increase of tiedown fees by $35/month, photo
> ID badge implementation for all pilots, and various large-aircraft centric
> construction projects to name a few). I don't rule out the notion that
> this issue was a strategy to get the others pushed through (if it was,
> brilliant!)
>
> This is a complicated issue with what seems to be many motives at play.
> The general feeling among the small aircraft GA pilots is that management
> is looking to turn the airport into a bizjet mecca like Teterboro. This
> hardly surprising since they are both run by the same management company.
> Many of the tenants also think that the denial of access is just another
> ploy to make the airport more attractive to bizjet operators.
>
> AOPA is involved and has sent them a letter outlining reasons why owners
> need access to their aircraft and the little (and arguably DECREASED)
> security issues it poses. Lots of rational, relevant, and passionate calls
> for a cooperative approach to a solution by the pilots and I was
> pleasantly surprised by the lack of disrespect during the 2-hour meeting
> attended by about 100 interested parties. Kind of reminded me of this
> newsgroup--minus the outlying rude ones.
>
> If anyone has experienced a similar situation at their own airport I'd
> love to hear what happened. From what AOPA has told us though, this has
> some unique (and arguably inevitable) security aspects that may serve as
> the precedent for other airports in the US going forward.
>
> Here's a link to the AOPA letter:
> http://download.aopa.org/epilot/2007/070314ny-letter.pdf
>
> Marco
>
>

[Newps]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>No, in fact I've been happily surprised how many larger (including
>>airline and military co-use) airports still allow me to drive my
>>rental car up to the plane. They probably understand that we are not a
>>threat.
>
>
> Agreed. Best of all, common sense seems to have reared its ugly head
> again, nationwide, since 9/11.
>
> Right after the terrortist attacks on New York and Washington, nearly
> everyone restricted drive-on traffic at airports. Now, on our recent
> trip across the country (WV, NC, SC, AL, TN, MS), we were once again
> able to pick up our rental cars right at our airplane at every airport
> we visited.


Here in Montana we didn't change one iota. If you could drive on the
airport before you still can. No new fences, no new locks, no new rules.

[Marco Leon]

"pgbnh" > wrote in message
>
> Then 9/11 happened. Current situation is tht I can still get my vehicle on
> the field (to plow, do maintenance, or carry luggage) but I must call the
> communications center and the gate must be opened for me. My vehicle is
> occasionally subject to inspection, and still must meet insurance,
> registration, and sticker requirements.
>
> Bottom line - not as nice as it used to be, but not too terrible. Biggest
> issue is the occasional need to wait 10-15 minutes for access. Normally
> not that long. Give there are probably 100-125 part 135 operations/day,
> keeping a craze-o from doing something terrible needs attention.

Your situation sounds similar to something I suggested during the meeting.
If they were worried about the people they might be "sneaking" in via the
cars, then make everyone declare their "passengers" either electronically or
verbally upon entry and execute random spot checks on their declarations.
This would also include checks on automobile storage areas. Currently, the
gates close at 7 PM and owners need to go through another camera-equipped
gate and talk to an operations person to gain access. They ask for visual
confirmation of the car pass and can see whoever you bring along. To make us
declare the number of passengers would be a simple next step and they could
have a video recording of them as well. In other words, if they can't
visually count the two guys you claim as passengers, then they don't let you
in.

There's a myriad of possibilities and I hope they cooperate before making a
decision.

Marco

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Marco Leon" > wrote in message
...
>
><...> There were other good questions that came up during the meeting but
>these were the main ones. I'm curious as to if or how the airport addressed
>similar issues.
>

Like "What, exactly, is the risk they are concerned about?" - For the life
of me, I can't figgure out how an automobile on a G.A. airport is a
"security risk".

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Marco Leon" > wrote in message
...
><...> Your situation sounds similar to something I suggested during the
>meeting. If they were worried about the people they might be "sneaking" in
>via the cars, then make everyone declare their "passengers" either
>electronically or verbally upon entry and execute random spot checks on
>their declarations.
<...>

They are worried that I might put five people in a Luscombe?

