perhaps a throttle on TSA?

gkainz

gkainz

Final Approach
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
8,401
Location
Arvada, CO
Display Name
Display name:
Greg Kainz
Just got this from CO Pilots Association email - haven't dug for a direct link yet.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GA Groups Hail Amendment To Limit TSA
NBAA, EAA, AOPA, GAMA, NATA and the Airports Council International have come together to support an amendment penned by Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.) that would curtail the TSA’s issuance of regulations and security directives (SDs) using emergency procedures to bypass the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The amendment is for H.R.2200, The Transportation Security Administration Authorization Act. In a letter http://staging.computerfulfillment.com/mv2/click/click.aspx?db=8&obid=8886327&msgid=370&linkid=9&redir=http://www.eaa.org/news/2009/2009-05-22_mica.pdf sent recently to Rep. Mica, the groups cite the current example of the TSA’s airport badging security directive (1542-04-08F), http://staging.computerfulfillment.com/mv2/click/click.aspx?db=8&obid=8886327&msgid=370&linkid=10&redir=http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/tsa-airport-security-badging-12-days-away/ issued in December and effective this coming Monday, which imposes “onerous” new requirements on airport users without any input from stakeholders. “We have seen the TSA repeatedly use SDs to vastly expand existing requirements without consideration of the implementation challenges, operational impacts and economic burdens such mandates impose on the aviation industry,” the letter reads. “We believe your amendment would provide the TSA the flexibility to tactically respond to any imminent threats while being directed to rely on the APA for the strategic introduction of new security requirements. Your amendment properly balances risk mitigation and necessary tactical response with potential industry impacts and appropriate public review.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Last edited:
Let's remember guys...this is Hangar Talk, not the Spin Zone...
 
Indeed... there is no need to bring the actions of any executive branch administration into this matter- there was near-universal agreement in the halls of congress when these powers were vested in the essentially-unaccountable DHS and TSA.

None of them get - or deserve - a free pass.
 
google HR 2200 amendment Mica had a number of hits, including

http://www.rules.house.gov/111/AmndmentsSubmitted/hr2200/mica23_111_hr2200.pdf

and

http://www.rules.house.gov/SpecialRules_details.aspx?NewsID=4275

above has



2. Mica (FL)/Ehlers (MI)/Graves (MO)/Petri (WI)

Would alter the standard for when TSA can issue an emergency regulation or security device without adhering to the rule making and public notice and comment provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Would allow TSA to issue a regulation or security directive when needed "to respond to an imminent threat of finite duration" and would require TSA to comply with the rule making requirements of the APA when a security directive or emergency order has been in place for more than 180 days.

and links to http://www.rules.house.gov/111/SpecialRules/hr2200/111_mica_2.pdf
 
Last edited:
jmaynard said:
I can't complain about Scott's cheerleading being given a free pass, this time...
Click to expand...
Since the MC doesn't discuss disciplinary actions in public, you don't know what action may or may not be taken against anyone for their posts in this thread or elsewhere, so please don't make any assumptions either way.
 
gkainz said:
2. Mica (FL)/Ehlers (MI)/Graves (MO)/Petri (WI)

Would alter the standard for when TSA can issue an emergency regulation or security device without adhering to the rule making and public notice and comment provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Would allow TSA to issue a regulation or security directive when needed "to respond to an imminent threat of finite duration" and would require TSA to comply with the rule making requirements of the APA when a security directive or emergency order has been in place for more than 180 days.

and links to http://www.rules.house.gov/111/SpecialRules/hr2200/111_mica_2.pdf
Click to expand...

This is the one.

Just glancing at it, it looks like it's on the Calendar... If I'm correct, that means the best-targeted lobbying would be aimed at the Speaker...

http://www.speaker.gov/contact/

Office of the Speaker
H-232, US Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-0100

... and Majority Leader:

http://democraticleader.house.gov/email_and_rss/email_the_leader/

1705 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone - (202) 225-4131
Fax - (202) 225-4300

Encourage them to send the bill to the floor.

Also, as always, contact your Congressperson and Senators as they'll be the ones ultimately voting on it.
 
Ron Levy said:
Since the MC doesn't discuss disciplinary actions in public, you don't know what action may or may not be taken against anyone for their posts in this thread or elsewhere, so please don't make any assumptions either way.
Click to expand...
What assumption? The post was deleted; that's all I was referring to.
 
Last edited:
murphey said:
in addition to the 2 amendments offered by Rep Mica, check out #10 & 11.
Click to expand...

