• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • There is no better time to show your support for SuperCub.Org than during our annual calendar campaign! All the details are HERE

Long, but worthwhile info. on lastest TSA issue

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
 
Thanks for the update on the TSA meeting. sounds like they were on a fishing trip, to see what the reaction would be. They must be expecting something coming. I work on ships in the Seattle area and now you have to go through a intense security check and be issued a security pass that looks like a drivers license. If you don't have it, you don't get on the property let alone the ships.

Bill
 
We were briefed on this at South Bend last week. The briefing was conducted by the airport authority, rather than the TSA. No TSA attended, but the FAA did.

In short, we were told that if we have access cards that get us into the t-hangar area we would automatically be given an ID which fives us on-foot access to any of the paved areas except the ramp used by the air carriers. We can taxi our planes across the air carrier ramp - we just can't get out of our planes there. We do need to fill out a brief form, and it will be used to do a background check. No fees are involved. We do not have to wear our IDs on the outside of our clothing, but do need to have the ID on our person. It's about the size of a pilot's license, so it will fit into the wallet.

If we fly to another airport which serves air carriers (two close ones are Fort Wayne and Kalamazoo) our pilot's license will serve as the legal ID there. Like at South Bend, we will not be permitted to get out of our planes on the air carrier ramp.
 
What is anybody hearing of two TFR violations that resulted in shoot downs? I heard one was a kid in a glider.
 
TJ , At least you will have a car that you will never have to put brakes on.
 
What are those morons trying to protect us from? A dearth of rent-a-cops?

:evil:

I hear jackboots; Draw your mighty pens (email will do, for those without mighty pens) and prepare to do battle. Who are these punks trying to take over my Constitution?
 
Bill Ingerson said:
Thanks for the update on the TSA meeting. sounds like they were on a fishing trip, to see what the reaction would be. They must be expecting something coming. I work on ships in the Seattle area and now you have to go through a intense security check and be issued a security pass that looks like a drivers license. If you don't have it, you don't get on the property let alone the ships.

Bill

Hey Bill, I just went and applied for my TWIC card last week. First I had to go to the Coast Guard office to renew my MMD. Had the full on electronic fingerprinting for the FBI background check there, and then the EXACT same thing at the TWIC office (on the other side of town, of course) not 60 minutes later. I inquired as to why I had to submit to this 2 times as both are now Dept. of Homeland Security. Of course no one knows why, we're just doing our job, etc. At least they were polite. Seems like they could use the TWIC program for the airports as well if we are going to have to endure yet another level of scrutiny to fly our little planes.

TJ might be right. I think I am going to trade for a good Honda ATV though. Electricity is too expensive here to run the Prius.

gb

BTW, I have contacted my Alaska representatives about this LASP program, which is a separate issue from this latest security directive. They are all firmly against it.
 
Hmmm. This isn't going to be easy, but I'll try. I can kinda see the wisdom of TSA not wanting GA pilots parking their planes amongst the airliners and then wandering about on their own, not only for security reasons, but for safety and other reasons as well. What I don't understand is how TSA can mandate rules such as this without also involving the many other agencies involved -- airports are FAA turf, afterall. But then, it's a lot easier to declare rules in a vacuum than it is to make the rules work. This sounds like one of those "Hey, I got a great idea" moments around the water cooler at TSA HQ. At the risk of getting myself and this thread in trouble -- Nah. Nevermind.
 
This got sent to me also a couple days ago from a friend in the Skywagons group. Hard to believe.

I guess a lot of us are familiar with how it is in Canada; you can't go out on the ramp when there is a commercial airliner on the ground, and can't go across the area of ramp marked off with the big wide paint stripes. And there are the chain link fences with the 5 pin combination locks everywhere. But everyone there at the airports are very friendly about this, and lenient to the point that I still don't know what the Canadians rules actually are.

And that begs the other question on the thread that went to R&R on User Fees. The Canadians bill you for every flight or flight plan or airport landed at, and you mostly have to be on a flight plan, at least when transitioning over long distances through the country. The bills trickle in for weeks after the flight is completed, and darn it I pay them because I appreciate the safety of a flight plan over so many miles of wilderness and want to go back - and that it is only for a weeks worth of flying in a year tops.

Any Canadian members care to comment or clarify on how it is done exactly in Canada on either of these two issues, securing ramps for commercial operations and how you fly Cubs and avoid - or reduce - user fees?

Bob Breeden


www.AlaskaAirpark.com
 
As cool as big jets are, I don't want anything to do with them when I'm in my little paper airplane. If I were operating on an airfield that had them there, I would be reasonably certain there would be a frequency for Tower or Ground or both. Wandering around the taxiways at, say, PANC with my Cruiser, I would expect I would need to be on 121.9 before taking in the sights. Wont as I am to break rules, I imagine the guys in the tower would have me detained at plow-point long before I could taxi up to an Alaska Airlines 737 and deploy my Dalmatian Terrorist.

So - if the TSA or HSA want to keep us from mosying up to the big iron and avoid having our dogs pee on the tires, why not rely on Ground? They're already there, looking out the windows! I'm sure they could mobilize a crack team of TSA agents to the scene to immediately wave wands and deprive me of my shoes and any liquids over four ounces!

