Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
You Asked For It. You Got It.  
User currently offlineCerulean From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2048 times:

When are you people going to learn to be careful of what you wish for? You just might get it.

I just couldn't resist taking a poke at this thread over in the photo section.


http://www.airliners.net/discussions/aviation_photography/read.main/70956/

And my reply at the bottom of the page, which reads:

It's called "security".

all of you in the "Non-Av" and "Civil" threads screamed and bitched about how lax security is, up to and including not allowing non ticketed pax in the area for fear of the "risk" they could be.

Well the same logic can be applied here. What business do any of you have sitting next to a runway?

You asked for it. Now you have to live with it. You can't have it both ways.


I don't feel sorry for any of you.


22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSquigee From Canada, joined May 2001, 652 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2006 times:

What to you want? A parade in your honour?

Starting a new post to stroke your ego is a waste of forum resources.



Someday, we'll look back at this, laugh nervously, and then change the subject.
User currently offlineJetTrader From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 586 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1983 times:


Cerulean,

Those guys beside the runway (and elsewhere) take the pictures that make this site possible.

Those guys, by their efforts and submissions to this site, afford you, through this forum, a vehicle to air your views and opinions.

If you have nothing better to do than badmouth those guys then just shut the f**k up!

Regards,
JT



Life's dangerous. Get a f**king helmet!
User currently offlineCerulean From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1941 times:

I think both of you need to get off the defensive and see this post for what it is.

The purpose of this post is not to make fun of or ridicule photographers. Since I am (or at least was) an airline enthusiast and photographer myself, and have been so for many years (longer than many of you have been alive), that would be like insulting myself.

The purpose of this thread is to expose the double standard so prevalant nowadays. So many people bitch and moan about the need for greater security-yet complain when such measures are actually implmented-as in the case of LAX-the topic I referenced.

What baffles me is why so many of you so are so vocal and adamant about your desire to keep non-ticketed pax out of the area (in many airports, this is the best ocation for spotting and pictures), yet have absolutely no problem moseying up to a runway.

It would seem to me that a person inside an enclosed and secure and patrolled area such as a gate concourse would be far less a threat than a randon person showing up at a runway.

I mean think about it. How hard would it be to carry a gun, or plastíque or even a portable "rocket launcher" to a runway (which is open and unscreened and accessible to anyone with a car) versus a carefully watched airport concourse.

Why are you rallying for the extermination of anyone not holding a ticket from entering a controlled environment while simultaneously crying foul wheneever an uncontrolled spot such as a runway frontage road is closed off.


Think about it.


User currently offlineJderden777 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1755 posts, RR: 29
Reply 4, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1904 times:

cerulean...

see, what your problem is...you can't tell the difference between pointless actions and those that actually augment airline/airport security.....

allowing only ticketed pax into the gate areas is rather annoying, but i realize that it's a security measure, and it's something that i took for granted....but i just have to make do...all of us do....and when do things to discourage spotting, it's usually rather pointless - they should be concentrating on screening pax, baggage, and cargo instead of closing off of some of these spots...as far as LAX goes (i've never been there, so i can't really argue) it sounds pointless to say the least since there is a security tower there nearby.....i think running spotters off is really contradictory to the security of the airport, and in effect the airport is really hurting itself when they run spotters off...

the way i see it (which is obviously very different from the way you do), is that spotters actually help keep watch over the airport perimeter.....i mean, who else will sit there for hours on end hanging out by the fence? the airport sorta has a security net when spotters are around...if they see something unusual or somebody getting out of line (jumping over fences, etc), then they'll call the proper authorities....the tower might not even see something going on, but the spotters will....so that's my point of view...basically that spotters act as a pair of watchful eyes for airport.....it's almost a win-win situation for both parties, as we get to watch planes and we will let them know if we see something unusual....but most airports don't see it that way, we're just a nuisance.

so....the way you state that we have a double standard....no we don't....some people might, but i don't...and i'm sure the majority of airplane watchers/photographers don't either

jonathan d.



