Security at a class D tower

[Dallas]

I toured the new state of the art tower at Addison airport last week and
was struck by all the security measures they employed.

The entire complex and parking lot was surrounded by a dense wrought iron
fence with a nasty "fish hook" shaped sharp pointed curve at the top. An
intercom opened the gate. The entrance to the tower was an interlock of
bulletproof glass doors that locked you in a holding area until someone
checked the video camera and buzzed you in.

I assume this is all a reaction to our new terrorist threat, but I haven't
been able to come up with any reason for all that security. Let's say
some terrorists took the tower, what's the worst thing they could do?

--
Dallas

[Kyle Boatright]

Presumably, they could clear multiple aircraft onto a runway at the same
time. Could be trouble *if* the pilots were inattentive.

KB

"Dallas" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> I toured the new state of the art tower at Addison airport last week and
> was struck by all the security measures they employed.
>
> The entire complex and parking lot was surrounded by a dense wrought iron
> fence with a nasty "fish hook" shaped sharp pointed curve at the top. An
> intercom opened the gate. The entrance to the tower was an interlock of
> bulletproof glass doors that locked you in a holding area until someone
> checked the video camera and buzzed you in.
>
> I assume this is all a reaction to our new terrorist threat, but I haven't
> been able to come up with any reason for all that security. Let's say
> some terrorists took the tower, what's the worst thing they could do?
>
> --
> Dallas

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dallas" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> I toured the new state of the art tower at Addison airport last week and
> was struck by all the security measures they employed.
>
> The entire complex and parking lot was surrounded by a dense wrought iron
> fence with a nasty "fish hook" shaped sharp pointed curve at the top. An
> intercom opened the gate. The entrance to the tower was an interlock of
> bulletproof glass doors that locked you in a holding area until someone
> checked the video camera and buzzed you in.
>
> I assume this is all a reaction to our new terrorist threat, but I haven't
> been able to come up with any reason for all that security. Let's say
> some terrorists took the tower, what's the worst thing they could do?
>

Kill the occupants, destroy equipment. A target not worth the effort.

[Judah]

Dallas > wrote in news:pd36qfdnvmu4
:

> I assume this is all a reaction to our new terrorist threat, but I haven't
> been able to come up with any reason for all that security. Let's say
> some terrorists took the tower, what's the worst thing they could do?

For one thing, they could lock themselves and their hostages in that tower
forever and no one else would ever be able to get in!

The fair maiden they kidnap would have to let her hair out the window to be
saved.

"Rapunzel, Rapunzel!"

[Maxwell]

"Dallas" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> I toured the new state of the art tower at Addison airport last week and
> was struck by all the security measures they employed.
>
> The entire complex and parking lot was surrounded by a dense wrought iron
> fence with a nasty "fish hook" shaped sharp pointed curve at the top. An
> intercom opened the gate. The entrance to the tower was an interlock of
> bulletproof glass doors that locked you in a holding area until someone
> checked the video camera and buzzed you in.
>
> I assume this is all a reaction to our new terrorist threat, but I haven't
> been able to come up with any reason for all that security. Let's say
> some terrorists took the tower, what's the worst thing they could do?
>

They could take the tower, kill all the occupants, and carry out "simulated"
operations. OH...NO..!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Mxsmanic]

Kyle Boatright writes:

> Presumably, they could clear multiple aircraft onto a runway at the same
> time. Could be trouble *if* the pilots were inattentive.

You don't have to be inside the tower for that. All you need is a radio.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Kyle Boatright writes:
>
>> Presumably, they could clear multiple aircraft onto a runway at the same
>> time. Could be trouble *if* the pilots were inattentive.
>
> You don't have to be inside the tower for that. All you need is a radio.
>

Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket,,,, or no, no, you could just simulate a
radio, yeah, that's the ticket.

