Jonathan Goodish wrote in message ...
In what way would these measures protect the aircraft owners
at such airports from theft and vandalism? (hint: at work, I park
in a lot which is surrounded by a tall fence, gates operated by
individual badges, patrolled by security and under security camera
surveillance. we STILL have a problem with theft and vandalism.)

Having no security is unreasonable in my opinion.

Well, I don't think my airport has no security. My plane is in a
locked hangar. My plane is locked. It requires a key to start.
Perhaps most important, it's a community, where pilots know each
other and someone unfamiliar is watched and questioned if it seems
warrented.

If your local law enforcement was unwilling to respond to reports
of suspicious persons asking suspicious questions, perhaps your
local pilots need to cultivate better relationships with your
local law enforcement. "Law Enforcement Day at the Local Pilot's
Meeting" and a few boxes of donuts might go a ways.

having no
deterrent security at an airport is like leaving my car unlocked with
the keys in the ignition.

Um, actually, I think leaving your car unlocked with the keys
in the ignition is more like leaving your plane unlocked with the
keys in the ignition.

I also don't think that you can have one standard for larger airport and
another for smaller ones.

Why not? How far do you take this "one standard" bit? Should we
impose one standard for the security of federal buildings and small
businesses, even though the purposes they serve and the traffic they
handle is vastly different? Should we have one standard for all
public gatherings -- pro football games vs. my child's dance recital?

Makes not a jot of sense to me, but that seems to be what you're
suggesting for airports.

For example, it's okay to have no security
beyond a padlock at Podunk Field, Midwest, but I doubt that you'd agree
that it would be okay to have no security at BOS or LGA or JFK.

I think that's an eminently sensible situation. The planes which
frequent Podunk Field vs. LGA or even SUS have different capabilities.
The population is different.

Eventually, the bad guys are going to figure out that there is no
security at Podunk Field and capitalize on that fact.

Maybe. Maybe they are going to capitalize on a whole host of
freedoms of our society which are also security risks. How far
are we willing to go in sacrificing myriad daily freedoms because
they could, in theory, be exploited to cause harms? For example,
do you feel that rental of large trucks should immediately be banned
and sale restricted to those who have undergone special background
checks? Eventually, the bad guys are going to figure out that what
worked for McVeigh and in Africa could work here for them.

I'm sorry, I just don't see what is so unreasonable about controlled
access to the field. I don't see what is so unreasonable about ID
badges. I don't see what is so unreasonable about surveillence.

Then I will try to spell it out for you, though I lack confidence
in my abilities.

What is so unreasonable is that it would pose a large burden of
cost for what seems to be a very negligable benefit.

Nothing stops a determined terrorist from gaining access to a
secured field which requires ID badges. Yes, he could cut the
fence and take his chances with the typical low quality of
surveillance cameras and their monitors. But why?

All he needs is a confederate who has cleared the required security
and obtained the required credentials.

Do you really think it's reasonable to put thousands of small
airports out of business and ground tens of thousands of pilots
with your "reasonable" security measures, when they would do little
or nothing to deter a well-planned attempt?

Sheesh! If I've ever heard of an "I've got mine, Screw You"
attitude!

Sydney