 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups Destinations USA and CanadaEuropeAustralia and NZAsiaLatin AmericaCaribbean IslandsAfricaTravel Types Air TravelCruisesRV Travel |
Travel Forum / Travel Types / Air Travel / March 2008delayed by TSA
was at an airport today trying to catch a flight to another city. I normally work the Night shift from 6pm to 6am. I left work went to the airport got my boarding pass and was hurrying to get to the gate... Of course having has no sleep in the previous 12 hours, my patience was just not there. I refused a request to remove my shoes and wound up missing my flight. It could have been worse. I think there should be a more user friendly security system, once where footware can be screened while on one's feet. another option take a week and let people keep their shoes ON and if there are no problems let people keep hteir shoes on permanently I ha my laptop with me with my usual cables, disks and other impliments too I did catch a later flight and made it to my destination. I also appologized to the TSA people and we shook hands I don't drink alcohol but I also need to get more sleep JOHN > was at an airport today trying to catch a flight to another city. I > normally work the Night shift from 6pm to 6am. I left work went to the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I think there should be a more user friendly security system, once where > footware can be screened while on one's feet. Perhaps we should, but ISTM that checking shoes is one of the few worthwhile changes that security have added. It's easy to hide things in shoes, especially ones with metal supports in. tim >>was at an airport today trying to catch a flight to another city. I >>normally work the Night shift from 6pm to 6am. I left work went to the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > changes that security have added. It's easy to hide things in shoes, > especially ones with metal supports in. It's easy to hide things in other places. > Perhaps we should, but ISTM that checking shoes is one of the few > worthwhile changes that security have added. It's easy to hide things in > shoes, especially ones with metal supports in. Any proof of that?  SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. >> Perhaps we should, but ISTM that checking shoes is one of the few >> worthwhile changes that security have added. It's easy to hide things in >> shoes, especially ones with metal supports in. > >Any proof of that? Ever looked at a shoe? Anything long and flat (razor blades, etc) would fit easily under the insole of nearly any enclosed-foot shoe. Whether that would constitute a threat or not, I don't know -- I'd argue no. However, since it's within the TSA's mandate to try to prevent blades from getting on the plane, it's not an unreasonable search. lets not forget phones, My new cell phone is flat enough to fit in a shoe under the arch of my foot... remember Agent 86 Maxwell Smart and his shoe phone, played by Don Adams and the Chief, and Agent 99. >>>Perhaps we should, but ISTM that checking shoes is one of the few >>>worthwhile changes that security have added. It's easy to hide things in [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > no. However, since it's within the TSA's mandate to try to prevent > blades from getting on the plane, it's not an unreasonable search. > lets not forget phones, My new cell phone is flat enough to fit in a shoe > under the arch of my foot... Stop the music! Back up the truck! You bitched and whined about having to take off your shoes, and now you're telling us what you can hide in them????? >lets not forget phones, My new cell phone is flat enough to fit in a >shoe under the arch of my foot... Why would you want to sneak a cell phone through security? >>lets not forget phones, My new cell phone is flat enough to fit in a >>shoe under the arch of my foot... > > Why would you want to sneak a cell phone through security? Because then they wont find the razorblade hidden between the phone and the battery. SignatureHenrik Bengtsson --- 1234567890 Good Bye >>>lets not forget phones, My new cell phone is flat enough to fit in a >>>shoe under the arch of my foot... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Because then they wont find the razorblade hidden between the phone and the >battery. So again, why would you want to sneak a cell phone through security? No sneakery required, just toss it in the bin and let it through. If your goal is to sneak a razor blade through, then just say so. >>> Perhaps we should, but ISTM that checking shoes is one of the few >>> worthwhile changes that security have added. It's easy to hide things [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > no. However, since it's within the TSA's mandate to try to prevent > blades from getting on the plane, it's not an unreasonable search. So that's a 'no' then. The old CIA 'plastic knife', freely available just about anywhere as a letter opener, will not trigger the metal detector, just stick one in your pocket... See http://www.selfdefenseproducts.com/nfk.htm for details... SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. >>>Perhaps we should, but ISTM that checking shoes is one of the few >>>worthwhile changes that security have added. It's easy to hide things in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Ever looked at a shoe? Anything long and flat (razor blades, etc) would > fit easily under the insole of nearly any enclosed-foot shoe. I can put a razor blade elsewhere in my clothing. > > Perhaps we should, but ISTM that