[Maxwell]

"Dallas" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> I toured the new state of the art tower at Addison airport last week and
> was struck by all the security measures they employed.
>
> The entire complex and parking lot was surrounded by a dense wrought iron
> fence with a nasty "fish hook" shaped sharp pointed curve at the top. An
> intercom opened the gate. The entrance to the tower was an interlock of
> bulletproof glass doors that locked you in a holding area until someone
> checked the video camera and buzzed you in.
>
> I assume this is all a reaction to our new terrorist threat, but I haven't
> been able to come up with any reason for all that security. Let's say
> some terrorists took the tower, what's the worst thing they could do?
>

Frankly it just sounds like a waste to me too. Kind of makes you wonder of
if some of the decision makes don't have relatives in security construction
services business, or someone had some unneeded budget money for security
improvements.

[Dan Luke]

"Dallas" wrote:

> Let's say some terrorists took the tower, what's the worst thing they could
> do?
>

Make me wait for a 152 on a 10-mile final.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Kyle Boatright]

"Maxwell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dallas" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>
>> I toured the new state of the art tower at Addison airport last week and
>> was struck by all the security measures they employed.
>>
>> The entire complex and parking lot was surrounded by a dense wrought iron
>> fence with a nasty "fish hook" shaped sharp pointed curve at the top.
>> An
>> intercom opened the gate. The entrance to the tower was an interlock of
>> bulletproof glass doors that locked you in a holding area until someone
>> checked the video camera and buzzed you in.
>>
>> I assume this is all a reaction to our new terrorist threat, but I
>> haven't
>> been able to come up with any reason for all that security. Let's say
>> some terrorists took the tower, what's the worst thing they could do?
>>
>
> Frankly it just sounds like a waste to me too. Kind of makes you wonder of
> if some of the decision makes don't have relatives in security
> construction services business, or someone had some unneeded budget money
> for security improvements.

Like 98% of the Post 911 security enhancements, this is eyewash to make the
public believe the politicians are "doing something" to prevent future
terror events.

KB

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Dallas > wrote:

> I assume this is all a reaction to our new terrorist threat, but I haven't
> been able to come up with any reason for all that security. Let's say
> some terrorists took the tower, what's the worst thing they could do?

You can ask pretty much the same questions wrt to security around
small aircraft. There isn't any mission requiring a small aircraft
that couldn't be done cheaper, faster, "better" some other way.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[[email protected]]

On Apr 7, 1:15 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:
>
> Kill the occupants, destroy equipment. A target not worth the effort.

Wow.. Finally there is one thing that Steven and I agree on... There
is hope for all mankind. :-}

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Wow.. Finally there is one thing that Steven and I agree on... There
> is hope for all mankind. :-}
>

If you do a search on Google Groups, you will find that we have never
disagreed when you were right.

[B A R R Y]

On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 21:27:06 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:
>
>If you do a search on Google Groups, you will find that we have never
>disagreed when you were right.
>


Now THAT'S funny, I don't care who you are!

[LJ Blodgett]

The other day,I called the tower and asked if I could come up? They sad
sure,press the door bell and I'll buss you in.

Bob Noel wrote:
> In article >,
> Dallas > wrote:
>
>
>>I assume this is all a reaction to our new terrorist threat, but I haven't
>>been able to come up with any reason for all that security. Let's say
>>some terrorists took the tower, what's the worst thing they could do?
>
>
> You can ask pretty much the same questions wrt to security around
> small aircraft. There isn't any mission requiring a small aircraft
> that couldn't be done cheaper, faster, "better" some other way.
>

[Mxsmanic]

LJ Blodgett writes:

> The other day,I called the tower and asked if I could come up? They sad
> sure,press the door bell and I'll buss you in.

Sure, but if a terrorist came to the tower, he couldn't possibly get in
because they wouldn't press the button for a terrorist.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[john smith[_2_]]

In article >,
Dallas > wrote:

> I toured the new state of the art tower at Addison airport last week and
> was struck by all the security measures they employed.

Everything but a NOAA weather radio.

[Newps]

john smith wrote:
> In article >,
> Dallas > wrote:
>
>
>>I toured the new state of the art tower at Addison airport last week and
>>was struck by all the security measures they employed.
>
>
> Everything but a NOAA weather radio.


