Speedbird555 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2008, 37 posts, RR: 0 Posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 12679 times:
My first post on Airliners.net after recently signing up. Hi everyone. Finally paid my dues after many hours spent looking through the forum and reading varied (albeit sometimes controversial, impatient or insensitive ) opinions about the aviation world and it's fans! I'm hooked!
Anyhow, a recent article caught my eye and I thought it was worth sharing. Here's the interesting bits:
"...plans to implement greater security measures for the City of London, Gatwick and Heathrow Airports and the skies of southern England to guard against possible terrorist attacks could be on their way. 'Behind closed doors' discussions concerning the use of Heathrow Airport by the RAF have reportedly been taking place - the proposals could see hangars once used by British Airways' Concordes being modified and upgraded to house two (or perhaps four) fully-armed Tornado F3s as part of a London and Southern England QRA detachment plan....."
"....the hangars at Heathrow are ideally placed for Tornado F3 QRA operations; the aircraft could taxi straight out to the runway at speed with no hindrance and with only minimum or no delay to the daily operations of the airport and commercial airliners either on the ground or in the air..........If the plans are to go ahead, airport perimeter security would be tightened and there would be "Zero tolerance" shown to aviation photographers and plane spotters who are seen around the perimeter fence and in the areas they currently frequent in pursuit of their hobby. Neither the RAF, British Airways nor BAA were available for comment on the speculation."
I guess it's a feasible idea but has anyone heard about this from elsewhere? How would they enforce a Zero Tolerance level of security and would it be absolutely necessary? Some European aiports I've passed through serve both commercial & military aircraft, do they have restrictions for plane spotting or is this speculation a bit over dramatic?
I would vote this if I had a vote. LOL!!! I don't know a whole lot about the laws of the land in the UK, but I know here in the states that would never fly thanks to the Constitution. But then again, our government is stupid enough to try something like this too at some point all in the name of "Homeland Security".
Caspritz78 From Germany, joined Aug 2007, 518 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 12628 times:
At Gatewick the local police works together with the spotters because spotters would notice first if someone new shows up and acts suspiciously. So I think instead of "zero Tolerance" against spotters and people who like to watch planes they should ask the people at Gatewick how to use the knowledge of these people.
Kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 11957 posts, RR: 37 Reply 3, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 12622 times:
And where would BA carry out its line maintenance?
I really don't think the tornado aspect is feasible; it would be far better to have the aircraft based somewhere near London (as they already are), so they can get quick access to aircraft flying over London; that, to my mind, is where the real risk lies.
As to banning plane spotting, it wouldn't surprise me at all if they were to try to pull something like this; facilities for enthusiasts have got worse and worse at London's airports. Of course it would fail and instead of the enthusiasts and police having a good working relationship, they would be turned against each other; sooner or later, the police would have to give up, because the enthusiasts would run them ragged and the costs would be very high, with no real benefit for security, because enthusiasts have never posed a threat to security at London airports; the only threat is from those who are not sufficiently focused on where the threat lies.
Bongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3019 posts, RR: 2 Reply 6, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 12476 times:
Sounds like fantasy land to me.
What a nighmare of a place to try and perform any form of QRA. Ist thing would be to fight your way through the aircraft queuing for take off; then after takeoff, assuming its a real emergency, having to thread your way through slow moving airliners all manouevering due to the sudden closure of their destination airports.
Far better to start from outside London in clearer skies, and then use the aircrafts performance to rapidly close in on the target
As for eliminating plane spotters; unless the authorities are thinking of rounding up all spotters and throwing them in prison, or even shoot to kill; how would they ever acheive this ? With ever evolving technology and miniaturisation, we now have cameras so small its hard to notice them.
Plus plane spotters could be considered an aide to security, rather than a risk; as there is a good possibility they would spot the terrorist before the security forces. A group of plane spotters with their cameras, would soon notice a person with a ground to air missile standing next to them.
Scorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 4934 posts, RR: 47 Reply 9, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 12361 times:
Quoting PhilB (Reply 4): Of course neither the OP or the people who answered so far bothered to look at the date on the article - the first of the fourth month of the year.
Or at your post for that matter Thanks for pointing it out, they nearly had me there!
Newark777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 9348 posts, RR: 33 Reply 10, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 12341 times:
Quoting Lexy (Reply 1): I would vote this if I had a vote. LOL!!! I don't know a whole lot about the laws of the land in the UK, but I know here in the states that would never fly thanks to the Constitution. But then again, our government is stupid enough to try something like this too at some point all in the name of "Homeland Security".