"my soul is in the sky" - shakespeare
User currently offlineJderden777 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1755 posts, RR: 29
Reply 5, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1893 times:

wait....i got an idea...

now that i think about it, why don't we just build terminals/concourses/secure buildings all the way around our airports!! then we could be in our "controlled" environment and not be a threat! we wouldn't have to just "mosey up to a runway" anymore... Insane

jonathan d.



"my soul is in the sky" - shakespeare
User currently offlineSquigee From Canada, joined May 2001, 652 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1892 times:

Cerulean, this is the wrong bunch to talk to about keeping people away from airports.

Terrorists carried out the Sept.11th hijackings. Not spotters.



Someday, we'll look back at this, laugh nervously, and then change the subject.
User currently offlineHmmmm... From Canada, joined May 1999, 2104 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1860 times:

Terrorists don't include spotting in their schemes. They do visit travel agencies and book flights over the internet. They don't have to look at planes. But they may work at airports cleaning and feeding the aircraft. They have access to aircraft this way, and need to be ferreted out.

Just in case you didn't notice, cerulean, spotters have no access to planes, have no badges, and 7-ft tall barbed wires keep them on the public side of the fence. Along with everybody else.

So there is no double standard here. Are you not intelligent enough to understand that?



An optimist robs himself of the joy of being pleasantly surprised
User currently offlineCactusA319 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2918 posts, RR: 25
Reply 8, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1859 times:


I honestly don't remember any spotters or photographers actually asking for the concourses to be closed to non-pax or to have the gestapo kick us out of the airport perimeter. I mean can you cite these peoples who supposedly called for these measures? I'm sure they're not the same people who frequently go spotting or contribute to the photo forum on this site. Frankly Cerulean I think you're talking out of your ass.



User currently offlineCloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1848 times:

Yes, people complain when security is increased.
Yes, people complain about the lack of security.

The assertion I question is that these are the same people. My bet is that in most cases it is not. Do one thing you upset one group, do something else and you upset other people. Do you have any names of specific people or organizations that have made hypocritical complaints?

The big legitimate gripe about US airport security today is that we don't do what the Israelis and Europeans do and base our security more on detecting bad people than on detecting bad things. Detecting every last 3 inch knife is pointless. Contrary to allot of demagogery, there is no way to prevent people from taking dangerous things onboard with anywhere near 100% or even 80% certainty. At least not without strip-searching everyone before boarding.

In Israel and in allot of Europe they have baggage screening, metal detectors, etc. like they do here. Yet they rely allot more on profiles, good intel, and the like to screen out the bad guys. Does this mean that if your name is Husan, wear a beard, and like to buy one way tickets that you will have more than your fair share of trouble? You bet. But you'll still be able to board eventually. And the vast majority of travelers have a much easier and more secure experience. Political correctness has virtually destroyed any chance we have for rational security policies in the US.


User currently offlineCerulean From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1844 times:

Terrorists carried out the Sept.11th hijackings. Not spotters.

True. But who's suffering because of it?

spotters actually help keep watch over the airport perimeter

Sounds great. But what are they going to do if someone pulls out a portable surface to air missile or a grenade or two? Let's be honest here. If you saw someone fixing to take a shot at a plane, or produce a grenade, you'd all run for your lives.

Even if they called 9-1-1, the damage could be done, and the "suspect" can flee the scene long before any help can arrive. That is, unless the cops happen to be very close. Most often, there are very few cops in any one area and the perimeter of any airport is likely to be several miles.

What are the chances of anyone pulling off a stunt like this inside a terminal area past the security points?

allowing only ticketed pax into the gate areas is rather annoying, but i realize that it's a security measure

This is hogwash, pure and simple. With the exception of a few "uptight" airports, allowing visitors worked just fine. This is a cosmetic smoke screen that gives people something "tangible" to THINK that enhanced security is taking place.

If it there was a legitimate need for such strict measures as this, or if it was a true form of crowd control, that policy would've been in effect 25 years ago. Or at least during the 90% load factors of the late 1990's.