That's the union whining, as usual. All facilities have high speed
internet access in all operating quarters. When ever there is bad
weather around we will always have a web page up with a weather radar
site, usually Weather Underground as that self updates every 8-10 minutes.

[Don Tuite]

On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 19:15:23 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Dallas" > wrote in message
.. .
>>
>> I toured the new state of the art tower at Addison airport last week and
>> was struck by all the security measures they employed.
>>
>> The entire complex and parking lot was surrounded by a dense wrought iron
>> fence with a nasty "fish hook" shaped sharp pointed curve at the top. An
>> intercom opened the gate. The entrance to the tower was an interlock of
>> bulletproof glass doors that locked you in a holding area until someone
>> checked the video camera and buzzed you in.
>>
>> I assume this is all a reaction to our new terrorist threat, but I haven't
>> been able to come up with any reason for all that security. Let's say
>> some terrorists took the tower, what's the worst thing they could do?
>>
>
>Kill the occupants, destroy equipment. A target not worth the effort.
>
You left out "call the media."

Don

[Andrew Gideon]

On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 16:28:57 -0600, Newps wrote:

> All facilities have high speed
> internet access in all operating quarters.


It's a good thing that the Internet never has any problems, nor can web
sites (or a tower's connection) ever go down.

- Andrew

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> When ever there is bad
> weather around we will always have a web page up with a weather radar
> site, usually Weather Underground as that self updates every 8-10 minutes.

You mean I'm privileged enough to have access to the very same ultra-advanced
sources of weather information used by air traffic controllers?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Apr 7, 3:07 pm, Dallas > wrote:
> I toured the new state of the art tower at Addison airport last week and
> was struck by all the security measures they employed.
>
> The entire complex and parking lot was surrounded by a dense wrought iron
> fence with a nasty "fish hook" shaped sharp pointed curve at the top. An
> intercom opened the gate. The entrance to the tower was an interlock of
> bulletproof glass doors that locked you in a holding area until someone
> checked the video camera and buzzed you in.
>
> I assume this is all a reaction to our new terrorist threat, but I haven't
> been able to come up with any reason for all that security. Let's say
> some terrorists took the tower, what's the worst thing they could do?
>
> --
> Dallas

They installed a fence around our home airport at the cost of several
million dollars. The only thing it did was trap the deer population
inside. Any human being can jump over the fence. It also caused
problems with the localizer signal, resulting in an increased minimum.
Basically we paid lots of money to reduce aviation a safety.

[Newps]

Andrew Gideon wrote:

> On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 16:28:57 -0600, Newps wrote:
>
>
>>All facilities have high speed
>>internet access in all operating quarters.
>
>
>
> It's a good thing that the Internet never has any problems, nor can web
> sites (or a tower's connection) ever go down.
>

What's that got to do with anything? Controller A can drop the "weather
radio" into the sink. The point you're missing is this couldn't have
less to do with a weather radio.

[Dallas]

On 7 Apr 2007 17:20:20 -0700, Andrew Sarangan wrote:

> They installed a fence around our home airport at the cost of several
> million dollars.

I was just going to say that.

They installed a chain link fence around my airport last year. Obviously
the contractor didn't want to spend too much time on the details so if
there was a low spot on the ground he just suspended the fence over it
leaving a gap large enough to crawl under. About 20% of the fence doesn't
meet the ground.

From a security standpoint the fence is useless. From a pilot
inconvenience standpoint the fence is very effective.

--
Dallas

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-04-07 21:54:38 -0700, Dallas > said:

> On 7 Apr 2007 17:20:20 -0700, Andrew Sarangan wrote:
>
>> They installed a fence around our home airport at the cost of several
>> million dollars.
>
> I was just going to say that.
>
> They installed a chain link fence around my airport last year. Obviously
> the contractor didn't want to spend too much time on the details so if
> there was a low spot on the ground he just suspended the fence over it
> leaving a gap large enough to crawl under. About 20% of the fence doesn't
> meet the ground.
>
> From a security standpoint the fence is useless. From a pilot
> inconvenience standpoint the fence is very effective.

