Why GA is Dying

Dudley Henriques wrote:
"Emily" wrote in message
. ..
Dudley Henriques wrote:
snip
Then you go on to complain in your next post how "some guy" asked you for ID
before letting you on the ramp to access your plane.
Right. That was a quick trip to Indy Metro to drop off something for a
friend. This was before the pilot ID requirement and I wasn't planning
on driving anywhere once I got to the airport. I simply had NO photo ID
with me and my airman certs were in the plane. So what was I supposed
to do? The FBO wasn't letting me back on the ramp (even though they'd
seen me walk inside) and since it was a rental, I couldn't just leave
the plane there. Do YOU not see the problem with that?

and that even if there are, you don't
want to be bothered with them for whatever personal reasons you might have.
Basically, yes. And I don't let myself be bothered by it.

Personally, I would suggest to you that in the future, as a working
commercial pilot, you consider carrying your ID with you when leaving your
airplane on the ramp, and be prepared to produce it to authority when and if
its requested in the proper manner.
I'm not a working commercial pilot. I work in the industry, but not
flying. I think you've misunderstood much of what I'm saying. When the
cop stopped me for taking photos, I wasn't in a restricted area but a
public observation area. I wasn't requested to produce ID (not that I
had any with me) I was asked why I was taking pictures. I am under NO
requirement to explain myself.


All this having been said, I realize you and I are in complete disagreement
on this issue so I'll let you take whatever shot you like at me and simply
move on.
Who says I'm taking shots at you? I don't reply to PEOPLE on a
newsgroup, I reply to posts. Yes, I have problems with authority that
shouldn't be authority in the first place. Rolling over and taking it
is what gets people in trouble and I think a lot of people need to start
learning from history.

"Emily" wrote in message
. ..

I'm not a working commercial pilot. I work in the industry, but not
flying. I think you've misunderstood much of what I'm saying. When the
cop stopped me for taking photos, I wasn't in a restricted area but a
public observation area. I wasn't requested to produce ID (not that I had
any with me) I was asked why I was taking pictures. I am under NO
requirement to explain myself.

No, I think I understood you perfectly. In fact, you are confirming it with
this post. What you are saying is absolutely clear. You have every right of
course to approach these issues as you see fit, but what I'm seeing is that
because you were approached by a "cop" in a public observation area instead
of a restricted area and asked why you were taking pictures, your immediate
response to this instead of answering the question was to instantly revert
to your conception of your "rights" instead of simply cooperating with the
request.
Even here, in this post, you feel the need to CAPITALIZE the word "NO" in
the sentence stating "I am under NO requirement to explain myself" which is
a clear indication to me at least,that your prime concern during this
incident and indeed even before the incident occurred, wasn't airport
security at all but the fact that you felt you were being "hassled" by this
security person because of your "understanding" concerning an imagined
difference between a public and a restricted area on an airport and how that
difference affects security issues.
Let me advise you right here and now that when it comes to a duly appointed
security officer acting in that capacity anywhere on airport property,
asking you why you are taking pictures on the airport, it doesn't matter
where you are on that airport. That security officer has every right to
approach you in a reasonable manner and ask you to explain what you are
doing. At the point you are approached in this reasonable manner, it is
incumbent on you to supply a reasonable answer to that security officer.
Aside from the legalities involved, doing this, rather than doing what you
did, is not only the right response for a person concerned with airport
security, but the prudent response as well.
As I said, from what I have read of your posting here, you and I are natural
adversaries, at least from my point of view anyway :-)). I simply think your
attitude is totally out of line on this issue.
This is of course no big deal at all . Happens all the time on Usenet. Some
people are just better off avoiding each other :-))
Hey......all the very best to you.
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques wrote:
"Emily" wrote in message
. ..

That security officer has every right to
approach you in a reasonable manner and ask you to explain what you are
doing.

Of course he does. And I have every right to refuse to explain myself.

You can think I'm anti-authority if you like, but my retired military
officer parents agree with my anti-authority streak, so your opinions
about it really mean nothing.

