If being able to get within 500' of an aircraft represents a security risk, then that would imply banning the public from being anywhere under the last mile of the final approach to any airport. :ugh:

Reminds me of the occasional Roger Bacon photo entitled "how low can you go?" Good place to dry off on a rainy day. Sitting there at night might be sensational.

Dave, I wouldn't go that far. I'm just saying in comparison to the much publicised and high profile security initiatives taking place in the terminal building, the perimeter fence seems to be quite neglected.

And, I've already said, no it's not.

And how do you work that one out then?

Again, the long lens probably makes the security look much worse than it is. Measured on Google Earth, the distance from where the cars are parked to the edge of the runway is about 180 metres. Even from the fence, it's about 160 metres.

Also, the fence, judged by the height of the cars, is about 10 feet tall and topped with coils of barbed wire. Where it seems to disappear, it actually just dips into a trench (maybe a canal?).

As has been pointed out, if being 500 feet or 150 metres from a plane is a huge security risk, much of west London would need to be shut down.

Pratt............

This whole PC security thing is complete bollocks.....

I've read your reply HT. Didn't the criminal character of access through a fence at Brussels recently clearly demonstrate a weakness?

General John Handy stated the use or threatened use MANPAD at airports is the greatest threat we have ever been faced with and I'd imagine you don't have to take down an aircraft at close range these days. Just damage ground infrastructure and you have the desired political and psychological effect.

Fully agree on that score Sober Lark. My argument is against those who think that the photo indicates a security risk. AMS is no less secure than any other airport no matter how close spectators are from the active runway. I can't see any intelligent terrorists setting up their missile in front of security cameras, security patrols and a crowd of spectators when they can easily do their thing a mile or so away, hidden among trees, away from any prying eyes.

That's a bit naive isn't it? Before 9/11, it might have been said that an intelligent terrorist wouldn't be on the 'plane they crashed. If they are fanatics, and most of them are, they will go kamikaze. They only need to whip it out a few seconds before the a/c goes over, or have it set up inside a van and not immediately visible.

I grant you that too Capetonian. My point is that whatever (good) argument one comes up with it still doesn't make AMS less secure than, for instance, LHR, which has no official spectators facilities.

Not quite true.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...RZ4XWbFqjL3ZcQ

:) you're having a larf :}

Well yes, the "grandstand" at LHR can justifiably be described as laughable. I visit the building behind it for meetings from time to time and it's rare to see anyone actually using it - I'm told that it's next to useless for photography.

Having said that, as you pointed out in an earlier post, there are spots at Heathrow, and indeed many other UK airports, where the perimeter fence is closer to the runways/taxiways than that Schiphol location, and I've never seen it suggested that they pose a security risk.

At AMS, under the last 150' of approach onto rw27, there is a McDonalds and spectators car-park. There is no resident police presence. I suppose they take the risk that the ingredients will not spark any mad-cap behaviour. They have reduced the fat & salt, I believe.

:confused: Don't quite know what you mean by "resident" police presence, but there's certainly plenty of patrols, again both in and outside the fence. Maybe you were too busy watching the aeroplanes to notice them. You often see police cars in the car park and one of the cops popping out to get the burgers. :)