User currently offlineJderden777 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1755 posts, RR: 29
Reply 11, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1765 times:

"But who's suffering because of it?" (9/11)

we all are dude, get a grip - it's not just spotters that are suffering....

in response to your comment regarding my belief that spotters help to keep watch...have you ever heard of the story of what happened on United flight 93?...so what if there was NO ONE there....then you'd be even worse off.....so where do you stand on that one?

"what are the chances of anyone pulling off a stunt like this inside a terminal area past the security points?"

what are the chances of it happening further away from the airport while an aircraft is taking off or on approach, NOT right up next to the runway?

i think you're full of hogwash....i liked it how it was before, but it's not the SAME anymore...i think with your comments like you said above about us having a double standard....well here's your double standard...

you say we bitch and moan about the 'ticketed pax only' rule and you say how it's all in the name of security and then you turn right back around and say how those security measures are hogwash....now how do you explain THAT?!

i personally don't agree with the 'ticketed pax only' rule but hey, they didn't ask me, and i don't make the rules....so i just go with it....it would be nice if i could still get gate access as it would allow me much more photo opportunities, but hey i can live without it...

just my thoughts.....
jonathan d. <-- going spotting up next to the runway



"my soul is in the sky" - shakespeare
User currently offlineDC-10 Levo From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 3432 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1745 times:

And the point of this post is . . . . .




User currently offlineCactusA319 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2918 posts, RR: 25
Reply 13, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1727 times:

There is no point.

Dude just wants to piss some people off for the hell of it apparently.



User currently offlineCerulean From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1656 times:

I know all about flight 93. But herein lies the difference:

First, the terrorists weren't armed in the traditional sense of the word.

Second, they had nowhere to go. So they acted like their lives depended on it. Because it did.

Third, the plane STILL crashed. Granted, it didn't hit its intended target. But from a Humn Life standpoint, it becomes a moot point because the plane still crashed. It's like asking which is worse: having a 2000 pound piano dropped on you or a 40,000 cement truck.

Does it really matter? Either way, you're still dead.

you say we bitch and moan about the 'ticketed pax only' rule and you say how it's all in the name of security and then you turn right back around and say how those security measures are hogwash....now how do you explain THAT?!

I already did. Those measures (along with looking for every little nail clipper etc.) are a high profile COSMETIC attempt to present something for the passengers to see to lead them to believe that something is being done about security. There are still three things that bother me.

1. Those folks that started all of this on those 4 planes were ticketed passengers already. Yet they still carried out their deeds.

2. If this was a security feature that actually had merit, why wasn't it being done all along?

3. If the US Gov't is taking over security, with trained professionals, then wouldn't they be better qualified to do suveillance? In other words, if we allowed the public in WITH unqualified security personnel, then why do we have to lock the public OUT with BETTER security?

seems kind of bass-awkwards to me.



User currently offlineMaiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 50
Reply 15, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1497 times:

Top al Qaeda Operative Arrested





Cerulean, seen above after an aviation photographer saw him harrassing other aviation enthusiasts in a parking lot near a runway in Orlando. He reportedly has been harrassing plane fans near Los Angeles also. Nobody was injured in the apprehension. Cerulean is apparently an expert on what happened last September 11th, and what the terrorists were thinking. - GFY News



User currently offlineCerulean From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1353 times:

Look. I'm not trying to stir the pot just for the sake of stirring the pot. If you don't agree with what I'm saying, fine. Let's simply agree to disagree and then just wait things out. But let's cut with the personal attacks okay? I did not single out a single person. So don't get so defensive. Besides, if you see it fit to cast insults as well, then you are every bit as much of a narcissistic, gloriously convoluded and clueless asshole as you claim me to be.

Only time will tell what the long term effects will be. But personally, I think that at least some of you secretly feel the same way I do, even if you vehemently express your disagreement in writing here.

After all, the Prevailing Attitude is to accept whatever our US of A government dishes out if it's linked to "protection from terrorism". To call anything into question of course is unpatriotic. Right? You know that whole "going with the flow" mentality? No one wants to be The Outcast.

