Why GA is Dying

Dudley


The only true security would be to check ids and run it through an FBI
computer for each client who gets on the ramp, including landing
aircraft, which means all pilots and passengers must obtain this
permission ahead of time. As far as I know, there is no such airport. A
terrorist can take off from his private airstrip and land at JFK, OHare
etc..

Airport security is all for show. It targets the legitimate pilot and
his family. At our home airport after 9/11 they installed a perimeter
fence at the cost of several millions. All it did was increase the deer
population inside the fence and screw up the localizer signal which
increased the approach minimums. Even an overweight American can jump
across the fence, let alone a lean and mean middleeastern terrorist.

Now it would be different if the person was loading suspicious looking
objects into a suspicous looking aircraft. But a guy taking pictures of
an airplane? Come on.

I totally agree with the OP. Many eons ago I used to hang out at the
airport taking pictures of airplanes. Even the big jets landing at big
airports. If I had been chased away I very well might have been turned
off from this whole aviation thing.



Dudley Henriques wrote:
This type of post is of course an opinion post and as such should be
respected in that context.
My personal opinion on this is that you are either going to have airport
security or you're not..period!
You can parse the "my rights are being violated" thing to death, and you can
complain about the inconvenience till you're blue in the face, but the
bottom line is simply that you can't have it both ways.
9-11 happened. It just "ain't" the same world any more. You can bash
politicians. You can bash political parties. You can holler about the way
its all being done. But the bottom line remains the same. You either have
security or you don't.
Again, personally, if its my airplane that's sitting out there on the line,
or inside that hangar, or even your airplane out there, I damn well want the
FBO involved to take some interest in who's out there taking pictures of
everything.
Just my read on it. Don't mean it to be argumentative :-))
Dudley Henriques

Hi Andrew;

I totally agree with you on this. Airport security is a mess and needs
reform badly. My point was simply that having it is necessary.
Dudley

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
ups.com...
Dudley


The only true security would be to check ids and run it through an FBI
computer for each client who gets on the ramp, including landing
aircraft, which means all pilots and passengers must obtain this
permission ahead of time. As far as I know, there is no such airport. A
terrorist can take off from his private airstrip and land at JFK, OHare
etc..

Airport security is all for show. It targets the legitimate pilot and
his family. At our home airport after 9/11 they installed a perimeter
fence at the cost of several millions. All it did was increase the deer
population inside the fence and screw up the localizer signal which
increased the approach minimums. Even an overweight American can jump
across the fence, let alone a lean and mean middleeastern terrorist.

Now it would be different if the person was loading suspicious looking
objects into a suspicous looking aircraft. But a guy taking pictures of
an airplane? Come on.

I totally agree with the OP. Many eons ago I used to hang out at the
airport taking pictures of airplanes. Even the big jets landing at big
airports. If I had been chased away I very well might have been turned
off from this whole aviation thing.



Dudley Henriques wrote:
This type of post is of course an opinion post and as such should be
respected in that context.
My personal opinion on this is that you are either going to have airport
security or you're not..period!
You can parse the "my rights are being violated" thing to death, and you
can
complain about the inconvenience till you're blue in the face, but the
bottom line is simply that you can't have it both ways.
9-11 happened. It just "ain't" the same world any more. You can bash
politicians. You can bash political parties. You can holler about the way
its all being done. But the bottom line remains the same. You either have
security or you don't.
Again, personally, if its my airplane that's sitting out there on the
line,
or inside that hangar, or even your airplane out there, I damn well want
the
FBO involved to take some interest in who's out there taking pictures of
everything.
Just my read on it. Don't mean it to be argumentative :-))
Dudley Henriques

"Dudley Henriques" wrote:
Airport security is a mess and needs
reform badly. My point was simply that having it is necessary.

Maybe all airports should emulate the kind of security they have at
AirVenture Oshkosh. ;-)

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
...
"Dudley Henriques" wrote:
Airport security is a mess and needs
reform badly. My point was simply that having it is necessary.

Maybe all airports should emulate the kind of security they have at
AirVenture Oshkosh. ;-)

I really miss the "old days".

I remember one night at OSH many years ago with Steve Whitman and a whole
gang of us sitting around under the wing of my airplane eating hot dogs;
drinking cold beer; and telling old war stories. No gates; no cops; no
security; only good fellowship and the reflection of happy faces from the
fire a few yards down the line in an empty tiedown spot......YES!!!!!!!!
There actually WAS an empty tiedown spot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:-))
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques wrote:

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
...

"Dudley Henriques" wrote:

Airport security is a mess and needs
reform badly. My point was simply that having it is necessary.

Maybe all airports should emulate the kind of security they have at
AirVenture Oshkosh. ;-)


I really miss the "old days".

I remember one night at OSH many years ago with Steve Whitman and a whole
gang of us sitting around under the wing of my airplane eating hot dogs;
drinking cold beer; and telling old war stories. No gates; no cops; no
security; only good fellowship and the reflection of happy faces from the
fire a few yards down the line in an empty tiedown spot......YES!!!!!!!!
There actually WAS an empty tiedown spot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No way. I was actually believing your story until you got to the empty
tiedown statement... :-)

Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Dudley Henriques wrote:

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
...

"Dudley Henriques" wrote:

Airport security is a mess and needs
reform badly. My point was simply that having it is necessary.

Maybe all airports should emulate the kind of security they have at
AirVenture Oshkosh. ;-)


I really miss the "old days".

