Why GA is Dying

john smith wrote:
In article ,
Emily wrote:

I dunno, last I checked, you weren't required to carry ID in the United
States. Still makes me angry.

Cannot remember where I have seen it, but, as of sometime ago, post
9/11... if you are flying, you are required by regulation to carry your
pilot's certificate and a government issued photo id.

I know that. I was talking about pre-now. It was 2000/2001 when I fly
four or five trips a week.

Emily wrote:
I dunno, last I checked, you weren't required to carry ID in the
United States.

Well - if a police officer has "reasonable suspicion"[1] that you committed
a crime and the jurisdiction has a "stop and identify" statute[2] then you
must present identification or face arrest. That providing identification
is rarely relevant to establishing whether a person has in fact committed a
crime appears itself to be irrelevant as judged by the Supreme Court of the
U.S.[3] Go figure.

There are "stop and identify" statutes in many states, and the
reference in [2] below has a section titled "How to satisfy the minimum
required duties" that provides some suggestions on how one might maximize
ones rights if faced with such a situation.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_...ourt_of_Nevada

If you have no security, you don't want a reporter with a camera
working on a "lax security at the airport story."
--
Gene Seibel KB0NNN
http://pad39a.com/gene/broadcast.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.



Kyle Boatright wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
k.net...
This type of post is of course an opinion post and as such should be
respected in that context.
My personal opinion on this is that you are either going to have airport
security or you're not..period!

Bingo. Bothering somone taking pictures doesn't make sense when the field
has minimal, if any security. E.G. my home field. They don't ID pilots or
passengers - even transients. Presumably folks in an airplane are bigger
threats than people taking pictures, so why does the buck stop with a kid
taking pictures?

What I see with most not all of the "security" procedures we face today is
that they inconvenience the innocent folks, but would have no impact on an
actual threat. A great example is the TFR around a sporting event. Anything
with wings could penetrate the TFR. Unless it is the Superbowl or World
Series, there won't be anything in place to stop even a C-150 if somebody
wanted to use one to create mayhem. The TFR is eyewash.

Same thing with getting the ID of a kid taking pictures. It doesn't stop
someone from taking pictures. Nor would it stop him if he was up to no-good.

That said, the point I was trying to make is that the FBO employee (or his
boss) pulled this "rule" out of his you-know-what. An excellent example of
how to drive off a prospective client. The kind of client who is sorely
needed by GA if it is going to survive another 50 years.

KB

"Gene Seibel" wrote in message
oups.com...
If you have no security, you don't want a reporter with a camera
working on a "lax security at the airport story."

THAT is the best reason I can think of yet, for the whole incident. I know
that is not what was behind it, though.
--
Jim in NC

If in 6 weeks time, that aircraft is stolen, and ends up getting loaded with
C4 or some nerve gas, and then crashed into downtown metropolis somewhere,
they'll be glad that security officer took the trouble to find out exactly
who had been hanging around the aircraft in the weeks before the event.
If nothing happens, the security guard can sleep well, knowing he's at least
done his job.
I don't own an a/c or even have a licence to fly one (yet!) but if I did, I
think I'd welcome the checks. If the kid had nothing to hide, what's the
problem with a quick 5 minute visit to the office to show an ID?
Crash Lander

--
I'm not always right,
But I'm never wrong!
"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message
. ..

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
k.net...
This type of post is of course an opinion post and as such should be
respected in that context.
My personal opinion on this is that you are either going to have airport
security or you're not..period!

Bingo. Bothering somone taking pictures doesn't make sense when the field
has minimal, if any security. E.G. my home field. They don't ID pilots
or passengers - even transients. Presumably folks in an airplane are
bigger threats than people taking pictures, so why does the buck stop with
a kid taking pictures?

What I see with most not all of the "security" procedures we face today
is that they inconvenience the innocent folks, but would have no impact on
an actual threat. A great example is the TFR around a sporting event.
Anything with wings could penetrate the TFR. Unless it is the Superbowl
or World Series, there won't be anything in place to stop even a C-150 if
somebody wanted to use one to create mayhem. The TFR is eyewash.

Same thing with getting the ID of a kid taking pictures. It doesn't stop
someone from taking pictures. Nor would it stop him if he was up to
no-good.

That said, the point I was trying to make is that the FBO employee (or his
boss) pulled this "rule" out of his you-know-what. An excellent example
of how to drive off a prospective client. The kind of client who is sorely
needed by GA if it is going to survive another 50 years.

KB

If the kid had nothing to hide, what's the
problem with a quick 5 minute visit to the office to show an ID?

