NEW TSA REGULATIONS THREATEN BOMBER FLIGHTS??!!

[RyanShort1]

Well... I tried again, and we'll see if it gets posted. For those who don't know what they want to say I'm adding the comment I posted. I've noticed some folks asking them to just re-write the rule for warbirds. I disagree. It needs to be killed altogether.

I would like to voice my strong opposition to this proposed rule. I believe it is foolish, and shows the lack of understanding you have of how business works.
As a commercial pilot who also works at a full-service FBO that services these aircraft, I believe that these proposed rules will have extremely negative effects. I also believe that this action goes beyond the true authority of the TSA. I would like to address several this on several points.
First, the measures presented here will be extremely burdensome to the small operators we regularly deal with at the FBO where I work. This will have serious financial effects on both them and us. It will also mean a great deal of inconvenience for law-abiding citizens who privately own their aircraft.
Second, I believe that this is in truth, outside of the jurisdiction of the TSA. Sure, Congress may have set you up, but they had no right to give you the authority to do this according to the tenth amendment of the US Constitution which states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." You do not have the right to tell me who can get on my privately-owned aircraft any more than you can tell me who can get in my truck, car, boat, or bicycle. The closest you can get to saying you have authority is to say that you have some sort of vested interest with the interstate commerce clause – but that should not be interpreted (and is being wrongly interpreted if you do so) to mean that you can regulate who gets on or off of a privately-owned vehicle! The interstate commerce clause was only intended to keep folks from gouging and creating problems between states – not to deprive citizens of their rights.
Third, this will have many unintended (I hope) consequences. For instance, it may affect a number of good, law-abiding, patriotic, Americans who own so-called “warbirds” who regularly take them to airshows and other events to preserve the historic tools of our heroes. Most “warbird” operators would be in a serious spot if they had to comply with your proposed rules.
Fourth, as far as security goes, in my opinion the amount of additional security this would provide would be negligible at best. The AOPA and GA airport watch programs are pretty effective. None of the folks where I work or at the airport I am at are interested in terrorist attacks any more than you are, and we look out for our aircraft and our property as someone who has a vested interested in the success of their business should. It’s weird how you seem to assume that business owners and operators aren’t doing their best to protect their own assets – when their very business depends on them being careful. Oh, and the guys who aren’t being careful – you can’t regulate stupidity. They’ll still be stupid with or without your “rules”. If there are truly resourceful terrorists, who by the way have already shown their willingness to die in their fanatic cause, will still be able to slip under your radar screens and pass your “security” clearances, and frankly, will still be able to access aircraft. In fact, the only way you can prevent their access to aircraft ultimately is to ground all aircraft – which is unthinkable.
Fifth, this rule is unnecessary because to a degree, it is already taken care of by the people you seem bent on oppressing. As a commercial pilot, I am NOT going to be flying with someone about whom I don’t at least have a basic idea of who they are and what they’re up to. The basic aviation system depends on trust. I have to trust my mechanics, the fuel guys, the IA who inspects the aircraft to be up to safety standards, the ATC controllers, and the other pilots around me to follow the rules. If I don’t trust the people I fly with, they aren’t flying with me.
Frankly, you have not earned our trust – and because of your policies and record, probably never will. I would much rather be allowed to open carry at the airport along with other employees and provide my own security. I’m there, on the spot, know who is supposed to be around, and who’s not, and can ask questions if needed without fear.

With sincere appreciation for what I hope to be the good but misguided desire in your heart to protect your friends and loved ones, I respectfully ask that you not pass these rules.

Feel free to re-write this to your own situation.

Ryan

[Bill Greenwood]

Ryan, good that you made the effort. I would say I think the focus should be, and the part that you hit the best on, it about the rule being unnecessary since the owners/operators already keep a wary eye.

I think the part about TSA not having the right is not so good. A bureacratic agency, of its own free will, is not likely to agree to limit its scope or broad power. That might be better addressed through courts or political influence.

