Pilot, possibly intoxicated, flies around Philly for 3 hours

In article ,
"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:

Jonathan Goodish wrote:

Reasonable security would include ....

A whole bunch of things that are wildly UNreasonable, expensive, and useless.


How so? I guess my experience with theft and vandalism at local fields
must have been my imagination.

Quite the contrary, my suggestions are quite reasonable, not expensive
(except for the surveillence), and far from useless. If you don't agree
then I expect you to suggest alternatives for securing these fields. "A
bunch of guys who've been hanging out there since WWII" isn't an
acceptable answer.



JKG

Jonathan Goodish wrote in message ...
Reasonable security would include airport ID badges for those who have a
reason to be on the field, perimeter fencing that is tall enough and
sealed well enough to be a deterrent, gates that work, and some type of
continuous airport surveillence.

This seems totally unreasonable to me.

The typical small airport I fly into is surrounded by farm
fields. It's a runway, a few dozen hangars, a fuel pump,
and an FBO building which may or may not be occupied by a
business. The fuel may be self serve, or there may be a
plastic-covered sign on it saying something like "call
###-#### for fuel" or even "call police for fuel". There
is typically a 6 button combination lock on the building
(or maybe a lock box holding a key, with a combination lock)
and a note posted saying enter the frequency of some navaid
or nearby tracon. Something someone with an aviation chart
for that area can easily look up, and get in to use the phone
and the restrooms.

At times, the airport is totally deserted. At times, it's
populated by a group of pilots who've known each other for
years if not decades. Fly in more than once and they recognize
you too. Any airplanes on the ramp are transients, because
hangars are quite reasonable in cost or rental.

The airport commission is a bunch of local pilots who take
care of mowing the grass next to the runway and fixing the
runway lights when they go out. Sometimes they get money for
major improvements like runway resurfacing from the state
DOT, but typically they are a low-budget operation.

Just EXACTLY what would "airport badges, perimeter fencing
with gates, and continuous airport surveillance" add to the
security of such an airport?

OTOH I can see a requirement to provide same putting such
airports TOTALLY out of business and putting aviation TOTALLY
out of reach for literally thousands of pilots.

Those are common sense things that, in
most cases, are SUPPOSED to be done anyway at most of these airports,
and actually serve to protect the aircraft owners based at the field
from theft and vandalism (it's happened around here).

SUPPOSED to be done anyway according to whom?

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.)

I'm afraid I see this as an example of the conundrum "why do they
call it 'common sense' when it seems so rare?"

Cheers,
Sydney

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. Most of us who own
airplanes paid a good chunk of money for them and I, for one, am not
rolling in money. Sure, the airplane is insured, but having no
deterrent security at an airport is like leaving my car unlocked with
the keys in the ignition. More than one local airport in my area has
had vandalism and theft of aircraft and avionics. On more than one
occassion the airport locals recogized some folks whom they did not
recognize walking the airport and apparently mining people for
information. Despite the suspicions, what were folks supposed to do?
There was no crime committed so law enforcement wasn't interested.
Eventually stuff was stolen and the airport decided to hire a night
guard to patrol the field. and turn the gates back on to prevent
unauthorized vehicle traffic.

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

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

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.
Eventually the old guys are going to die off and a new generation who
doesn't spend all of their time at the airport is going to come along
and it will be more difficult to spot those who do not belong. If law
enforcement is to help secure these airports, they also need to know who
does or does not belong, and in most cases law enforcement isn't going
to be hanging out at the local airport all the time.



JKG

"Jonathan Goodish" wrote in message
...
| In article om,
| "John T" wrote:
|
| "Jonathan Goodish" wrote in message
|
|
| The bottom line is that if the small
| fields don't get a grip on REASONABLE security, one of these days
| something bad is going to hb_men and there is going to be UNREASONABLE
| over-reaction.
|
| Can you define "reasonable security" for us?
|
| Reasonable security would include airport ID badges for those who have a
| reason to be on the field, perimeter fencing that is tall enough and
| sealed well enough to be a deterrent, gates that work, and some type of
| continuous airport surveillence. Those are common sense things that, in
| most cases, are SUPPOSED to be done anyway at most of these airports,
| and actually serve to protect the aircraft owners based at the field
| from theft and vandalism (it's happened around here).

