gbflyer
Registered User
PAGS
This is wordy, but please read it and keep it out of R&R folks. This is serious stuff. Below is a briefing from a fellow in CO who attended a TSA meeting regarding the new security measures. This is the real deal, and coming to an airport near you if we don't start screaming right now.
It seems " they " are at it again. We were told AOPA was quite unaware of
this Special Directive
While I am not the MTJ rep, and do not know who is (maybe you could tell me)
I attended, though I am the rep for Delta Blake field some 30 miles down
the road, with some 60 plus others tonight, a meeting no one had even heard
about until two days ago. And really only email amongst folks on the field
and the EAA chapter caused anyone to be there. It was a full house, even
though the address given was incorrect. I would guess the average age was
50 with a lot of former military and airline pilots in attendance, or folks
having other long time security clearances professionally, and who were a
bit amazed at all this. Nearly all pilots.
Four TSA reps were there from Grand Junction, we think that is where they
were from: Rennie (sp?) Dunn, Chris Putnam, Dick Wiles and a Peter Cook.
Two never said a word, Wiles offered two or three sentences, and Rennie
carried the freight. They all left in the same US Govt black SUV. One was
reputed to be a former special forces Lt Col in the mid east and therefore
familiar with security concerns. Frankly, none were very impressive but on
the other hand, they had been volunteered for a clearly thankless role.
The basic overall concept is another "Federal Unfunded Mandate" which
several in the crowed noted, in this case known as a Security Directive
affecting all individuals having access to commercial service airports to
become effective April 30.
Anyone wishing access after that date must, on only four near term days,
apply on a preliminary basis for security threat screening. Those dates
are 2/25/ 2/28 3/4 and 3/7.
Anyone not able to be present on those four near term dates must pay a $50
fee to begin the screening process. Persons must bring approved
identification from the approved list to be found at http://www.montroseairport.com
<http>
Reportedly the SD is fourteen pages, but no one except the TSA is allowed to
know what the rules are, as we ALL understood it, until or unless you break
one of the rules. Each of the four TSA people there acknowledged they had
seen the document. A Catch 22 - Alice in Wonderland moment.
A question was raised, what redress or appeal process is available. The
answer was surely it would be reasonably handled.
A local prominent attny who was a former prosecuting attny opined that not
only is this all backwards, in his view it was simply unconstitutional.
It presently appears that anyone on the ramp without a TSA ID is subject to
fines or convictions in unknown amounts and arrest or detainment by unknown
persons as it seems not to be known how enforcement will be conducted, or by
whom. The sole female TSA person, I could not fathom or match the persons
to the names, quietly said, the one time she even dared look at the crowd,
that patrolling would likely be random and infrequent. Or something very
like that.
Of course the question was then raised, why bother. No answer.
It further appears that each airport will need to conduct is own application
and fee process and then TSA will do the screening. It further appears that
each of the 450 commercially served airports will have to issue its own
security badges, raising a bit of an issue for those who are professional
pilots, travel to more than one airport, or, put rather dramatically, stop
for fuel at self service pumps. The self service fuel vendor from Grand
Junction, Colo traveled down to this meeting and advised that at a similar
meeting yesterday, the first time fee for a screening and badge there will
be $175 per person. Montrose said their first badge will be free, and
subsequent ones on expiry of the first will be an as yet unknown amount. I
myself flew three states last weekend. The west is a bit larger than the
area within the beltway.
One fellow asked why not have identical badges at all airports so folks know
what to look for>
One on field commercial operator said it would be cost prohibitive for all
employees who might escort someone to be screened and badged. And there are
certainly are no excess personnel available for such duty. The airport
manager then volunteered the same answer for his staff.
