X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 12:22:53 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.70] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4c1) with ESMTP id 4790901 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 23:33:17 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.70; envelope-from=rtitsworth@mindspring.com DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=mindspring.com; b=Hn7PG07OxpV7h1+o2jnmUMQ67W1TFXk/BlddJmJA0744i08gk2yLduauYNHdhhlu; h=Received:From:To:References:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Mailer:thread-index:X-MimeOLE:In-Reply-To:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [71.227.105.188] (helo=X200) by elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1PfPii-0000O0-Fo for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 23:32:33 -0500 From: "Rick Titsworth" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" References: Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Airport security? X-Original-Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 23:32:08 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_005A_01CBB767.FBF038D0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 thread-index: Acu3fnb5nMs0jOP3RkqvFOsqU6dJtAAEvJYg X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5994 In-Reply-To: X-ELNK-Trace: b17f11247b2ac8f0a79dc4b33984cbaa0a9da525759e2654c8ea18ac7ce5c1fe5fee9acdbc88cd69667c3043c0873f7e350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 71.227.105.188 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_005A_01CBB767.FBF038D0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Don't we also have to fence in all lakes and rivers for the amphibians? Hmmm, seems like a big job and those folks who "used" to have waterfront property are probably going to be pissed. _____ From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Terrence O'Neill Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 9:13 PM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] Re: Airport security? If there are hundreds of small airports without gates, what's the logic of having them at bigger airports? Did you ask 'What's 'logic' mean?" How about requiring every farmer with a strip to fence in and gate? Or everyone with an ujltralight? What sillyness. terrence LNC2 On Jan 18, 2011, at 10:49 AM, Sky2high@aol.com wrote: C'mon, this is an opportunity for those in the gate business. Employ a double gate system where ones vehicle is not allowed to pass the second gate until the first is closed. Exit must be accomplished elsewhere with a single gate (and toll) to get out. Think of all the people that would be employed building, installing and maintaining these gates. My own airport, KARR, has fences and gates. The Sky Haven hangar complex (www.skyhaven.com ) is required to operate two gates. However, the fence at the northeast only goes 50 feet beyond the gate and if you are willing to drive through a small swale entry, is assured. Grayhawk In a message dated 1/18/2011 9:11:28 A.M. Central Standard Time, panelmaker@earthlink.net writes: Interesting observations and questions. My question is: by keeping vehicles from entering after you, are you the police now? Are you expected to enforce a regulation, law, what ever? Is that responsibility passed on to you because you rent space? Our airport does the same thing and has for a long time. I think it's to placate a local congress person. Jim _____ From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of marv@lancair.net Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 8:50 AM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] Airport security? Posted for "Douglas Brunner" : 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 _____ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1191 / Virus Database: 1435/3384 - Release Date: 01/16/11 ------=_NextPart_000_005A_01CBB767.FBF038D0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Don’t we also have to fence = in all lakes and rivers for the amphibians? 

Hmmm, seems like a big job and = those folks who “used” to have waterfront property are probably going to = be pissed.

 

From: = Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Terrence O'Neill
Sent: Tuesday, January = 18, 2011 9:13 PM
To: = lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Re: = Airport security?

 

If there are hundreds of small airports without gates, what's = the logic of having them at bigger airports?  Did you ask 'What's 'logic' mean?"

How about requiring every farmer with a strip to fence in and = gate?

Or everyone with an ujltralight?

What sillyness.

terrence

LNC2 

 

 

On Jan 18, 2011, at 10:49 AM, Sky2high@aol.com wrote:



C'mon, this is an opportunity for = those in the gate business.  Employ a double gate system where ones = vehicle is not allowed to pass the second gate until the first is closed.  = Exit must be accomplished elsewhere with a single gate (and toll) to get = out.  Think of all the people that would be employed building, installing and = maintaining these gates.

 

=

My own airport, KARR, has fences and gates.  The Sky Haven hangar = complex (www.skyhaven.com) is required to = operate two gates.  However, the fence at the northeast only goes 50 feet = beyond the gate and if you are willing to drive through a small swale entry, is assured.

 

=

Grayhawk

 

=

In a message dated 1/18/2011 = 9:11:28 A.M. Central Standard Time, panelmaker@earthlink.net writes:

Interesting observations and = questions.
My question is: by keeping vehicles from entering after you, are you the = police now? Are you expected to enforce a regulation, law, what ever? Is that responsibility passed on to you because you rent space? Our airport does = the same thing and has for a long time. I think it’s to placate a = local congress person.

Jim

 

=

From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of marv@lancair.net
Sent: Monday, January 17, = 2011 8:50 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











No virus found in this =
message.

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 10.0.1191 / Virus Database: 1435/3384 - Release Date: =
01/16/11

 

------=_NextPart_000_005A_01CBB767.FBF038D0--