It would be interesting to see how this would improve the security at, say,
Ocotillo Wells in California. This is a dirt strip out in the middle of
nowhere built on a dry lake bed. There are no buildings, no fuel, etc. There
is a diner across the highway, but that is the only building for several
miles.

Or what about Copalis Beach in Washington State? This is a state operated
airport located on a stretch of beach. The 'runway' is just the damp sand
near the water's edge and it is under water at high tide. For me, security
at that airport would be arresting the lady who throws rocks at airplanes
that land on 'her' beach. There is no fuel there, no buildings, not even any
road access.

Or the airports scattered around the Frank Church Wilderness in Idaho? The
firefighting emergency strips in Montana, Wyoming, or other western states?

What about Apex Air Park near Silverdale, WA? They have something like a
gazillion Marines guarding the place. But no one would argue that that
airport is any more secure than Sequim Airport.

At Tacoma Narrows we no longer let the neighbors walk their dogs around the
approach lights any more, but that hasn't kept local kids from vandalizing
the lights. If anything, the effect of the policy was to eliminate witnesses
and make it easier for the vandals.

All of this is an illusion... No amount of badges, fences, lights, signs,
whatever, will stop someone who is willing to die for his 'cause'...
Only slaves, and cattle being fattened for the slaughter, have the security
of knowing their fate...To have a free society you must accept that freedom
contains risks, and from time to time the tree of liberty will be watered
with the blood of it's patriots... I am willing to take the risks of freedom
in order to be free... I am not willing to watch my country become a Gulag,
so that the neurotic who are willing to sell my freedoms in order to assuage
their insecurity, may feel safe...
denny

"C J Campbell"

Jonathan Goodish wrote:

In article ,
ospam (Rosspilot) wrote:
Nice job, CNN.

Hasn't hit Fox yet--they are still riveted to Michael Jackson :-)


Just hit Fox--they performed true-to-form.

"he even flew next to a nuclear power plant"

Did he fly next to a nuclear power plant?

He had to. His airport is located right next door to one.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Jonathan Goodish wrote:

In article ,
ospam (Rosspilot) wrote:
Nice job, CNN.

Hasn't hit Fox yet--they are still riveted to Michael Jackson :-)


Just hit Fox--they performed true-to-form.

"he even flew next to a nuclear power plant"

Did he fly next to a nuclear power plant?

He had to. His airport is located right next door to one.

Which one is that? Palo Verde Nuclear Plant, out here, has been restricted
airspace for years.

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

He had to. His airport is located right next door to one.

Which one is that? Palo Verde Nuclear Plant, out here, has been restricted
airspace for years.

Pottstown, PA.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Tom Sixkiller wrote:

He had to. His airport is located right next door to one.

Which one is that? Palo Verde Nuclear Plant, out here, has been
restricted
airspace for years.

Pottstown, PA.


Is that the nuke plant in the upper left of the picture?

http://www.airnav.com/airport/KPTW

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message ...

Which one is that? Palo Verde Nuclear Plant, out here, has been restricted
airspace for years.

and

Damn...Palo Verde has AA missiles on it's site now...and it's only 20
miles
from Luke AFB...with a load of F-16's. Of course, those F-16's are
scattered
all over the landscape....

Sorry 'bout coming in late on this one, but I was catching up on the
newsgroup and this caught my eye.

Tom, as far as I can tell, there is no restricted airspace currently
around Palo Verde. I certainly don't recall it from years past
either. As for AA missiles, I flew past the plant last weekend and
didn't see a single smoke trail. Where did you get this info?

As far as I know, there's only that catchall NOTAM requesting that
you avoid loitering over the plant.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)