A couple of ag spray operators who necessarily fly into a variety of
airports here, and are always on call from various counties, were a bit
troubled by the multiple badge requirement, and since they often are called
out to do SEAT wildland fire fighting as first responders, (until from what
I can see the BLM can figure out what to do,) they felt that waiting for a
badge to get fuel and slurry water might be just a bit of an issue. How are
they to anticipate where to apply, in advance? No answer. Multiple pleas
were made of one badge, nationally, and the response was that concept would
be taken back for discussion.
A local Colorado Dept of Wildlife pilot felt it might be a bit of a burden
to get credentials from all his typical airports, plus those for the areas
served by the other three pilots when they are on vacation, or out of town,
not to mention the economic costs, or the time to go and apply at different
places, etc.
Several FBO employees or free lance mechanics, or the Western Skyways Engine
shop to which has customers routinely coming in from Brazil, Mexico and
other south and central American countries, were told, directly, they will
need to staff and accompany anyone not credentialed who is on the field.
All of course said this would break them financially, and the self fuel
operators said they too could not staff a self fuel op 24 x 7.
It is clear the Montrose Airport Appreciation day, when several hundred
people visit with old classic cars, motorcycles, balloon rides, flybys, the
LIONS cooking hotdogs and burgers to raise funds, homebuilts on display,
Civil Air Patrol handling off tarmac vehicle parking and on tarmac crowd
control, Americana if you will, could be a bit of an issue and the TSA
suggested local law enforcement could somehow staff the escort necessities
on the field. How exactly do you escort a large milling crowd? As it
happens, I am also the Young Eagles- Co-Coordinator for EAA chapter 1373.
We typically have about 100 young Eagles we fly with a variety of pilots on
those fall days, and as a general rule, with mothers, fathers, sisters and
brothers; you could expect maybe 300 or more people in the course of a day,
not to mention grand parents, media folk, etc as a part of that operation.
Montrose airport serves the ski crowd, and movie stars going to Telluride,
when A.) the particular aircraft can not get into Telluride due to size or
B.) Weather. And that field is to close shortly for extended runway
re-work. The Montrose FBO asked how he was to possibly monitor 30
limousines simultaneously, not to mention accompanying or escorting anyone
within the vehicles, apart from getting changing and independent drivers to
apply for credentials. I have seen easily 30 limos there myself, this is not
an exaggeration, may be an understatement.
Questions were raised about what is or are the levels of thresholds for
pass/fail on a security clearance, no answer.
One asked the TSA folk to verify the fine was $10,000 a day. They could not
verify anything they said. Might be less.
Questions were raised about whether a DUI or childhood infraction would be
cause for a turndown, no answer.
A question was raised whether an existing fire arm permit would be adequate.
(Presumably concealed but unclear.) No answer.
Questions were raised about whether if a person were to escort someone who
had failed a clearance, but the escorter, not the escortee, did not know it,
if that escorting person would be charged with a violation? (How were they
to conduct their own clearances?) No answer.
Questions were raised about how many persons one with a security badge could
escort. No answer. It is being looked at..
Questions were raised about on field ppties or buildings with ramp access
and non-secure or public access, i.e. two doors on opposite sides of a
building, were to be dealt with, and the answer was the doors must all be
locked and monitored, or screened. The following question arose, what if a
mechanic was in or under a plane servicing it, and someone undetected walked
through, who was liable. The impression was the County might be liable.
An unfielded question was raised, what if locking doors is in violation of
the national or local fire code that all doors must be unlocked during
business hours.
Questions were raised about whether this was wheels or boots on the tarmac,
and which would constitute a violation. NO answer.
Questions were raised why an existing Federal ID, was not adequate, say a
pilots license, perhaps with a security clearance stamp on the corner. NO
answer.
Questions were raised why not a national one time clearance for all
airports, no answer.
Questions were raised about how it would be possible to get all this done by
the deadline, no answer. There were ambivalent responses that this was only
version F or G and that further "refinements" were likely.
Questions were raised about how this was all to be paid for; the answer was
the County or City that owned the airport. The airport manager made it
clear, especially in these economic times; they simply could not pay for
this.
