Pilot, possibly intoxicated, flies around Philly for 3 hours

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.