LASP - Be very afraid

Lance F

Lance F

En-Route
Joined
Apr 9, 2005
Messages
2,946
Location
GA
Display Name
Display name:
Lance F
This morning I attended the TSA public comment meeting in Atlanta on the NPRM for LASP (Large Aircraft Security Program). This is scary stuff.

There were 150 - 200 attendees and 5 TSA manager types on the podium to listen. They would not/could not comment, answer questions or give any kind of interpretations, feed back or any information. The 260 page NPRM was available as a handout. Anyone who wanted to make a comment was allowed 3 minutes (and there was a clock).

The details of the LASP are available on AOPA or NBAA websites, and if you want GA to continue you'd better read them. It is now written to apply to part 91 operations for aircraft above 12,500#, but you all know the story of the camel putting his nose under the tent flap.

There were probably 30 or so that made comments. 100% against the rule. 100%. The costs, the intrusiveness, the loss of ability to make last minute changes in who is on the plane, the restrictions on what can be in the cabin, the third party watch list companies, the audits, the requirements for small airports, etc would force corporate flight departments to close, make it impossible for contract pilots to get work, and basically end part 91 flying as we know it.

And there is no credible threat driving this rule. None.

The comments made on the record were articulate, well thought out and presented calmly in spite of what the rule would do to them.

The TSA "listeners" only showed interest when the speaker gave dollar values to their concerns. Loss of freedom and the ability to conduct business or make a living did not seem of any interest.

This is the time for public comments. It is easy to make comments by mail, fax or email. See your alphabet organization of choice for suggestions.

Fellow pilots, we need to fight this thing. Those that know me have never seen me on a soapbox like this, so I hope that's some indication of the seriousness of this as I see it.

Mods, this does not belong in Spin Zone. It is aviation as we know it going down the drain. Be afraid, be very afraid.
 
Thanks Lance.

I expect this intrusion to only get worse. Until I got involved further in our TSA dealings, I had no clue how much control and oversight they have on flight schools. Yes, I agree with some regulation on how to verify identification, etc. But, it continues down a slippery slope.

At what point will the TSA come in and further regulate a discovery flight? That's someone who has access to the aircraft and has not began training so under current rules, they are not required to submit identification.

But, I can see it coming...

"For $99 and a valid passport, you can get a discovery flight in a Cessna Skyhawk!"
 
KennyFlys said:
Thanks Lance.

I expect this intrusion to only get worse. Until I got involved further in our TSA dealings, I had no clue how much control and oversight they have on flight schools. Yes, I agree with some regulation on how to verify identification, etc. But, it continues down a slippery slope.

At what point will the TSA come in and further regulate a discovery flight? That's someone who has access to the aircraft and has not began training so under current rules, they are not required to submit identification.

But, I can see it coming...

"For $99, a valid passport, three week's notice to TSA, government permission to enter the airport, a TSA search for contraband, and biometric information, you can get a discovery flight in a Cessna Skyhawk!"
Click to expand...

There. Fixed it for you.

Bottom line: TSA don't care what we think. We are TO BE sheeple. The arrogance is amazing, but not suprising. The word tyrants comes to mind.
 
Last edited:
wsuffa said:
There. Fixed it for you.

Bottom line: TSA don't care what we think. We are TO BE sheeple. The arrogance is amazing, but not surprising. The word tyrants comes to mind.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be surprised.

Edit: Here's an AOPA link for a bit more...

http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2009/090106lasp.htmlhttp://www.aopa.org/advocacy/gasecurity/

Also, for all those who were upset at how much effort AOPA was putting into fighting user fees, they really need to hope AOPA puts as much and more into this attempt. Because, if this makes it into heavier GA aircraft the way it currently has its grip on flight schools it's only a matter of time before it creeps down to a pilot such as Bob who does little more than hop around back country grass in his Skylane.

Here are instructions on making comments:
http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/gasecurity/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I fought the ADIZ tooth and nail. I sent in comments, along with 20K other people. I contacted my elected representatives, even the ones I didn't vote for. The ADIZ just went permanent. Nothing I did mattered. I can't see why it would be any different now. I'm going to get a bunch of pilots together to buy enough land to make a small grass strip. That will be the only way to fly soon.
 
Shoot all TSA and DHS personnel on sight.

I'm only about 10% joking.

Laws never get changed by following them. I absolutely refuse to go through with the BS requirements of this.
 
