Pilot, possibly intoxicated, flies around Philly for 3 hours

Jonathan Goodish wrote:

Reasonable security would include ....

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

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

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:

Quite the contrary, my suggestions are quite reasonable, not expensive
(except for the surveillence), and far from useless.

Then you haven't priced any of them lately. Fencing alone could run 100 grand at
a small airport.

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:

Quite the contrary, my suggestions are quite reasonable, not expensive
(except for the surveillence), and far from useless.

Then you haven't priced any of them lately. Fencing alone could run 100
grand at
a small airport.


And it's only a deterrent; not a failsafe system.

In article , "Tom Sixkiller"
wrote:

Quite the contrary, my suggestions are quite reasonable, not expensive
(except for the surveillence), and far from useless.

Then you haven't priced any of them lately. Fencing alone could run 100
grand at
a small airport.


And it's only a deterrent; not a failsafe system.

not even a deterrent, just a tiny speed bump.

--
Bob Noel

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article , "Tom Sixkiller"
wrote:

Quite the contrary, my suggestions are quite reasonable, not
expensive
(except for the surveillence), and far from useless.

Then you haven't priced any of them lately. Fencing alone could run
100
grand at
a small airport.


And it's only a deterrent; not a failsafe system.

not even a deterrent, just a tiny speed bump.

I call still lug my 51 year old ass over one of 'em.

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

I call still lug my 51 year old ass over one of 'em.

Cowboy boots help. The toes fit well in chainlink.

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

Jonathan Goodish wrote in message ...
In article ,
"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:

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.

Jonathan,

No one is saying your local fields don't have a problem with
theft and vandalism. If so, then maybe you and the other local
pilots need to get together with airport management and implement
changes that will solve the problem.

If you feel a six foot tall fence, security gates, airport IDs,
and surveillance cameras will solve the problem, I suggest you
and a group of fellow pilots who feel that way should get together
and demand them. Find out what it would take.

Quite the contrary, my suggestions are quite reasonable, not expensive

With all respect, your definitions of "quite reasonable"
and "not expensive" seem to differ from the standard.

Just what do you think the yearly operating budget of a small
rural airport is?

Just how much do you think 2 miles of 6" tall top-and-bottom bar
chain link, an automatic gate, and credentialling 100 pilots
actually costs?

If you don't agree then I expect you to suggest alternatives
for securing these fields.

My suggestion is that there is no need to secure "these fields".

My suggestion is that as a society, we react and implement sensible
measures proportionate to a realistic assessment of risk.

I don't think it's rational to suggest that all airports pose the
same security risk. A light single or twin does not carry the
same payload nor have the same range as a corporate jet. A corporate
jet does not carry the same payload or have the same range as a
commercial aircraft. The 9/11 terrorists didn't choose commercial
jets because little Cessnas could do the job just as well.

I don't think it's rational to suggest that we should go around
fencing in every GA airport while anyone with a driver's license and
a major credit card can rent a rather large truck and drive it anywhere
in a major city with no background check or limitations, while and
while many sites critical to our modern infrastructure have minimal
security -- nothing that a truck modified by a couple hours of
welding couldn't penetrate.

If it's escaped you that while our national security gurus blather
about terrorist 'fixation on possible uses of airplanes', the terrorists
have repeatedly demonstrated actual USE of car and truck bombs, it
hasn't escaped others including me.

I think we are way overdue for rational risk assessment and reaction
in accord with that risk assessment -- instead of 'blowing snow'
security measures which appear motivated by the size of the constituent
groups likely to be inconvenienced.

Sydney