I don't get it.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Jose]

> Like "What, exactly, is the risk they are concerned about?" - For the life
> of me, I can't figgure out how an automobile on a G.A. airport is a
> "security risk".

"Security risk" means "we're not telling, now go away."

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[[email protected]]

Marco Leon > wrote:
> If anyone has experienced a similar situation at their own airport I'd
> love to hear what happened.

FWIW, I might be experiencing something in the same direction at Jones-
Riverside (KRVS) in Tulsa. One afternoon, I was riding my bicycle around
the vehicle roads on the airport (not on the taxiways or on the ramp)
and was stopped by a Tulsa Airport Authority security person. He
informed me that unless I worked at the airport, I had to stay on the
perimeter road and not ride up by the FBOs, flight schools, hangars, etc.
He also said that someone in the control tower had alerted him to my
presence. I found this odd because I'd ridden on the same roads at least
half a dozen times since summer 2006 - sometimes right past the TAA
security people - and got, at most, a friendly wave. I have contacted
TAA about it, but have not yet gotten a response; I'll post back if I
find anything interesting.

Matt Roberds

[Denny]

How in the world do you find the Patriot Act affecting ramp
> access?
>
> -Robert

Robert, the Patriot Act is precisely what is driving this, with
specific mandates supplemented by myriad non legislated regulations
and little people who are, for the very first time in their lives,
vested with the mantle of authority, a black belt with a radio and a
shiny pair of chromed handcuffs, prominently displayed.... Wire taps
are nothing, it is the warrantless searches, the power of non LEO's to
accost and detain for no reason other than someone doesn't like how
you look... Is this America or Orwell's 1984? This treacherous act
is vastly, vastly more than just listening to phone calls to Iran...
Ya gotta wake up and notice the coffee is boiling over, my friend...

A man being harassed for riding a bicycle on a public road because it
is near an airport is a lightning shot piercing the darkness of the
storm...... Did you even notice? What gives the minimum wage
<meaning minimum skills> hourly employee of an airport the legal
right to go off airport property onto a public road and harass
someone? What makes him think he has the "authority" to accost a
citizen passing on a public road?

denny

[John[_9_]]

On Mar 20, 11:45 pm, "Marco Leon" > wrote:
> "John" > wrote in message:
> > Hanscom Field, MA (KBED) used to have fairly liberal access with
> > vehicles but that all changed post 9-11. No unescorted access unless
> > your vehicle has a RAMP sticker and those are only available to
> > businesses with need of access like FBOs. It is possible to be
> > allowed access through a company controlled gate provided you are
> > escorted and monitored while on the ramp. In practice this means that
> > limos can drive up to the business jets to offload and load
> > passengers. The most onerous thing is that all recip aircraft are
> > required to have either a propeller lock or to be chained to a tie
> > down while on the airport. This includes the Twin Bonanza with half
> > the tail and one engine missing. Turboprop aircraft do not need a
> > propeller lock.
>
> Thanks for the info. A few questions if I may John.
> 1) How do the owners perform preventative maintenance on their aircraft?
> Specifically, how do they get tools and supplies to the aircraft?
> 2) Was there an issue with handicap access?
> 3) Has there been any pedestrian accidents on the ramp that may have been
> prevented if there was vehicular access?
> 4) Was there a fight before the airport took away access or was it close
> enough to 9-11 that there was no pushback?
> 5) Does Hanscom have a photo badging system (or other security mechanisms)
> for pilots/owners or is the removal of vehicular access the main security
> measure?
>
> There were other good questions that came up during the meeting but these
> were the main ones. I'm curious as to if or how the airport addressed
> similar issues.
>
> I appreciate the post.
>
> Marco

There is a photo I.D. system (SIDA) in place and it must be worn on
the outermost garment while on the airfield. (I got caught the first
day it was active ten feet from the hangar!) The airfield perimeter
is completely fenced and gated. Also you cannot drive on the airfield
itself without an endorsement through a class and test which is
reflected on your badge. The only way to get to an aircraft for
preventative maintenance is to be escorted to the aircraft by an
operator with vehicle priveleges.

