Why GA is Dying

"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

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.

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

The only true security would be to check ids and run it through an FBI
computer for each client who gets on the ramp

My only problem with your post is that this presumes that any potential
terrorist or criminal (recall: security is also to protect us against
trivial things like theft of our avionics!) will be in the DB. There's no
reason to believe so, if the terrorist or criminal is at all careful.

- Andrew

Dudley Henriques wrote:

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.

But taking pictures isn't illegal. I live right near a large Class B
airport with a great observation area. I also like taking pictures. I
once had a cop come up to me at the observation area and ask why I was
taking pictures. I told him that it wasn't illegal and I wasn't under
any obligation to explain myself to him. Yeah, he could have made me
leave, but knowing I was right, he walked off.

My point is, when I get harassed by a cop (and harassed I was, since I
wasn't doing anything wrong), I'll keep on complaining. A 20-something
white girl with a camera and commercial certificate in her purse is as
much a security hazard as a rabbit. And you CAN have it both ways.

"Emily" wrote in message
. ..
Dudley Henriques wrote:

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.

But taking pictures isn't illegal. I live right near a large Class B
airport with a great observation area. I also like taking pictures. I
once had a cop come up to me at the observation area and ask why I was
taking pictures. I told him that it wasn't illegal and I wasn't under any
obligation to explain myself to him. Yeah, he could have made me leave,
but knowing I was right, he walked off.

My point is, when I get harassed by a cop (and harassed I was, since I
wasn't doing anything wrong), I'll keep on complaining. A 20-something
white girl with a camera and commercial certificate in her purse is as
much a security hazard as a rabbit. And you CAN have it both ways.

No, you can't have it both ways.

People who are taking pictures at airports unfortunately are now a security
issue. This doesn't mean the security people have a right to "hassle" you or
push you around, but it does mean that if you are questioned politely in a
non threatening manner you either will respond to this "intrusion" by
recognizing its a security issue until you demonstrate that its not, or you
will stand there and shout like hell that your personal space and rights are
being violated and that taking pictures isn't illegal.
No one says the system is perfect. Actually, it stinks. But complaining
about your right to take pictures in an atmosphere where security is an
issue is not necessarily the best approach.
Hell...you think your case was bad? I have a friend who Captain's a 747. He
and his entire crew were stopped and body searched at a major US hub while
an entire line of civilians went through the gates unhampered. After 20
minutes or so of this, they took his nail clippers. The flight was late
getting off, but those civilians went through just fine.
It "ain't" perfect, that's for sure. The best approach is one of quiet
cooperation unless there is an actual incident involving your innocent
activity and security people hassling you, and I mean REALLY hassling you!.
Just my opinion mind you :-)))

Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques wrote:
snip
It "ain't" perfect, that's for sure. The best approach is one of quiet
cooperation

The best approach to unfair legislation and scare tactics is NEVER quiet
cooperation.

"Emily" wrote in message
. ..
Dudley Henriques wrote:
snip
It "ain't" perfect, that's for sure. The best approach is one of quiet
cooperation

The best approach to unfair legislation and scare tactics is NEVER quiet
cooperation.

That's true, but this doesn't seem to be what I'm seeing from your posts.
What I'm getting from reading you is that you have a problem on the front
side with authority. Your first example about the cop "hassling you" states
this without question for me anyway.
You state up front the following;
"I once had a cop come up to me at the observation area and ask why I was
taking pictures. I told him that it wasn't illegal and I wasn't under
any obligation to explain myself to him."
This in my opinion was an unnecessary and overly agressive response to this
situation. By your own word, he simply asked you why you were taking
pictures. He had every right to do that, and your response, instead of being
cooperative and simply telling him what you were doing, was to "educate him"
and tell him you weren't obligated in any way to explain anything to him".
Then you go on to complain in your next post how "some guy" asked you for ID
before letting you on the ramp to access your plane.
Personally, I think you have a problem understanding that there are security
issues existing in aviation at all, and that even if there are, you don't
want to be bothered with them for whatever personal reasons you might have.
Personally, I would suggest to you that in the future, as a working
commercial pilot, you consider carrying your ID with you when leaving your
airplane on the ramp, and be prepared to produce it to authority when and if
its requested in the proper manner.
All this having been said, I realize you and I are in complete disagreement
on this issue so I'll let you take whatever shot you like at me and simply
move on.
:-))
Dudley Henriques