checking shoes is one of the few > > worthwhile changes that security have added. It's easy to hide things in > > shoes, especially ones with metal supports in. > > Any proof of that? Sure. Just ask the Shoe Bomber who tried to smuggle plastic explosives on a flight after 9/11 who fortunately got caught. Take a look at the heal of a shoe sometimes; they are usually hollow. >>>Perhaps we should, but ISTM that checking shoes is one of the few >>>worthwhile changes that security have added. It's easy to hide things in [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > on a flight after 9/11 who fortunately got caught. Take a look at the > heal of a shoe sometimes; they are usually hollow. So, the shoes are one place to conceal something. If they are plastic, you could tape them to your legs. There is no need to hide things in your shoes. However, since the liquid ban, I have yet to be attacked by a passenger trying to shampoo my hair. >However, since the liquid ban, I have yet to be attacked by a passenger >trying to shampoo my hair. A TSA success story at it's finest... > >>>Perhaps we should, but ISTM that checking shoes is one of the few > >>>worthwhile changes that security have added. It's easy to hide things in [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > If they are plastic, you could tape them to your legs. > There is no need to hide things in your shoes. If so, then why did the "Shoe Bomber" do just that? > However, since the liquid ban, I have yet to be attacked by a passenger > trying to shampoo my hair. I think some of the TSA regulations are foolish; however, keep in mind that just because multiple vectors exist to smuggle dangerous substances onto a plane exist does not mean those vectors shouldn't at least try to be reduced. >> > Perhaps we should, but ISTM that checking shoes is one of the few >> > worthwhile changes that security have added. It's easy to hide things [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Sure. Just ask the Shoe Bomber who tried to smuggle plastic explosives > on a flight after 9/11 who fortunately got caught. There is absolutely no evidence that such a device would have worked. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. >>> > Perhaps we should, but ISTM that checking shoes is one of the few >>> > worthwhile changes that security have added. It's easy to hide things [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > There is absolutely no evidence that such a device would have worked. Sounds as if we might have a volunteer for a real-life test. >>>> > Perhaps we should, but ISTM that checking shoes is one of the few >>>> > worthwhile changes that security have added. It's easy to hide [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Sounds as if we might have a volunteer for a real-life test. Just because you're prepared to be frightened half to death because some loony once unsuccessfully tried to set a bomb off by setting fire to their shoe laces doesn't mean I have to be afraid. When someone demonstrates to me a realistic 'shoe bomb' I'll take notice, but so far nobody has. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. >>>>> > Perhaps we should, but ISTM that checking shoes is one of the few >>>>> > worthwhile changes that security have added. It's easy to hide [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > When someone demonstrates to me a realistic 'shoe bomb' I'll take notice, > but so far nobody has. If you're on my flight and a suspicous type surfaces, please don't bother yourself to attend the scene. There will surely plenty of others, and probably more qualified, too. >>>>>> > Perhaps we should, but ISTM that checking shoes is one of the few >>>>>> > worthwhile changes that security have added. It's easy to hide [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > yourself to attend the scene. There will surely plenty of others, and > probably more qualified, too. 'A suspicious type surfaces'? Not exactly what you'd call 'intelligence led' today are we... How would you describe 'a suspicious type'? SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. > How would you describe 'a suspicious type'? I think he means a person who looks like Christ. .... and I don't mean the white JC we often see pictured with long straight hair... you know, like Ted Neeley http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-zFnrKmYfI >>>>>>> > Perhaps we should, but ISTM that checking shoes is one of the few >>>>>>> > worthwhile changes that security have added. It's easy to hide [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > How would you describe 'a suspicious type'? Seeing as how you don't seem too concerned, and are apparently not bothered by passengers' lighting up matches and trying to ignite their shoes, there isn't much point in telling you. After a while, you might even recognize that a problem is in progress aboard the flight. >>>>>>>> > Perhaps we should, but ISTM that checking shoes is one of the few >>>>>>>> > worthwhile changes that security have added. It's easy to hide [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > shoes, there isn't much point in telling you. After a while, you might > even recognize that a problem is in progress aboard the flight. I'll take that as: 'I'm terribly sorry. I've made a fool of myself, but I'm also too stupid to shut my mouth in such circumstances' SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. >> Sure. Just ask the Shoe Bomber who tried to smuggle plastic explosives >> on a flight after 9/11 who fortunately got caught. > >There is absolutely no evidence that such a device would have worked. That's an interesting phrasing. As I understand it, the explosive was genuine; the method of detonation was feasible; the predicted blast force was sufficient to breach the hull, and the predicted - or at least - possible consequence of that breach would be a downed airliner. I'm only going on what I've read, of course - what part have I been mislead on? DaveM >>> Sure. Just ask the Shoe Bomber who tried to smuggle plastic explosives >>> on a flight after 9/11 who fortunately got caught. