More evidence of weak security at GA airports

by "Steve Foley" Nov 2, 2005 at 08:01 PM


I'm pretty sure pilots are required to carry firearms in Alaska

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
Second, the presence of armed citizens
roaming around the periphery of the airport would discourage would-be
terrorists, thereby lessening the airport's security funding needs.

They definitely should. When I was up there this summer, I went on a few
outings with locals (kayaking and river rafting). All armed. My kind of
people. Guns to them are tools, not some vile instrument to wreak havoc
on city streets. (Like here in NH)
Necessary tools due to the brown and black bear population (the wimpish
bear spray isn't as reliable).


Most pilots there probably do carry guns. If forced to ditch somewhere,
you would want the tools to protect yourself.

Skylune wrote:

Oh. That makes sense. Like the electified gate to keep moose off the
runway at an AK airport.

Maybe opening up the areas surrounding the airport to hunting could help
here? The surrounding residents would benefit in several ways. First,
the rifle blasts would blend in with the whine of the engines/props, thus
reducing any noise complaints. Second, the presence of armed citizens
roaming around the periphery of the airport would discourage would-be
terrorists, thereby lessening the airport's security funding needs. Of
course NOTAMs would need to be issued by airports proposing peripheral
hunting, and the hunters would need to be instructed to voluntarily aim
low, in the event of poor aim.

Look at the ****ty place you live in. You already know that the general
population is not armed where you live. Around here you have to assume
everybody is armed. They might be, they might not be. Crime is not a
problem

Skylune wrote:




Most pilots there probably do carry guns. If forced to ditch somewhere,
you would want the tools to protect yourself.

The gun isn't to protect yourself. It is a means to eat.

In article 1W6af.2587$Ar5.235@trndny01,
George Patterson wrote:

Skylune wrote:

Then why do airports even need fences?

To keep livestock and wildlife off the runway.

To keep the likes of "Skyloon" and "jgrove" out. :)

("Newps" wrote)
The gun isn't to protect yourself. It is a means to eat.


To be clear, you're not advocating 'eating' your gun - IYKWIM. g


Montblack

Skylune wrote:
by "Steve Foley" Nov 1, 2005 at 01:15 PM


Skylune would simply close the airports and crush all the planes.

"cjcampbell" wrote in message
oups.com...
If you're so smart, how would you have prevented this crime?


For starters, I would hire baton-wielding security guards from the local
mall to check IDs and beat the hell out of trespassers or thieves. Such a
guard could have asked the pilot/thief for a registration to prove
ownership of the plane he was tearing down (or proof that he was
performing authorized repairs).

Since most airplanes are owned by corporations then the guard is going
to have some difficulty with that.

"Hey! Who are you?"

"John Smith"

"Let's see the registration of that plane. Says it is owned by Sky
Loons." (Beats John Smith, the CEO and sole owner of Sky Loons, Inc.,
half to death.)

Smith sues the security guard, the airport, the FAA, and everybody else
he can think of. The guard goes to prison for assault with a deadly
weapon. Alternatively, Smith shoots the guard and is found to have
acted in self defense.


(I would of course demand that the FAA fund these security agents from
general taxpayer funds because of the vital economic benefits of GA to the
entire nation.)

Then, I would empower the security guards to take all reasonable measures
to enforce noise abatement procedures, in close contact with tower
personnel of course, so that only pilots that have unmistakenly been
identified as violators would be beaten.

If there is a tower. You going to have the guard carry a decibel meter?
Laser rangefinder? (Guard is arrested as terrorist for shining laser on
airplane.) "Unmistakenly," eh? So you are going to institute cruel and
unusual punishment, completely unconstitutional, and you are going to
have one guy, a mall guard, be cop, judge, jury and executioner, with
no due process or appeal.

Since when does noise abatement improve airport security?