Questions were raised that since by far the largest part of the airfield is
surrounded by old tired three strand barb wire fence, why require all the
pilots and assorted folks to go through the clearance process, when anyone
could simply walk onto the field. Answer County responsibility to build new
fences. County has been trying to expand what is there, but there are of
course multiple demands for funds.
No one thought to ask what would happen if the hundreds of dairy cattle
immediately north of the field were to break down the fence and an
unauthorized herdsman were to enter the field to keep cattle off the runway.
Questions were raised about any cost-benefit analysis. No answer.
Questions were raised about any risk-benefit analysis. No answer.
Questions were raised about the likely source (s) of risk. No answer.
Questions were raised about what good can any of this possibly do. No
answer.
Questions were raised about how this Directive was promulgated, and by whom,
no real answer except it was signed off on by the Bush TSA administrator.
Questions were raided about how to contact someone who knew at least some of
the answers. No answer.
Questions were raised about how this clearance would rate as compared to the
various ranges of FBI clearances, no answer.
Questions were raised about whether any of the four TSA folks had pilot
licenses and current medicals, none were current or active.
It appeared these four were selected to stand in front of the pilot question
firing squad, and they acted appropriately enthused.
One young lady said if as a part of her job she would have to get a
clearance and badge, free at first, then renewing, she could not afford to
work at her wage at the airport.
Several questions were raised about what event caused this directive to be
promulgated; we were told they could not answer.
Questions were raised about what would happen if a transient pilot landed,
needed unknown repairs, or fuel, walked about the ramp without clearance,
trying to find a shop or mechanic, and each turned the pilot away and would
not escort him to wherever, were they liable? No answer.
Questions were raised about what would happen if a pilot landed, say at
night, at an unattended field except maybe the tower, if there even were
one, and needed fuel, and were spotted by a local police or sheriff. What
was either the pilot or sheriff to do? No answer.
The six county representative for the newly appointed Senator Michael
Bennett was in attendance, made a few notes, and urged a group letter or
email, not individual contacts, and assured the crowd the Senator would not
see individual contacts but would be aware of a group letter from someone on
his staff.
Virtually every commercial operator said the plan, to the extent it was
disclosed, was either totally unworkable, or will bankrupt them. One self
service fuel vender said it would immediately break them. Some noted this
was not highly desirable for the vendor, the pilot, or the national
financial recovery.
A comparison was made between this directive and early TFR's which had no
areas defined, and were not published anywhere, until AOPA began publishing
them, but pilots were advised they would be dealt with harshly if they
violated those unpublished TFR's since release of the data was secret and a
national security issue..
The TSA lead suggested pilots look at the World Aeronautical Guide to see
what airports had commercial service before landing. Several pilots said
what were they to do if weather, turbulence or lack of in in-flight Guide,
or inability to read it and fly the plane simultaneously, and in-flight
mechanical issues were to cause them to make a precautionary landing at an
unplanned airport for which they had no badge.. No answers.
It was noted this concept was brought by the Dept of Homeland Security whose
first head on national TV proposed everyone getting visqueen and duct tape
to wrap their houses against chemical attacks, and the TSA who mandated a
certain very ill considered pistol holster for Federal Flight Deck Officers,
which most thoughtful and knowledgeable gun folk thought was sure to result
in accidental discharge, and did, in an Airbus, by a captain who was nearly
brought up on charges til covert circulation of an actual demonstration of
how this gun would have inevitably been accidentally fired.
A wide variety of questions were posed as to whether the TSA or Department
of Homeland Security had really thought all this through. No real answer.
I raised the question of if there are some 600,000 licensed pilots, and
untold numbers of passengers, limo drivers and their passengers, mechanics,
vendors, etc why not have the TSA and FAA do a mass clearance by pilots'
licenses, rather than all these one off clearances nationwide, which would
be far more efficient, with a high volume and low cost per pilot, paid for
by the TSA, not the Counties, or pilots, and at least get those 600,000
clearances to people statistically unlikely to be a problem, then move on to
all the other groups. NO answer, except it appeared the TSA said they had
no funding. Actually, who does?
