How did the TSA choose the 454 airports covered under SD-8G?

Cap'n Jack

Final Approach
Joined
Jun 25, 2006
Messages
8,999
Location
Nebraska
Display Name

Display name:
Cap'n Jack
Avweb posted the list here:
http://www.avweb.com/pdf/general_aviation_affected_airports_2009-01.pdf

On this list are airports like N51 (Solberg, NJ), 39N (Princeton, NJ), SMQ (Somerset, NJ), 47N (Central Jersey Regional), KMLE (Millard, NE) and N99 (Brandywine, PA). These are all small airports with most having a single runway. An occasional jet or turboprop flies from these fields but not very often.

Oddly (and thankfully), an airport with passenger service (KLNK- Lincoln, NE) isn't on this list.

It would be interesting to see the criteria for an airport to make this list...
 
That looks like the list for LASP, not the security directive.
 
That looks like the list for LASP, not the security directive.

You are correct sir.

There are specific criteria, which I am too lazy to list here, that will land you on the LASP list.

Not saying I agree with it (I most definitely do not), just 'splainin' a bit.
 
So did Avweb make a goof, or is SD-8G just another name for LASP but without the public comment?
 
In order to get an answer to that I think you need to post a link to the page where you found the link to this document.

One thing I do know is that when I clicked on the link in their latest AvFlash, it went to the EAA Web site, but the link was broken. Same for the link that was posted on the red board.
 
SD-8G is just an update of SD-8F, and unless you have air carrier service, it doesn't affect you. Basically, it's all the Part 139 airports. If you're covered by SD-8G, the airport must have a security program. What that program consists of depends on what sort of operations are there and what choices the airport manager makes. It has nothing to do with the LASP.

The connection with LASP would be that those reliever airports are airports identified to pick up GA traffic displaced by air carrier traffic at the major air carrier airports (i.e., to allow more air carrier traffic into/out of those airports). They get special funding for things like instrument approaches, runways, etc. Thus, they would be likely airports for GA aircraft to go when they don't go to the major air carrier fields, and they could need additional infrastructure/funding to handle LASP support. How many of them actually get large GA operations (i.e., over 12,500 MGW) is anybody's guess.
 
How many of them actually get large GA operations (i.e., over 12,500 MGW) is anybody's guess.

At least two of the airports on that list (KHAF and KPAO) prohibit aircraft over 12,500 pounds.
 
In order to get an answer to that I think you need to post a link to the page where you found the link to this document.

One thing I do know is that when I clicked on the link in their latest AvFlash, it went to the EAA Web site, but the link was broken. Same for the link that was posted on the red board.

Here's the link to the page that links to the list:
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1392-full.html#200536

[FONT=arial,helvetica,geneva]TSA Lists Airports Affected By New Security Directive[/FONT]


securitybadge.jpg
A total of 454 airports will be subject to the TSA's latest Security Directive (SD-8G) restricting the movements of transient pilots, EAA said this week. The list includes airports in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Guam as well as in the U.S. Click here for the full list (PDF). The directive took effect June 1 and requires pilots to "remain close to their aircraft," leaving it only for trips to and from the FBO or airport exit, according to AOPA, although some airports may also offer escorts to transient pilots.

you'll have to scroll down for the article. The EAA link is broken, the APA link works. The full list (PDF) is the link in the original post.
 
Last edited:
Looks like the link to the list on the EAA Web site is working again. That's the one where is says "Click here for the full list (PDF)" in your quoted section.

This list makes a lot more sense in the context of the security directive. Looks like Avweb changed the link between the original post and the post where I quoted them.
 
Back
Top