Vehicular Ramp Access

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...4ny-letter.pdf

Marco

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...4ny-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'

"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

"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.

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.

... 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 a
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

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'

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'

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)

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...4ny-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