What is the estimated cost? Aren't new proposals supposed to be accompanied
by reasonably estimated cost?
There were a variety of questions and intramural mumbling about how
effectiveness could be measured, whether a program this dumb could be
continued, and whether the real goal, perhaps by the commercial carriers,
was either to kill off general aviation, or at least get it totally off the
450 air carrier airports? No answer.
A question, by a recently former US Army helicopter pilot, how long would it
take to get clearances, now, or subsequently, if an ID/clearance was needed
for a new or differing airport, where access was needed? No answer?
A question was raised about whether local police, sheriffs, fire dept or
their volunteers would need clearance to get on the field. The answer
seemed to be, probably not.
It was clear the airport manager and county commissioner were trying to be
gracious in view of a new surprise regulation, for which they too were not
given any or many answers, but were supposed to somehow make work, and fund,
when they are already unable to fix roads, bridges, human services etc.
They made it abundantly clear, they did not see how they could fund or staff
badging on an ongoing basis, much less the escort issue.
A former county commissioner who does a great deal of heavy and timely
airfreight shipments, asked how that was to be done with a variety of
vendors or delivery services coming to the field with differing drivers at
all hours that needed access to load planes. No real answer on how he
could continue to ship.
I could go on but I can not recall with any specificity all the issues
raised, I might be able to identify and get you a contact for one person who
worked feverishly to record it all on a laptop. The meeting, opened by one
Montrose County Commissioner, was really rather civil, which that
commissioner and the airport manager both charged the crowd to be. In view
of the near total lack of answers, or real responsiveness, this was
remarkable. It certainly did not inspire confidence in the TSA or Homeland
Security folk.
This was not TSA's finest hour.
Hope this representative recollection helps. I am sure I overlooked some
things, and could not hear others.
Scott Morse - Delta Blake ( AJZ)
morse@kaycee.net
It seems " they " are at it again. We were told AOPA was quite unaware of
this Special Directive
While I am not the MTJ rep, and do not know who is (maybe you could tell me)
I attended, though I am the rep for Delta Blake field some 30 miles down
the road, with some 60 plus others tonight, a meeting no one had even heard
about until two days ago. And really only email amongst folks on the field
and the EAA chapter caused anyone to be there. It was a full house, even
though the address given was incorrect. I would guess the average age was
50 with a lot of former military and airline pilots in attendance, or folks
having other long time security clearances professionally, and who were a
bit amazed at all this. Nearly all pilots.
Four TSA reps were there from Grand Junction, we think that is where they
were from: Rennie (sp?) Dunn, Chris Putnam, Dick Wiles and a Peter Cook.
Two never said a word, Wiles offered two or three sentences, and Rennie
carried the freight. They all left in the same US Govt black SUV. One was
reputed to be a former special forces Lt Col in the mid east and therefore
familiar with security concerns. Frankly, none were very impressive but on
the other hand, they had been volunteered for a clearly thankless role.
The basic overall concept is another "Federal Unfunded Mandate" which
several in the crowed noted, in this case known as a Security Directive
affecting all individuals having access to commercial service airports to
become effective April 30.
Anyone wishing access after that date must, on only four near term days,
apply on a preliminary basis for security threat screening. Those dates
are 2/25/ 2/28 3/4 and 3/7.
Anyone not able to be present on those four near term dates must pay a $50
fee to begin the screening process. Persons must bring approved
identification from the approved list to be found at http://www.montroseairport.com
<http>
Reportedly the SD is fourteen pages, but no one except the TSA is allowed to
know what the rules are, as we ALL understood it, until or unless you break
one of the rules. Each of the four TSA people there acknowledged they had
seen the document. A Catch 22 - Alice in Wonderland moment.