Post 9-11 the airport was closed for at least a week as I remember,
while security measures were reviewed. There wasn't much of a fight.
This is a MassPort facility so they pretty much can do whatever they
want though there is always some public input before they do. MassPort
remains pretty embarassed at the fact that the two WTC aircraft came
out of Logan (B0S). It took a while to develop the program but it is
now in force. Hanscom is collocated with Hanscom Air Force Base and
the Electronic Systems Command; security there is even tighter though
the guards at the gate are mostly civilian now. I don't know of any
handicap issues per se. I lost fully half my annual customers in 2002
as owners left for other airports with easier access.

John Dupre'

[Jose]

> A man being harassed for riding a bicycle on a public road because it
> is near an airport

Well, from the OP the road was =on= the airport.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Maxwell]

"Jose" > wrote in message
.. .
>> A man being harassed for riding a bicycle on a public road because it
>> is near an airport
>
> Well, from the OP the road was =on= the airport.
>
> Jose
> --
> Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
> follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
> understands this holds the world in his hands.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

It's happening off airport too. Large graveled areas along a popular 4-lane
highway here, was always a popular place for people to park and watch
aircraft land. The gravel areas were initially installed for parking when
airport workers came off the airport to maintain lights for the landing
system.

Anyone parking there to watch since 9-11 has always been approached
immediatly by airport security and forced to leave under the threat of
arrest. Nonsense because the area north of the road is a very large and
heavily wooded public park for more than a mile. Go figure.

[Jose]

> It's happening off airport too.

That, of course, is a problem. However it was not the one that was
originally posted.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Denny]

Read the original post in a state of sleep deprivation, missed the
fact you stated the perimeter road is on airport property... The
perimeter roads for the majority of GA airports I inhabit are public,
so my mind set was in that direction...
Sorry, but you will likely have to do it their way on airport property
for now...
The rest of my post stands as is...

I noticed a federal court just struck down internet porn filter
regulations promulgated by the Bush administration <related to our
topic by being another set of federal regulations rammed down our
throats by zealots>... I would not have predicted this outcome for
that suit, but it is refreshing to see the court take the stand that
it is the parents LEGAL responsibility to MONITOR and CONTROL their
children, not the school's, not the library's, etc. and that the
government does not have the constitutional power to reallocate that
responsibility to third parties......

"What, you expect me to watch my nasty little spawn of satan! Why
should I have to do it? What do I pay taxes for?"

Absolutely priceless...

The whole point of this is that the majority of regulations strangling
GA airports cannot withstand a determined court challenge - including
being harassed for riding a bicycle...

denny

[Marco Leon]

Sorry to hear about your customers John. The thing is, if the airport
proposed these measures within a relatively short period of time after 9-11,
there would be minimal opposition. Now that it's six years later, the
motives behind these meaures are now suspect.

We had the entire airport re-fenced as well and cables/locks were installed
for each aircraft all at the airport's expense. Virtually all of us
appreciated that and that's why I think there will be little opposition if
they make us foot the bill for an access control system for vehicles.

We also don't have any active military installations on the field so they
can't point to that as a reason. Bush flew into the airport a couple of
years ago (that event actually prompted the cable locks) but that's not
anticipated to be a regular occurrence.

We'll see what happens.

