non secure aviation sites
Who was is who said in court "he would say that would'nt he?".
Just like all people in politics Mr Grayling is trying to get the mass votes of people who know even less about aviation than he does.
Trying to ban avation from what he calls "non secure" sites would instantly stop the helicopter charter business, Stop at least one large airliner maintenance company (with the knock on effects on the charter airlines and so peoples holidays), shut down gliding overnight and result in the closing of a number of smaller aviation companys. He simlpy could not risk that political storm on day one of a new job, it would make him look stupid.
Once Mr Grayling gets into power he will soon see that a light aircraft might be able to get a small bomb (may be 400KG max ) on to a target the plot would be very difficalt to do due to the small and close knit world of General Aviation.
On the other hand you are likely to be able to drive a large lorry with a bomb 40,000KG right next to the target without raising much in the way of suspision due to the large nature of the road transport industry.
I have no problem with approprate security, for a light aircraft on a farm strip that security is likely to be a big padlock on the hangar door and the aircraft keys not left in the hangar. The security of the aircraft somewhat relies on the skill needed to get the aircraft airborne and the lack of impact that the aircraft would have on a target................ but the padlocks still wont stop the "caravan dwellers" stealing the fuel.
Last edited by A and C; 8th April 2010 at 07:05.