Jonathan Goodish wrote in message ...

Fact is, you do need an ID badge to drive your car, it's called a
driver's license.

Um...so, since I need a pilot's license to fly plus another
form of govm't issued photo ID --- you're actually arguing
that no further identification is necessary?

Jonathan, your analogies seem to need a little buffing-up.

What I'm hearing from you detractors is that you don't believe there
should be ANY security at GA fields

Really? Where are you hearing that?

What I'm hearing is that I, and apparently some others, don't
feel your suggested security measures are "reasonable".

It seems rather a cognitive leap to go from "they don't
think my ideas are reasonable" to "they don't believe
there should be ANY security at GA fields.

snip

Just as with securing your house, nothing you do is going to stop the
determined burglar. What you can do things to make execution of the
crime more difficult and time consuming while still retaining
unrestricted movement in your house.

I really think the "house" analogy for an airport is not quite
apt.

A public-use airport is not a house. It is a business, and
as such must provide access to everyone who needs to use it.
Charter customers, line boys, student pilots, flight instructors,
custodians, mechanics so forth and so on.

Therein lies the weakest point of any security system for a public-
use facility. It's often not strangers breaking down the doors,
but people who've been granted access who commit illegal acts.

So exactly how much deterrent value does that fence and security
system provide, and how does that compare to its cost and the
effect that cost will have on small airports and the small businesses
trying to make a living there, if you try to enforce "one standard
to fit all"?

At some airports, security systems such as you describe seem
justified and reasonable. At others, why on earth?

Cheers,
Sydney