Marco

"John" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> There is a photo I.D. system (SIDA) in place and it must be worn on
> the outermost garment while on the airfield. (I got caught the first
> day it was active ten feet from the hangar!) The airfield perimeter
> is completely fenced and gated. Also you cannot drive on the airfield
> itself without an endorsement through a class and test which is
> reflected on your badge. The only way to get to an aircraft for
> preventative maintenance is to be escorted to the aircraft by an
> operator with vehicle priveleges.
>
> Post 9-11 the airport was closed for at least a week as I remember,
> while security measures were reviewed. There wasn't much of a fight.
> This is a MassPort facility so they pretty much can do whatever they
> want though there is always some public input before they do. MassPort
> remains pretty embarassed at the fact that the two WTC aircraft came
> out of Logan (B0S). It took a while to develop the program but it is
> now in force. Hanscom is collocated with Hanscom Air Force Base and
> the Electronic Systems Command; security there is even tighter though
> the guards at the gate are mostly civilian now. I don't know of any
> handicap issues per se. I lost fully half my annual customers in 2002
> as owners left for other airports with easier access.
>
> John Dupre'
>

[Peter Dohm]

> >
> ><...> There were other good questions that came up during the meeting but
> >these were the main ones. I'm curious as to if or how the airport
addressed
> >similar issues.
> >
>
> Like "What, exactly, is the risk they are concerned about?" - For the life
> of me, I can't figgure out how an automobile on a G.A. airport is a
> "security risk".
>
> --
> Geoff

I don't know either, but suspect that "Security" is just the standard answer
for the present decade.

Two much more likely reasons are:
1) Runway or taxiway incursion by a service or security vehicle--which
will remain unaffected by the rule.
2) One of the parked aircraft jumped out in front of an airport tug,
either locally or at a nearby airport--which got them to thinking that it
could easily have happened to an automobile, or even one of those little
luggage hand trucks...

Peter

[[email protected]]

Jose > wrote:
>> A man being harassed for riding a bicycle on a public road because
>> it is near an airport
>
> Well, from the OP the road was =on= the airport.

Jose is correct - the road I was on was inside the fenced, gated area of
the airport. There are city streets on three sides of the airport that
are outside of the fence, but that wasn't where I was.

Matt Roberds

[[email protected]]

Denny > wrote:
> Read the original post in a state of sleep deprivation, missed the
> fact you stated the perimeter road is on airport property...

That is correct.

> The perimeter roads for the majority of GA airports I inhabit are
> public, so my mind set was in that direction...

There are city streets on three sides of the airport that are outside
of the fence, but that wasn't where I was.

> Sorry, but you will likely have to do it their way on airport
> property for now...

The airport authority at least got my email about it. I got a polite
reply that my email was being forwarded to another department for a
response. I will give them a decent chance to reply before ranting
about it here.

Matt Roberds

[Maxwell]

> wrote in message
...
> Jose > wrote:
>>> A man being harassed for riding a bicycle on a public road because
>>> it is near an airport
>>
>> Well, from the OP the road was =on= the airport.
>
> Jose is correct - the road I was on was inside the fenced, gated area of
> the airport. There are city streets on three sides of the airport that
> are outside of the fence, but that wasn't where I was.
>
> Matt Roberds
>

Agreed. But in our case we have minimum wage security personnel coming
=outside= airport security fences and harassing people parking on the
easement of a 4 lane highway, just because they want to safely park and
watch the jets land. It was a well used area pre 911, and you could often
see entire families there, admiring the big aircraft as they landed.

The only rational given to me by security personnel was that it would be a
good place for someone to park and shoot at an approaching aircraft. But
just 300 feet north is the border for a huge, heavily wooded, public park
with no security at all. I myself, have been harassed one evening when I
stopped to watch a few aircraft with a girlfriend.

My point is simply to support Denny's message. Whether it be the Patriot Act
or just post 911 nonsense, we are paying some very unreasonable prices for
our countries inability to effectively deal with the real situation.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Maxwell wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jose > wrote:
>>>> A man being harassed for riding a bicycle on a public road because
>>>> it is near an airport
>>>
>>> Well, from the OP the road was =on= the airport.
>>
>> Jose is correct - the road I was on was inside the fenced, gated
>> area of the airport. There are city streets on three sides of the
>> airport that are outside of the fence, but that wasn't where I was.
>>
>> Matt Roberds
>>
>
> Agreed. But in our case we have minimum wage security personnel coming
> =outside= airport security fences and harassing people parking on the
> easement of a 4 lane highway, just because they want to safely park
> and watch the jets land. It was a well used area pre 911, and you
> could often see entire families there, admiring the big aircraft as
> they landed.