It might keep out bears.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-04-07 12:07:18 -0700, Dallas > said:

>
> I assume this is all a reaction to our new terrorist threat, but I haven't
> been able to come up with any reason for all that security. Let's say
> some terrorists took the tower, what's the worst thing they could do?

I suppose they could steal stuff. Thieves are a more serious problem
than terrorists. A class D tower would be a very low value terrorist
target. At most, there are only a couple people in there and they
probably carry little cash.


--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Dallas]

On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 22:18:40 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:

> It might keep out bears.

In Texas we call 'em "Bars".
--
Dallas

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dallas" > wrote in message
...
>
> In Texas we call 'em "Bars".
>

I like bars.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 16:28:57 -0600, Newps wrote:
>
>> All facilities have high speed
>> internet access in all operating quarters.
>
>
> It's a good thing that the Internet never has any problems, nor can web
> sites (or a tower's connection) ever go down.
>

And phone lines never go down, and radar systems never fail, and electical
power never goes down...

[Dallas]

On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 13:28:59 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> I like bars.

I'll drink to that!

--
Dallas

[john smith[_2_]]

> > Dallas > wrote:
> >>I toured the new state of the art tower at Addison airport last week and
> >>was struck by all the security measures they employed.

> john smith wrote:
> > Everything but a NOAA weather radio.

Newps > wrote:
> That's the union whining, as usual. All facilities have high speed
> internet access in all operating quarters. When ever there is bad
> weather around we will always have a web page up with a weather radar
> site, usually Weather Underground as that self updates every 8-10 minutes.

How do you rate internet access and not a weather radio?

[Andrew Gideon]

On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 12:54:49 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:

> And phone lines never go down, and radar systems never fail, and electical
> power never goes down...

Right. I'm fond of backups. I keep trying to see where I can store an
extra engine in my club's 182s, for example.

- Andrew

[Newps]

john smith wrote:
>>> Dallas > wrote:
>>>
>>>>I toured the new state of the art tower at Addison airport last week and
>>>>was struck by all the security measures they employed.
>
>
>>john smith wrote:
>>
>>>Everything but a NOAA weather radio.
>
>
> Newps > wrote:
>
>>That's the union whining, as usual. All facilities have high speed
>>internet access in all operating quarters. When ever there is bad
>>weather around we will always have a web page up with a weather radar
>>site, usually Weather Underground as that self updates every 8-10 minutes.
>
>
> How do you rate internet access and not a weather radio?



We never had a weather radio. Why would you even want one? I work in a
tower, I can see the thunderstorms coming 150 miles away. What's a
weather radio going to do? Tell me my city is under a thunderstorm
watch? Well, no ****. You're missing the point, the complaining has
nothing to do with weather radios, which nobody ever had in the first place.

[[email protected]]

Dallas > wrote:
> I toured the new state of the art tower at Addison airport last week
> and was struck by all the security measures they employed. [...]
> I assume this is all a reaction to our new terrorist threat, but I
> haven't been able to come up with any reason for all that security.
> Let's say some terrorists took the tower, what's the worst thing
> they could do?

They could hijack it and crash it into a 182!

Seriously... I've only thought of three things that you probably couldn't
easily do some other way.

The first one has already been mentioned - clear more than one aircraft
to land at once, or similar. This probably wouldn't work too well in
day VFR, but at night or in bad weather, it might work.

The second one would be to flood the internal comm links with bogus
traffic. My assumption here is that towers have land lines (or equal),
which aren't connected to the public telephone network, that go to other
towers, centers, etc. You could keep at least a few people at some of
those other facilities busy for a little while with lots of bogus calls,
but it probably wouldn't take long for the other facilities to figure
out that the tower at KXYZ isn't on their side anymore. (If a
"hijacked" tower is an actual concern, do the other facilities have
"isolate" switches on the comm links, so they can cut KXYZ out of the
network if it's misbehaving?)

The third one would be to shut off the landing lights, ILS, beacon, etc.
I realize you can't "adjust" the ILS to tell a plane that the runway is
ten feet lower than it is (like in the movies), but you _might_ be able
to shut it off entirely. Again, in day VFR, or if the incoming planes
are far off, this wouldn't do much. At night or in bad weather, it
might be a little more interesting.

