X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 11:49:10 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from vms173019pub.verizon.net ([206.46.173.19] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4c1) with ESMTP id 4680074 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 23:53:21 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=206.46.173.19; envelope-from=rpharis@verizon.net Received: from WS1 ([unknown] [71.116.103.77]) by vms173019.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.02 32bit (built Apr 16 2009)) with ESMTPA id <0LF70009RC7KJW40@vms173019.mailsrvcs.net> for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 22:52:36 -0600 (CST) From: "Rod Pharis" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" References: In-reply-to: Subject: RE: [LML] Airport security? X-Original-Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 20:52:26 -0800 X-Original-Message-id: <005c01cbb6cb$82c55d60$88501820$@net> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_005D_01CBB688.74A21D60" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-index: Acu2Vc+A37apls9XQz6LQaR3rs1QEwAdVvCA Content-language: en-us This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_005D_01CBB688.74A21D60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit You took the correct action. If you let them in they should have busted you, not the other way around. They are obviously amateurs. Rod Pharis From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto: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" : 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 ------=_NextPart_000_005D_01CBB688.74A21D60 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

You took the correct = action.  If you let them in = they should have busted you, not the other way around.  They are obviously = amateurs.

 

Rod = Pharis

 

From: Lancair Mailing List = [mailto: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
------=_NextPart_000_005D_01CBB688.74A21D60--