That's a whole different ball of poo then. I'd ask the rent a cop why he
thinks he has any jurisdiction outside of the airport grounds. Now parking
beside a 4 lane highway may be a problem in your area but other than that...

[Maxwell]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Maxwell wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Jose > wrote:
>>>>> A man being harassed for riding a bicycle on a public road because
>>>>> it is near an airport
>>>>
>>>> Well, from the OP the road was =on= the airport.
>>>
>>> Jose is correct - the road I was on was inside the fenced, gated
>>> area of the airport. There are city streets on three sides of the
>>> airport that are outside of the fence, but that wasn't where I was.
>>>
>>> Matt Roberds
>>>
>>
>> Agreed. But in our case we have minimum wage security personnel coming
>> =outside= airport security fences and harassing people parking on the
>> easement of a 4 lane highway, just because they want to safely park
>> and watch the jets land. It was a well used area pre 911, and you
>> could often see entire families there, admiring the big aircraft as
>> they landed.
>
> That's a whole different ball of poo then. I'd ask the rent a cop why he
> thinks he has any jurisdiction outside of the airport grounds. Now parking
> beside a 4 lane highway may be a problem in your area but other than
> that...

It's city owned property. To the best of my knowledge, if they ask you to
leave for ANY reason, and you refuse to leave, it's trespassing. They are
just using a post 911 security rational to restrict an area that has never
been restricted before.

[Jose]

> They are
> just using a post 911 security rational to restrict an area that has never
> been restricted before.

Ok, this is finally getting to me. It's not just you, but several
posters now.

"rationale".

There. It's off my chest.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Maxwell wrote:
>
> It's city owned property. To the best of my knowledge, if they ask
> you to leave for ANY reason, and you refuse to leave, it's
> trespassing. They are just using a post 911 security rational to
> restrict an area that has never been restricted before.

Get yourself a picket sign. Doesn't matter what it says. Then you are
exercising your free speech rights on city property.

[Montblack]

("Gig 601XL Builder" wrote)
> Get yourself a picket sign. Doesn't matter what it says. Then you are
> exercising your free speech rights on city property.


Then they will exercise their enforcement prerogative...

<http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june07/speech_03-19.html>
This is a "fascinating case". I think so anyway. <g>

Ok, granted it's school apples vs. threat level orange, but still... much of
your future right to do the picket sign thing will depend on how this ruling
comes down. Maybe.


Montblack-robes

[Jose]

> Ok, granted it's school apples vs. threat level orange

The values we teach in high school will be the ones that will be
enforced upon us by the graduating class when they come to power.

What would you like them to get used to?

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[601XL Builder]

Montblack wrote:

>
> Ok, granted it's school apples vs. threat level orange, but still... much of
> your future right to do the picket sign thing will depend on how this ruling
> comes down. Maybe.

Only if I go back to high school. Which is unlikely.

[Owen Roberts]

Denny wrote:

>
> I noticed a federal court just struck down internet porn filter
> regulations promulgated by the Bush administration <related to our
> topic by being another set of federal regulations rammed down our
> throats by zealots>... I would not have predicted this outcome for
> that suit, but it is refreshing to see the court take the stand that
> it is the parents LEGAL responsibility to MONITOR and CONTROL their
> children, not the school's, not the library's, etc. and that the
> government does not have the constitutional power to reallocate that
> responsibility to third parties......

The case cited involved a 1998 U.S. Statue making it a crime for web site
operators (commercial) to let children access "harmful" material. I am
fairly sure that Bush was not the President who signed said law in 1998,
but you may not be.

