Two Lock Rule?

"T o d d P a t t i s t" wrote in message
...
The airport manager asked me yesterday how I planned to
comply with the upcoming "two lock rule" to protect my 65hp
Champ from being stolen by a terrorist and destroying
Washington. I'm usually reasonably up to date on rule
changes, but I've been out of the loop for a while, and this
was a surprise. I'm not even sure if he was referring to a
state rule (NY) or federal.

Can someone give me some info and steer me to a link or copy
of this rule? A Google search only turned up an old NJ
rule, and I saw nothing on AOPA's site.

(By posting this, I'm certain someone will show me how it
was in front of my nose and I couldn't have missed it, but
it seems that I have :-)

Thanks.

"It is possible to fly without motors, but not without knowledge and
skill."
Wilbur Wright

I am located at KLWM (Lawrence Mass) and the
airport manager has requested two locks.I have a prop lock and the keyed
mag switch.I am not sure if this is a hard and fast rule or just a request.I
have noticed most
have added prop locks.

Bob Barker N8749S

On Mon, 16 May 2005 14:47:42 -0400, T o d d P a t t i s t
wrote:

The airport manager asked me yesterday how I planned to
comply with the upcoming "two lock rule" to protect my 65hp
Champ from being stolen by a terrorist and destroying
Washington. I'm usually reasonably up to date on rule
changes, but I've been out of the loop for a while, and this
was a surprise. I'm not even sure if he was referring to a
state rule (NY) or federal.

It could be local, each airport seems to have their own requirements.

Perhaps one of these-like things:

http://www.sportys.com/acb/showdetl....roduct_id=3570

and a bike-chain and padlock around the prop would suffice.

Peter Clark wrote:
On Mon, 16 May 2005 14:47:42 -0400, T o d d P a t t i s t
wrote:

The airport manager asked me yesterday how I planned to
comply with the upcoming "two lock rule" to protect my 65hp
Champ from being stolen by a terrorist and destroying


Perhaps one of these-like things:

http://www.sportys.com/acb/showdetl....roduct_id=3570

The Champ I flew didn't have a standard panel-mounted push-pull
throttle,
such as which would fit those kind of throttle locks.
It had a lever-style throttle on the left side cabin wall.

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
The airport manager asked me yesterday how I planned to
comply with the upcoming "two lock rule" to protect my 65hp
Champ from being stolen by a terrorist and destroying
Washington. I'm usually reasonably up to date on rule
changes, but I've been out of the loop for a while, and this
was a surprise. I'm not even sure if he was referring to a
state rule (NY) or federal.

At the DC-3 it's required you either be in a locked hangar or
have a prop lock on the plane. Dave Wartofsky just went out
and got a bunch of Kryptonite (generally regarded as the most
over-hyped and insecure bicycle lock in production) to allow
owners to comply with the rules.

So you land at TEB with your Gulfstream. Since they have a door lock
only, the FBO installs a Denver Boot-type device on the nose wheels.

Typical government crap. Anyone intent on stealing a jet can surely
stop by the local Depot and pick up some bolt cutters.


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

In article ,
Don Hammer wrote:

So you land at TEB with your Gulfstream. Since they have a door lock
only, the FBO installs a Denver Boot-type device on the nose wheels.

Typical government crap. Anyone intent on stealing a jet can surely
stop by the local Depot and pick up some bolt cutters.

Some years ago, thinking about the problem of bike theft on our
university campus (generally local teenagers with small bolt cutters, or
outsiders coming in with a U-Haul truck), I "invented" the fiber optic
lock: small rugged sealed metal box with a keypad, a few ICs inside, and
an attached fiber optic pigtail of any desired length coming out whose
other end plugs into a receptacle on the same box.

Gives essentially zero physical protection; but once the fiber is
wrapped around something and plugged back in and the gadget is armed by
keying in a lock code, it starts sending optical pulses around the loop,
thru the fiber, and disconnecting or cutting the fiber without keying in
an unlock code will either (depending on how the gadget is designed and
set up):

* Set off audible alarm inside the (in this case somewhat larger)
lock gadget itself.

