Sounds to me like there's a profound difference in the way this issue is dealt with in your two games, with no solid canon answer to support either point-of-view. As such, I would think it falls more in the realm of "I prefer" than "This is so."

In my game, certainly, KE wouldn't have any problems obtaining a flight plan, since all air traffic would be dealt with by computer, and the same computer that accepted the alert and notified the response team would also file a flight plan, taking into account all relevant airspace considerations, i.e. what areas on the path might cross the cone of property extending above all extraterritorial facilities, what areas were experiencing severe air traffic delays, the fastest route to the target, weather, and so on.

While the GridGuide system certainly becomes overloaded on occasion, similar distributed networks of air traffic control will have a vastly lesser volume to handle. Moreover, because such fast response is a predicate of their operations, KE would certainly have whatever degree of computer resources was necessary to arrange for the expedition of their interests. Since such resources are by no means impossible or even impractical in 206x, it stands to reason that KE would possess them.

A flight plan is unneccessary unless the weather outside is bad enough that Instrument Flight Rules are in effect. Which isn't inconceivable in Seattle, however, even during the bad weather days there are probably enough ground references available that a pilot could file SVFR and be clear to go. On a clear weather day, though, all that's required is Sea-Tac ATC clearance to enter and operate in their airspace, which is all of a three second radio conversation.

"Seattle Approach, Knight Errant Armed 711, at Depot Pad 4, with information X-ray, ready to takeoff, priority alert."

"Knight Errant 711, Approach, squawk 3414, cleared for takeoff, traffic eleven o'clock is an Airstar at four hundred meters, traffic seven o'clock is a Boeing Heavy on final for Sea-Tac, caution, wake turbulence."

"Knight Errant 711, squawking 3414, cleared for takeoff."

I'm kind of a new GM, and I have a question.

So, what if you create this amazingly complex security system and there's only a few sneaky ways in. Then, your runners (amatures) just sprint in the front doors guns blazing with no plan at all. Theres no way they're going to survive against your security. Do you modify the security or just kill the runners?

Also,

I wouldn't change the security at all. Unless it is massively out of the runners' league they should have a little bit of warning that they should flee (after several moderate and serious wounds get passed around during the first two initative passes).

And with the Hand of God rule the PCs at least get to make this mistake once andd survive.

Most of this is easily found in Corporate Security, an older book, or in SOTA 2063 to a point. If you're realy interested in a decent break down buy Corp Sec. It's probable one of the most useful tools a new Game Master could ask for.

Actually, Corporate Security is about 1/3 as useful. Only the first part about layout is relevant in 3rd Edition and SotA63 does a better job, IMO. Most of the fluff is wasted text and the fiction has blantant flasehoods.

In my opinion, it's the opposite, but I admit some sentimental attachment. I would like to see it reprinted with all the best sections, and some new stuff that runs along the lijnes of some of what I saw in SSG. I'd buy that in a heart beat.

Seriously? Maybe I don't like it becasue I had NAG2RL before it, which laid out a fraggin' 00 Zone, and maybe it's because CCSS was written by a retard, and maybe it's becasue they hadn't worked out FAB, and maybe I'd been GMing long enough not to need it, but the only parts I felt worth paying for were the Johnson's SOP (yummy cheese) and the art (yummy cheese).