Interesting:

#10 said:
The Secretary may issue a rule prohibited by the amendment if the Secretary determines, based on a credible and urgent threat, that an emergency exists. Not later than 30 days after issuance of a rule under the emergency exception, the Inspector General shall determine if a credible and urgent threat existed.
Click to expand...

(em. added)

Sounds like a reasonable attempt at oversight...

#11 said:
Would clarify which aviation facilities qualify for general aviation security grants, including helicopter operators and heliports, establishes a plan and implements a program for screening air passengers with metal implants, improves transportation security assistance, studies the creation of new transportation security positions at TSA, and has a GAO review of other transportation security functions at TSA.
Click to expand...

(em. added)

Ooooh... Smacking them with a GAO review. TSA's gonna love that.
 
ReverendSlappy said:
...
Sounds like a reasonable attempt at oversight...
...
Ooooh... Smacking them with a GAO review. TSA's gonna love that.
Click to expand...

National Security!!!
National Security!!!

National Security!!!

National Security!!!

National Security!!!

91111!!!111!!

Who are these GAO guys and how do we know they're REAL Americans? :rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
GAO: General Aviation not a threat.

Anyone remember that headline?
:(
 
SkyHog said:
GAO: General Aviation not a threat.

Anyone remember that headline?
:(
Click to expand...

Remember that the DHS, TSA, FBI, CIA, NSA, and FAA said there was no GA threat to Disney-anything? Did that matter?
 
it seems in most cases the GAO comes out on our side. for example, I remember reading something back in 07(?) saying that user fees were not the best way to fund the FAA. Whether or not GAO oversight would hinder the TSA much remains a question, but at least it's something.
 
scit106 said:
it seems in most cases the GAO comes out on our side. for example, I remember reading something back in 07(?) saying that user fees were not the best way to fund the FAA. Whether or not GAO oversight would hinder the TSA much remains a question, but at least it's something.
Click to expand...

That and Executive Branch bureaucrats seem to generally view a GAO audit or oversight as being a major PITA... I'm not one for legislating out of spite, but I can't help but emit a little, evil-sounding chuckle when I think about that aspect of it. :D But hopefully it'll have some positive results, as well.

Looking at that list of amendments to H.R. 2200 gives me a glimmer of hope -- faint though it may be -- that Congress may start actually properly doing its job of oversight, and that a lot of these silly restrictions' days are numbered. We'll see, but in the meantime... Call your representatives in Congress!
 
Ron Levy said:
Since the MC doesn't discuss disciplinary actions in public, you don't know what action may or may not be taken against anyone for their posts in this thread or elsewhere, so please don't make any assumptions either way.
Click to expand...

Now there is an arrogant line of horsepucky. Everyone knows the range of actions that may or may not be taken. The possible actions range from nothing to complete removal of posts and poster. Sheesh, that wasn't very difficult.

Try a little harder with the uberlord stuff, eh?:rolleyes:
 
Clark1961 said:
Now there is an arrogant line of horsepucky. Everyone knows the range of actions that may or may not be taken. The possible actions range from nothing to complete removal of posts and poster. Sheesh, that wasn't very difficult.

Try a little harder with the uberlord stuff, eh?:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

steingar said:
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Click to expand...

Post combo of the day!
 
Clark1961 said:
Now there is an arrogant line of horsepucky. Everyone knows the range of actions that may or may not be taken. The possible actions range from nothing to complete removal of posts and poster. Sheesh, that wasn't very difficult.

Try a little harder with the uberlord stuff, eh?:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Wow. Touchy. I think Ron meant to say "may have been taken", that is, in this specific case. Doesn't bother me in the least.

Wanna avoid the uberlords, then come and play in the SpinZone!!:D:devil:
 
Clark1961 said:
Now there is an arrogant line of horsepucky. Everyone knows the range of actions that may or may not be taken. The possible actions range from nothing to complete removal of posts and poster. Sheesh, that wasn't very difficult.

Try a little harder with the uberlord stuff, eh?:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

steingar said:
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the MC isn't absolutely corrupted.
 
What I was trying to say is that one should never assume that anyone "got away" with anything and take that as an indication either that what that person posted was OK, or that any special consideration was granted. Likewise, no one should assume that anyone was disciplined for something even if a post is deleted or moved. Those are strictly private matters between the MC and the individual concerned.
 
flyersfan31 said:
Wow. Touchy. I think Ron meant to say "may have been taken", that is, in this specific case. Doesn't bother me in the least.