Last edited:
Lance F said:
This is the time for public comments. It is easy to make comments by mail, fax or email. See your alphabet organization of choice for suggestions.
Click to expand...
Here's the NBAA's response site.

http://www.nbaa.org/advocacy/contact/?ISSUE=nbaa0024

You don't need to be a NBAA member or involved with business aviation to use this site. You have a chance to edit the canned letter or write your own letter when you hit "preview e-mail".
 
That NBAA email generator was quick and easy.
 
but didn't they get something like 20 THOUSAND letters against making the ADIZ permanent... and made it permanent anyway? :rolleyes:

This is messed up.
 
Lance,

I thought I recognized you from you picture here, but I wasn't sure so I didn't ask . I apologize for not introducing myself. I was the bald guy sitting right in front of you. I am guessing that the lear operator who got the standing ovation is the one who you been getting some time with.

My take on the whole thing was that these folks really weren't the decision makers and were only there so after the TSA pushes this thing on us, they can say that they gave us the opportunity for input. A couple of the panel at least appeared that they were listening while the others just sat there uninterested in anything anyone had to say.
 
etsisk said:
but didn't they get something like 20 THOUSAND letters against making the ADIZ permanent... and made it permanent anyway? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Personally I don't think they will can the whole thing, but there is room for negotiation to make it less restrictive.
 
I liked it... I customized the letter quite a lot. Some highlights:

The type of flying I do is PRIVATE carriage, no different than when I drive in my car, or when I take a large rental truck out on our highways. As a pilot, I know the people aboard my aircraft. If I'm not serving as a pilot, I know the aircraft operator and the crew. In no case are any of my operations a threat to my fellow citizens. Ostensibly the security rules on airline flights are to protect the passengers as much as the people on the ground, which is reasonable in public carriage where lots of people who are all strangers to each other share a common conveyance. It is not at all reasonable in private carriage, where the people sharing the airplane are already "related" by common business, or friendship, or blood. The airport infrastructure that supports public air transport is both relatively small in number, and sufficiently busy to support the type of personnel and baggage screening that is required. The airport infrastructure that supports private general aviation is over 10 times larger in number, and has very little capacity to support the proposed screening. Some airports used are no more than a strip of concrete and a parking area - no terminal, no fuel, and no buildings.
Many many business people fly privately because it allows them the freedom to do vital work, confidential work, while travelling. This type of work will not be possible if they are subjected to the type of personnel and property screening called for in the NPRM. No businessman is going to be comfortable with a third party (even a TSA employee, or perhaps especially a TSA employee) going through his briefcase where his confidential business information is stored. And how is a group of field technicians going to repair the broken equipment at their destination if their tools can't be transported in the cabin and there are no "secure" luggage holds on the aircraft?
...
The comment period for the TSA’s proposal (Docket Number TSA-2008-0021) closes on February 27, 2009. . So far the TSA participation in the public hearings has been insultingly stone-faced. There has been no discussion, just citizens outlining their objections while the TSA reps sit, apparently wishing they were somewhere else. Based on past performance, I do not expect the TSA to respond to the citizens at all, and believe it will take congressional pressure to gain their attention. I ask that you inform the TSA of the concerns raised by your constituent, and urge that agency officials take a realistic and pragmatic approach to private aircraft security and not to apply security measures that were clearly developed for the commercial airline industry.

...

A final word - in the last 8 years the Congress has not, in my opinion, done it's job. Budgets have not been passed in a timely fashion (if at all), and the Congress has either stood by or helped as the Administration used fearmongering as a tactic to take away fundamental rights and privileges of American citizens. Some of you are in office today because of our displeasure with how things have gone. I urge you to focus on your duties to keep things in balance, and preserve the essential freedoms that have always made America, with all its faults, the example for the rest of the world to emulate.
Click to expand...
 
Dave Theisen said:
Lance,

I thought I recognized you from you picture here, but I wasn't sure so I didn't ask . I apologize for not introducing myself. I was the bald guy sitting right in front of you. I am guessing that the lear operator who got the standing ovation is the one who you been getting some time with.

My take on the whole thing was that these folks really weren't the decision makers and were only there so after the TSA pushes this thing on us, they can say that they gave us the opportunity for input. A couple of the panel at least appeared that they were listening while the others just sat there uninterested in anything anyone had to say.
Click to expand...