* Wirelessly trigger either an audible alarm somewhere close by
(e.g., under a hangar roof) or a silent but flashing warning light
visible to others (e.g, on the hangar roof)

* Wirelessly signal a detection unit in a nearby location (bike owners
campus office, airport tower, nearby police station)

The electronics would always have been trivial to implement for an
undergrad IC circuit designer; the needed fiber optics components are
now at the Radio Shack level; and the remote signalling would be
trivial with Wi-Fi or Bluetooth technology. The point to alarm
signalling rather than physical protection is to, depending on your
choice, scare off the bad guys, and/or know its happening immediately,
and/or alert someone who might catch 'em. The reasons for a fiber optic
rather than electrical wrap-around cable/signal loop are (a) these days,
very cheap and very low power consumption; (b) impossible to tell from
looking or "sniffing" if fiber is actually armed and carrying a signal;
(c) impossible for even a sophisticated thief to "scrape off the
insulation" and bypass the signals in the fiber cable loop.

Hmmm -- maybe I should be going into business.

The electronics would always have been trivial to implement for an
undergrad IC circuit designer; the needed fiber optics components are
now at the Radio Shack level; and the remote signalling would be
trivial with Wi-Fi or Bluetooth technology.

I won't argue what RF technology would be best for remote signalling. I
argue that small current loops (on the order of microamperes) is much more
efficient of power AND money than optics. I'm not really sure how you
"scrape off the insulation" when the "wire" can be the chain (or better yet,
cable) itself.

Jim

"RST Engineering" wrote in message
...
I won't argue what RF technology would be best for remote signalling. I
argue that small current loops (on the order of microamperes) is much more
efficient of power AND money than optics. I'm not really sure how you
"scrape off the insulation" when the "wire" can be the chain (or better
yet, cable) itself.

I think the point is that with a regular conductor, the signal can simply be
rerouted very easily, assuming someone knows that there's a signal to be
rerouted. Fiber optic makes the job a LOT harder (and probably out of the
skillset of the random person looking to steal an airplane).

You could try to address signal rerouting by monitoring not just its
presence, but other characteristics (voltage or current, for example), and
assume that minor changes are evidence of someone rerouting the signal. But
then the alarm is much more sensitive to things that aren't related to
someone trying to break the lock.

Certainly if you were going to use a physical restraint to conduct a signal,
you'd want cable, not chain. Too much likelihood of one chain link becoming
briefly out of contact with another and breaking the signal, resulting in a
false alarm.

It seems to me that there are enough issues with a electrical conductor,
that fiber optic isn't a bad way to go at all.

Of course, all of this assumes that applying additional locks to an airplane
satisfies a basic cost/benefit analysis, which I think is far from being a
foregone conclusion.

Pete

In article ,
"RST Engineering" wrote:

The electronics would always have been trivial to implement for an
undergrad IC circuit designer; the needed fiber optics components are
now at the Radio Shack level; and the remote signalling would be
trivial with Wi-Fi or Bluetooth technology.

I won't argue what RF technology would be best for remote signalling. I
argue that small current loops (on the order of microamperes) is much more
efficient of power AND money than optics. I'm not really sure how you
"scrape off the insulation" when the "wire" can be the chain (or better yet,
cable) itself.

My argument would be that if the wire is a current loop and is
physically accessible (and of course if the protected item is valuable
enough) a moderately competent thief can literally shave the insulation
off the side of the wire with a razor blade or Exacto knife; attach a
longer bypass wire that doesn't encircle the protected goods with a
couple of alligator clips; snip the original wire; and be home free.

This might fail -- that is, the alarm might still go off -- if the
electrical signals in the wire are high frequency enough, or the
measurement of the impedance of the wire itself, or the capacitance from
wire to ground, is sensitive enough, or . . .

But if you're using techniques that sophisticated, then the alarm is
also likely to be triggered by temperature changes, or by some large
object going by (a fork lift in a hangar), or by EMF from a nearby radio
or computer, or by . . .

A fiber loop would (in my judgment) be much less sensitive to all of the
above problems, and I believe the optical source, detector, and fiber
technology involved is now really cheap and simple.

As for the power consumption question, well, I have an optical mouse on
my desk that's been in use (putting out a lot of light, as well as
communicating constantly with the Bluetooth adaptor on my laptop) for
8-10 hours/day for many weeks now, and never turned off 24/7, on just a
couple of AA batteries.

Robert M. Gary wrote:
As far as I know only NJ has such a rule. My Champ had a key for the
door and another key for the mags. If yours is the same, you're good to
go.

NJ indeed has the "2-lock rule".

However, in typical NJ fashion, some airport owners have taken it upon
themselves to add two locks to that rule. Our 172 has door and key
locks. That should be enough. It's also in a locked hangar. But they
also demand we use a prop lock -- and if they survey our hangar and find
the airplane without the prop lock installed, they have the right to
kick us out.

I really need to start looking for property in another state...

-Doug

--------------------
Doug Vetter, CFIMEIA

http://www.dvcfi.com
--------------------