In Scotland having a knife with a blade longer than 2" in public is a criminal offence with strict liability (i.e. No mitigating circumstances entertained)
It makes one wonder how to get home with some dinner cutlery which you have just bought in the shops.
Flyer59 wrote:
It is not about you bringing something to your airplane, it is mostly about bringing things to the apron. Nobody likes these checks, but i tend to accept them.
But that’s pointless anyway, as you could have brought “things” to the apron on arrival!
This whole argument hangs on low the airport is laid out, and there are regulations that cover it.
In some cases there is sufficient segregation so that GA can walk straight out with zero or minimal (just looking for guns) security. In other cases there isn’t so the full security is required – or an escort to the plane.
You coul have a huge airport with a dedicated GA terminal. That is possibly the “old terminal” which the airlines used – LKPR is one example. There is no need for security there, except for some head of state turning up in their bizjet.
Peter wrote:
In some cases there is sufficient segregation so that GA can walk straight out with zero or minimal (just looking for guns) security. In other cases there isn’t so the full security is required – or an escort to the plane.
Sure, the problem is with airports insisting on full security even when there is sufficient segregation.
Also, it is not uncommon to be escorted by airport staff through the usual passenger security and then taken straight to a car and driven to the aircraft. In that case the lack of segregation is caused by the need to pass security — you could just as well have gone straight to the car without passing the airside passenger areas.
In any case in the end the PIC decides what goes in the aircraft and what does not and I do wonder what the legal basis is for the airport staff to prevent the PIC from bringing certain items to the aircraft.
But that’s pointless anyway, as you could have brought “things” to the apron on arrival!
The more often people repeat this phrase in public (I even have overheard pilots saying this to airport security staff) the sooner we will get restrictions (or even a complete ban) to fly from unsecured airfields to airports with secured aprons. Authorities are well aware of this problem and commercial operators have been forced to implement (at least on paper) mindless and completely unrealistic procedures for those flights already. The only thing left now is a complete ban.
So please leave it as it is now because it can get only worse. And the more publicity the topic gets, the sooner this is going to happen (just imagine a tabloid newspaper writing about “we ordinary hard working people are hassled when we fly into our well earned holidays while rich boys can take their flying toys wherever they want.”)
The problem is not the fact but the fear of some decision makers. Decision makers should be encouraged to apply logic instead of being guided by fear driving job position preservation tactics. Sometimes it requires some courage to explain things to the public.
AnthonyQ wrote:
In Scotland having a knife with a blade longer than 2" in public is a criminal offence with strict liability (i.e. No mitigating circumstances entertained)
What does that mean? What if you buy a kitchen knife in a store? Aren’t you in public?
WhiskeyPapa wrote:
What does that mean? What if you buy a kitchen knife in a store? Aren’t you in public?
I guess you are only allowed to mail order knives in Scotland.
Hmm. I wonder if that causes the postman to be committing the offence, since they have to carry the knife from their van to your house?
Peter wrote:
the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 prevents the carrying of offensive weapons as well as pointed or bladed articles in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. Defences exist to a charge of possessing a bladed or pointed article in a public place when carried for use at work, as part of a national costume or for religious reasons.
That’s much more reasonable that the posted claim of “strict liability” with “no mitigating circumstances”. Sweden has a very similar law.
