Security: Let's ask ourselves....

[GAHorn]

With the recent news of a Turkish immigrant to Canada, who as a student pilot had clearance to the flight school's aircraft, and who stole the aircraft and crossed the border and landed out of gas in Missouri in accompaniment with two F-16's....

....Without spending much time on all the possible criticism of TSA rules, and the hated "security threats" that the "news-media" misinformation-network generates......

... I have a couple of questions:

1: How many of you consistently guard your aircraft against theft? I don't mean you take the keys home with you and leave those flimsy doors locked.... I mean how many actually have a serious anti-theft-device/system and religiously use it, and take your key with you when you go inside the FBO to pay for the fuel?

2: How many of you have your aircraft in a hangar that is easily-entered and the door easily-opened by anyone familiar with aircraft and hangars?

From now on I will take my key with me when I leave the immediate area of my aircraft. Whenever I leave an airport with my airplane parked, it will have a dedicated security system (cable-prop-lock) installed. (Less than $5 from Amazon http://www.webbikeworld.com/r2/motorcyc ... ock-cable/ ) I already have a RED one with a customizable combination-lock on it. http://safetyfirstdmk.stores.yahoo.net/ ... locks.html

I am going out the 50 feet to my private hangar on my private property and disabling the electrical supply to my door and locking my hangar whenever I'm not actively doing something out there. I want it made a serious FELONY with serious, mandatory jail-time and fines to steal an airplane and I want my insurance rates to reflect that and my new attitude about this matter.

[W.J.Langholz]

George
Like always you beat me to the punch. Good topic. Can you add a little more please. What length did you get and post a picture of it on your plane. Maybe we could get some custom made ones that say TIC170A on them.

Thanks
W.

[jrenwick]

OK, I'm going to be a bit of a smartass here -- isn't the tailwheel security enough?

(My airplanes are in a hangar with two locks on the door, and I lock it and take the keys with me when they're not in the hangar -- except the Cub, which doesn't have any keys. The cable lock is a great idea -- thanks for that, George!)

[Bill Hart]

Well the tail is currently removed from mine so if someone wants to steal it they will have problems.

[wingnut]

My ag teacher in high school had trouble with a student(s) taking things from his vehicle. He wired an electric fence charger to a dedicated battery, installed a ground rod in the earth where he parked and had a simple clamp he hooked to it after parked. Remote switch under the bumper somewhere to activate. I personally don't know how well it worked, but he did not have any more problems. I also haven't considered any, if there are, consequences using this method on aircraft. Of course, parking surface would be a critical element in the function.
And then once the theif got the piss shocked out of them they would likely be mad enough to vandalize.
I always thought a second mag switch, remote mounted with the guard so as not to accidentally bump the switch during operations, would be a good theft deterent. Or even a second hidden master switch. Idiots would likely think the battery was dead and move on. But now these might be considered major alterations?

[cessna170bdriver]

OK, I'm going to be a bit of a smartass here -- isn't the tailwheel security enough?...

John,

Great minds think alike. That's the first thought I had. (I also thought that would read like a smartass comment... but I have told Karen on several occasions that I'd rather be a smartass that a dumbass. ) That said, I don't think locks or tailwheels would have prevented the incident mentioned above. As a student at the school he stole the airplane from, he would likely have had access to any keys or combinations. Also, he's most likely to steal whatever he's been trained in. Also, what's to stop someone with a real criminal intent for using an airplane as a weapon from renting (or buying) one with which to carry it out?

(My airplanes are in a hangar with two locks on the door, and I lock it and take the keys with me when they're not in the hangar -- except the Cub, which doesn't have any keys.

In my mind 99% of the purpose of a hangar is to defend the airplane against the natural elements. I don't consider it much security against anything other than maybe deterring the opportunistic avionics thief. Several years ago, the TSP airport manager was relieved of thousands of dollars worth of belongings in his hangar and the thieves never touched the locks; they simply unscrewed a panel and walked in.
Miles

[flyguy]

Do statistics reveal much ado about nothing (or at least not as much)

This media frenzy over the cross border theft of a C172 showed some poor reporting or research and lots of knee jerk reactions by some pols and gov. entities. The reported fuel / time aloft makes me wonder if much of the story wasn't fabricated and spending $100000.00 per hour for 2 F16 s to intercept and escort this (giant threat for how many hours? ) seems like overkill.

The statistics on this web site shows a fairly substantial decrease in the theft of aircraft over the last dozen years. Most of the thefts reported were not 172 class. The highest number reported in that thime period was 1997 - -44 planes versus 5 last year. http://www.acpi.org/

[Joe Moilanen]

[quote="flyguy"]Do statistics reveal much ado about nothing (or at least not as much)

This media frenzy over the cross border theft of a C172 showed some poor reporting or research and lots of knee jerk reactions by some pols and gov. entities. The reported fuel / time aloft makes me wonder if much of the story wasn't fabricated and spending $100000.00 per hour for 2 F16 s to intercept and escort this (giant threat for how many hours? ) seems like overkill.

That was my first thought a well, was this scenerio just cleverly created?? Hmmm. Turkish...crosses border....happens to have long range tanks....Happen to be full....TSA is trying to justify ridiculous security measures...their existance and costs...Hmmm..

[flat country pilot]

Why did they let him come so far into this country?
Why didn't they shoot him down?

[n3833v]

I have a locked hanger. Locked doors. I made a throttle lock out of 1.25" aluminum pipe with holes drilled at idle for a long bicycle lock. U style with adjusting notches for the lock set. Don't push it on with key to pipe, you will have a very hard time unlocking it.