Matt Roberds

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> They could hijack it and crash it into a 182!
>
> Seriously... I've only thought of three things that you probably couldn't
> easily do some other way.
>
> The first one has already been mentioned - clear more than one aircraft
> to land at once, or similar. This probably wouldn't work too well in
> day VFR, but at night or in bad weather, it might work.
>

If VFR both pilots would have to miss the landing clearance issued to the
other aircraft. If IFR it's unlikely there'd be two aircraft in position to
land at the same time.


>
> The second one would be to flood the internal comm links with bogus
> traffic. My assumption here is that towers have land lines (or equal),
> which aren't connected to the public telephone network, that go to other
> towers, centers, etc. You could keep at least a few people at some of
> those other facilities busy for a little while with lots of bogus calls,
> but it probably wouldn't take long for the other facilities to figure
> out that the tower at KXYZ isn't on their side anymore. (If a
> "hijacked" tower is an actual concern, do the other facilities have
> "isolate" switches on the comm links, so they can cut KXYZ out of the
> network if it's misbehaving?)
>

Yes.


>
> The third one would be to shut off the landing lights, ILS, beacon, etc.
> I realize you can't "adjust" the ILS to tell a plane that the runway is
> ten feet lower than it is (like in the movies), but you _might_ be able
> to shut it off entirely. Again, in day VFR, or if the incoming planes
> are far off, this wouldn't do much. At night or in bad weather, it
> might be a little more interesting.
>

They could turn lights off, but not an ILS.

[Paul kgyy]

Well, of course, everybody knows that Govt employees' and members of
Congress' lives are far more precious than those of the rest of us.

After all, the entire federal Govt came close to closing down a while
back when a C152 strayed into the Washington ADIZ.

The 9/11 terrorists must really being enjoying this from wherever they
are.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Paul kgyy" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> Well, of course, everybody knows that Govt employees' and members of
> Congress' lives are far more precious than those of the rest of us.
>

Most personnel at Class D towers are private sector employees.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 7, 10:24 pm, C J Campbell >
wrote:
> On 2007-04-07 12:07:18 -0700, Dallas > said:
>
>
>
> > I assume this is all a reaction to our new terrorist threat, but I haven't
> > been able to come up with any reason for all that security. Let's say
> > some terrorists took the tower, what's the worst thing they could do?
>
> I suppose they could steal stuff. Thieves are a more serious problem
> than terrorists. A class D tower would be a very low value terrorist
> target. At most, there are only a couple people in there and they
> probably carry little cash.
>
> --
> Waddling Eagle
> World Famous Flight Instructor

When visiting our tower here in Sacramento (contract) you have to call
up and get buzzed through a series of security doors. That's pre-911
and never made sense to me. Just down the street is the FSDO. The FSDO
is apparently #1 on the terrorist watch list. You can't even walk up
to the building w/o being approached by security. The FSDO employees
park in a specical security area just in case you considered messing
with their cars. If you do not have an appointment you are not suppose
to be anywhere near the building. Once you are in you have to get a
badge just to talk to the receiptionist. I've often had to go in there
and spent more time getting the badge than getting the task done. I
guess if the FSDO got attacked the 121 chief check pilots would
eventually lose their check priv, and soon after all airline pilots
would no longer be able to do their recurrent 121 training. Within 5
years things could get irritating if every FSDO was off line.

-Robert

[Andrew Gideon]

On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 12:00:10 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> They could turn lights off, but not an ILS.

Why not? A friend had an emergency a while back that required landing
against traffic in IMC. The tower told him they were "spooling up" (yes,
that was the phrase; I don't know why {8^) the ILS for the runway in the
direction he was to be using. I presume that they also shut down the
other side, and that they swapped back after my friend landed (which he
did quite successfully, I'm pleased to add).

Admittedly, this was not a class D but a class B. Why, if so, would that
make a difference?

- Andrew

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> john smith wrote:
>>
>>
>> How do you rate internet access and not a weather radio?
>
>
>
> We never had a weather radio. Why would you even want one? I work in a
> tower, I can see the thunderstorms coming 150 miles away.