Dave, I wish you had introduced yourself! It was an interesting morning. And yes, the gentleman that got the spontaneous standing ovation was the guy I fly for. Colorful, huh!

Clearly these weren't decision makers. They were just a politically correct group of bureaucrats putting in their time. This will boil down to politics and a case for changes due to the costs this would impose in a bad economy. We must all still voice our opinions though because the terrorists are winning.
 
When our government asks for public comments regarding any proposed government programs or legislation, the matter has already been decided. Every aspect of the TSA proposal will soon be law, no matter what is said or who says it, you can count on it.

All public comment sessions are for is to make the rabble feel like they are taking part in our governments decisions.

You can also count on many more regulations and laws that will affect every GA flight, no matter what size the aircraft.

The best thing you can do, is do as your told, and obey our laws. :)

John
 
Last edited:
"I'm going to get a bunch of pilots together to buy enough land to make a small grass strip. That will be the only way to fly soon." (Steingar)

I can see the day, in the not to distant future, when such places will be illegal. How do you expect the government to be able to monitor aircraft activities at small, uncontrolled airstrips?

John
 
Last edited:
Lance,

I didn't even realize there was a meeting about it. Where was it?


steingar said:
I fought the ADIZ tooth and nail. I sent in comments, along with 20K other people. ... The ADIZ just went permanent. Nothing I did mattered.
Click to expand...

That's much what I did and how I felt about the end result. 20k people don't damn matter in this country, and neither do 600k pilots either. :mad3:
 
Other upcoming meetings like the one Lance and Dave attended are:

-- Chicago, IL, Jan. 16, 2009: Crowne Plaza Chicago O’Hare Hotel & Convention Center, 5440 North River Road, Rosemont, IL 60018

-- Burbank, CA, Jan. 23, 2009: Burbank Airport Marriott Hotel & Convention Center, 2500 North Hollywood Way, Burbank, CA 91505

-- Houston, TX, Jan. 28, 2009: Hilton Houston Hotel-North Greenspoint Conference Center, 12400 Greenspoint Drive, Houston, TX 77060

The meetings begin at 9 a.m. local time (with registration starting at 8 a.m. local time).

Some sample letters that have been put forth:

I am opposed to the Large Aircraft Security Program proposed rule.

I am a student pilot, a member of the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) and a member of the AOPA (Aircraft Owners and Pilot's Association). The airplanes which I rent are capable of carrying two to four people and weigh less than 3,000 pounds. My plans are to fly about 100 hours per year for recreational purposes out of small airports which are not served by commercial air services. This proposed rule could prevent me from enjoying my hobby of flying private aircraft.

The proposed rule does not differentiate between commercial and private aircraft (GA, General Aircraft) operations. I do not believe that such enhanced security procedures will be of benefit for private aircraft operation.

The proposed rule is based upon aircraft weight and not the nature of the operation. A rule intended to address commercial flight operations should be explicitly written to do so and not be based upon any other criteria that might include private aviation.

The proposed rule can too easily be expanded to include private operations and the associated airports. The proposed rule could place unreasonable costs for services on the private aviation community.

There are no accountability specifications for the services required by this proposed rule.
Click to expand...
Senator/Representative/other elected official,

I wanted to make sure you were aware of the implications of the newly proposed General Aviation Security requirements. As I am sure you and the other regional legislators know, [my local airport] has limited aviation access with flights available only through [nearby big city] and provided by but one carrier. Many business users therefore require flights aboard smaller aircraft when needing to conduct business in and out of [my local airport]. In the past, this mode of transportation has been rightfully exempted from rules designed to screen the general population traveling by means of the airlines. The new rules would place onerous and expensive requirements that require passengers to be screened by a third party information vendor before being allowed to travel by private and charter aircraft larger then 12,500 pounds gross weight. This includes most of the business aircraft traveling into and out of the [local community] Airport. Smaller communities like [our local community] rely on general aviation to level the travel advantages that come with locating your business in a larger community. [Our local community] including my businesses would be negatively impacted by any additional challenges placed upon our valley business community. The number of business and tourism based flights into [our local community] had been steadily increasing until this latest economic down turn. Combine these two events and you cannot overstate the potential for further economic damage these rules will place upon our community.

