Runaway Aviation Security dog shot dead by police
I'm just a crappy PPL and dog owner, so I know nothing, but why couldn't they have ignored the dog? Any sensible pooch will run a mile from a runway as soon as a jet aircraft approaches. They did not need to shoot this dog! As an Australian, the only positive I can draw from this is the knowledge that our public servants don't have a monopoly on dim-witted over-reactions, much as they like to give that impression.
Last edited by cooperplace; 17th Mar 2017 at 13:38.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Must be a slow news day.
I remember a clever fox (I know, a tautology) "terrorising" Sydney airport over a week or so a few years back. We spotted him one night taxiing out to 16R near the fire station.
He consistently demonstrated he was a lot smarter than those that tried to catch/shoot him. As far as I know they never did.
It never made the news in Oz.
I guess if it was Auckland they would have closed the airport until the critter was dealt with.
Really guys, one dog? How many other critters hang around airports that we either tolerate or don't even know about. Is one scared dog more dangerous than that?
I remember a clever fox (I know, a tautology) "terrorising" Sydney airport over a week or so a few years back. We spotted him one night taxiing out to 16R near the fire station.
He consistently demonstrated he was a lot smarter than those that tried to catch/shoot him. As far as I know they never did.
It never made the news in Oz.
I guess if it was Auckland they would have closed the airport until the critter was dealt with.
Really guys, one dog? How many other critters hang around airports that we either tolerate or don't even know about. Is one scared dog more dangerous than that?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not seeing the link. What's that got to do with this thread about a dog getting shot? I thought this was an aviation thread based on news on Australia, NZ and the Pacific?
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,096
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They had three hours, between escape and fatal shot, to get a whole variety of tranquiliser darts and rifles to the airport and NZ is primarily a farming country.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: australia
Age: 74
Posts: 907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IsDon :wrote
Reminds me of a joke,
"What's the difference between a dog and a fox?"
"Well for me , 6 beers usually!"
I remember a clever fox (I know, a tautology) "terrorising" Sydney airport over a week or so a few years back. We spotted him one night taxiing out to 16R near the fire station.
"What's the difference between a dog and a fox?"
"Well for me , 6 beers usually!"
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Intelligence at its best - I think you will find the aircraft and it's engine have little or no risk of the said dog.
The engine would require inspection "IF" dog was ingested, but not likely to suffer any major damage on a landing or take off roll. If it did, it is insured and replaceable under that insurance.
Unless the aircraft was a Piper Cub or other fabric aircraft no airframe damage of any note would happen (minor dent maybe).
You will in fact find all the risk is to the dog (that is running for its life) trying to run away from things - not into them.
I assume the powers to be issued a NOTAM in the 4 hours they had before shooting the dog! The dog must have been important information for aviators to know about if this animal had to be shot, so the correct method is to issue a NOTAM not an order to destroy.
The engine would require inspection "IF" dog was ingested, but not likely to suffer any major damage on a landing or take off roll. If it did, it is insured and replaceable under that insurance.
Unless the aircraft was a Piper Cub or other fabric aircraft no airframe damage of any note would happen (minor dent maybe).
You will in fact find all the risk is to the dog (that is running for its life) trying to run away from things - not into them.
I assume the powers to be issued a NOTAM in the 4 hours they had before shooting the dog! The dog must have been important information for aviators to know about if this animal had to be shot, so the correct method is to issue a NOTAM not an order to destroy.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On a related story. I was doing night circuits in a draggy at East Sale one evening and we thought we hit a rabbit on landing. Thought I'd create some light entertainment so wrote up the aircraft for an inspection following "a mid hare collision". Even the CO thought that was funny.
Seriously, the bloody things were all over the airfield. They were usually smart enough to keep out of the way. You know, look to the right, look to the left, look to the right again. And that's the case on just about every airfield I've ever landed at. If we worried about hitting wildlife then we'd never go flying.
This is just a sad reflection on an arse covering culture that is is destroying life as we know it in so called developed nations. They wouldn't close an airfield or shoot every animal on an airfield, but they will if that animal was on the airfield in the first place because of their own incompetence. That might mean they might be held accountable if pooch did decide to run in front of an aircraft. That's why the huge overreaction occurred.