A question was raised, what redress or appeal process is available. The
answer was surely it would be reasonably handled.
A local prominent attny who was a former prosecuting attny opined that not
only is this all backwards, in his view it was simply unconstitutional.
It presently appears that anyone on the ramp without a TSA ID is subject to
fines or convictions in unknown amounts and arrest or detainment by unknown
persons as it seems not to be known how enforcement will be conducted, or by
whom. The sole female TSA person, I could not fathom or match the persons
to the names, quietly said, the one time she even dared look at the crowd,
that patrolling would likely be random and infrequent. Or something very
like that.
Of course the question was then raised, why bother. No answer.
It further appears that each airport will need to conduct is own application
and fee process and then TSA will do the screening. It further appears that
each of the 450 commercially served airports will have to issue its own
security badges, raising a bit of an issue for those who are professional
pilots, travel to more than one airport, or, put rather dramatically, stop
for fuel at self service pumps. The self service fuel vendor from Grand
Junction, Colo traveled down to this meeting and advised that at a similar
meeting yesterday, the first time fee for a screening and badge there will
be $175 per person. Montrose said their first badge will be free, and
subsequent ones on expiry of the first will be an as yet unknown amount. I
myself flew three states last weekend. The west is a bit larger than the
area within the beltway.
One fellow asked why not have identical badges at all airports so folks know
what to look for>
One on field commercial operator said it would be cost prohibitive for all
employees who might escort someone to be screened and badged. And there are
certainly are no excess personnel available for such duty. The airport
manager then volunteered the same answer for his staff.
A couple of ag spray operators who necessarily fly into a variety of
airports here, and are always on call from various counties, were a bit
troubled by the multiple badge requirement, and since they often are called
out to do SEAT wildland fire fighting as first responders, (until from what
I can see the BLM can figure out what to do,) they felt that waiting for a
badge to get fuel and slurry water might be just a bit of an issue. How are
they to anticipate where to apply, in advance? No answer. Multiple pleas
were made of one badge, nationally, and the response was that concept would
be taken back for discussion.
A local Colorado Dept of Wildlife pilot felt it might be a bit of a burden
to get credentials from all his typical airports, plus those for the areas
served by the other three pilots when they are on vacation, or out of town,
not to mention the economic costs, or the time to go and apply at different
places, etc.
Several FBO employees or free lance mechanics, or the Western Skyways Engine
shop to which has customers routinely coming in from Brazil, Mexico and
other south and central American countries, were told, directly, they will
need to staff and accompany anyone not credentialed who is on the field.
All of course said this would break them financially, and the self fuel
operators said they too could not staff a self fuel op 24 x 7.
It is clear the Montrose Airport Appreciation day, when several hundred
people visit with old classic cars, motorcycles, balloon rides, flybys, the
LIONS cooking hotdogs and burgers to raise funds, homebuilts on display,
Civil Air Patrol handling off tarmac vehicle parking and on tarmac crowd
control, Americana if you will, could be a bit of an issue and the TSA
suggested local law enforcement could somehow staff the escort necessities
on the field. How exactly do you escort a large milling crowd? As it
happens, I am also the Young Eagles- Co-Coordinator for EAA chapter 1373.
We typically have about 100 young Eagles we fly with a variety of pilots on
those fall days, and as a general rule, with mothers, fathers, sisters and
brothers; you could expect maybe 300 or more people in the course of a day,
not to mention grand parents, media folk, etc as a part of that operation.
Montrose airport serves the ski crowd, and movie stars going to Telluride,
when A.) the particular aircraft can not get into Telluride due to size or
B.) Weather. And that field is to close shortly for extended runway
re-work. The Montrose FBO asked how he was to possibly monitor 30
limousines simultaneously, not to mention accompanying or escorting anyone
within the vehicles, apart from getting changing and independent drivers to
apply for credentials. I have seen easily 30 limos there myself, this is not
an exaggeration, may be an understatement.