I remember one night at OSH many years ago with Steve Whitman and a whole
gang of us sitting around under the wing of my airplane eating hot dogs;
drinking cold beer; and telling old war stories. No gates; no cops; no
security; only good fellowship and the reflection of happy faces from the
fire a few yards down the line in an empty tiedown spot......YES!!!!!!!!
There actually WAS an empty tiedown spot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No way. I was actually believing your story until you got to the empty
tiedown statement... :-)

No kidding. Its the truth. Bonzo was in the hangar :-)))))
Dudley Henriques

No tie down spots left tells me GA is not dying.
Crash Lander

--
I'm not always right,
But I'm never wrong!
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Dudley Henriques wrote:

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
...

"Dudley Henriques" wrote:

Airport security is a mess and needs
reform badly. My point was simply that having it is necessary.

Maybe all airports should emulate the kind of security they have at
AirVenture Oshkosh. ;-)


I really miss the "old days".

I remember one night at OSH many years ago with Steve Whitman and a
whole gang of us sitting around under the wing of my airplane eating hot
dogs; drinking cold beer; and telling old war stories. No gates; no
cops; no security; only good fellowship and the reflection of happy
faces from the fire a few yards down the line in an empty tiedown
spot......YES!!!!!!!! There actually WAS an empty tiedown
spot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No way. I was actually believing your story until you got to the empty
tiedown statement... :-)

No kidding. Its the truth. Bonzo was in the hangar :-)))))
Dudley Henriques

My two cents on the issue. There's one problem with taking pictures of
airplanes that I've heard of: I came across this account about a year ago,
a guy would go to a local airport, take pictures of some GA aircraft sitting
on the ramp, and then try and sell some parts from them on e-bay. I haven't
followed up on the case, and on what happened to the guy in the end, but I've
heard from someone who was just taking pictures at one of these airports,
and was approached by the FBO guys who were pretty ****ed, and it turned
out that they've got some FBI investigation going on etc.

Andrey


Andrew Sarangan wrote:
Dudley


The only true security would be to check ids and run it through an FBI
computer for each client who gets on the ramp, including landing
aircraft, which means all pilots and passengers must obtain this
permission ahead of time. As far as I know, there is no such airport. A
terrorist can take off from his private airstrip and land at JFK, OHare
etc..

Airport security is all for show. It targets the legitimate pilot and
his family. At our home airport after 9/11 they installed a perimeter
fence at the cost of several millions. All it did was increase the deer
population inside the fence and screw up the localizer signal which
increased the approach minimums. Even an overweight American can jump
across the fence, let alone a lean and mean middleeastern terrorist.

Now it would be different if the person was loading suspicious looking
objects into a suspicous looking aircraft. But a guy taking pictures of
an airplane? Come on.

I totally agree with the OP. Many eons ago I used to hang out at the
airport taking pictures of airplanes. Even the big jets landing at big
airports. If I had been chased away I very well might have been turned
off from this whole aviation thing.



Dudley Henriques wrote:
This type of post is of course an opinion post and as such should be
respected in that context.
My personal opinion on this is that you are either going to have airport
security or you're not..period!
You can parse the "my rights are being violated" thing to death, and you can
complain about the inconvenience till you're blue in the face, but the
bottom line is simply that you can't have it both ways.
9-11 happened. It just "ain't" the same world any more. You can bash
politicians. You can bash political parties. You can holler about the way
its all being done. But the bottom line remains the same. You either have
security or you don't.
Again, personally, if its my airplane that's sitting out there on the line,
or inside that hangar, or even your airplane out there, I damn well want the
FBO involved to take some interest in who's out there taking pictures of
everything.
Just my read on it. Don't mean it to be argumentative :-))
Dudley Henriques

Andrew Sarangan wrote:

Dudley


The only true security would be to check ids and run it through an FBI
computer for each client who gets on the ramp, including landing
aircraft, which means all pilots and passengers must obtain this
permission ahead of time. As far as I know, there is no such airport. A
terrorist can take off from his private airstrip and land at JFK, OHare
etc..

Airport security is all for show. It targets the legitimate pilot and
his family. At our home airport after 9/11 they installed a perimeter
fence at the cost of several millions. All it did was increase the deer
population inside the fence and screw up the localizer signal which
increased the approach minimums. Even an overweight American can jump
across the fence, let alone a lean and mean middleeastern terrorist.

Now it would be different if the person was loading suspicious looking
objects into a suspicous looking aircraft. But a guy taking pictures of
an airplane? Come on.

I totally agree with the OP. Many eons ago I used to hang out at the
airport taking pictures of airplanes. Even the big jets landing at big
airports. If I had been chased away I very well might have been turned
off from this whole aviation thing.

Yes, pretty soon we'll have no GA airports to protect. I guess that is
the ultimate in GA security. Sigh...


Matt

On 22 Jul 2006 15:08:54 -0700, Andrew Sarangan wrote:

A terrorist can take off from his private airstrip and land at JFK, OHare etc..
^^^^^^^^^^^^^

not only terrorists can do that :-)

well, consequence will be that every flight must be on a flight plan. (and
maybe charge 10 bucks per flight plan to pay for the system).

#m
--
Did you ever realize how much text fits in eighty columns? If you now consider
that a signature usually consists of up to four lines, this gives you enough
space to spread a tremendous amount of information with your messages. So seize
this opportunity and don't waste your signature with bull**** nobody will read.