I think the part about the guns is just off base, should not be part of this discussion. While police at an airport may/should have guns, I'd really hate to see them become part of FBOs, line guys, or pilots. Some airports are unfriendly enough now as it is. And it sounds hollow to say that gen av airports are safe now, but you want?need to bring in guns?

Finally, with the new administration, won't there be new TSA and FAA heads?

[mtpopejoy]

The Collings Foundation has some information on this here:
http://www.collingsfoundation.org/enews/enewsletter.htm
It has links to read the 67 page proposal and links to find your representatives as well as names, addresses and phone numbers of certain Cabinet members.

The TSA proposal was brought up in our (Yankee Air Museum) meeting last night. We were informed that this is to go before Congress 12/29/08 ( I thought Congress was in recess but...)

At least urge your representatives to push the hearings back in order that they can listen to their constituency and dig into it a bit.

Thanks,
Mark

[RyanShort1]

I think the part about TSA not having the right is not so good. A bureacratic agency, of its own free will, is not likely to agree to limit its scope or broad power. That might be better addressed through courts or political influence.

I think the part about the guns is just off base, should not be part of this discussion. While police at an airport may/should have guns, I'd really hate to see them become part of FBOs, line guys, or pilots. Some airports are unfriendly enough now as it is. And it sounds hollow to say that gen av airports are safe now, but you want?need to bring in guns?

First, I believe that the Constitutional issue is really where we should be fighting this. Ultimately the DON'T have jurisdiction, and whether they like that or not, it's one way to address the situation. If they don't have to follow the rules set forth in the highest law of the land, then why do they have to follow any other rules?

Second, I mentioned the guns because that is an alternative to their idea. I work at a reliever airport in a major city of the US. I see DPS guys carrying all the time on the airport, and no one would mess with them. If a citizen (like me) can pass the screening for a concealed carry - then I think they should be allowed to be part of the solution - and you don't have to hire anyone else. The police have a presence at the other end of the airport - where their helicopters are based, but I doubt even they would show up in time to stop a serious terrorist - who would most likely not be making himself too obvious anyway. I'd bet the response time would be worse in some other places.

Honestly, I don't fear a terrorist attack that much. If I did, I'd stop working around fuel trucks!

Oh, and if you're ever needing to fly down to SA in the afternoon on a weekday - drop me a PM or email. You'll receive a friendly reception at our FBO - even if we do have some worldview differences.

Ryan

[Bill Greenwood]

Ryan, I have been trying to think of someone who might be friendly to gen av and warbirds in the next admin,, someone who might put forth our view. The first one that comes to mind is Sen. John Kerry. He is a private pilot, I don't know if he is active or his view on warbirds. He is mentioned as a top pick for Sec of State. Collings ought to send him an invite now for an "familarzation" flight. Of course, even if his is the pick, he is going to have a lot to do other than this issue. Colin Powell woudl be wonderful to have on our side also. The current TSA guy, Tom Ridge, is a Rep and a big McCain supporter so he is not likely to be in power.

When you quoted me, you left out the first part where I agreed with your post in part.

[Tim Savage]

Ryan, I have been trying to think of someone who might be friendly to gen av and warbirds in the next admin,, someone who might put forth our view. The first one that comes to mind is Sen. John Kerry. He is a private pilot, I don't know if he is active or his view on warbirds. He is mentioned as a top pick for Sec of State. Collings ought to send him an invite now for an "familarzation" flight. Of course, even if his is the pick, he is going to have a lot to do other than this issue. Colin Powell woudl be wonderful to have on our side also. The current TSA guy, Tom Ridge, is a Rep and a big McCain supporter so he is not likely to be in power.

When you quoted me, you left out the first part where I agreed with your post in part.

Michael Cherthoff is the Secretary for Homeland Security. Ridge left that post in 2005.

Also, from a previous post, I think the FAA Administrator is a 5 year appointment and crosses administrations. In other words, the new one was appointed recently (2007?) so the new administration would be able to appoint a successor in 2012. The caveat, of course, is a resignation along the way.

[Bill Greenwood]

Tim, you're right(no pun intended) I recall seeing Ridge leave. Chertoff seems to be a real inflexible law and order type, just from what I've seen on TV. Maybe we should hope he is replaced if possible.