Just a couple of post script questions that I just have to ask:

1. How many of you are airplane lovers but airport haters?

2. How many of you love to fly but hate airplanes?

3. How many of you love airports and airplanes but hate spotters/photographers?

4. How many of you hate all of the above and only are here because you have to travel frequntly for work, and want to see what's going on in the industry?


Just curious.

Thank you.


User currently offlineBwc1976 From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 194 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1325 times:

Cerulean: That's me exactly, loving planes but hating airports. Also hating the U.S. airlines in general (with the possible exception of AA because of their MRTC, Legend if AA hadn't killed them before I had a chance to try them, probably Midwest Express, and maybe JetBlue if they ever start flying into DFW and either SAN or SNA).



User currently offlineJderden777 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1755 posts, RR: 29
Reply 18, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1292 times:

Cerulean..

the reason i brought up United flight 93 was because the people onboard did SOMETHING to protect the rest of us....i was trying to say that spotters (or at least i know i would) would try and keep someone from doing something out next to the runway that would cause others harm...but if there's lots of people hanging around at the perimeter fence, then of course they wouldn't want to try anything....however, if the spotters are all gone (run off, etc.) then there won't be anything there but a chain-link fence to deter people from doing something. but what do i know...i'm sure all plane spotters are just cowards and we would all run for our lives like you said... Insane

the fact that you started out bashing us spotters for 'complaining' about security measures, and then you turn around and contradict yourself and complain about them, really says something...

i'm sure the ticketed pax thing has something to do with the long lines that form at busy times for the larger airports...i remember in hearing of long waits in the lines....so if people were trying to get in that don't have a ticket, then it just lengthens the line of people and can be a nuisance. thing is times have changed...it's not the 50s anymore when ob decks were common and only short fences separated the people from the airplanes....if terrorists really want to do something, then they will...that goes without saying...flying will most likely never be 100% secure...all that can be done is do the best we can to try and make it better...

like i said, i don't like the ticketed pax only thing but i didn't make the rules, and it's not like me opening my mouth would change anything about it

jonathan d.



"my soul is in the sky" - shakespeare
User currently offlineCerulean From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1274 times:

Well at last....an intelligent reply. Now if I could only be as eloquent.

I see what you are saying about UAL #93 and you do raise a good point. However, I still stand behind my comment about how it was still a lost battle as the plane still crashed. But to their credit, as you pointed out, SOMETHING was done. So those people are to be commended. I guess the loss of that plane in a rural field sure beats a lost plane AND the White House (and everyone in it). But I feel that it was a rather unique situation. It begs the question of why didn't anyone on the other three planes try and thwart or divert the attack?

because the folks on #93 had been tipped off as to what was going on. They knew (unlike the other three planes) that they weren't going to be flown to Cuba and held for ransom. It is my belief that had they not known the true intent of the hijackers, then there is a better than 99% chance the either the White House or The Capitol would've been levelled as well.

i didn't make the rules, and it's not like me opening my mouth would change anything about it

Well it could and it couldn't. But isn't it at least worth a try? No one ever got anything done by doing NOTHING.

At the very least, even if The Fed doesn't budge on this, at least you can say you tried. You are surrendering without a fight so to speak. Not to digress too much, but that's the same attitude that is behind voter apathy and low turnout: "I'm just one person. My vote won't make a difference. So why bother?"
(end digression)

the fact that you started out bashing us spotters for 'complaining' about security measures, and then you turn around and contradict yourself and complain about them, really says something...

I'm not really sure where exactly I contradicted myself. All I said is that spotters have no reason to complain about the loss of their hobby if at the same time they are saying that security is too loose. To use a hypothetical example, it would be like someone complaining that their auto insurance was too expensive, even though they have 2 DUI's, 5 speeding tickets, and 3 at-fault accidents to their credit. I don't have any issues with spotters themselves as you imply. Like I said, I was once one too. For many many years.

i'm sure all plane spotters are just cowards and we would all run for our lives like you said

I never said that ALL spotters are cowards. Sure if there happen to be 30 or 40 of them gathered at an airport, then it's entirely probable that they would try and storm a would-be assasin. There's that whole strength-in-numbers thing.