Questions were raised about what is or are the levels of thresholds for
pass/fail on a security clearance, no answer.
One asked the TSA folk to verify the fine was $10,000 a day. They could not
verify anything they said. Might be less.
Questions were raised about whether a DUI or childhood infraction would be
cause for a turndown, no answer.
A question was raised whether an existing fire arm permit would be adequate.
(Presumably concealed but unclear.) No answer.
Questions were raised about whether if a person were to escort someone who
had failed a clearance, but the escorter, not the escortee, did not know it,
if that escorting person would be charged with a violation? (How were they
to conduct their own clearances?) No answer.
Questions were raised about how many persons one with a security badge could
escort. No answer. It is being looked at..
Questions were raised about on field ppties or buildings with ramp access
and non-secure or public access, i.e. two doors on opposite sides of a
building, were to be dealt with, and the answer was the doors must all be
locked and monitored, or screened. The following question arose, what if a
mechanic was in or under a plane servicing it, and someone undetected walked
through, who was liable. The impression was the County might be liable.
An unfielded question was raised, what if locking doors is in violation of
the national or local fire code that all doors must be unlocked during
business hours.
Questions were raised about whether this was wheels or boots on the tarmac,
and which would constitute a violation. NO answer.
Questions were raised why an existing Federal ID, was not adequate, say a
pilots license, perhaps with a security clearance stamp on the corner. NO
answer.
Questions were raised why not a national one time clearance for all
airports, no answer.
Questions were raised about how it would be possible to get all this done by
the deadline, no answer. There were ambivalent responses that this was only
version F or G and that further "refinements" were likely.
Questions were raised about how this was all to be paid for; the answer was
the County or City that owned the airport. The airport manager made it
clear, especially in these economic times; they simply could not pay for
this.
Questions were raised that since by far the largest part of the airfield is
surrounded by old tired three strand barb wire fence, why require all the
pilots and assorted folks to go through the clearance process, when anyone
could simply walk onto the field. Answer County responsibility to build new
fences. County has been trying to expand what is there, but there are of
course multiple demands for funds.
No one thought to ask what would happen if the hundreds of dairy cattle
immediately north of the field were to break down the fence and an
unauthorized herdsman were to enter the field to keep cattle off the runway.
Questions were raised about any cost-benefit analysis. No answer.
Questions were raised about any risk-benefit analysis. No answer.
Questions were raised about the likely source (s) of risk. No answer.
Questions were raised about what good can any of this possibly do. No
answer.
Questions were raised about how this Directive was promulgated, and by whom,
no real answer except it was signed off on by the Bush TSA administrator.
Questions were raided about how to contact someone who knew at least some of
the answers. No answer.
Questions were raised about how this clearance would rate as compared to the
various ranges of FBI clearances, no answer.
Questions were raised about whether any of the four TSA folks had pilot
licenses and current medicals, none were current or active.
It appeared these four were selected to stand in front of the pilot question
firing squad, and they acted appropriately enthused.
One young lady said if as a part of her job she would have to get a
clearance and badge, free at first, then renewing, she could not afford to
work at her wage at the airport.
Several questions were raised about what event caused this directive to be
promulgated; we were told they could not answer.
Questions were raised about what would happen if a transient pilot landed,
needed unknown repairs, or fuel, walked about the ramp without clearance,
trying to find a shop or mechanic, and each turned the pilot away and would
not escort him to wherever, were they liable? No answer.
Questions were raised about what would happen if a pilot landed, say at
night, at an unattended field except maybe the tower, if there even were
one, and needed fuel, and were spotted by a local police or sheriff. What
was either the pilot or sheriff to do? No answer.
The six county representative for the newly appointed Senator Michael
Bennett was in attendance, made a few notes, and urged a group letter or
email, not individual contacts, and assured the crowd the Senator would not
see individual contacts but would be aware of a group letter from someone on
his staff.