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > possible consequence of that breach would be a downed airliner. I'm only > going on what I've read, of course - what part have I been mislead on? Well first of all the method of detonation wasn't proven. The detonation medium was home made and nobody ever checked to see if it worked, or at least, not that I've heard. Getting plastic explosive to go bang from a pyrotechnic fuse is something people who know about explosives don't do unless they must because it often doesn't work. The stuff is just too damn stable. Making a pyrotechnic fuse that'll hold your shoes on isn't a trivial task either. The stuff that works doesn't stretch well and isn't that flexible No-one has ever shown that such a device could ever be detonated, no government has invited the world's press to see a demonstration of such a device and nobody has yet used one in a successful terrorist attack. In the days of the IRA the British government had regular displays at RAF Cossford where the press was shown the latest devices for blowing people up. Demonstrations were given, pictures appeared in the press and on TV and everyone was suitably impressed. Similar displays were organized after the recent outrages in London, along with demonstrations of what could have happened after the 'phut' attacks a bit later. So far, no shoe bomb demonstrations. The only possible conclusion is that the various governments involved built a couple and tried them and quietly walked away because they're a joke. However that poor schizophrenic is banged up good and proper in a US jail for the next twenty years because he built one, so they've got to keep pretending it's a threat or let him out, and he ain't getting out. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. > Of course having has no sleep in the previous 12 hours, my > patience was just not there. I refused a request to remove my > shoes and wound up missing my flight. It could have been worse. Yeah, how would they know whether or not you were going to blow plane without smelling your shoes? >>Of course having has no sleep in the previous 12 hours, my >>patience was just not there. I refused a request to remove my >>shoes and wound up missing my flight. It could have been worse. > > Yeah, how would they know whether or not you were going to > blow plane without smelling your shoes? You can't hide anything in your shoes that you can't hind elsewhere > You can't hide anything in your shoes that you can't hind elsewhere. You mean, stick up your hind-quarters? IMHO, if they're going to make us take uoff our shoes, they should at least stock a few cans of air freshener. > > You can't hide anything in your shoes that you can't hind elsewhere. > > You mean, stick up your hind-quarters? > IMHO, if they're going to make us take uoff our shoes, they should > at least stock a few cans of air freshener. Actually, most of the time, I do not remove my shoes. I wear sneakers and I would say about 80% of the time, I don't bother taking them off when I pass through the security check and TSA doesn't complain. > I think there should be a more user friendly security system, once where > footware can be screened while on one's feet. > > JOHN Removing your shoes has been a TSA requirement since the great 3oz liquid scare (it was only "recommended" before that rule change). I do not think it is mandatory anywhere else in the world. When I flew out of HNL in DEC07, I wore some extremely flimsy slippers to protect my feet from their filthy floor. The TSA agent told me the slippers would be confiscated. For some reason, he was upset when I destroyed the slippers before surrendering them. My guess is that the agent wanted to take them home, and I had frustrated his opportunity to streal from the public. They never have wanted to confiscate the clear plastic bags that I have used to keep my feet clean. >> I think there should be a more user friendly security system, once where >> footware can be screened while on one's feet. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >liquid scare (it was only "recommended" before that rule change). I >do not think it is mandatory anywhere else in the world. Wasn't it after that British passenger tried to light his shoes on a flight? Also something to do with the gel inserts being like some explosives in consistency. > Wasn't it after that British passenger tried to light > his shoes on a flight? Richard Reid? > Also something to do with the gel inserts being > like some explosives in consistency. No. Obviously you have not actually read the TSA web site. As I said, it used to be "recommended" but not required until about 1.5 years ago. There was some secret criterion, unevenly enforced, for distinguishing between the shoes that would or would not trigger additional scrutiny. Before they changed the rule, I used to keep my shoes on; when challenged by the TSA, I could show them a print out of their web site and assert that I was in compliance with their rules. I might have had to endure secondary screening, but I could keep my shoes on. They would go through the act of testing my shoes by wiping them with a chemical swab. Since the rule was changed, I have had to adopt a different procedure to protect myself from their filth. >> Wasn't it after that British passenger tried to light >> his shoes on a flight? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >them with a chemical swab. Since the rule was changed, I have had to >adopt a different procedure to protect myself from their filth. For some reason I used to get the Full Monty treatment even though I passed through the gate without any alarms. That phase has passed since the blanket take your shoes off routine. >>>I think there should be a more user friendly security system, once where >>>footware can be screened while on one's feet. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Also something to do with the gel inserts being > like some explosives in consistency. Your point? He could have put the inserts inside his pants. Matches and lighters are banned, but you can easily hide those. So, what is the big deal with the shoes? >>>>I think there should be a more user friendly security system, once where >>>>footware can be screened while on one's feet. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Your point? He could have put the inserts inside his pants. >Matches and lighters are banned, but you can easily hide those. He could have done so, but he was the first to think of this idea, so had no need to. >So, what is the big deal with the shoes? Control, > was at an airport today trying to catch a flight to another city. I > normally work the Night shift from 6pm to 6am. I left work went to the [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > JOHN You didn't follow the rules, and you got to the airport too late. 'tis yer own fault. > was at an airport today trying to catch a flight to another city. It is unusual to take a flight to the same city. You claim to be a frequent flyer, yet you don't understand your shoes are supposed to be removed, and you ara supposed to do as told. Did you tell them about your knife? I am not one who takes kindly or believes in the "zero tolerance" phrase If that thinking were in place when I was in elementary or high school, who knows where I'd be or how many times my parent's would have been called. At that time "be reasonable and be fair" was how people thought. I have always been and will always be one who asks WHY, HOW COME, saying do it because someone said do will never be good enough for me. The world needs people to look at things critically and say when things are NOT RIGHT or make suggestions on what can be improved. If I complain, I will say I don't like because.. not just I don't like well, I was flying to another city for a meeting then flying back later the same day, that's not too unusual. we need to make our senators and represenatives and presidential canidates too be subject to the exact same treatment everyone else must go through. If that were the case, I wonder how fast things would change the average traveler just wants to get someplace, they have no evil intentions. Also with Airport security the aim should not be to delay travelers, but to speed them through. Often people percieve the security (and it often is) as a way to get delayed. >> was at an airport today trying to catch a flight to another city. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > are supposed to be removed, and you ara supposed to do as told. > Did you tell them about your knife? > Also with Airport security, the aim should not be to delay travelers, > but to speed them through. LOL. Perhaps in whatever planet you're from. >I am not one who takes kindly or believes in the "zero tolerance" phrase > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > If I complain, I will say I don't like because.. not just I don't like WOW - What a rebel! So with all the problems in this world, you chose to save us all from the Shoe Nazis. A just cause. Long live the King. > I am not one who takes kindly or believes in the "zero tolerance" phrase > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > the average traveler just wants to get someplace, they have no evil > intentions. Great.. But until things change, you know damn well you are supposed to remove your shoes. If you went to secondary screening and missed your flight, then you arrived too late. > Also with Airport security the aim should not be to delay travelers, but > to speed them through. Why would their goal be to speed people through? Their goal is to follow the rules in place. You aren't going to win by not following the rules at the airport. That isn't the place to fight this. You tried. You lost. You missed your flight. > was at an airport today trying to catch a flight to another city. I > normally work the Night shift from 6pm to 6am. I left work went to the [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > JOHN Dude, if they tell you to jump through a hoop, do it. The TSA people are pinheads on a power trip. FWIW, I wear slip-on shoes to the airport - and two pairs of socks. Slip the shoes off, and after security, take off the socks that have been exposed to who-knows what, and put your shoes back on over your clean socks. -L. from the responses I have received almost everyone agrees with me in that the encounter with the TSA is not the favorite part nor the highlight of your trip. Shut up and do it.. NO, things will not change and get better for everyone if someone does not say something. You have