Here is the ruling, which was at the District Court level:
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/07D0346P.pdf

Sorry to inject facts into your blind partisan ranting. It is fascinating
that the people who say ___ sucks are the same people who demonstrate that
they have no clue what they preach about. Have a nice day.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Marco Leon" > wrote:

> Thanks for the info. A few questions if I may John.
> 1) How do the owners perform preventative maintenance on their aircraft?
> Specifically, how do they get tools and supplies to the aircraft?

I've been TDY, so am just reading this now.

At KBED vehicles can drive through specific gates and get to T-hangars and also
tie-downs. We can only drive in non-movement areas. In fact, post-9/11, the
access gates now REQUIRE automobiles - no more walking through gates or riding
bikes. I had to put one of those magnet gizmos on my motorcycle to trip the
sensor.

> 2) Was there an issue with handicap access?

I don't understand the question. But the massport operation guys will escort you
as soon as they can - just call them up/

> 3) Has there been any pedestrian accidents on the ramp that may have been
> prevented if there was vehicular access?

Don't think so.

> 4) Was there a fight before the airport took away access or was it close
> enough to 9-11 that there was no pushback?

Massport doesn't even acknowledge pushback.

> 5) Does Hanscom have a photo badging system (or other security mechanisms)
> for pilots/owners or is the removal of vehicular access the main security
> measure?

Yes. We have a photo badge which we have to renew every two years.
And, again, I can drive my car (and motorcycle) through a gate to get
to my airplane.

--
Bob Noel
(gave up lookingn for a particular sig the lawyer will)

[mike griffin]

Same issue may come up at KCXO (Conroe, Texas.) Meeting with manager is
th 28th. Was AOPA of assistance? If so whom did you contact? TIA!

Griffin

[John[_9_]]

A new wrinkle just this month at KBED is that TSA is now mandating
that there must be two forms of ID on file for every badge holder and
one has to state nationality. MassPort was apparently a little late
in getting the word out and now people are scrambling to get caught
up. We just had a young mech's badge pulled. I was asked to produce
mine in the hangar but my name is not on a list of people with only
one ID so I am o.k.

Apparently MassPort is under threat of having thier entire badge
system decertified if they can't resolve discrepancies.

John

[john smith[_2_]]

In article om>,
"John" > wrote:

> A new wrinkle just this month at KBED is that TSA is now mandating
> that there must be two forms of ID on file for every badge holder and
> one has to state nationality.

What are acceptable forms of personal identification?
I have exactly one, a state issued drivers license.

[John[_9_]]

On Mar 27, 1:23 pm, john smith > wrote:
> In article om>,
>
> "John" > wrote:
> > A new wrinkle just this month at KBED is that TSA is now mandating
> > that there must be two forms of ID on file for every badge holder and
> > one has to state nationality.
>
> What are acceptable forms of personal identification?
> I have exactly one, a state issued drivers license.

Birth Certificate or official copy and passport were mentioned. Some
people have used social security cards and Pilot's licenses and
mechanics licenses have nationality on them.

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> Marco Leon > wrote:
>> If anyone has experienced a similar situation at their own airport I'd
>> love to hear what happened.
>
> FWIW, I might be experiencing something in the same direction at Jones-
> Riverside (KRVS) in Tulsa. [...] I have contacted TAA about it, but
> have not yet gotten a response; I'll post back if I find anything
> interesting.

I contacted TAA early on 22 March. Later that day I got a response that
my email had been forwarded to the Operations division for a response.
I didn't hear anything for a while, so on the afternoon of 2 April I
followed up with the initial contact person. Later that afternoon, she
forwarded me an email from the superintendent of KRVS. It said, in
part,

"Please continue to operate as you always have and should you have a
further issue, get the name of the guard and call me at (phone number)
with the time and date."

So it looks like I can ride my bike where I want to on the airport
again.

Matt Roberds