Pilot, possibly intoxicated, flies around Philly for 3 hours

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 news:jgoodish-
:

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.

Actually, leaving your plane unlocked with the keys in the ignition would
seem to me to be a more accurate equation.

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.

Well, maybe you have a local crime problem in your area. At my airport, FBO
owners, personnel, and pilots alike are pretty vigilant about who they let
roam around the airport. I have seen people approached and asked who they
were and what they were doing there. I have seen FBO owners question retail
staff about someone they did not recognize, even when that person was
buying merchandise. And I have seen FBO owners and even pilots call police
to report someone suspicious that required investigation. And the police
responded happily and promptly, even though no crime had been committed.

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.

I don't know that I agree completely. Some airparks (like one that recently
was featured on a CBS News special) are a runway surrounded by homes where
each home has a hangar and a taxiway. Would you propose to require people
to have card-keys to get into their homes? Do you think that is reasonable?

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

Exactly how? What do you think they will do?

More importantly, do you think if a determined "bad guy" wants to gain
access to your airport, a chain-link fence with the cardkey is going to
stop him?

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.

As with most security, it does a great job of making you feel good and
safe. And it may deter the "casual" vandal or thief. But like the locks on
your doors at home, if someone is intent on gaining access, it is just a
placebo and a waste of money.

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

Not to add fuel to the fire, but please do not think that the locks on
planes offer any security at all!!! Most of the locks found on airplane
doors and ignitions are nothing more than 4 or 5 wafer cam locks that can be
picked or forced in under 10 seconds. Most can have a key impressioned for
them in less than five minutes. And unless you have a Medeco or equivilent
type high security lock on your hanger, the cheap locks I've seen on hanger
doors are not keeping anyone out.

"Snowbird" wrote in message
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.

"lardsoup" wrote in message ...
Not to add fuel to the fire, but please do not think that the locks on
planes offer any security at all!!! Most of the locks found on airplane
doors and ignitions are nothing more than 4 or 5 wafer cam locks that can be
picked or forced in under 10 seconds. Most can have a key impressioned for
them in less than five minutes. And unless you have a Medeco or equivilent
type high security lock on your hanger, the cheap locks I've seen on hanger
doors are not keeping anyone out.

Dear Lard,

Everything is relative. I appreciate your comments on the general
quality of airplane and hangar locks, but the fact is while they
don't keep out determined people who've made a plan, they *do*
keep out casual, opportunistic people. At least, I've certainly
watched frustrated pilots who locked their keys inside the plane
or who left their keys at home, be quite unable to access their
own plane. I grant your point that it's not high security, but
it's not the same as leaving your car open with the keys in the
ignition either.

OTOH, anyone who thinks that a 6 ft fence and security gating
is going to keep out a determined person with a plan for evil,
think again. Under the fence; over the fence; through the fence
with bolt cutters; through the gate with proper credentials.

Cheers,
Sydney

"Snowbird" wrote in message
om...
|
|
| OTOH, anyone who thinks that a 6 ft fence and security gating
| is going to keep out a determined person with a plan for evil,
| think again. Under the fence; over the fence; through the fence
| with bolt cutters; through the gate with proper credentials.
|

The fences around here don't seem to slow the deer down much.

C J Campbell wrote:

The fences around here don't seem to slow the deer down much.

You'd need at least an 8' fence to stop a full-grown whitetail, and even that
won't slow down a muley.

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

Well, my point was that the locks on planes are so cheap that they will not
keep out the casual crook or vandal. Many people live by the phase that
locks only keep out honest people. Well that's just not true. And I am
only pointing this out so that any airplane owner that wants to protect
their property is aware of the level of security they are leaving their
plane in when they leave the airport. Those throttle and prop locks from
Sportys ARE a good idea. Better yet, change the door locks to a high
security cam lock. Oh, and don't forget your keys. ;-)

"Snowbird" wrote in message
Everything is relative. I appreciate your comments on the general
quality of airplane and hangar locks, but the fact is while they
don't keep out determined people who've made a plan, they *do*
keep out casual, opportunistic people.

lardsoup wrote:

Better yet, change the door locks to a high
security cam lock.

If your fuselage is fabric-covered tubing, new door locks won't help.

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