Wheee Doggies, that boy has good eyes!! :~)

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 12:54:49 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>> And phone lines never go down, and radar systems never fail, and
>> electical
>> power never goes down...
>
> Right. I'm fond of backups. I keep trying to see where I can store an
> extra engine in my club's 182s, for example.
>

Baggage compartment?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
...
>
> Why not? A friend had an emergency a while back that required landing
> against traffic in IMC. The tower told him they were "spooling up" (yes,
> that was the phrase; I don't know why {8^) the ILS for the runway in the
> direction he was to be using. I presume that they also shut down the
> other side, and that they swapped back after my friend landed (which he
> did quite successfully, I'm pleased to add).
>
> Admittedly, this was not a class D but a class B. Why, if so, would that
> make a difference?
>

Who would you expect would have control of the approach, the tower or
approach control?

[TheSmokingGnu]

Matt Barrow wrote:
>> Right. I'm fond of backups. I keep trying to see where I can store an
>> extra engine in my club's 182s, for example.
>>
> Baggage compartment?

Doesn't that make it a 337?

:P

TheSmokingGnu

[Mxsmanic]

Andrew Gideon writes:

> Right. I'm fond of backups. I keep trying to see where I can store an
> extra engine in my club's 182s, for example.

Fly a twin.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[flynrider via AviationKB.com]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
>When visiting our tower here in Sacramento (contract) you have to call
>up and get buzzed through a series of security doors. That's pre-911
>and never made sense to me. Just down the street is the FSDO. The FSDO
>is apparently #1 on the terrorist watch list. You can't even walk up
>to the building w/o being approached by security. The FSDO employees
>park in a specical security area just in case you considered messing
>with their cars. If you do not have an appointment you are not suppose
>to be anywhere near the building. Once you are in you have to get a
>badge just to talk to the receiptionist. I've often had to go in there
>and spent more time getting the badge than getting the task done. I
>guess if the FSDO got attacked the 121 chief check pilots would
>eventually lose their check priv, and soon after all airline pilots
>would no longer be able to do their recurrent 121 training. Within 5
>years things could get irritating if every FSDO was off line.

You're not in AZ are you? I thought the Scottsdale FSDO was the only one
with these ridiculously overdone security procedures. It's laughable.
What kind of damage could a terrorist do in a FSDO office??? Misfile some
documents? I suppose the whole thing is done to make FAA managers feel that
they are important in some way.

As far as the Class D tower security goes, it was probably thought up by
someone who watched that "Die Hard" movie where terrorists take over the
tower and make planes crash. Ludicrous to real pilots and controllers, but
probably a valid scenario to some know nothing bureaucrat.

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

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[Andrew Gideon]

On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 10:52:40 -0700, TheSmokingGnu wrote:

> Matt Barrow wrote:
>>> Right. I'm fond of backups. I keep trying to see where I can store an
>>> extra engine in my club's 182s, for example.
>>>
>> Baggage compartment?
>
> Doesn't that make it a 337?

Ah. That explains why the engine has heating problems placed back there.

- Andrew

[Brian[_1_]]

On Apr 9, 9:31 am, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> On Apr 7, 10:24 pm, C J Campbell >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2007-04-07 12:07:18 -0700, Dallas > said:
>
> > > I assume this is all a reaction to our new terrorist threat, but I haven't
> > > been able to come up with any reason for all that security. Let's say
> > > some terrorists took the tower, what's the worst thing they could do?
>
> > I suppose they could steal stuff. Thieves are a more serious problem
> > than terrorists. A class D tower would be a very low value terrorist
> > target. At most, there are only a couple people in there and they
> > probably carry little cash.
>
> > --
> > Waddling Eagle
> > World Famous Flight Instructor
>
> When visiting our tower here in Sacramento (contract) you have to call
> up and get buzzed through a series of security doors. That's pre-911
> and never made sense to me. Just down the street is the FSDO. The FSDO
> is apparently #1 on the terrorist watch list. You can't even walk up
> to the building w/o being approached by security. The FSDO employees
> park in a specical security area just in case you considered messing
> with their cars. If you do not have an appointment you are not suppose
> to be anywhere near the building. Once you are in you have to get a
> badge just to talk to the receiptionist. I've often had to go in there
> and spent more time getting the badge than getting the task done. I
> guess if the FSDO got attacked the 121 chief check pilots would
> eventually lose their check priv, and soon after all airline pilots
> would no longer be able to do their recurrent 121 training. Within 5
> years things could get irritating if every FSDO was off line.
>
> -Robert- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Maybe the FSDO is more afraid of pilots than they are of terrorists.