[Tim Savage]

Tim, you're right(no pun intended) I recall seeing Ridge leave. Chertoff seems to be a real inflexible law and order type, just from what I've seen on TV. Maybe we should hope he is replaced if possible.

I am sure he will. I definitely don't agree with everything the TSA has done...much of it seems to be not real effective. However, the proof is in the pudding for the Department of Homeland Security as a whole...there haven't been any terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11. Lets hope whoever replaces Cherthoff can keep that record.

[k5083]

Ryan, I agree with Bill that it's good to focus on not much safety benefit. Also I think you are right to stress the cost to operators, and primarily operators who are part of the productive economy as opposed to warbird owners. The constitutional argument won't have much traction. The problems with it are that your interpretation of the constitution is just opinion; we live in a time of the dramatic expansion of executive authority, apparently with broad popular support; and these days, with the constant climate of fear, all anyone has to do is whisper "terrorism" and any thought of preserving the Constitution goes out the window.

August

[RyanShort1]

The constitutional argument won't have much traction. The problems with it are that your interpretation of the constitution is just opinion; we live in a time of the dramatic expansion of executive authority, apparently with broad popular support; and these days, with the constant climate of fear, all anyone has to do is whisper "terrorism" and any thought of preserving the Constitution goes out the window.

August

While in the pragmatic sense I think you to be completely correct, for conscience's sake, I felt it good to bring it up. Everyone subscribes to a higher law of some sort - it seems today that one's personal beliefs, the beliefs of a system one subscribes to, or the popular opinion are held in judgment over the Constitution. Regardless, words still have meaning, and the oath our elected officials still take is to uphold the Constitution. And I posit that a decently educated plowboy can still go look up the meaning of the words in the Constitution and arrive at a reasonable interpretation. It may be like emptying the contents of a water bottle on a wildfire, but at least I know I gave it the best shot I had.

Ryan

[EDowning]

TSA Extends Deadline For GA Security Plan Comments




The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) said on Monday it will extend the time period for public comment on its proposed Large Aircraft Security Program for general aviation by an additional 60 days, a change that was lobbied for by GA advocacy groups. The new deadline for public comment is Feb. 27, 2009. The proposed rules would require criminal history records checks of GA flight crews, watch-list matching of passenger manifests, audits of each aircraft operator, and new airport security requirements. "Granting our request will provide much needed time for analysis, community education and feedback," said Ed Bolen, CEO of the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA). EAA had asked for 90-day extension, but said in a news release it is pleased the TSA responded promptly. "This proposal would be an unprecedented restriction on the freedom of movement for private U.S. citizens," said Doug Macnair, EAA vice president of government relations. "It would also, for the first time, require governmental review and authority before a person could operate his/her own personal transportation conveyance." AOPA agreed. "This proposal is an unprecedented move by the TSA into general aviation," said Andy Cebula, AOPA executive vice president of government affairs. AOPA's news release also noted that "serious questions" remain about why GA is being considered for these onerous requirements. For more information about the TSA proposal and how you can submit comments to the government's public docket, visit the NBAA Web site.

[Bill Greenwood]

My congrats to those of you lke Ryan who took the time to write in. Now it will be interesting to see if the govt really listens or if the extra 60 days is just window dressing before they finalize the same ruling.

[Broken-Wrench]

I wrote in .. For things like this I'm glad we can pull together.

[RyanShort1]

FYI. The submissions are now up to 29 pages!

In other news, the DHS has apparently gone on and imposed a new set of rules for aircraft entering the country. See this Aero-News story for more details. I know of several guys at my FBO in San Antonio who will likely be affected.

Ryan

[groundpounder]

so in simplified terms, is this proposal to say that warbird ride passengers would be subject to the same scrutiny that commercial flight passengers are presently subject to?? i realize that this would be a further erosion of our freedoms and rights but if i am understanding this correctly, and i'm not certain that i am, would this not be something that we could learn to live with, however inconvenient that it may be?? please correct me if i am not understanding the full ramifications of this proposal. thanks.