Members Say 'Two-Lock' Rule Is Unnecessary

What do members of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association think of a proposal mandating two locks for general aviation aircraft? Their responses include such terms as "intrusive," "unnecessary"... and just plain "unacceptable." And that’s the message AOPA is taking to lawmakers.

AOPA Vice President of Regional Affairs Greg Pecoraro testified March 11 before the Pennsylvania House Transportation Committee in opposition to H.B.2292, which would require two locks on all general aviation aircraft and create criminal penalties for failing to use them.

Prior to the hearing, AOPA sent a letter and asked members to contact key lawmakers directly—actions that seemed to generate some opposition to the legislation within the Transportation Committee.

Pecoraro told the committee that the legislation is unnecessary since most pilots already secure their aircraft, general aviation aircraft are rarely stolen, and the federal government has determined that general aviation aircraft are unattractive to terrorists because of their small size and minimal destructive power. Pecoraro also pointed out that voluntary programs, such as AOPA’s Airport Watch, have pilots "locking up and looking out" for potentially threatening activity.

"Our members secure their aircraft, and they are alert for unauthorized activity at their airports," Pecoraro said. "This mandate represents an unacceptable level of government intrusion designed to solve a problem that doesn’t exist."

AOPA is urging Pennsylvania members to contact their state representatives and express their opposition to H.B.2292.

FMI: www.aopa.org