Wanna avoid the uberlords, then come and play in the SpinZone!!:D:devil:
Click to expand...

Someone's gotta train the uberlords...and it is up to all of us. Sorta like the TSA in some ways.
 
Clark1961 said:
Now there is an arrogant line of horsepucky. Everyone knows the range of actions that may or may not be taken. The possible actions range from nothing to complete removal of posts and poster. Sheesh, that wasn't very difficult.

Try a little harder with the uberlord stuff, eh?:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

(shakes head)

Let's try this again: We don't discuss what we did or did not do. We do it and move on. We are not in the business of declaring "winners" and "losers."


OK?
 
murphey said:
Would you explain why you think Mr Mica hates America?
Click to expand...

Did you miss the ':D'?

I'm certain that Mike was hinting at the fact that it's been declared "unpatriotic" to dispute any anti-terrorist measures regardless of how obnoxious they are. Fortunately it appears that this particular tide is beginning to turn (Mica's bill isn't the first indication of that). It's been my strong hope that Joe Public would start to push back at the DHS and TSA before GA is fatally wounded.
 
Clark1961 said:
Someone's gotta train the uberlords...and it is up to all of us. Sorta like the TSA in some ways.
Click to expand...

You really need to learn how to spell- it's überlords- it's not right without the umlaut. Verstehan Sie?
 
gismo said:
Did you miss the ':D'?

I'm certain that Mike was hinting at the fact that it's been declared "unpatriotic" to dispute any anti-terrorist measures regardless of how obnoxious they are. Fortunately it appears that this particular tide is beginning to turn (Mica's bill isn't the first indication of that). It's been my strong hope that Joe Public would start to push back at the DHS and TSA before GA is fatally wounded.
Click to expand...
Saw the smiley icon but didn't understand the context. Not used to smiley icons....
 
Cap'n Jack said:
You really need to learn how to spell- it's überlords- it's not right without the umlaut. Verstehan Sie?
Click to expand...

Ich hab' keinen umlauten. (Vielleicht "Verstehen" statt "Verstehan?"):D

ALLRIGHT We'll stop right here. It's been decades since I last tried to figure out eines and einem and all those stupid endings.
 
smigaldi said:
Well only problem was that I was not cheerleading.
Click to expand...
Okkay, fine...to be absolutely pedantic, you were slamming the previous administration, thus cheerleading by comparison to the subject of your slam. Regardless, you were taking a political position. Cheerleading for hopey changiness, regardless of whether or not it's about aviation, is something that happens far too often on here, and yet when I respond to it, I get slapped down hard.

I certainly hope that the people on the MC who have taken the action in vilolation of their own policy are properly counseled and that I recevie an apology for their innapropriate actions.
Click to expand...
So you can go back to cheerleading for hopey changiness?
 
jmaynard said:
Okkay, fine...to be absolutely pedantic, you were slamming the previous administration, thus cheerleading by comparison to the subject of your slam. Regardless, you were taking a political position. Cheerleading for hopey changiness, regardless of whether or not it's about aviation, is something that happens far too often on here, and yet when I respond to it, I get slapped down hard.


So you can go back to cheerleading for hopey changiness?
Click to expand...

Sigh...
 
gismo said:
Did you miss the ':D'?

I'm certain that Mike was hinting at the fact that it's been declared "unpatriotic" to dispute any anti-terrorist measures regardless of how obnoxious they are. Fortunately it appears that this particular tide is beginning to turn (Mica's bill isn't the first indication of that). It's been my strong hope that Joe Public would start to push back at the DHS and TSA before GA is fatally wounded.
Click to expand...
Be careful. I wrote that same thing and Jay is accusing me of cheerleading and the MC removed my post for still unknown reasons.
 
jmaynard said:
Okkay, fine...to be absolutely pedantic, you were slamming the previous administration, thus cheerleading by comparison to the subject of your slam. Regardless, you were taking a political position. Cheerleading for hopey changiness, regardless of whether or not it's about aviation, is something that happens far too often on here, and yet when I respond to it, I get slapped down hard.


So you can go back to cheerleading for hopey changiness?
Click to expand...
Lets see you know go and slam Lance for writing the same thing I did. Or are you still so annoyed that you got your ass handed to you in the SZ for what you did when you first got on this board? Next time we meet up I'll buy you a beer and tell you the back story of what was going on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top