As far as that agency mandating a bunch of new security procedures without any concern with funding (never MIND that it's a worthless idea in the first place), it becomes something on the order of "lets have a tea party" before I would be looking for money to build a fence. I would tell them "If you want that stuff put in, go ahead. Don't be surprised if you find all the gates propped open when you come to admire it."
 
moneyburner said:
As cool as big jets are, I don't want anything to do with them when I'm in my little paper airplane. If I were operating on an airfield that had them there, I would be reasonably certain there would be a frequency for Tower or Ground or both. Wandering around the taxiways at, say, PANC with my Cruiser, I would expect I would need to be on 121.9 before taking in the sights. Wont as I am to break rules, I imagine the guys in the tower would have me detained at plow-point long before I could taxi up to an Alaska Airlines 737 and deploy my Dalmatian Terrorist.

So - if the TSA or HSA want to keep us from mosying up to the big iron and avoid having our dogs pee on the tires, why not rely on Ground? They're already there, looking out the windows! I'm sure they could mobilize a crack team of TSA agents to the scene to immediately wave wands and deprive me of my shoes and any liquids over four ounces!

As far as that agency mandating a bunch of new security procedures without any concern with funding (never MIND that it's a worthless idea in the first place), it becomes something on the order of "lets have a tea party" before I would be looking for money to build a fence. I would tell them "If you want that stuff put in, go ahead. Don't be surprised if you find all the gates propped open when you come to admire it."

Hey Moneyburner,

The idea has merit. The bad news is that there are non - towered airports down here in SE. all over the place that get Alaska Airlines service. I'm sure it's the same up north of here. Some say then the solution is to run them off, and I wouldn't mind that personally, but then there is still the issue of all of the other air carriers that operate here too. They still count as commercial operators, even if they fly 206's and such.

I don't really relish the idea of having to get a separate ramp badge for every little airport in Alaska. We will receive the brunt of this nonsense, and for no good reason.

gb
 
If this above action has you starting to think, it might be time to read "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross.
 
This whole TSA issue has the potential to become very serious (actually it already is). I work at Hopkins airport in CLE and have been thru the TSA security BS. The TSA can't show you the rules because they don't know them, they are in continuous rewrite. I have lost track of how many background checks they have done on us and how many times we have been issued a new badge cause of the fact that they have no idea of what they are searching for. If I have a utility knife in my tool bag its is required to have my name and address number on it (cause that is what was used to attack the planes on 9/11) but it’s OK to carry an ax or a long screw driver or a 3lb sledge hammer. There was some rumor that went around of a list of allowed tools that we could have but may have been only rumor as no one has mentioned it since. I can work on a plane all night have complete access to it but before I can fly on it I have to leave the airport and go be screened thru a metal detector by someone one that got hired yesterday and couldn't get hired at McDonald's. These people have complete access to the airport and airplanes and can walk into any airplane or place that they want. IF you want to be a real terrorist and have complete accesses at an airport get a job with the TSA. I have no idea of who the report to or if they even have to answer to congress but this needs to be stopped before they ruin every airport. It’s one more thing that they will keep pushing till even a private airport will need a security fence if they have their way.
 
They won't tell you what the rules are until you break them -
Then fine or imprison you? What has me absolutely astounded is that I hear people rustling around trying to figure out how to comply with these rules.

That is one hundred and eighty degrees off course, upside down and backwards. That is what sheep do. This is OUR government, not some back-room bureaucrat's.

Someone (that would be you and me) needs to get the policy-makers in DHS to step back and look at what their people are up to. As I said earlier, get your mighty pens out and start writing letters to your congressmen.

In Alaska, they are:

http://murkowski.senate.gov/public/
http://begich.senate.gov/
http://donyoung.house.gov/

You don't have to write with flowery eloquence. Keep your letters short and to the point. If you need specific things to tell them, check AOPA's website; they have some good stuff and THEY are writing letters, you can bet your bushwheels.
 
The only form of "terrorist" I have seen since 9/11 has the name of TSA.
They scare me more than any other potential person. They are out of control.

Steve
 
I agree. Not cool! This is getting to be too much. You can't protect everyone from everything. It seems to be a gov't out of control. Their mission is to grow, have more influence and more control.

THIS IS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and it feels like freedom is slipping away.... :( [/i]
 
This whole thing is bizarre. When was the required NPRM period (Notice for Proposed Rule Making)? What does the actual regulation say and where is it posted? If it is a real regulation they HAVE to publish it in the Federal Register. They can't just make it up arbitrarily as they go along, this is an illegal rule if it is true!

Why are we letting our civil servants get away with treating their masters (us) like this?

Patrol Guy, I was thinking the same thing, we are thinking alike!
 
We had to get airport ID cards issued by the TSA / DHS office at KMKC not too long after 9/11. You are supposed to carry them to be on the ramp, although I'm not sure I could find mine right now if I tried. I moved to a private airport to avoid a lot of this hassle.

I find it interesting that there is nothing in the news about this - at least yet. I searched the TSA and DHS sites and did not find anything out either.