The problems is the =idea= that "if you have nothing to hide...". I
should not have to prove that I have nothing to hide by not hiding it.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Crash,

If in 6 weeks time, that aircraft is stolen, and ends up getting loaded with
C4 or some nerve gas, and then crashed into downtown metropolis somewhere,


You should try some other channels than Fox.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 00:25:56 +0000, Crash Lander wrote:

If in 6 weeks time, that aircraft is stolen, and ends up getting loaded
with C4 or some nerve gas, and then crashed into downtown metropolis
somewhere, they'll be glad that security officer took the trouble to find
out exactly who had been hanging around the aircraft in the weeks before
the event.

Yes, because then they'd know the name of the person that killed himself.
That would be so helpful.

Of course, it would be nice to name the person in the article that
describes how a small GA plane managed to get off the ground with a
significant amount of cargo. I can manage a few hundred pounds at best.
Your average Hyundai makes a better delivery vehicle.

- Andrew

Dudley


The only true security would be to check ids and run it through an FBI
computer for each client who gets on the ramp, including landing
aircraft, which means all pilots and passengers must obtain this
permission ahead of time. As far as I know, there is no such airport. A
terrorist can take off from his private airstrip and land at JFK, OHare
etc..

Airport security is all for show. It targets the legitimate pilot and
his family. At our home airport after 9/11 they installed a perimeter
fence at the cost of several millions. All it did was increase the deer
population inside the fence and screw up the localizer signal which
increased the approach minimums. Even an overweight American can jump
across the fence, let alone a lean and mean middleeastern terrorist.

Now it would be different if the person was loading suspicious looking
objects into a suspicous looking aircraft. But a guy taking pictures of
an airplane? Come on.

I totally agree with the OP. Many eons ago I used to hang out at the
airport taking pictures of airplanes. Even the big jets landing at big
airports. If I had been chased away I very well might have been turned
off from this whole aviation thing.



Dudley Henriques wrote:
This type of post is of course an opinion post and as such should be
respected in that context.
My personal opinion on this is that you are either going to have airport
security or you're not..period!
You can parse the "my rights are being violated" thing to death, and you can
complain about the inconvenience till you're blue in the face, but the
bottom line is simply that you can't have it both ways.
9-11 happened. It just "ain't" the same world any more. You can bash
politicians. You can bash political parties. You can holler about the way
its all being done. But the bottom line remains the same. You either have
security or you don't.
Again, personally, if its my airplane that's sitting out there on the line,
or inside that hangar, or even your airplane out there, I damn well want the
FBO involved to take some interest in who's out there taking pictures of
everything.
Just my read on it. Don't mean it to be argumentative :-))
Dudley Henriques

Hi Andrew;

I totally agree with you on this. Airport security is a mess and needs
reform badly. My point was simply that having it is necessary.
Dudley

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
ups.com...
Dudley


The only true security would be to check ids and run it through an FBI
computer for each client who gets on the ramp, including landing
aircraft, which means all pilots and passengers must obtain this
permission ahead of time. As far as I know, there is no such airport. A
terrorist can take off from his private airstrip and land at JFK, OHare
etc..

Airport security is all for show. It targets the legitimate pilot and
his family. At our home airport after 9/11 they installed a perimeter
fence at the cost of several millions. All it did was increase the deer
population inside the fence and screw up the localizer signal which
increased the approach minimums. Even an overweight American can jump
across the fence, let alone a lean and mean middleeastern terrorist.

Now it would be different if the person was loading suspicious looking
objects into a suspicous looking aircraft. But a guy taking pictures of
an airplane? Come on.

I totally agree with the OP. Many eons ago I used to hang out at the
airport taking pictures of airplanes. Even the big jets landing at big
airports. If I had been chased away I very well might have been turned
off from this whole aviation thing.



Dudley Henriques wrote:
This type of post is of course an opinion post and as such should be
respected in that context.
My personal opinion on this is that you are either going to have airport
security or you're not..period!
You can parse the "my rights are being violated" thing to death, and you
can
complain about the inconvenience till you're blue in the face, but the
bottom line is simply that you can't have it both ways.
9-11 happened. It just "ain't" the same world any more. You can bash
politicians. You can bash political parties. You can holler about the way
its all being done. But the bottom line remains the same. You either have
security or you don't.
Again, personally, if its my airplane that's sitting out there on the
line,
or inside that hangar, or even your airplane out there, I damn well want
the
FBO involved to take some interest in who's out there taking pictures of
everything.
Just my read on it. Don't mean it to be argumentative :-))
Dudley Henriques