Emily wrote:

Dudley Henriques wrote:

"Emily" wrote in message
. ..

That security officer has every right to approach you in a reasonable
manner and ask you to explain what you are doing.


Of course he does. And I have every right to refuse to explain myself.

You can think I'm anti-authority if you like, but my retired military
officer parents agree with my anti-authority streak, so your opinions
about it really mean nothing.

You really should move out and learn to live on your own.

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:
Emily wrote:

Dudley Henriques wrote:

"Emily" wrote in message
. ..

That security officer has every right to approach you in a reasonable
manner and ask you to explain what you are doing.


Of course he does. And I have every right to refuse to explain myself.

You can think I'm anti-authority if you like, but my retired military
officer parents agree with my anti-authority streak, so your opinions
about it really mean nothing.

You really should move out and learn to live on your own.

Move out where? Out of my house? No thanks, if I pay a mortgage on
property, I'd like to enjoy living there.

Emily wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote:

Emily wrote:

Dudley Henriques wrote:

"Emily" wrote in message
. ..

That security officer has every right to approach you in a
reasonable manner and ask you to explain what you are doing.



Of course he does. And I have every right to refuse to explain myself.

You can think I'm anti-authority if you like, but my retired military
officer parents agree with my anti-authority streak, so your opinions
about it really mean nothing.


You really should move out and learn to live on your own.


Move out where? Out of my house? No thanks, if I pay a mortgage on
property, I'd like to enjoy living there.

It is obvious that you haven't yet learned to think on your own and
probably are still living with your parents.

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:
Emily wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote:

Emily wrote:

Dudley Henriques wrote:

"Emily" wrote in message
. ..

That security officer has every right to approach you in a
reasonable manner and ask you to explain what you are doing.



Of course he does. And I have every right to refuse to explain myself.

You can think I'm anti-authority if you like, but my retired
military officer parents agree with my anti-authority streak, so
your opinions about it really mean nothing.


You really should move out and learn to live on your own.


Move out where? Out of my house? No thanks, if I pay a mortgage on
property, I'd like to enjoy living there.

It is obvious that you haven't yet learned to think on your own and
probably are still living with your parents.

Matt
Obvious?

Hmmm....I wonder where they are? Maybe upstairs? Maybe in the garage?
Um, no, how odd, I can't find them. Maybe because they live 1000
miles away and I own this house that I live in ALONE.

Matt Whiting wrote:
It is obvious that you haven't yet learned to think on your own and
probably are still living with your parents.

You've now posted several personal attacks against Emily. She correctly
understood the law in one of her anecdotes and yet was attacked for
defending her rightful actions. I've posted elsewhere information that
supports her position. Your attack posts are self-referentially absurd and
I'm surprised you don't realize how this comes across.

"Emily" wrote in message
. ..
Dudley Henriques wrote:
"Emily" wrote in message
. ..
That security officer has every right to approach you in a reasonable
manner and ask you to explain what you are doing.

Of course he does. And I have every right to refuse to explain myself.

Of couse you do; and that is exactly what you did :-)

You can think I'm anti-authority if you like, but my retired military
officer parents agree with my anti-authority streak, so your opinions
about it really mean nothing.

Actually Emily, you being anti-authority or not is your business really, and
the fact that your parents, military or not, "agree with your anti-authority
streak" actually would have no effect on my opinion one way or the other, as
that opinion and/or any meaning that opinion might have are totally
unrelated to your parents.
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques wrote:

Actually Emily, you being anti-authority or not is your business really, and
the fact that your parents, military or not, "agree with your anti-authority
streak" actually would have no effect on my opinion one way or the other, as
that opinion and/or any meaning that opinion might have are totally
unrelated to your parents.

I wasn't writing that for your benefit, I was writing it for anyone else
that might be reading along. I don't want other people getting the
mistaken idea that I'm a complete anarchist with no sense of when to
back down. You, on the other hand, have already made up your mind (with
an incorrect conclusion)