[Bob Noel]

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

> > Admittedly, this was not a class D but a class B. Why, if so, would that
> > make a difference?
> >
>
> Who would you expect would have control of the approach, the tower or
> approach control?

KBED tower can turn off the ILS (and switch it between 11/29).

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
>
> KBED tower can turn off the ILS (and switch it between 11/29).
>

Only at the direction of Boston approach.

[Bob Noel]

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

> > KBED tower can turn off the ILS (and switch it between 11/29).
>
> Only at the direction of Boston approach.

Boston Approach doesn't control which KBED runway is in use.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
>
> Boston Approach doesn't control which KBED runway is in use.
>

Correct, but they do control which KBED SIAP is in use.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 9, 6:00 am, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:
> > wrote in message
> >
>
> > The third one would be to shut off the landing lights, ILS, beacon, etc.
> > I realize you can't "adjust" the ILS to tell a plane that the runway is
> > ten feet lower than it is (like in the movies), but you _might_ be able
> > to shut it off entirely. Again, in day VFR, or if the incoming planes
> > are far off, this wouldn't do much. At night or in bad weather, it
> > might be a little more interesting.
>
> They could turn lights off, but not an ILS.

Hey Steven,,,On April 27 you contradicted yourself... Can the local
tower really shut down the ILS themselves? Inquiring minds and all...

Ben

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Hey Steven,,,On April 27 you contradicted yourself... Can the local
> tower really shut down the ILS themselves? Inquiring minds and all...
>

What contradiction?

[[email protected]]

On Apr 29, 4:42 am, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
>
>
> > Hey Steven,,,On April 27 you contradicted yourself... Can the local
> > tower really shut down the ILS themselves? Inquiring minds and all...
>
> What contradiction?

Ok Here goes,,,

On April 8, Matt Roberds suggested someone who took over a tower could
shut off the ILS at that field.

On April 9 @ 6.00 AM google groups time on post #43 your answer was

"They could turn off the lights but not the ILS "

Now lets fast forward a couple of weeks to April 27..

@ 6.52 google groups time your answer to Bob Noels statement, " KBED
tower can turn off the ILS (and switch it between 11/29)..

your answer was.

"only at the direction of Boston approach"

This implies that the tower can REALLY shut off the ILS.

Simple question.

Can they or not ?????????????

Ben

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Ok Here goes,,,
>
> On April 8, Matt Roberds suggested someone who took over a tower could
> shut off the ILS at that field.
>
> On April 9 @ 6.00 AM google groups time on post #43 your answer was
>
> "They could turn off the lights but not the ILS "
>
> Now lets fast forward a couple of weeks to April 27..
>
> @ 6.52 google groups time your answer to Bob Noels statement, " KBED
> tower can turn off the ILS (and switch it between 11/29)..
>
> your answer was.
>
> "only at the direction of Boston approach"
>
> This implies that the tower can REALLY shut off the ILS.
>
> Simple question.
>
> Can they or not ?????????????
>

Not.

[Denny]

No...
denny
>
> Hey Steven,,,On April 27 you contradicted yourself... Can the local
> tower really shut down the ILS themselves? Inquiring minds and all...
>
> Ben

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-04-09 07:36:50 -0700, "Paul kgyy" > said:

> Well, of course, everybody knows that Govt employees' and members of
> Congress' lives are far more precious than those of the rest of us.
>
> After all, the entire federal Govt came close to closing down a while
> back when a C152 strayed into the Washington ADIZ.
>
> The 9/11 terrorists must really being enjoying this from wherever they
> are.