John

[GAHorn]

I know these are all serious answers to the topic .... but here's the problem:

We ALL have a first-reaction that it's bad news-reporting, that TSA is run by janitors with law-enforcement authority and that small airplanes are no real threat to anyone other than the occupants.

But THAT IS NOT THE PUBLIC PERCEPTION and PERCEPTION IS REALITY! If we continue to think and act like we've always thought and acted.... we will be regulated out of private flying... because the PUBLIC is scared of small airplanes being stolen and flown overhead.

If we don't begin to take seriously the fact that idiots ...being idiots... will steal an airplane regardless of where it's small wheel is located and regardless of the unrealistic fear the public has about small planes.... in other words...UNLESS WE BEGIN TO TAKE AIRPLANE THEFT SERIOUSLY, WE WILL BE PENALIZED AS AIRPLANE OWNER/OPERATORS. It will be US that will suffer the consequences of the public's paranoia.

Was it a ridiculous waste of money to scramble F-16's? I don't know. The pilots were already on our payroll, and the airplanes were already purchased, and the fuel was already in them and expected to be blown out their tailpipes in some other fantasy-of-flight excersize.... so what's so much more expensive about them following a 172? It was probably good practice for them and it would have been HIGHLY CRITICIZED if they'd just sat on the ground and done NOTHING because it was just a little 172. I wouldn't want to be the commanding officer of a squadron that sat on the ground when any airplane crossed our borders without clearance and I did nothing.

Why didn't they shoot him down? Is that a serious question? If YOU have a radio failure or ...got lost.... or had a heart attack and your wife was simply hanging onto the controls trying to find a place to land and wandered across a border... or if Lockheed Martin (the FSS contractor) failed to notify Canadian ATC that you were going to Montreal...would it be OK for the Canadians to shoot YOU down?

If you believe that small airplanes are NOT a threat (as many have suggested in this discussion)...what would be the justification for shooting a small airplane down and killing the occupants? That might be considered a bit of an over-reaction, No? What if it was really nothing more than a lost student pilot? At the time of the intercept, can the Air Force rely on "news reports" that the airplane was stolen and therefore needed to be shot down? Would YOU believe a news reporter about an aviation event? (I'm going to drop this particular avenue of discussion regarding the question of actually shooting down a civilian small airplane as a patently foolish line of thought, hoping that all will see why it's not a reasonable reaction to such a circumstance. If you still believe it's OK for military aircraft to shoot down civilian aircraft then I'll remind you of the missionaries who where shot down and the mother and child who were killed in Peru when over-zealous military pilots decided to take aim on a Cessna flying to a remote area on a legitimate missionary trip that the military did not understand or have good info about.)

The fact is: We can either ridicule the TSA and the Public and the News sources.... and we can ultimately become victims of the public paranoia-frenzy about small airplanes... Or we can take aircraft security SERIOUSLY and we can begin to discuss this matter with our friends and fellow pilots at the airport and SECURE OUR AIRPLANES and see to it that OTHERS GET SERIOUS about it too.

[c170b53]

I'll guess the drug traffic business remains the biggest problem with regard to light planes crossing the border. Lets concentrate our efforts in thwarting those individuals rather than the occasional silly bone head. I also believe that the taxman puts more effort into the border security than any other agency up here.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Well on thing is for sure. This has struck a nerve with George.

My 170 is tied down outside at public airport. It is locked with the mighty door locks just like the other 30 aircraft next to it. The airport authority has yet to surround the airport with a ridiculas 10' chain link fence and a gate code of 1228, around all the bad airplanes. We do have security cameras and we think most of them work. That is the most security I hope it ever gets.

I choose to spend my time educating the public that airplanes even big airplanes, are not the threat they might think they are. There are much more serious threats we should all be worried about. Funny thing is regardless whether I'm talking to people at an airport or at some other social gathering totally unconnected with aircraft, I have yet to meet someone who thought GA (small) aircraft were any credible threat. Maybe I'm not talking to the right people but I think it's more media hype than anything.

Unless we completely shut down as a society we will never stop the occasional incident that just happened with the 172. Whether it be a stolen aircraft or school shooting. Our mass communication network has already planted that seed in some other individual who will act normally to circumvent what ever system is in place to prevent such things. This school could have locked their airplane down a hundred different ways but at some point the student had to fly solo.

As for the military shooting down any aircraft over North America, I feel they get one chance and odds are not with the military and leaders both military and civilian who make that decision. I don't mean the military isn't capable of shooting down a plane but the bad aftermath of such an incident will likely be much greater than nearly any other outcome.

George, I have one question for you. Did you check the security of your hanger wood box?

[W.J.Langholz]

I think we could argue symatics on this issue until the cows come home.......

The chicken or the egg, the loaded gun, keys in your car, do you lock your house, if you do then they will just break a window etc etc.

It is the perception to the general public that will always count when the politicians start making new rules........ so as pilots if we don't take a proactive approach..........it will become a MANDATE.......I don't think Wisconsin has enough cheeze to go along with whining then

Save the battle for something else...safty should have no compromise.

W.

[lowNslow]

That said, I don't think locks or tailwheels would have prevented the incident mentioned above. As a student at the school he stole the airplane from, he would likely have had access to any keys or combinations. Also, he's most likely to steal whatever he's been trained in. Also, what's to stop someone with a real criminal intent for using an airplane as a weapon from renting (or buying) one with which to carry it out? Miles

I totally agree. Some of this so called "security" just defies logic. If someone really wants to carry something like this out there are many ways to get around security.