TSA's New Ridiculous Plan

t0r0nad0

t0r0nad0

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
2,078
Location
Houston, TX
Display Name
Display name:
PJ Gustafson
Hey Everyone,

I tried searching before I posted this, so I apologize if there's already a thread on this topic.

In listening to a recent episode of Uncontrolled Airspace, I found out that the TSA officially released the NPRM that they had announced/alluded to at NBAA. This will put into effect the Large Aircraft Security Program. Now that they've "secured" (decimated?) the airline industry, they now want to go after private operators of large aircraft (>12,500lbs MTOW).

Here are some of the major points:
  • Operators must conduct criminal background checks on their flight crews. If you are ill-prepared to do so, the TSA will be glad to do it for you... for a fee.
  • Large aircraft operators will have to submit a passenger manifest to the TSA or a TSA-Approved Contractor for comparison to the terrorist watch list prior to each flight - this includes flights under Part 91. Oh, and the operator would be responsible for all costs associated with the watch-list matching, including any fees charged by the watch-list matching provider.
  • Operators need to get the full name, date of birth, gender, and redress number from each of their passengers to send to the watch-list matching provider. In addition, they need to send certain information from the passenger's passport if available. This is to "increase the efficiency and effectiveness of automatic matching".
  • Operators would have to get a security procedures audit from a TSA-approved contractor to ensure that they are in compliance with the TSA security procedures. The TSA wants these audits done biennially, starting within 60 days of the adoption of this rule and every two years thereafter. It doesn't specifically say so, but the operator will probably be responsible for the costs of these audits as well. I assume this based on the statement that the operator "will contract with" a TSA-approved third party auditor.
  • All people and cargo that is accessible from the cabin need to be screened for weapons and objects on the TSA prohibited items list. If any weapons need to be transported in a cargo hold that is accessible from the cabin, they must be in a locked box under the control of the "in-flight security coordinator". This includes, guns, knives (including steak knives and pocket knives), and other sharp objects or tools.
  • The TSA, at their sole discretion, can choose when to put an air marshall aboard a private aircraft.
  • Any airport that is designated as a "reliever" airport must enhance their security procedures with a "partial" program.
So, at the face of it, it doesn't sound like those of us flying anthing smaller than a King Air 350 will be affected, unless you're based at a reliever airport and are suddenly subject to the new security procedures. My fear is that this opens the door for them to expand it to more GA aircraft, once they feel like they've successfully "secured" those over 12,500 lbs MTOW. There is a comment period open now, and you can submit a comment by going here: http://www.regulations.gov/search/s...+8084+8055&Ntt=TSA-2008-0021&sid=11D5392E3CF2

I know what comments I'd like to give the TSA on this and their very existence, but they're not polite in the company of women.

Does anyone else have thoughts on this?
 
Where can you submit comments there? I looked around and couldn't figure it out.
 
Our tax dollars at work. Hopefully outfits like NetJets and other fracs have some lobbying power to stop this. If not, it's not going to be good for their business.

McDonalds is still mad at the TSA for hiring all their people away... ; )
 
petemac said:
Hopefully outfits like NetJets and other fracs have some lobbying power to stop this. If not, it's not going to be good for their business.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure NetJets already has to comply with a lot of these rule and so do we, due to the Twelve Five Standard Security Program. It's been that way since shortly after 9/11.

The thing is that now the TSA is trying to expand the security program to private operators.
 
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure someone (RR?) on the red board said no point in posting comments there, they don't care - best to go to your congress person with your concerns.
 
They've extended the comment period by 60 days, so it'll be Late january before the comment period closes. Then DHS has to review the comments, prepare the final rule (with introductory material addressing the comments), and pass it through OMB for issuance. As a reference - the comments on making the ADIZ permanent closed in 2005, and they are just now moving the final rule to OMB. AOPA is trying to kill it there but it may end up being something that congress or executive order would have to change.

PS - remind your congressmen that DHS was supposed to report to congress justifying the ADIZ and indentifying the threat, and to my knowledge they have never done so.
 
To me, the more immediate issue is NOT that it puts the camel's nose under the tent and that the rules might be expanded to more/smaller airplanes. No, the immediate issue is that all of the small airports that are forced to install the infrastructure to comply with the rules will allow ALL general aviation operators to enjoy the cost of participation.
 
This would set a truly horrifying precedent. Sure, it's only for A/C above 12,500 lbs, but they're GA, too. If the TSA can set arbitrary and completely unjustified rules for those operators, they can do it to anyone.

I suspect the TSA, like most other gov't agencies that aren't really necessary, is trying to expend its influence so that they can't be eliminated. They've got to seem busy somehow, right?

-Felix
 
My basic reaction is that this is an unwarranted intrusion into private carriage. I'd expect to see the same searches on large private road vehicles (like motorhomes), and private yachts.
 
Ken Ibold said:
To me, the more immediate issue is NOT that it puts the camel's nose under the tent and that the rules might be expanded to more/smaller airplanes. No, the immediate issue is that all of the small airports that are forced to install the infrastructure to comply with the rules will allow ALL general aviation operators to enjoy the cost of participation.
Click to expand...