to say it in the right way and to the right people. Also enough of us need to say something. Say something to your Represenative, to the TSA management and to the airport management too. Airport security is there to be sure flying continues to be a safe way to travel. Its not perfect, It's not going to find everything, but the people at airport security need to be sensible and reasonable. I prefer to fly myself whenever possible as once I get the weather, file the flight plan and preflight the plane, I am ready to go. I can be in the air in less than 20 minutes after I get to the airport. I also am putting in a landing strip on my property. Also, if you want me to take my shoes off, take stuff out of my pockets, put a table and some chairs off to the side so I can put my shoes back on, put my laptop and anything else back in my bag. I did write to the management of one airport that has wireless internet and they now have tables and electrical outlets. Before I contacted them, you had to hunt for a place to plug your laptop in someplace along the wall or in the floor. Anything can be used as a weapon. You can stab and injure someone with a pencil or pen I've worked for government agencies and the shut up and do it or we have always done things this way does not sit well with me. Having been trained as an engineer, I always look for BETTER ways to do things. things don't change if no one changes them. >>was at an airport today trying to catch a flight to another city. I >>normally work the Night shift from 6pm to 6am. I left work went to the [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > -L. > from the responses I have received almost everyone agrees with me in > that the encounter with the TSA is not the favorite part nor the > highlight of your trip. We agree that you are an idiot for believing you would be able to fight the battle at the security screening station. > Shut up and do it.. NO, things will not change and get better for > everyone if someone does not say something. You have to say it in the > right way and to the right people. Also enough of us need to say > something. Say something to your Represenative, to the TSA management > and to the airport management too. LOL.. However, you actions seem to show you trying to fight the battle at the security scanner where the low level employees are. > I did write to the management of one airport that has wireless internet > and they now have tables and electrical outlets. Before I contacted > them, you had to hunt for a place to plug your laptop in someplace along > the wall or in the floor. Yes, you did it all by yourself. >> from the responses I have received almost everyone agrees with me in >> that the encounter with the TSA is not the favorite part nor the >> highlight of your trip. > We agree that you are an idiot for believing you would be able to fight > the battle at the security screening station. >> Shut up and do it.. NO, things will not change and get better for >> everyone if someone does not say something. You have to say it in the >> right way and to the right people. Also enough of us need to say >> something. Say something to your Represenative, to the TSA management >> and to the airport management too. > LOL.. However, you actions seem to show you trying to fight the battle > at the security scanner where the low level employees are. >> I did write to the management of one airport that has wireless >> internet and they now have tables and electrical outlets. Before I >> contacted them, you had to hunt for a place to plug your laptop in >> someplace along the wall or in the floor. > Yes, you did it all by yourself. It is entirely possible that he did it by himself. It is not uncommon with small business operations for an individual complaint to generate change. >We agree that you are an idiot for believing you would be able to fight >the battle at the security screening station. No, he's an idiot for posting it but not doing it. If he pulled out a knife after was through security and made an issue of it, he wouldn't be boasting here, he'd be boasting in the media (or through his lawyer, depending on how much of a sense of humour the TSA has. Try it and find out!) >>We agree that you are an idiot for believing you would be able to fight >>the battle at the security screening station. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > through his lawyer, depending on how much of a sense of humour the TSA > has. Try it and find out!) Moran claims to carry a knife in his carryon bag, and claims it his right to do so. I guess he didn't argue this when he went through secondary screening. the TSA peopple don't have any sense of humor, they are people doing their job just following orders given to them by the people we sent to washington to supposedly represent our best intersts... no security is going to be 100% perfect. At least what we have now could be more user friendly... one can put enough of a substance to do damage in a tea bag and put the tea bag in their pocket, and matches in another pocket and this WILL NOT be detected. By no means am I saying do this, I am just pointing out that the system we have now is flawed and not perfect. Anybody who does something like the shoe bomb guy (Richard Reid) should not be jailed, but should be taken someplace and shot for trying to endanger the lives of all those on the aircraft. Nah, congressmen and senators represent the interests of who send them to the best resorts or in some ways puts more money into their campaign funds. the TSA should have a sense of humor, obviously there are things not to say don't mention "bomb", "explosive", or "plastic explosive" use "energetic materials" instead as that sound smore politically correct. say something like "we gotta make sure your feet don't smell". or "I need to inspect your socks today" put people at ease yet still do their job make the experience less painful. anyways on a humoerous note I handed someone a folded note with the word BOMBS on the outside, and inside was an American Flag and under the flag the words Bring Our Military (men) Back Safely. person looked at that smiled at me and gave me a thumbs up. >>We agree that you are an idiot for believing you would be able to fight >>the battle at the security screening station. