One of the final nails
 

My anger is growing as I read over this latest piece of nonsense from the Department of Transport and regional Services "GA aircraft owners" anti theft measures.

The Act will come into affect in 2005. It will have impact on general aviation aircraft owners, including private corporate non-jet aircraft and recreational aircraft owners, by requiring that steps be taken to secure the aircraft against theft.

From March 2005 aircraft MUST NOT BE left unattended unless it has been secured against theft. Security officers will be doing random spot checks.

Get this; the measure will need to be easily visible from outside the aircraft to be effective as a deterrent to theft and also to facilitate checking. Oh, so this means I cannot put my canopy cover over my plane when I fly away somewhere? Or, my cover cannot be on my plane to prevent bird’s pooing on it in my hanger because you can't see anti-theft lock inside? What a joke.

Suggested anti theft measures

1. Fitting a wheel lock (How much does one of those cost?)
2. Parking an aircraft in a lockable hanger or shed

(Sorry that some of us aren’t as rich as a Cirrus owner or Mr Anderson, I bet their aircraft live in a lockable hangers whereas most of us park our aircraft outside or in a open hanger and rely on aircraft covers)

3. Fitting a lockable control lock (Well, fitting one of these would mean modifying the control collum itself, most Pipers do not have even a Cessna style control lock and rely on seat belts, again at what price?)

4. Securing the aircraft with a padlock and chain to permanently installed tie down point or cables (So when I go the Boort fly-in and park in an open paddock I need to install a pad lock with a chain to permanently installed tie down point, in a paddock!!!!!)

However this next statement takes the cake

Standard door locks supplied with the aircraft are not considered adequate to secure aircraft against theft.

So let me get this right, I need to lock the control collum with a padlock which I will have to modify my Piper's existing control collum, cannot use my canopy cover so inspectors can see I’m going by the rules, or find a lockable hanger (I'm sure there are heaps available around Vic just waiting for you to roll your plane in for the night), or keep in my baggage compartment a pad lock with chain or tie down cable to fit to anywhere I leave my plane unattended and finally the current door locks are not acceptable.

We have 3% of the American aircraft population and with new rules like this, what a disgrace.

Jump out the GA ship is sinking

The bad news, colt_pa22, is that because Australians in their infinite wisdom appear to have delivered the Senate to the government, from 1 July 2005 the government and the parliament will be for all intents and purposes synonymous.

As a consequence, every legislative bright idea of the government will become law, and there will be nobody – but nobody – to stop it.

Vale proper scrutiny and review of government legislation.

BTW, for whom did you vote?

[edited to change "2004" to "2005"

Too true Creampuff, get used to it Australia.

Can anyone provide ONE example of an aircraft being STOLEN and then used for a terrorist attack? Anywhere?

How do you secure an light turboprop or jet?

Does this mean that all fuel tankers will be required to fit security devices? What about cars? Plenty of those have been used in terrorist attacks!

Creampuff, yes we now have three years to fully appreciate the consequences. Or possibly six!

Ever see the type of lock kids chain their bikes up with?

Put one around your prop, in a figure eight pattern. Or from a rudder pedal to your control column.

Common practice in the states for years now.

:ok:

G'day Currawong,
I think that's a pretty good idea myself. I was toying with the idea of some type of steering lock between the contol yolks but whilst it might work for some, it wouldn't on others.

I wonder if anyone is manufacturing any wheel devices along the lines of the dreaded wheel clamps used by parking nazis all over the world. In my opinion they would prove a better visual deterrent rather than having someone breaking into your aircraft to try and remove a control lock whilst out of the gaze of everyon else. For those of us plebs who have cannot afford hangarage, we could then continue to use our canopy covers.

Looks like the aerodrome operators better start budgeting for bags of concrete, steel cables and shackles etc. Which would probably not be a huge undertaking. Of course the cost will be passed onto the user but might be easier and more economical than trying to modify or engineer control locking systems.

Also what about the various types of rudder and aileron locks that a lot of owners use. Surely it would not take a genius to re-design them to be secured by a padlock.

just my 2c worth.

I did not vote for the coalition

sigh...
and how long will it take a cheap boltcutter to take care of that security measure ?

Many of the introduced security measures are ineffectual and silly, but, to non-aviation people it seems like something is/has been done, which is all that politicians want.., to be seen to be doing something.

or:
cutting away a wheel lock,
Breaking into a locked hangar,
Breaking or picking the lock on a control lock.

Whilst I am not necessarily siding with DOTARS on this, given the current level of public paranoia when someone mentions the magic word - "aviation" I don't think their suggested measures are too unreasonable.

