X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 21:13:26 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from proton.sasknet.sk.ca ([142.165.20.178] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4c1) with ESMTPS id 4790157 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 12:36:18 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=142.165.20.178; envelope-from=hjjohnson@sasktel.net Received: from pps.filterd (proton [127.0.0.1]) by proton.sasknet.sk.ca (8.14.3/8.14.3) with SMTP id p0IHXGcm010526 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 11:35:42 -0600 Received: from bgmpomr1.sasknet.sk.ca (bgmpOMR1.sasknet.sk.ca [142.165.72.22]) by proton.sasknet.sk.ca with ESMTP id twe50wm40-1 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 11:35:41 -0600 Received: from sasktel.net ([192.168.234.97]) by bgmpomr1.sasknet.sk.ca (SaskTel eMessaging Service) with ESMTP id <0LF80035ZBJHPV20@bgmpomr1.sasknet.sk.ca> for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 11:35:41 -0600 (CST) Received: from [192.168.234.25] (Forwarded-For: [24.89.93.210]) by cgmail1.sasknet.sk.ca (mshttpd); Tue, 18 Jan 2011 11:35:41 -0600 X-Original-Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 11:35:41 -0600 From: H & J Johnson Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Airport security? X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List X-Original-Message-id: <162375a9119b9.4d357b0d@sasktel.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Sun Java(tm) System Messenger Express 6.1 HotFix 0.20 (built Feb 27 2006) Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-language: en Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline X-Accept-Language: en Priority: normal X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.2.15,1.0.148,0.0.0000 definitions=2011-01-18_05:2011-01-18,2011-01-18,1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 suspectscore=5 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx engine=5.0.0-1012030000 definitions=main-1101180115

Agreed, if he'd have let them in and they had gone on to blow a bomb off beside some 'target of signifigance' he would for sure have been up the creek. I've always been under the impression that I was responsible for whom-ever I brought into a restricted area [an airport ramp is such a place] so if I don't want to accept that responsibility then I must block someone from coming in through the gate after me. Aren't there even signs around the gate stating this [most every airport that I've been on has them]??

I wouldn't think twice about doing just what he did, 99% of the time it would be the correct thing to do. It was just dumb luck that they would be cops and even crazier that they are dense enough to think they can rag on a guy for doing the right thing.

It's a crazy world..

J. Johnson

235/320 55%

----- Original Message -----

From: Rod Pharis <rpharis@verizon.net>

Date: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 10:49 am

Subject: [LML] Re: Airport security?

> You took the correct action. If you let them in they should have
> bustedyou, not the other way around. They are obviously amateurs.
>
> Rod Pharis
>
> From: Lancair Mailing List [lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of
> marv@lancair.net
> Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 6:50 AM
> To: lml@lancaironline.net
> Subject: [LML] Airport security?
>
> Posted for "Douglas Brunner" <douglasbrunner@earthlink.net>:
>
>
> Yesterday (1/14), I headed out to my airport (KMTN) to do some
> work on my
> plane. Recently, my airport has installed a sliding gate with a
> code to
> control entry.
>
> On my way in, I observed the car in front of me stop at the
> keypad, spend
> some time sitting there and then drive away from the entry. My
> inference was that they did not know the access code to the
> airport. I pulled up to
> the gate, punched in the access code and pulled through the gate.
> I
> stopped
> on the other side of the gate, to limit entry to one car. The
> car which
> had
> been in front of me (and had failed to gain entry) then tried to pull
> around
> me and go through the gate while it was still open. I moved my car
> slightly
> to block their entry figuring that if they didn't know the code, they
> shouldn't be coming in with me.
>
> Well it turned out that the two men in the car, were actually police
> officers, and they did not take kindly to my blocking their
> entrance. In
> essence they "copped an attitude" (pun intended) and gave me a
> hard time
> about blocking them. After a few unkind words were exchanged, we
> both went
> on our ways.
>
> Normally, I am not a huge fan of the (pseudo) security procedures at
> airports. And perhaps from time to time, I have been known to
> let someone
> follow me in through the security gate, or to follow others in.
> However in
> this case, it appeared to me that they had demonstrated that they
> did not
> know the code so I treated them (not knowing they were cops)
> differently.
> Several questions/observations:
>
> Since the number of terrorist incidents attributable to GA
> aircraft both
> prior to and after instituting these security precaution is ZERO,
> is it
> logical to infer that the procedures have been a success???
>
> Since the police appear to regard the security precautions as
> optional should these security precautions should be observed
> religiously by non-
> law
> enforcement types???
>
> Has the amount of time and money spent on airport security post 9/11,
> (which
> probably exceeds the GDP of some African and Latin American
> countries) been
> well spent???
>
> Or are these security precautions are an expensive charade
> designed to
> persuade gullible people that the government is making them safer???
>
> --
>
> For archives and unsub
> http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html