What do you mean? There are several military bases/civilian airports here in the states, and photography rights can be restricted on private land.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21029 posts, RR: 60 Reply 12, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 12187 times:
Well, back to Trainspotting for me then.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Scorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 4934 posts, RR: 47 Reply 14, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 12060 times:
Quoting PhilB (Reply 11): At least two of us are awake enough to notice or is it a case of A.Netitis - never spoil a good scare story by looking at the facts?
Arsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7791 posts, RR: 23 Reply 15, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 11877 times:
So if these "extra security measures" ever come into place, what happens to spotters in and around Hatton Cross? Last time i checked BAA and the RAF don't have jurisdiction over Hatton Cross as it's a public area.
Lexy From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 2362 posts, RR: 9 Reply 17, posted (5 years 1 month 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 11643 times:
Quoting Newark777 (Reply 10): What do you mean? There are several military bases/civilian airports here in the states, and photography rights can be restricted on private land.
I am talking about NON-private lands. Anything that is owned by the government that IS NOT posted with signs expressing no tresspassing. As a avid photographer, private lands are a no-go no-brainer unless you have permission. That's just common sense.
Newark777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 9348 posts, RR: 33 Reply 19, posted (5 years 1 month 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 11517 times:
Quoting Lexy (Reply 17): Anything that is owned by the government that IS NOT posted with signs expressing no tresspassing.
I'm pretty sure you can't trespass onto airport grounds.
Rivet42 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 817 posts, RR: 1 Reply 21, posted (5 years 1 month 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 11424 times:
For all those confused by references to April 1st, there is a long-standing tradition in UK (and no doubt elsewhere) for April Fools Day (April 1st) to be 'celebrated' by newspapers publishing completely spoof articles, and even for news tv to report 'spoof' stories. I recall a brilliant April 1st advert by BMW in one of the top papers many years ago for a right-hand drive car that had a reversible dashboard and pedal system so that it could be converted wirhin a few minutes into a left-hand drive car.
One of the most well-known spoofs was a front-page story featuring a plan by the late, great, Sir Freddie Laker to build facilities either side of the Atlantic which would reduce passengers to a fraction of their real size so that they could be 'fired' in a rocket-like pod between UK and USA.
It's astonishing what some people will believe, but generally a great deal of fun for the rest of us...
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 61 Reply 24, posted (5 years 1 month 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 10216 times:
I'll just take photos form my parents front yard then..
Shot at 2007-08-22
Shot at 2007-08-22
"Up the Irons!"
25 Norcal773: Show-off By the way, I thought you were a big AA fan and cannot stand *A. Why only UA planes then? Where's your favorite AA MadDogs?? [Edited 20
26 Jacobin777: ...just proving my point that its possible to take airplane photos without having to deal with a lot of security & police... ....hey, you know I'm a
27 Bongodog1964: The problem is that though the original linked article was dated April 1st, the thread was posted here on A net on April 18th, thus I for one wasn't
28 Readytotaxi: Well if no one else is going to say it, "Welcome to the forum"
29 FalconBird: I know here at our local small airport in Kentucky security can be so tight sometimes that even the avid photographer taking aircraft photos along the
30 Bennett123: It has to be said that LHR is not especially spotter friendly, even in the real world.
31 Jacobin777: ...LHR has some great spotting views just outside of the airport perimeter...
33 Bennett123: Only off site, where they ca'nt stop you
34 Norcal773: You gotta agree, the UA MASSIVE loks a whole lot better than the AA MASSIVE. The world I am looking for is 'dull'. BR flies the MERRIMAN to LAX now.
35 Boeing74741R: I too question how banning plane spotting/taking photos of planes etc is going to be enforced effectively. I understand that there are some good vant
36 Philb: There's no evidence they are going to try
37 KennyK: Nice little Aprils fool, I wonder how many were taken in?
38 Boeing74741R: I didn't say they were going to try, I was getting at the implications of the police trying however...
39 Philb: ...implies you understand that something WILL happen. Why bother speculating. It's about time this thread, based on an April Fool, is closed.
40 Jacobin777: ..I have to disagree....your underpowered MASSIVE doesn't even come close to AA's "metal-classic" MASSIVE... ..I know.. ...they'll demote him back to
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2008, 37 posts, 
) opinions about the aviation world and it's fans! I'm hooked!
From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 2362 posts, 
From Germany, joined Aug 2007, 518 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 11957 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 4934 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