As much as you can enjoy living in a cave in Pakistan.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Newps]

wrote:

> This implies that the tower can REALLY shut off the ILS.
>
> Simple question.
>
> Can they or not ?????????????

Yes, they can. That's where the on/off switch is located.

[Bob Noel]

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

> > This implies that the tower can REALLY shut off the ILS.
> >
> > Simple question.
> >
> > Can they or not ?????????????
> >
>
> Not.

The tower is where the switch is (except at the equipment itself).

Boston Approach doesn't have the ability to switch the equipment off.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Denny]

>
> Yes, they can. That's where the on/off switch is located.


This whole conversation is confusing the physical location of the
power supply to the ILS with the 'authority' to turn it off... On our
airport the ILS is powered from a padlocked breaker box... The airport
manager has an emergency key to the padlock and can physically shut it
down, but the snarling and swearing that will shortly result will be
something to behold because he does not have the authority to do so
other than a true emergency... In my converstions with the techs who
maintain the system (ILS and NDB) they take a dim view of anyone
touching 'their' equipment... The lone exception has been the NDB
which is prone to tripping off from nearby lightning strikes... We
will routinely unlock the door to the shack and reset the breaker...
The techs are happy not to make a 90 mile drive just for that...

denny

[Bob Noel]

In article . com>,
Denny > wrote:

> >
> > Yes, they can. That's where the on/off switch is located.
>
>
> This whole conversation is confusing the physical location of the
> power supply to the ILS with the 'authority' to turn it off... On our
> airport the ILS is powered from a padlocked breaker box... The airport
> manager has an emergency key to the padlock and can physically shut it
> down, but the snarling and swearing that will shortly result will be
> something to behold because he does not have the authority to do so
> other than a true emergency... In my converstions with the techs who
> maintain the system (ILS and NDB) they take a dim view of anyone
> touching 'their' equipment... The lone exception has been the NDB
> which is prone to tripping off from nearby lightning strikes... We
> will routinely unlock the door to the shack and reset the breaker...
> The techs are happy not to make a 90 mile drive just for that...
>
> denny

When I visited the KBED tower, there was the ILS switch right there in the tower
cab. Note that this is different from removing power from the various LRUs.

It's not just authority, it's not just removing power.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Denny]

>
> The 9/11 terrorists must really being enjoying this from wherever they
> are.

They have to be laughing so hard they wet themselves... The mighty US
bureaucracy cowering in the streets and congressmen cowering in the
basement, because some bug smasher got lost...

I love my country, it is the government that turns my stomach...

denny

[Newps]

In the tower we have two switches. One switches the localizer between
the two runways, only one can be on at a time. The second switch shuts
them both off. We normally have no reason to turn them off but that
ability and authority rests with the person in charge in the tower. I
don't know if our airport management has the ability to turn it off. I
doubt it as the only other place to do it outside of the tower would be
at the individual localizer and glideslope shacks. They have no
responsibility for the system and probably couldn't care less.




Denny wrote:
>>Yes, they can. That's where the on/off switch is located.
>
>
>
> This whole conversation is confusing the physical location of the
> power supply to the ILS with the 'authority' to turn it off... On our
> airport the ILS is powered from a padlocked breaker box... The airport
> manager has an emergency key to the padlock and can physically shut it
> down, but the snarling and swearing that will shortly result will be
> something to behold because he does not have the authority to do so
> other than a true emergency... In my converstions with the techs who
> maintain the system (ILS and NDB) they take a dim view of anyone
> touching 'their' equipment... The lone exception has been the NDB
> which is prone to tripping off from nearby lightning strikes... We
> will routinely unlock the door to the shack and reset the breaker...
> The techs are happy not to make a 90 mile drive just for that...
>
> denny
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
>
> When I visited the KBED tower, there was the ILS switch right there in the
> tower cab. Note that this is different from removing power from the
> various
> LRUs.
>
> It's not just authority, it's not just removing power.
>

Is that what you're hung up on, the location of the switch?