The saddest part of these rules is the recognition by almost all involved that the General Aviation community represents no more threat in regard to terrorism than the average car or pickup parked in your driveway. Screening GA passengers should be viewed in the same light one might if this was a proposal to screen all people entering their cars to travel to work. In fact it would be much easier to navigate a wheeled vehicle to a terrorism target and get out and leave then it would to crash an aircraft into the same structure. The amount of damage a GA aircraft could deliver when compared to a larger semi tractor-trailer rig parked on the farm with the keys inside is an even more outrageous comparison. The point I am tiring to make is these rules will cause measurable economic damage to all communities throughout the United States with no measurable reduction in risk. TSA is passing rules for an event that has NEVER happened and in all likelihood never will. No one can say it absolutely can’t happen but the likelihood of a terrorist checking in with the list or following the rules before stealing an aircraft is about as likely as would them worrying about getting a truckers license before stealing a truck.

Please let common sense prevail by writing to express your opposition to these proposals and stop another example of our government making rules only because there are people employed to do so.
When measured by any economic standard there is simply no benefit derived from this proposal and unfortunately a substantial harm to communities like ours.

Thank you for your consideration of this very important issue.
Click to expand...
Note that I think they could be stronger. In particular, the TSA couldn't give a lick about "be[ing] of benefit [to] private aircraft operation." As Lance noted, they are interested in dollar amounts and hard facts. Anything along the lines of "The increased security costs at my local airport, which sees one turbojet land every three weeks, would be on the order of $2,500,000 per year, which will force the airport to close, costing the local community $25 Million in sales, wages and tax revenue" would have a lot more impact.

(Yeah, I'm pulling the numbers outta you know where to make a point.)
 
I was unable to make it but I have emailed BOTH of my Senators and my Congressman.

I will be sending my comment in to the TSA today.
 
This is the only way the politicians will get the message... when it affects them and their constituents personally:

"The Secret Service, they're insane," said U.S. Rep. James P. Moran (D-Alexandria). "This is security on steroids. They are imposing major obstacles on people who have a right to be there for the inauguration."
Click to expand...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/08/AR2009010803900.html?hpid=topnews

We should make our views known, even if it is p***ing into the wind. The security folks are in total control of this country, and they believe that Americans are - and should be - sheep. IMHO, based on my observations.
 
The people pushing this LASP nonsense aren't security folks. They know nothing about security.
 
Lance F said:
The Atlanta Journal Constitution, a VERY liberal paper, had this article about the LASP meeting on the front page of this morning's paper. Maybe, just maybe, there is hope. We fought for our freedoms before; now is not the time to stop just because the fight seems overwhelming. It's just too bad that the fight has to be against a cancer from the inside.

http://www.ajc.com/business/content/business/stories/2009/01/08/tsa_private_general_aviation.html
Click to expand...
Pat Epps of the "Glacier Girl" discovery and recovery effort.

Let's hope that we start to see some chinks in the DHS armor under the new administration, although I don't have my hopes up that we'll get a public outcry about any off our "rich pilot" complaints.
 
However, private aviation has been largely excluded from those rules, and some safety experts believe that creates a gaping opening for terrorists that needs to be plugged.
Click to expand...
I'd like to see these supposed experts on the stage at these events in front of the pilots they wish to see regulated. I'm betting not a one of them have a clue how such flight programs work.
 
I posted the following letter. Took the NBAA letter and added some content of my own. Next step is to contact our corporate travel department and make sure they are aware of this threat to our shuttle fleet.

Oh, and when NBAA asked where I heard of their site, I said POA. :)





Dear [recipient name was inserted here],

My name is Ghery Pettit and I live in Olympia, WA. As a constituent, I feel obligated to inform you of my strong concern regarding the Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) recent General Aviation (GA) security proposal. Let me begin by saying that the general aviation community has a demonstrated commitment to working in partnership with the Congress and TSA to achieve the twin objectives of enhancing security while preserving the mobility and flexibility that are necessary for American businesses and our national economy.

In the years since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, General Aviation has led the way in working with the Federal government on ways to harden our industry from terrorist threats. General aviation has played avery active role with TSA to further enhance aircraft and airport security. However, the recent TSA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking would apply sweeping security measures designed specifically for the nation's commercial airlines to much different private aircraft operations often with absurd results. And the TSA proposal would cover airplanes as small as 12,500 pounds. That's the size of a small turbo-prop airplane that can carry fewer than 10 people.

