Here is the text of a message I have sent to DOTARS in reply to their letter informing me that as of next year I have to improve the security of my ancient Cessna:
Gentlemen,
I have received your instruction concerning new anti-theft requirements for General Aviation aircraft and I am writing to let you know what a bunch of wankers you are in DOTARS.
In the unlikely event of a terrorist attack in Australia a van or truck, or for that matter car, is infinitely more likely to be used as the delivery vehicle than my old Cessna. So when are you going to require car, van and truck owners to take additional measures to secure their vehicles since “standard door locks are not considered adequate”, especially since the number of motor vehicles stolen each year with apparent ease is enormous compared with the number of stolen aircraft?
There is absolutely no evidentiary basis whatsoever for these ridiculous measures. By imposing them you are both giving in to terrorism and showing yourselves up for fools.
Yours sincerely,
Philthy
I see from the latest
Australian Aviation that AOPA has bent over, pulled down its trousers and said "Have a go" on this issue. Nice one AOPA - confirms why I never joined.
What's next? No-fly zones for non-commercial aircraft? It's this sort of rubbish, and things on the horizon like ADS-B, that have the potential to do enormous damage to general aviation.
Believe me, the thinking in certain quarters at the moment is toward the creation of "Mandatory ADS-B Zones". Where I can fly at the moment with just a perfectly good serviceable radio, I may in the future need ADS-B. Tricky in a Thruster or Drifter. Even if the equipment is paid for, there's still the cost of installation (Reg 35 approval) and maintenance to come out of
my pocket.
If we're not careful we in the non-commercial side of aviation are going to find ourselves locked out of more airspace than Dick Smith could ever imagine.