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > through his lawyer, depending on how much of a sense of humour the TSA > has. Try it and find out!) JA_MORAN <john@analon.com> said: >Anybody who does something like the shoe bomb guy (Richard Reid) should >not be jailed, but should be taken someplace and shot for trying to >endanger the lives of all those on the aircraft. Would that be before or after his trial? SignatureCraig http://www.wazu.jp/ 1,239 Unicode fonts for 82 written language groups: Price your own web plan: http://www.wazu.jp/hosting/ > Anybody who does something like the shoe bomb guy (Richard Reid) should > not be jailed, but should be taken someplace and shot for trying to > endanger the lives of all those on the aircraft. I see. It wouldn't matter to you if they had a mental disability or could give you information on others, as long as they were shot? I guess you don't care about the US Constitution, huh? > anyways on a humoerous note I handed someone a folded note with the word > BOMBS on the outside, and inside was an American Flag and under the flag > the words Bring Our Military (men) Back Safely. I doubt you handed it to TSA. > I prefer to fly myself whenever possible as once I get the weather, file > the flight plan and preflight the plane, I am ready to go. I can be in > the air in less than 20 minutes after I get to the airport. I also am > putting in a landing strip on my property. 'Property'? More information, please. SignatureCraig http://www.wazu.jp/ 1,239 Unicode fonts for 82 written language groups: Price your own web plan: http://www.wazu.jp/hosting/ I own enough land in Southeastern Arizona to put in an 1800 foot long landing strip. The distance to clear a 50 ft obsticle (and come to a safe stop) is usually about 1,100 feeet or less. It may take a bit longer to take off on high density altitude days. will only have to deal with TSA then if I need to take a commercial flight someplace. If I am able to fly myself, I will. Also, if I fly someplace then I can go on MY schedule, not an airlines's JOHN >> I prefer to fly myself whenever possible as once I get the weather, >> file the flight plan and preflight the plane, I am ready to go. I can [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > More information, please. > >> I prefer to fly myself whenever possible as once I get the weather, > >> file the flight plan and preflight the plane, I am ready to go. I can [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > flight someplace. If I am able to fly myself, I will. Also, if I fly > someplace then I can go on MY schedule, not an airlines's 1100 feet, even 1500 feet is for very small planes. You won't be getting anywhere fast, and you'll be more burdened by weather delays. IIRC the old expression is "Time to spare? Go by air." Your range will be relatively limited as well. JA_MORAN <john@analon.com> said: >I own enough land in Southeastern Arizona to put in an 1800 foot long >landing strip. The distance to clear a 50 ft obsticle (and come to a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >flight someplace. If I am able to fly myself, I will. Also, if I fly >someplace then I can go on MY schedule, not an airlines's Do you own an aeroplane? SignatureCraig http://www.wazu.jp/ 1,239 Unicode fonts for 82 written language groups: Price your own web plan: http://www.wazu.jp/hosting/ > JA_MORAN <john@analon.com> said: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Do you own an aeroplane? And a private customs post... SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. I do have a plane and I can go to DUG if I need customs, otherwise, it's much quicker in the plane to fly over the hills to TUS or PHX than it is to drive. Sometimes the MOA is active, I see planes doing maneuvers above the property. I just call FSS (flight service station) file a flight plan then once airborne will call either ZAB (the Center), FHU, or TUS. OF course before enterieng the class B for Phoenix, I do need to call them on their frequency. Usually I will get flight following from the center in either Alberquerque or the Los Angeles folks out in Palmdale. when you fly VFR, you are responsible for seeing and avoiding traffic, but when you ask for flight following, an air traffic controller may point out somehting that you are unable to see. >> JA_MORAN <john@analon.com> said: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > And a private customs post... > I own enough land in Southeastern Arizona to put in an 1800 foot long > landing strip. The distance to clear a 50 ft obsticle (and come to a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > flight someplace. If I am able to fly myself, I will. Also, if I fly > someplace then I can go on MY schedule, not an airlines's I hope you schedule a flight to Corona. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.