Virtually every commercial operator said the plan, to the extent it was
disclosed, was either totally unworkable, or will bankrupt them. One self
service fuel vender said it would immediately break them. Some noted this
was not highly desirable for the vendor, the pilot, or the national
financial recovery.
A comparison was made between this directive and early TFR's which had no
areas defined, and were not published anywhere, until AOPA began publishing
them, but pilots were advised they would be dealt with harshly if they
violated those unpublished TFR's since release of the data was secret and a
national security issue..
The TSA lead suggested pilots look at the World Aeronautical Guide to see
what airports had commercial service before landing. Several pilots said
what were they to do if weather, turbulence or lack of in in-flight Guide,
or inability to read it and fly the plane simultaneously, and in-flight
mechanical issues were to cause them to make a precautionary landing at an
unplanned airport for which they had no badge.. No answers.
It was noted this concept was brought by the Dept of Homeland Security whose
first head on national TV proposed everyone getting visqueen and duct tape
to wrap their houses against chemical attacks, and the TSA who mandated a
certain very ill considered pistol holster for Federal Flight Deck Officers,
which most thoughtful and knowledgeable gun folk thought was sure to result
in accidental discharge, and did, in an Airbus, by a captain who was nearly
brought up on charges til covert circulation of an actual demonstration of
how this gun would have inevitably been accidentally fired.
A wide variety of questions were posed as to whether the TSA or Department
of Homeland Security had really thought all this through. No real answer.
I raised the question of if there are some 600,000 licensed pilots, and
untold numbers of passengers, limo drivers and their passengers, mechanics,
vendors, etc why not have the TSA and FAA do a mass clearance by pilots'
licenses, rather than all these one off clearances nationwide, which would
be far more efficient, with a high volume and low cost per pilot, paid for
by the TSA, not the Counties, or pilots, and at least get those 600,000
clearances to people statistically unlikely to be a problem, then move on to
all the other groups. NO answer, except it appeared the TSA said they had
no funding. Actually, who does?
What is the estimated cost? Aren't new proposals supposed to be accompanied
by reasonably estimated cost?
There were a variety of questions and intramural mumbling about how
effectiveness could be measured, whether a program this dumb could be
continued, and whether the real goal, perhaps by the commercial carriers,
was either to kill off general aviation, or at least get it totally off the
450 air carrier airports? No answer.
A question, by a recently former US Army helicopter pilot, how long would it
take to get clearances, now, or subsequently, if an ID/clearance was needed
for a new or differing airport, where access was needed? No answer?
A question was raised about whether local police, sheriffs, fire dept or
their volunteers would need clearance to get on the field. The answer
seemed to be, probably not.
It was clear the airport manager and county commissioner were trying to be
gracious in view of a new surprise regulation, for which they too were not
given any or many answers, but were supposed to somehow make work, and fund,
when they are already unable to fix roads, bridges, human services etc.
They made it abundantly clear, they did not see how they could fund or staff
badging on an ongoing basis, much less the escort issue.
A former county commissioner who does a great deal of heavy and timely
airfreight shipments, asked how that was to be done with a variety of
vendors or delivery services coming to the field with differing drivers at
all hours that needed access to load planes. No real answer on how he
could continue to ship.
I could go on but I can not recall with any specificity all the issues
raised, I might be able to identify and get you a contact for one person who
worked feverishly to record it all on a laptop. The meeting, opened by one
Montrose County Commissioner, was really rather civil, which that
commissioner and the airport manager both charged the crowd to be. In view
of the near total lack of answers, or real responsiveness, this was
remarkable. It certainly did not inspire confidence in the TSA or Homeland
Security folk.
This was not TSA's finest hour.
Hope this representative recollection helps. I am sure I overlooked some
things, and could not hear others.
Scott Morse - Delta Blake ( AJZ)
morse@kaycee.net
[/i]