My company's airplanes provide transportation for employees to airports not served by scheduled airlines. As a matter of fact, there are over 5,000 public use airports in this country - approximately 500 have commercial service - making general aviation a critical lifeline for thousands of communities and businesses across the nation. As TSA reviews security proposals, we urge you to remind the agency that one size does not fit all, and it is critical that any government proposal recognize the significant differences between commercial aviation and General Aviation.

To be clear, GA takes a back seat to no one on the issue of aviation security. For decades, GA has made safe and secure operations the top priority. We employ a host of security measures that while not necessarily as visible as TSA security checkpoints at commercial airports, are no less effective at keeping our aircraft, our people and the nation secure. We are concerned, however, that adoption of many of the proposed measures by TSA would create significant operational burdens to many of America's
businesses that rely on GA aircraft to do business across the state, country or world without enhancing security.

Without changes to the current NPRM, the TSA proposal could make it nearly impossible for some aircraft to operate at all. In fact, eighty-five percent of business aviation is made up of small and mid size businesses that are often located in smaller communities and rural areas. Our business depends upon their General Aviation aircraft to conduct business and create local jobs.

By my count, there are 2319 round trip seats per week to various company locations up and down the western US. All in corporate aircraft that would be covered by this proposal. All passengers are employees of the company, known to management and each other. Additional security screening is not needed.

The comment period for the TSA's proposal (Docket Number TSA-2008-0021) closes on February 27, 2009. I ask that you inform the TSA of the concerns raised by your constituent, and urge that agency officials take a realistic and pragmatic approach to private aircraft security and not to apply security measures that were clearly developed for the commercial airline industry. In my line of work I deal with regulators on a routine basis. Most, if not all, take the views of the people they regulate seriously. TSA, on the other hand, has a track record of ignoring the input of those they regulate. I urge you to reign in this abusive organization and make them accoutable to the American people.

Please let me know if I can provide any additional information about my business and our local operations, as well as our concerns about the TSA proposal. And, as a disclaimer, the views presented in this letter are my own as a member of the traveling public and as a private pilot, and may not necessarily reflect those of my employer. But I will be asking my employer to weigh in on this matter as well.

Sincerely,
 
Last edited:
As I scan through these postings I urge people with more influence than myself to get the point across that as much as "Freedom" is affected abused etc. the government/ TSA could care less.
The absolute only thing that will matter is if they see what actual dollars,wages ,jobs will be lost or otherwise affected as I think Grant brought up well. The TSA ,(as all government agency's seems to do) is want to increase their budget,expand their control,and exert their authority over the people that they are supposed to serve and protect.

If they want to protect us from terrorism, let's make it mandatory that they must be trained in a real world situation like Somalia,Iraq,Afganistan,etc.. Not as they are ,most of them former,night watchmen,security guards, recruits from the welfare office, or cop wanabes.
The only way to change a terrorists mind is to inflict terror on them as it's the only thing they can understand. If it is a Muslim Extremist, it would be dig a very large hole,put 50 to 100 in , throw in about 50 pigs mix there blood by shooting them all,televise it on ABU DA BE tv Then cover the grave.No 32 virgins for those guy's, just hell for eternity.This was done in the Phillipines about 100 years ago after an uprising by Gen."Black Jack " Pershing. No uprisings for about 100 years.
Much more effective than taking your shoes off,X-ray,baskets,and wands.

Work on cutting their budget and you will then help protect the American citizen's freedom's
Money may be the root of all evil ,but is the only way to stop this, CUT THE FUNDING.

On a side note as Head of Management at little 6Y9 , we have been contacted by the US Border Patrol. The agent asked what we were doing about security. They want to visit and see what kind of security threat potential is posed. Come on ,get real,I can only shake my head as this country continues to rot from the inside. We have put the right's of the criminals in front of the upstanding,tax paying,law abiding citizen.
I may not see it in my life time,but there will be a revolt to all this.
Why do you think the government keeps bringing up gun control legislation?
Now I'll step off my soap box.
Remember cut the MONEY is the key. It would be better spent on the economy.
 
el con said:
The only way to change a terrorists mind is to inflict terror on them as it's the only thing they can understand. If it is a Muslim Extremist, it would be dig a very large hole,put 50 to 100 in , throw in about 50 pigs mix there blood by shooting them all,televise it on ABU DA BE tv Then cover the grave.No 32 virgins for those guy's, just hell for eternity.
Click to expand...