But if there's only a few of them, and suddenly some rogue shows up with an uzi, I doubt that anyone toting a Nikon would be brave (or stupid) enough to try and stop him.

Spotters may be a unique breed. But they are still human.  Smile/happy/getting dizzy


if terrorists really want to do something, then they will...that goes without saying...flying will most likely never be 100% secure...all that can be done is do the best we can to try and make it better...

I agree with you all the way. But still, here in 2002, we can do better than what we are doing. As noted above, this sad state of affairs is PC gone way too far. Instead of punishing 99.9999999999999999999999999% of the people because of the actions of the other .0000000000000000000000001%, why not do a better job of sceurity long before the airport? Why not be a little more picky on who we roll out the welcome mat to? Why not do things a-la El Al and actually profile?








User currently offlineJderden777 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1755 posts, RR: 29
Reply 20, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1201 times:

"at last an intelligent reply"

bleh..

to continue, i'm willing to sacrifice gate access so that it will help out others (i.e. ticketed pax, see my long security lines rant above) but i definitely haven't given up...that's why i'm still spotting and taking pictures....as close as i can get  Wink/being sarcastic

jonathan d.

we never know what we would do in certain situations until we come face to face with them



"my soul is in the sky" - shakespeare
User currently offlineLekky-Man From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2002, 371 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1092 times:

Sorry people, but I just had to say something regarding all of this.

It's very late in the day for as I'm currently at work, withing the aviation industry, and there have been many things since Sept 11th that have struck, the most prominent of which is this.

YOU CAN NEVER LEGISLATE FOR THE INSANE.

So, to that end, whatever is done to counteract the threat, there will always be people who'll take it to 'another level'.

The only problem with all this is everyone (in the end) suffers.

Thats life I'm afraid.

Spotters, photographers, airport haters, aircraft haters, security lovers and haters are in the end all people in their own right and have views on this, but none of them are truly BAD people. THE TERRORISTS ARE THE ONES TO BE BLAMED, AS THEY ARE THE TRULY BAD.

Lets keep spotting, photographing, and all the other things we do to stop us from spending our lives down the pub, and NEVER, EVER let these bastards win.

Just my two pence worth.

Cheers all,

LM


User currently offlineElwood64151 From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 2477 posts, RR: 6
Reply 22, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1004 times:

Actually, the reason for people not being allowed in secured areas without a ticket is to reduce the workload of the screeners. It's not a security issue. It's a manpower issue.

As for people being by the runways, I agree with you that it represents a security risk, however, an SAM fired from outside the fence will still be visible to the tower. At MCI, there are people in the tower whose job it is to simply watch traffic and make sure that spotters (or terrorists) don't try to climb the fence.



Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it in summer school.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Anti-Whites...You Got What You Asked For posted Tue Dec 4 2001 18:41:44 by SFOintern
You Gotta PAY For It? Jet Blue posted Tue Jul 18 2000 03:59:20 by Surf
Sorry For The Delay.. It's A Heap Of Rubbish posted Fri Nov 17 2006 21:05:03 by Clickhappy
A Little Humor. (Is This The Right Forum For It?) posted Fri Sep 8 2006 13:39:39 by BlazingCessna
UA 777 At CAK & Preparation For It posted Tue Aug 10 2004 01:42:00 by CVG777
Air Fare Challenge - Up For It? posted Sat May 1 2004 23:09:46 by WindowSeat
Discount Airfares: The Best Deal You Ever Got? posted Sun Jan 25 2004 08:54:14 by FlySAA
MD-11: McD-Douglas Plan For It posted Wed Dec 24 2003 22:16:40 by Dandy_don
BHX Gathering, Whos Up For It? posted Mon Mar 31 2003 19:59:44 by Ammunition
Alaska Airline's Plans For It's 737-400s posted Sun May 5 2002 02:56:17 by BA