”Reasonable Security”?
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,557
Likes: 95
From: moon
”Reasonable Security”?
Would I be safe in assuming that what is meant by “reasonable means of preventing an aircraft from being flown” in the Transport Security Act has the same level of “reasonableness” as applied by local police.
That means the standard required is enough security to thwart a casual attack by a thief using nothing more sophisticated than common hand tools. We do NOT have to protect against a determined assault by someone with considerable aircraft knowledge and, for example, a cordless angle grinder because, by definition, such attacks are unstoppable absent Bank levels of security....... or do we? How common is attempted theft of an aircraft anyway?
That means the standard required is enough security to thwart a casual attack by a thief using nothing more sophisticated than common hand tools. We do NOT have to protect against a determined assault by someone with considerable aircraft knowledge and, for example, a cordless angle grinder because, by definition, such attacks are unstoppable absent Bank levels of security....... or do we? How common is attempted theft of an aircraft anyway?
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,960
Likes: 17
From: Australia
Sunfish,
My observation is that they are, in fact, unreasonable.
In one interesting discussion with a Dept. of Whatever it is up until May 18, inspector, who had had a go at me for not having wheel locks on an aircraft parked overnight (only a person with experience on the aircraft could steal it, it weren't no Cessna or Piper etc) I asked were they also going to breach a certain Regional SAAB parked next to me overnight --- after all, it had the same size wheels.
He was of the view that the "rules" only applied to "GA" aircraft ---- apparently stealing an aircraft that flies something called "RPT" is not covered.
I just love the logic of the bureaucracy. Security is seen all too often as a matter of being seen to "do something".
Is stealing an aircraft common, NO!.
Tootle pip!!
My observation is that they are, in fact, unreasonable.
In one interesting discussion with a Dept. of Whatever it is up until May 18, inspector, who had had a go at me for not having wheel locks on an aircraft parked overnight (only a person with experience on the aircraft could steal it, it weren't no Cessna or Piper etc) I asked were they also going to breach a certain Regional SAAB parked next to me overnight --- after all, it had the same size wheels.
He was of the view that the "rules" only applied to "GA" aircraft ---- apparently stealing an aircraft that flies something called "RPT" is not covered.
I just love the logic of the bureaucracy. Security is seen all too often as a matter of being seen to "do something".
Is stealing an aircraft common, NO!.
Tootle pip!!
Moderator
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 4,379
Likes: 490
From: Melbourne
I seem to recall back in about 2005 the Department of Transport (or whatever their name was), had a big push on securing aircraft. There were fines touted at the time of around $5,000 and there were to be checks taking place at airports, fly-ins and the like. We were all required to fit throttle or prop locks and have a sign fitted that told the potential thief that an aircraft locking device was fitted. If the lock was not visible to someone looking in, you had to fit one of those fabric patches to your aircraft cover, which you could get for free from the government.
This was all heavily promoted at the time.
Is this still in force and is that what you are referring to?
This was all heavily promoted at the time.
Is this still in force and is that what you are referring to?
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,557
Likes: 95
From: moon
Just the bare words of the Act. “reasonable`means of preventing flying. I’ve built a locking switch box since a simple throttle lock doesn’t prevent accidental prop cranking. Rotax also advises against the use of key switches.