No method is going to be 100% secure and still remain within reasonable cost constraints. Like it or not any security measure no matter how flawed we might perceive it to be in our own circumstances, is going to reduce the risk and that is the the name of the @rse covering game.

wasn't there a baron stolen in the territory and then flown inverted into the bosses office, killing two, some time back?.
the people that died would call it terrorism. I also know about three aircraft stolen from my part of the world, resulting in the deaths of four people and almost another. although not aimed at the white house, they still killed people, and it was only blind luck that more wern't killed.
A big chain in a peice of plastic hose, in a wrap around the prop with a quality lock..............about fifty bucks worth, aught to satisfy the requirments. no biggy.

Stop whinging and get used to it. You lock your car don't you?

Current security practice is based on the assumption that all pilots and students are nice people (especially me) and are allowed to walk around GA airports at will and touch/feel /play with aircraft at will.

Is this a safe assumption? Events have suggested it probably isn't.

A a simple substitution of a chain and padlock for the tail tiedown should do the trick in many cases (and be quite entertaining). You can buy throttle locks over the internet already.

Sure bolt cutters are available, as are angle grinders and so on. Security is about multiple layers. Security specialists will tell you that nothing can stop a determined thief. These measures just make theft a little bit harder.

1977 disgruntled employee crashed a Baron into Connellan hangar in AS killing Roger Conellan and 2 others.

Good quality prop locks have been available in the USA for some time. They appear to work very well over there and aren't too expensive. Don't re-invent the wheel.

G'day ;)

Seriously flawed document - but what can you expect?

Hangars may well be lockable - but they are a pushover for a breakin

Takes an average person with a drill about 30 seconds to remove the tek screws off a panel of corrugated steel, lift it off the lower hangar frame, and walk inside.

From there, it's about 60 secs to open doors, and in a TT of 2-3 minutes, you could be started up and gone.

But wait -forgot that it takes time to get the ammonium nitrate on board - allow a few minutes to complete loading.

Whoops - forgot one more thing - allow another few minutes for the pre-flight and fill in the M/R. Wouldn't want to be illegal now, would we?

Why are they worried about lighties at this stage - the airports are all wide open. First things first.

How about DOTARS getting all the regional airports totally locked up and secure first. At least the entry cards would ensure that only pilots got into the hangar areas. Pax would be segregated into their own unsecure carpark, which should by rights be bloody miles from the terminal to deter car bombers .

They'll love that long walk in the rain!!

But this time, lets not have any 'standard' letters ex AOPA or ASA. I think it's time everyone wrote their own little critique to DOTARS instead of going the tired old route of 'circular' type protest letters - which get binned directly.

Yes, we'll all probably have to comply, but at least a well worded missive direct to DOTARS is good for the soul, even if futile!

happy days,

The story of Connellan Airways and this incident can be found here.

Excuse me Sunfish; my aircraft is locked just like your car.

Do you fit a wheel lock, steering wheel lock with pad lock or tie your car down with a chain every time you go down to the shops? I think not, and why should I on my aircraft. It is locked and secure with a door lock that is just as good as on any car.

I'm not going to tie down my aircraft to a fixed tie down point with pad lock and chain, fit a wheel lock or padlock my control collum every time I walk away from my aircraft, unless DOTARS pay for the mods or equipment.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Colt, I guarantee that it is far far easier to break the piddling window lock off an aircraft, reach in and open the door than it is on most cars.

:{ :{ :{

Might be cheaper though than paying fines for non compliance with legislation. Geeesus H C! give me a break.

This option is a lesser evil than making all airports 100% access controlled the cost of which would be passed on in terms of landing and parking fees. So just think about that one for a moment.

Sunfish and I don't see eye to eye on a few issues but I'm with him on this one.:ok:

Forget 9/11.

Forget the Regs.

What were you doing up till now to hamper unauthorised use of your aircraft?

Relying on good will? Bwa ha ha ha.....

Can think of two aircraft "borrowed" without asking (and stacked) this year locally. Both covered on Prune.

Sure insurance might cover it. Will it cover the inconvenience of turning up at the airport to find your aircraft gone?

We should all be grateful to CASA for taking care of our security...

I bought an aircraft only two monts ago, sent all the forms in immediately as requested and now I get a letter saying they will not process my application to be property interest holder or Certificate of registration holder until I supply them with a copy of a photo drivers licence or passport. this despite being proiperty interest holder and Cof R Holder on 6 previous aircraft, providing them with a medical report every year for the last 20 years, renewals and so on all on the same ARN.

Perhaps the faceless bureaucracy just want to know their customers have a face.

Cannot really imagine this will have much affect on improving security, other than that of their jobs of course! Two months down the track, if I was going to do something dispicable with this highly dangerous spam can, I think I might have done a bit quicker than they can process a simple change of ownership!

I do leave it in a hangar, for their security requirements of course, but like most colourbond hangars, it could easily be opened with a can opener. Who are they kidding?

Colt, magnetos fail ON not off. I shouldn't have to tell you how simple it is to get an aircraft running. I should not tell you anything else. I think these changes are long overdue. In other words, the average car is harder to pinch then the average aircraft. You make the assumption that all pilots are good guys. What if they are not?