Sky Loon, sounds like you would be much happier in some totalitarian
state rather than in the United States of America. In the USA, people
have rights. They are presumed innocent until proven guilty. They
cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process.
They may not be beaten or tortured in any way. People are allowed to
travel freely despite the fact that some others might be annoyed by it.
People who buy homes next to airports are presumed to be smart enough
to know that airports are noisy. Freeways are even noisier. Are you
next going to buy a home next to the freeway, impose noise restrictions
on it, and beat all the truck drivers with batons?

Now then, let us see if you can come up with something to improve
security that would actually work without locking everybody up in
detention centers.

by "cjcampbell" Nov 2, 2005 at 10:49 PM


Skylune wrote:
by "Steve Foley" Nov 1, 2005 at 01:15 PM


Skylune would simply close the airports and crush all the planes.

"cjcampbell" wrote in message
oups.com...
If you're so smart, how would you have prevented this crime?


For starters, I would hire baton-wielding security guards from the
local
mall to check IDs and beat the hell out of trespassers or thieves. Such
a
guard could have asked the pilot/thief for a registration to prove
ownership of the plane he was tearing down (or proof that he was
performing authorized repairs).

Since most airplanes are owned by corporations then the guard is going
to have some difficulty with that.

"Hey! Who are you?"

"John Smith"

"Let's see the registration of that plane. Says it is owned by Sky
Loons." (Beats John Smith, the CEO and sole owner of Sky Loons, Inc.,
half to death.)

Smith sues the security guard, the airport, the FAA, and everybody else
he can think of. The guard goes to prison for assault with a deadly
weapon. Alternatively, Smith shoots the guard and is found to have
acted in self defense.


(I would of course demand that the FAA fund these security agents from
general taxpayer funds because of the vital economic benefits of GA to
the
entire nation.)

Then, I would empower the security guards to take all reasonable
measures
to enforce noise abatement procedures, in close contact with tower
personnel of course, so that only pilots that have unmistakenly been
identified as violators would be beaten.

If there is a tower. You going to have the guard carry a decibel meter?
Laser rangefinder? (Guard is arrested as terrorist for shining laser on
airplane.) "Unmistakenly," eh? So you are going to institute cruel and
unusual punishment, completely unconstitutional, and you are going to
have one guy, a mall guard, be cop, judge, jury and executioner, with
no due process or appeal.

Since when does noise abatement improve airport security?

Sky Loon, sounds like you would be much happier in some totalitarian
state rather than in the United States of America. In the USA, people
have rights. They are presumed innocent until proven guilty. They
cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process.
They may not be beaten or tortured in any way. People are allowed to
travel freely despite the fact that some others might be annoyed by it.
People who buy homes next to airports are presumed to be smart enough
to know that airports are noisy. Freeways are even noisier. Are you
next going to buy a home next to the freeway, impose noise restrictions
on it, and beat all the truck drivers with batons?

Now then, let us see if you can come up with something to improve
security that would actually work without locking everybody up in
detention centers.



It was just a joke...

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
by "cjcampbell" Nov 2, 2005 at 10:49 PM
...
Now then, let us see if you can come up with something to improve
security that would actually work without locking everybody up in
detention centers.



It was just a joke...

It's good that you're now quoting the post you're replying to, but your
method is confusing--you don't indent the quoted material, so it's hard to
distinguish the quoted material from the new content of your post. As you've
probably noticed by looking at everyone else's posts, the Usenet convention
is to use '' characters in the left margin, one for each level of embedded
quoting. If you use any standard news reader (whether standalone or
web-based), just hitting the reply button will automatically paste the text
you're replying to into the post you're composing, complete with the ''
characters. (This is meant as a constructive suggestion, not a personal
criticism.)

--Gary

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
by "Steve Foley" Nov 2, 2005 at 08:01 PM


I'm pretty sure pilots are required to carry firearms in Alaska


Just make sure it is not a handgun!

Allen

Allen wrote:
"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...

by "Steve Foley" Nov 2, 2005 at 08:01 PM

I'm pretty sure pilots are required to carry firearms in Alaska

Just make sure it is not a handgun!

Not that I would prefer a handgun as a survival tool, but I thought it was
Canada that prohibits handguns.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.