Paradise lost, what I currently do for a paying job is .. monitering alarm systems( *shrug* it pays for my flying ).
standard PIR's ( paasive infared sensors ... "motion detectors" to those who do not undarstand how they work) would be unsutable to that environment, and for the reasions specified. How do I know this? Because every other day I have to send patrols out to sites where very similer false activations are occuring, wasting their time as well as mine, in order to verify that the activations are, in fact, false, and the reasion for the activation is a well known condition that the owner of the premises has been advised of time and again. I have also had to explain to site owners why alarms did not activate when they had been broken into and thousands of dollers of stock taken. Given that, I think that I can say that there would be some minor risk in trusting such technology, ne?
Certainly special use componentry could be manufactured for that enviroment, I never claimed it could not. However standard OTS componentry would be unsutable. While I have not researched what the company that you have sited, uses in their systems, i would hope they are useing a specialist use component set and are providing a comprehensive servicing setup for those aircraft. If not, then those alarms are worse than useless. Human nature will mean that in an environment with a large number of false status events, people will start ignoring the alarms.
If you need further proof of that point, just watch the vast and sweeping reaction, next time someones car or house alarm goes off.
Infact if a home alarm system is left sounding for more than a few seconds, it tends to be used by offenders as an indication that no-one is home and its safe to continue the break.
oh and the biggest causes of false alarms?
Moisture in the circutry, Moisture or insects in front of the apature,twigs, a truck driving past outside, a "hot spot" against a cooler background ( or infact any steep enough temprature differential. not actually a failure mode, as this is precisely what a PIR "looks" for, not movement as a most people seem to think. infact it can't look for movement because it has no memory retention at all. all sorts of things can cause this effect, a human body is only one of those. others i have seen have been air conditioning outlets, a fax machine, and an ember falling out of a fire grate and into the detection zone of the PIR.)
Oh, and Paradise, i realise that my spelling is a little suspect at times, however one thing that i have learned in my time, is that the concept of security , for anything that you cannot sit and eyeball 24/7, is a myth. It ultimately comes down to what do you beleave you can trust.
By far the most reliable alarm system if the mk1 eyeball.
G-OPCON, possible the only concerns I would have, are positioning the camera so that the widest possble coverage could be maintained, and ensuring the coax to the cameras was protected from tampering. other than that, that would be a reasionable solution.
Maintance would be an issue, as would ensuring the non-contamination of the len ( the "body " of the camera and circutry could be sealed, rendering moisture in circut irrelivant at the camera end, the same would have to be ensured at the viewing/processing/transmitting end)
ok so CCTV would be a realistic contender for a partial solution, assuming mounts and cable runs could be suitably situated and protected...