New proposed TSA rule...

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Thu Oct 09, 2008 10:44 pm

This new proposal has the potential to affect warbird operators as well...

See: http://www.eaa.org/news/2008/2008-10-09_tsa.asp
http://www.aopa.org

From what I have read so far, and as an employee at a business that services these jets I am personally very opposed to this. The folks up in DC need to spend more time rooting the terrorists out and less time dreaming up how they can "prevent" things. There's no way they can prevent everything and we'd be better off if they didn't put another requirement down ever. I'll protect the aircraft I'm responsible for myself, thank you!

Ryan

RMAllnutt · **Posted:** Thu Oct 09, 2008 10:58 pm

This is an absolute outrage! It will be next to impossible for anyone other than airlines to implement, and even in those cases it will mean that everyone... I mean, everyone, who travels by airlines will have to be finger-printed and back-ground checked for any flight they ever make! It's enough to make your ears bleed. Stupidity seems to know no bounds. No one ever mentions the millions of shipping containers that go unchecked every day, but put a passenger on an aircraft, and well... they might do something naughty that we don't like.

I loved the "third-party" who checks the security status of the passengers too. Who checks up on these "third party" guys and what they use the information for?

Agghhhh!!!!

R.

P51Mstg · **Joined:** Tue Jan 25, 2005 11:36 am **Posts:** 1202

Welcome to administrative law..............

As I have posted in the past, the FAA has a LOT of power to do what they see fit. It could have been a lot worse. I'm sure we are all in for a long fight.

Mark H

CAPFlyer · **Posted:** Thu Oct 09, 2008 11:19 pm

And yet this has nothing to do with the FAA and everything to do with the TSA....

That said, I agree that it's problematic and hopefully all involved will have a pow-wow (with several high placed congressional members added in) and the insanity of such a rule will be made clear to those who decided that this rule is bad and that imposing even more cost on Joe Public in a time like this really isn't a good idea.

The Inspector · **Posted:** Thu Oct 09, 2008 11:56 pm

Also known as 'The lugage inspectors of Penzance' Everyone gets a big fancy red ribbon and a goofy looking hat. All the wantabe cops and failed security guards, as well as all the creepy folks you stayed away from in school are now working for TSA. They all got excellent training by working as CAP Cadets @ airshows, now all they want to do is make sure you are upset, and freaked out as you get on that plane. Their eventual aim is to put you on the plane naked, hooded, and handcuffed, and to frisk every 87 year old granny in a wheelchair.
I always hoped (brefore I completely stopped flying commercially) what they would do if they decided I needed 'further screening' and I just started peeling off my clothes and laid on the Xray belt 'what do you perverted a$$holes want to see?'

Forgotten Field · **Posted:** Fri Oct 10, 2008 8:40 am

Quote:

put you on the plane naked, hooded, and handcuffed

What's good for terror "suspects" is good for Americans. Forget about that habeas corpus stuff- be vewwwy, vewwwy quiet, we'we hunting tewwowists...

n5151ts · **Posted:** Fri Oct 10, 2008 9:56 am

...its like they aren't pilots and can't do it so NO ONE should be able to do it. soon there will be LSA and airliners/corp flying "WHAT HAPPEND TO THE COUNTRY OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, AND FOR THE PEOPLE" ..."first kill all the lawyers"...

Tim Savage · **Joined:** Mon May 03, 2004 8:26 pm **Posts:** 630

I haven't read the whole NRPM, but on the surface this is going to have very bad implications for the warbird community. If it doesn't create an exclusion for us, it will probably make owning a warbird over 12,500 (not that they aren't already) to own. Can you imagine a TBM owner having to comply with a watchlist check for everyone they want to take flying. How about the Collings Foundation having to run a terrorist watchlist check on ever rider?

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Fri Oct 10, 2008 10:22 am

I suspect that the economic effects of this would be disastrous even for a lot of jet owners. Not to mention that this is akin to the government telling you what to do in your own car or house.

Ryan

Bill Greenwood · **Posted:** Fri Oct 10, 2008 10:25 am

After what our economy, stock market and the world financial markets have done KEEP TO THE POINT (MOD Edit) , there may not be as many corporate jets traveling around, and surely a lot less folks willing to pay $400 for a B-17 ride. It seems like the only segment that will likely have full employment is TSA. If this goes through, first it will hurt the big operators, but think how unfriendly the FBOs will become when everyone is to be treated like a terrorist. And if it does become the norm, how long before the 12,500 lb. limit will be a target to lower?

Another rule that was already being used in Denver, was that the TSA employees themselves did not have to be screened; they have a separate gate and can enter even with large backpacks and not be screened.

RickH · **Posted:** Fri Oct 10, 2008 10:30 am

Don't be fooled into trying to create an exclusion for your particular area of interest. That was tried during the effort to kill the demil legislation. People try to protect their little rice bowl without regard to the rest of the aviation community. Just like to proposed demil legislation this proposed TSA regulation is wrong on so many levels that it should be stopped across the board.

Write your Legislative Reps, email their offices, call them on the phone. When they find out that they can longer get a ride on someones corporate jet or turbprop and that it will inconvenience them or their staffers in a personal way ,then, we might get some help !

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Fri Oct 10, 2008 10:33 am

RickH wrote:

Don't be fooled into trying to create an exclusion for your particular area of interest. That was tried during the effort to kill the demil legislation. People try to protect their little rice bowl without regard to the rest of the aviation community. Just like to proposed demil legislation this proposed TSA regulation is wrong on so many levels that it should be stopped across the board.

Write your Legislative Reps, email their offices, call them on the phone. When they find out that they can longer get a ride on someones corporate jet or turbprop and that it will inconvenience them or their staffers in a personal way ,then, we might get some help !

Very well said!

Ryan

Tim Savage · **Joined:** Mon May 03, 2004 8:26 pm **Posts:** 630

RickH wrote:

Don't be fooled into trying to create an exclusion for your particular area of interest. That was tried during the effort to kill the demil legislation. People try to protect their little rice bowl without regard to the rest of the aviation community. Just like to proposed demil legislation this proposed TSA regulation is wrong on so many levels that it should be stopped across the board.

Write your Legislative Reps, email their offices, call them on the phone. When they find out that they can longer get a ride on someones corporate jet or turbprop and that it will inconvenience them or their staffers in a personal way ,then, we might get some help !

Hi Rick-

I wasn't arguing for an exclusion, just pointing out that if it wasn't in the proposal we are going to have problems. The whole thing stinks and needs to be deep sixed for everybody...we need to stand together as aviators or we will all go down together.

(MOD Edit)

Bill Greenwood · **Posted:** Fri Oct 10, 2008 10:58 am

(Mod Edit)

Stay on topic!

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Fri Oct 10, 2008 11:11 am

(MOD Edit)
The real issue here is a unconstitutional (Yes, I'd be willing to defend that), relatively unaccountable, government agency that I personally believe is destroying individual liberties at least as much as the terrorists they are (allegedly) protecting us from.

Ryan

Warbird Information Exchange

New proposed TSA rule...

Who is online