Effective? Probably. But, there's something in our constitution about "cruel and unusual punishment" and this certainly qualifies. And if we were to do it, we'd be no better than the terrorists. There's gotta be another way... And I'm gonna stop there 'cuz this needs to stay out of the SZ.

On a side note as Head of Management at little 6Y9 , we have been contacted by the US Border Patrol. The agent asked what we were doing about security. They want to visit and see what kind of security threat potential is posed.
Click to expand...

You operate what is essentially an open spot of ground that happens to be within a couple hundred miles of a foreign country - It's just that you happen to call it an "airport" and *friendly* airplanes fly there.

Did you ask them if they've contacted every single farm/ranch owner in ND and MT to ask what THEY are doing about security? Sheesh. :frown2:
 
Not wanting to make this a political post, just offer some food for thought about this whole TSA/DHS debacle.

The incoming administration is talking about creating "millions of jobs" ( I don't have the number). This deal about increasing TSA's authority to corporate aviation, and we all know eventually it will cover ALL GA plays right into the "job creation" scheme and makes this more palatable to the general population. Remember also to the general population the "wealth envy" card is played ( all you airplane owners are RICH) thus also helping with their justification to further control GA.

Notice TSA hasn't proposed putting agents at truck rental centers........yet.
 
All...

Don't kill the messenger, like all of you I think this proposal is stupid on its face...

BUT, those of you who are sending in these letters as part of public comments on the proposal itself, and are including phrases about TSA needing better oversight, Congress needs to do a better job etc. are wasting bandwidth and/or typing. Save that language for letters to your Congressional delegations, who need to hear it.

The people who will be reading your comments sent in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking are the TSA themselves :nono: As part of the process, any comments that do not directly address the details of the actual proposal are set aside out of hand.

Hope this helps...

EDIT: Further reading for those of you so inclined:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act\
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Federal_Regulations
 
Last edited:
I contacted our corporate flight department this afternoon to make sure they were aware of this. They were and are working through NBAA and others to fight it. TSA has got to be the most useless waste of taxpayer money on the planet. They sure are proud of themselves, however. Look at their webpage - www.tsa.gov. :rolleyes: :vomit:
 
Ghery said:
I contacted our corporate flight department this afternoon to make sure they were aware of this. They were and are working through NBAA and others to fight it. TSA has got to be the most useless waste of taxpayer money on the planet. They sure are proud of themselves, however. Look at their webpage - www.tsa.gov. :rolleyes: :vomit:
Click to expand...

Read their blog sometime if you want to see imperious attitudes.

BTW, you know there is a directive from someone high up in the TSA that says a screener finding $10,000 or more on a person MUST turn the person in to law enforcement - the TSA has declared that "contraband" and criminal behavior. It's not even illegal: there is NO restriction on carrying currency domestically - and the only requirement is to file paperwork with the Government if you're traveling internationally.

Federal dragnet it is.
 
The first line of defense against these rules is a concerted effort to oppose the regulations by the thousands. The TSA attorneys will need to read each and every one before finalizing the regulations. While they are sure to disregard many of the comments, they are required to read each. Individual letters will do a better job of mucking up the works than a sign on letter or the submission of a letter identical to one drafted by one of the alphabet organizations.

"But I don't want to muck up the works, I want to make a difference" you say. If you look at the final rule implementing eAPIS you will see in the preface that the CBP declined to address any substantive issues of constitutional law (many were inartfully proffered, but nonetheless were proffered) or any other non technical objections to the rule. Everyone here has said it is the money that matters and they are largely correct, not because the TSA attorneys care about the money, but because they care about the accuracy of their financial impact analysis.

The response to the regulations is not the place to raise constitutional issues or issues of basic fairness, the TSA is not going to address those in the context of rulemaking.

During the eAPIS regulatory process I spoke at a social event with a lead attorney involved in writing both that rule and this LASP rule. I stated that the proposal to require a U.S. citizen engaged in private carriage to obtain permission to leave or enter the country was just plain unamerican. The response was a shoulder shrug. When I addressed this person about the LASP rule I changed tack and suggested that the business community was going to go nuts over this. The response was a flippant "I don't think so." These people have lost touch with reality.

Here are some areas to object to

1) The audit provisions are overly broad and provide no guidance on the technical aspects of the audits.

2) The audit provisions are expensive.

3) The audit provisions do not contain a privacy analysis and thus cannot be implemented as a matter of law. I'll get you the cite for this soon.

