I’ve certainly encountered engineers who are “too busy” to commence maintenance work, but still charge large fees for hangarage of an aeroplane which is effectively grounded. 
Airport security the way we do it has been implemented by and strictly for the entertainment of intelligent beings watching us and laughing, from a galaxy far, far away.
That’s the only explanation that makes sense of this madness.
Horrid news above about Letnany… what total stupidity, given the lack of commercial traffic. It’s a grass strip!! Normally I would not think the Czechs (if which I am one) to not be so stupid.
Snoopy wrote:
Airport security the way we do it has been implemented by and strictly for the entertainment of intelligent beings watching us and laughing, from a galaxy far, far away.
That’s so very true.
I have yet to see a GA airport security system which I – if I were a really “bad guy” terrorist – could not overwhelm within half a minute with a single semi-automatic pistol. Even at the big international airports, the GA terminals are usually remote enough to allow an attacker to shoot all of the security personnel guarding the terminal and getting airside before any reinforcements can arrive.
And serious terrorists could always just load a small GA aircraft full with explosives and/or weapons at some remote airfield or farm strip, then fly to the big airport and wreak havoc once they arrive. Taxing straight into some terminal or parked A380 on arrival…nobody could stop them, right?
This airport security stuff is all a farce…
Well, one cannot stop an armed attack, suicide or not, in 99.9% of the social settings in the world we live in (the prosperous countries).
Even on the European mainland where police are armed, they are not likely to be effective. Yesterday, Verona airport, five heavily armed soldiers, standing in a tight circle, looking inwards, chatting and watching the girls. Quite useless against a single attacker.
GA needs security only at night, to prevent vandalism etc.
If passenger jets are involved then one needs to block the installation of a bomb, or passing something to the passengers before they board.
Anything else, I would like to see the risk assessment and it is prob99 dubious
MedEwok wrote:
This airport security stuff is all a farce…
Safety as well, Hi-Viz is a good one in Europe
The US has a busier GA in big airports and more tight on airport safety/security but they do without the symbolic hassle of wearing hi-viz jackets or symbolic issues going to your aircraft as you only have to show a plastic card 
The only case where FAA mandate yellow Jackets is drone pilots, but that was an identification issue
https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/info/all_infos/media/2018/info18001.pdf
If you have a certain sort of brain, I think it’s natural to keep thinking of loopholes in systems and ways in which you could be a really good terrorist if you wanted. Luckily I think most people with that kind of mindset aren’t that way inclined. I’m not sure it’s a good idea to advertise them though. What’s obvious to one person may not be to another.
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/03/the_security_mi_1.html
kwlf wrote:
If you have a certain sort of brain, I think it’s natural to keep thinking of loopholes in systems and ways in which you could be a really good terrorist if you wanted. Luckily I think most people with that kind of mindset aren’t that way inclined. I’m not sure it’s a good idea to advertise them though. What’s obvious to one person may not be to another.
That’s true, but that you can fly into a commercial airport from a private airstrip with the aircraft loaded to the brim with “interesting stuff” that would cause a security check person to call the SWAT team should be totally obvious to anyone who knows anything at all about general aviation.
kwlf wrote:
If you have a certain sort of brain, I think it’s natural to keep thinking of loopholes in systems and ways in which you could be a really good terrorist if you wanted. Luckily I think most people with that kind of mindset aren’t that way inclined. I’m not sure it’s a good idea to advertise them though. What’s obvious to one person may not be to another.
Interesting point and interesting link. I totally have that “security mindset” in certain walks of life, less so in others. I don’t know if this is because I played a lot of PC games in my formative years, where finding and exploiting loopholes is often beneficial. Or maybe because I am concerned about the possibility of having to treat the victims of a (terrorist) attack in my professional capacity as emergency physician. Or because as a gun owner and thus intimately familiar with the power of modern guns I am well aware of how much damage you can cause with one.
This is only somewhat off-topic, because the OP question boils down to "what is security at airports (specifically regarding that which controls access to “our” aircraft) for and how can these goals be achieved?"
I think Peter had it right when he mentioned that at most airports you only need some barrier to access at night, to prevent vandalism or theft.
The cost to really prevent dedicated attacks is very high and will be in vain most of the time, but it creates enormous hassle for “users” (I.e. pilots and passengers). This can be said for most post 9/11 security measures, most of which mainly limit the freedom and increase the hassle for the people of the West. But our societies have become so risk averse that many would rather go through all that hassle and limit their own personal freedoms than accepting the (very remote) risk if a terrorist attack or plane hijacking and otherwise get on with their lives…
