Why GA is Dying

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.

Kyle Boatright wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
k.net...
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!

Bingo. Bothering somone taking pictures doesn't make sense when the field
has minimal, if any security. E.G. my home field. They don't ID pilots or
passengers - even transients.

Lucky. Back before the mandatory photo ID days, I'd routinely fly
without photo ID. Most because I'd forget and leave it in the car.
Point is, it wasn't required, and I'll ALWAYS get crap for not having ID
as a transient.

I dunno, last I checked, you weren't required to carry ID in the United
States. Still makes me angry.

"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message
. ..

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
k.net...
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!

Bingo. Bothering somone taking pictures doesn't make sense when the field
has minimal, if any security. E.G. my home field. They don't ID pilots
or passengers - even transients. Presumably folks in an airplane are
bigger threats than people taking pictures, so why does the buck stop with
a kid taking pictures?

What I see with most not all of the "security" procedures we face today
is that they inconvenience the innocent folks, but would have no impact on
an actual threat. A great example is the TFR around a sporting event.
Anything with wings could penetrate the TFR. Unless it is the Superbowl
or World Series, there won't be anything in place to stop even a C-150 if
somebody wanted to use one to create mayhem. The TFR is eyewash.

Same thing with getting the ID of a kid taking pictures. It doesn't stop
someone from taking pictures. Nor would it stop him if he was up to
no-good.

That said, the point I was trying to make is that the FBO employee (or his
boss) pulled this "rule" out of his you-know-what. An excellent example
of how to drive off a prospective client. The kind of client who is sorely
needed by GA if it is going to survive another 50 years.

KB

Actually, the real threat to general aviation in the United States has been,
is now, and always will be, the American lawyer :-)
I would agree wholeheartedly that the level of security stinks generally in
aviation, as is the way it's being implemented.
Perhaps this specific instance is a prime example of that, perhaps not.
The main point, and the point that you don't want to lose when you start
dealing in these specific cases, is that airport security is something you
need very much in the United States right now.
I couldn't agree with you more that the entire issue needs complete
overhaul.
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

If you have no security, you don't want a reporter with a camera
working on a "lax security at the airport story."
--
Gene Seibel KB0NNN
http://pad39a.com/gene/broadcast.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.



Kyle Boatright wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
k.net...
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!

Bingo. Bothering somone taking pictures doesn't make sense when the field
has minimal, if any security. E.G. my home field. They don't ID pilots or
passengers - even transients. Presumably folks in an airplane are bigger
threats than people taking pictures, so why does the buck stop with a kid
taking pictures?

What I see with most not all of the "security" procedures we face today is
that they inconvenience the innocent folks, but would have no impact on an
actual threat. A great example is the TFR around a sporting event. Anything
with wings could penetrate the TFR. Unless it is the Superbowl or World
Series, there won't be anything in place to stop even a C-150 if somebody
wanted to use one to create mayhem. The TFR is eyewash.

Same thing with getting the ID of a kid taking pictures. It doesn't stop
someone from taking pictures. Nor would it stop him if he was up to no-good.

That said, the point I was trying to make is that the FBO employee (or his
boss) pulled this "rule" out of his you-know-what. An excellent example of
how to drive off a prospective client. The kind of client who is sorely
needed by GA if it is going to survive another 50 years.

KB

Jim Macklin wrote:
Years ago I was talking with Bill Sweet [Air Show America]
and he told me a story about something that happened to him.
He was flying to an air show and stopped for the night and
put his plane in a hanger and the operator, a friend of his
let him stay over-night in the hanger with his airplane.
During the night he said he heard a DC3 taxiing on the
airport and looked to see what was going on. He then went
back to sleep.
The next morning there were more than a dozen airplanes
sitting on the ramp, firewall forward missing and the
avionics were all taken. Later the DC3 was caught and they
had rigged a canvas and chain hoist on a rail out the door.
They'd taxi near a Bonanza or C210 and if the couldn't steal
the airplane, they'd use power saws or cutting torches to
remove the parts they wanted.

Drug smugglers, plain thieves, and terrorists all want your
airplane. But we need to still be able to have airport
kids, lookers, and future students feel welcome.The major
airports have bigger budgets and more threats. Should we
all carry a dozen official government ID cards? I hope not.
But a digital camera [or Polaroid] can take a picture of the
people who are allowed on the ramp. It is just security,
everybody on the ramp needs to be escorted or instructed in
safety around airplanes, prop/jet blast, danger zones for
props and rotors, nothing will get your airport closed
faster than a headline, Toddler Killed by Private Plane's
Propeller.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

I visited a friend (in New England) at a large county (but uncontroled)
airport, with a small regular commuter airline, and parked my plane on
the ramp. During the visit he gave me one of his old high powered deer
rifles as a present. When I went back to the plane I walked right
through the terminal with it and out to my plane. Started up and left.
No one gave me a second look. I laughed about it most of the way home.

Jim

In article ,
Emily wrote:

I dunno, last I checked, you weren't required to carry ID in the United
States. Still makes me angry.

Cannot remember where I have seen it, but, as of sometime ago, post
9/11... if you are flying, you are required by regulation to carry your
pilot's certificate and a government issued photo id.

"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

Emily wrote:
I dunno, last I checked, you weren't required to carry ID in the
United States.

Well - if a police officer has "reasonable suspicion"[1] that you committed
a crime and the jurisdiction has a "stop and identify" statute[2] then you
must present identification or face arrest. That providing identification
is rarely relevant to establishing whether a person has in fact committed a
crime appears itself to be irrelevant as judged by the Supreme Court of the
U.S.[3] Go figure.

There are "stop and identify" statutes in many states, and the
reference in [2] below has a section titled "How to satisfy the minimum
required duties" that provides some suggestions on how one might maximize
ones rights if faced with such a situation.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_...ourt_of_Nevada

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