4) The clearnace provisions do not impose sufficient security restrictions on the contractors to assure that a terrorist will not infiltrate the organizations and use the involuntarily disclosed information to cause the very harm the TSA is trying to avoid.

5) The clearnace provisions do not impose sufficient security restrictions on the contractors to assure that sensitive corporate data will be protected. Example. Company A is flying with a senior executive of Company B aboard as they are discussing a merger agreement. This is confidential information the possession of which can directly impact fortunes. See the movie "Wall Street."

I'll post more time permitting. The robust individual objection to the rules should siginficantly delay the implementation. This will hopefully give time for the new Congress to put a lid on this.
 
alaskaflyer said:
All...

Don't kill the messenger, like all of you I think this proposal is stupid on its face...

BUT, those of you who are sending in these letters as part of public comments on the proposal itself, and are including phrases about TSA needing better oversight, Congress needs to do a better job etc. are wasting bandwidth and/or typing. Save that language for letters to your Congressional delegations, who need to hear it.

The people who will be reading your comments sent in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking are the TSA themselves :nono: As part of the process, any comments that do not directly address the details of the actual proposal are set aside out of hand.

Hope this helps...

EDIT: Further reading for those of you so inclined:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act\
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Federal_Regulations
Click to expand...

Quite right. It is not a vote where the side with the most votes wins. Comments need to address specific issues with the proposed rule or the justification for it. Here's what I submitted.
 

Attachments

  • Koran LASP Comments.pdf
    151 KB · Views: 5
This really makes me sick to my stomach. There seems to be no end in sight to the government's over-extension into our lives. No threat, no matter how miniscule, seems to be beyond their reach these days. All of this public response to LASP seems to be falling on deaf ears. NOTHING must stand in the way of our Fatherland's Homeland's security. It's like we're that guy in Tianamen Square, standing in front of the tank. We're all going to get rolled, or tossed into prison. :mad3::mad3::mad3:
 
Cross-posted on Red Board

I searched the several threads already open on this "security program" and did not find a list of the affected airports. AVWeb had a list in their email this am.

http://www.avweb.com/pdf/general_avi...ts_2009-01.pdf

Let's see if this PDF list works as a link... If so, it should be an eye opener for people on here. Don't blow it off, there are airports as small as New Garden, N57, in PA, which is WAY too small for this to make sense for, MQS, Chester County Carleson, and LOM, Wings Field, (Adam Z, this is you buddy!) which will likely make our annual flybeque over on the POA forum difficult. We are not talking serious air carrier airports, we are talking little places that we all fly into...

These airports are going to have to install security measures that are going to be prohibitively expensive and will make operations there much less user friendly for little GA...

Jim G
 
grattonja said:
http://www.avweb.com/pdf/general_avi...ts_2009-01.pdf

Let's see if this PDF list works as a link...
Click to expand...
It didn't, unfortunately. The ... in the middle is in the link, not just in how it's displayed. You should be able to get back to the email, select the link from there, then copy it out of your browser's address bar.

EDIT: The correct link is http://www.avweb.com/pdf/general_aviation_affected_airports_2009-01.pdf (The ...s show up, but aren't in the actual link this time.).
 
Last edited:
grattonja said:
Cross-posted on Red Board

I searched the several threads already open on this "security program" and did not find a list of the affected airports. AVWeb had a list in their email this am.

http://www.avweb.com/pdf/general_avi...ts_2009-01.pdf

Let's see if this PDF list works as a link... If so, it should be an eye opener for people on here. Don't blow it off, there are airports as small as New Garden, N57, in PA, which is WAY too small for this to make sense for, MQS, Chester County Carleson, and LOM, Wings Field, (Adam Z, this is you buddy!) which will likely make our annual flybeque over on the POA forum difficult. We are not talking serious air carrier airports, we are talking little places that we all fly into...

These airports are going to have to install security measures that are going to be prohibitively expensive and will make operations there much less user friendly for little GA...

Jim G
Click to expand...

Sorry Jim, bad link. ed. works now. Damn, long list. My home airport and most of the ones around here are on it. Bad times coming.
 
Last edited:
That'll be the death of a number of those airports. And it will affect regular GA & our events.

FME? The runway is too short to support larger aircraft. ISZ? The city of Cincinnati has been looking for a reason to shut it down.... it's really kinda short for a jet, though I've seen small Citation's in there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top