It would be nice to hear with the AOPA / NATA have to say about this latest set of meetings.

sj
 
I don't understand where the confusion is. It seems very clear to me that:

THE INMATES ARE RUNNING THE ASYLUM
 
Below is an article that was posted by AOPA on Feb. 29th. seems some members of congress are challenging the TSA on this one.
Marty57

Lawmakers to TSA: Choose new flight plan for LASP

By AOPA ePublishing Staff
Signatories

Sam Graves (R-Mo.)

Nathan Deal (R-Ga.)

Lynn A. Westmoreland (R-Ga.)

John J. Duncan, Jr. (R-Tenn.)

Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Mo.)

W. Todd Akin (R-Mo.)

Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.)

Members of Congress, led by Rep. Sam Graves (R-Mo.), have warned the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to reconsider the proposed Large Aircraft Security Program (LASP) or face possible legal challenges and “congressional obstacles” to implementation.

In comments submitted Feb. 27, a group of seven members of Congress from four states chided the TSA for using inaccurate estimates of the direct and indirect costs of the LASP proposal and failing to allow adequate public input on the plan. The detailed comments also noted that the TSA had failed to demonstrate that the security benefits of implementing the program would exceed the costs. The LASP plan would essentially apply commercial air carrier security measures to general aviation aircraft weighing more than 12,500 pounds, regardless of how they are used. The proposal would require crewmember criminal record checks, watch list matching of passenger manifests, biennial third party audits of each aircraft operator, and new airport security measures.

The TSA has identified 315 airports that would be affected by the new security program, including Wittman Regional (OSH) in Wisconsin, home of the EAA’s annual AirVenture Oshkosh. Lawmakers noted that required security measures might “…reduce the attractiveness of the event, and the food and lodging businesses in the area will find it hard to replace the lost business.” AirVenture is not alone. More than 325 other airshows and upwards of 10 million spectators would also be impacted.

AOPA has vigorously protested the proposal, sending representatives to testify at each of the public hearings on the plan, calling on members to contact their legislators to express their opposition, and submitting formal comments of its own.

February 28, 2009
 
Sam Graves is our guy from Missouri. He has been a great supporter of GA and often flys his Cherokee 140 into Noah's where I am at for meetings, etc. He has also tried to bring some reason to the property tax system on aircraft - especially those that are not flying which he owns a number of.

sj
 
HSA and TSA were formed in a hurry as a knee-jerk reaction to the events of 9/11 and have enjoyed nearly total autonomy ever since. As far as I know, they have never been accountable to anyone for anything they do and can do pretty much whatever they want. Remember that they are run by political appointees, 99.9% of whom have not the faintest idea of what they are doing. In the beginning, both agencies were staffed by the flotsam and jetsam of the other agencies and departments, augmented by new hires off the street. Experience and qualifications were not much of a factor in the rush to get them up and running. To say the work force was at the DC level was/is mostly misfits would be kind. Nearly ten years later, they are still running amok in a vacuum. Hopefully, if enough of us complain to our elected reps long and hard enough, someone in power will slap them up side the head and knock some sense into them.
 
I just spoke with an aide to Alaska Sen. Mark Begich (D), and he is now in receipt of this transcript from the Montrose meeting. We had a nice conversation. He indicated that TSA has been very, very difficult to deal with and agreed that they are out of control. He further indicated that they (TSA) have no idea the real workings of rural Alaska, or general aviation in any rural area across the country for that matter. Sen. Begich, along with Sen. Murkowski and Rep. Young are all against the LASP program, and this further security directive seems to be "news" to all of them.

I urge all of you to contact your congressional representatives, especially the ones you didn't vote for. It doesn't take long, and is very effective.

gb
 
aviationinfo, thanks for the web address

The list for Alaska airports includes Lake Hood, the busiest sea plane base in the world. It also has a public road running along the shore. Wonder if they plan on closing the jogging/bike path? Suppose now we'll have to get a security clearance to drink beer on the outside patio of the Millenium Hotel (or whatever it's name is this year).

Also includes the airport at Emmonak. Emo has a 4400 ft gravel runway, with the following notation in the Alaska Supplement; "recommend visual inspection prior to landing". Just who do they think they are going to be protecting the airport against,...terrorist parka squirrels ?

I think these guys were watching reruns of "Northern Exposure" when they came up with that list.

On a positive note, I heard Alaska senators came out against it. TSA can probably get away with pushing you and me around, but when they start affecting business and the economy, that's likely to get someone's attention these days. Hopefully someone will slap them down hard this time.

Jim
 
Stop LASP

For those who haven't seen this, here's the latest. Not dead but delayed and still time to object to the TSA extending their mandate and expanding their control over GA.

Homeland Security committee chair blasts LASP: The Transportation Security Administration's Large Aircraft Security Program is not suited to general aviation aircraft and should not go forward without industry input, said the chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, which has jurisdiction over the TSA. In a March 2 letter to the TSA, Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., called for the agency to delay implementation of the program and engage with Congress and industry stakeholders. Under LASP, commercial airline security procedures would be applied to aircraft weighing more than 12,500 pounds, regardless of how they are used. Read more.
 
Back
Top