Yup, or go belly up. One or the other will happen. This is a very very bad policy, with very bad potential ramifications. :mad::mad3::mad3:
 
Don't want to get into politics, but could the change in TSA/DHS leadership by the end of the comment period have an effect? At the very least, could that change distract them for a bit?
 
If enough negative publicity or congressional attention is generated, the administration (any administration) will respond. While I don't think the incoming administration has bad intentions toward GA, I don't think they will be too concerned either. Our best hope is that our organizations (EAA/AOPA/NBAA) can generate enough negative attention that the administration will respond.
 
There was once a time in America that our government bureaucracies were set up in order to assist Americans with their various problems. The people who worked for these agencies were commonly known as "Public Servants".

Somewhere along the line, these bureaucracies determined that they were more our masters than our servants. Then came 9-11, this confirmed it.

John
 
Last edited:
This will be the death of all the flying B-17's, B-25's, etc. Can't raise money by giving rides very well under these rules.
 
Joe B said:
This will be the death of all the flying B-17's, B-25's, etc. Can't raise money by giving rides very well under these rules.
Click to expand...

Precisely. These rules are a bunch of:

bs_flag.gif
 
I'm reminded of the oft repeated and reworded poem from WWII that ends up:

"Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me."

We should have never let the TSA be formed,
we should never have let the TSA make us take off our shoes,
we should never have let the TSA ban all but 3oz of liquid in ONLY Ziplock brand bags.

But they were just little steps, and not that onerous. And besides I needed to make that flight. Besides the rules must be working. After all no one has flown any airliners into buildings since 12 Sept. 2001, have they?

For all the good it will do, I will be commenting on this. I fear though, that it will be implemented eventually. More and more people are simply becoming too afraid of everything and want total "security", even if it's just the illusion of security.
 
mdreger said:
For all the good it will do, I will be commenting on this. I fear though, that it will be implemented eventually. More and more people are simply becoming too afraid of everything and want total "security", even if it's just the illusion of security.
Click to expand...

Sad but true.
 
mdreger said:
...For all the good it will do, I will be commenting on this. I fear though, that it will be implemented eventually. More and more people are simply becoming too afraid of everything and want total "security", even if it's just the illusion of security.
Click to expand...

It's not the "people" that are behind this. The "people" pretty much know it's all mere theater.

There is now a huge and ever-growing bureaucracy that like all organizations, has the #1 goal of growing in size, money and power. This nonsense can continue because no politician whjo could stop it wants to be the one who has to answer for being responsible for the next loss because he or she opposed the new rules which had nothing to do with it.

We can also suspect that the airlines have been pushing to burden GA so the CEOs stop flying the competitive way where don't have to take their shoes off. Like that's going to happen.
 
sba55 said:
This would set a truly horrifying precedent. Sure, it's only for A/C above 12,500 lbs, but they're GA, too. If the TSA can set arbitrary and completely unjustified rules for those operators, they can do it to anyone.

I suspect the TSA, like most other gov't agencies that aren't really necessary, is trying to expend its influence so that they can't be eliminated. They've got to seem busy somehow, right?

-Felix
Click to expand...
I wish they actually would expend their influence.
 
kevin47881 said:
I wish that were true, Mike. I listen to people in the security lines on a regular basis making positive comments about the process.
Click to expand...
Well, of course they're making positive comments. They're all afraid Kip Hawley will have them dragged away to Gitmo if they say anything the least bit negative! :raspberry:
 
Gonna be "fun" when some CEO named "Edward Kennedy" or "David Nelson" gets the extra security scan every time he flies on his own jet because his name is one of the 1,000,000+ on the no-fly list. Mo better if he's flying the jet.
 
If you want to submit comments, this link may be easier to navigate:
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=SubmitComment&o=0900006480784e85

Here's my comment (copied to Senators and Comgressman):
Aircraft Security Program, Other Aircraft Operator Security Program, and Airport Operator Security Program
Docket #1652-AA53

Dear Sir/Madam;

I would like to express my opposition to the Aircraft Security Program, Other Aircraft Operator Security Program, and Airport Operator Security Program proposal.

This proposal, if implemented, will significantly reduce the freedom of law-abiding citizens, increase costs for businesses, and potentially eliminate many activities while only marginally increasing security.

Many of the affected aircraft are privately owned and operated. The proposed rule infringes on the right of Americans to travel within their own vehicle. Corporate executives use private aircraft to save time- this time savings will be significantly reduced by the screening they will need to undergo.

Aircraft of this size can do damage to a structure if used as a terrorist device, however this damage will be much smaller than that of a large airliner. In 1945, a B-25 bomber with an empty weight of 21,000 pounds (much heavier than the 12,500 pound aircraft in the docket) crashed into the Empire State Building. Obviously, the Empire State Building survived this incident demonstrating that the damage caused by this type of aircraft is limited.

If passengers and crew of such aircraft are to be vetted, then passengers of large recreational vehicles and rental trucks should be screened also. The first World Trade Center and the Oklahoma City bombings were both done by rented vans and trucks.

If this proposal becomes law, a large number of organizations will become negatively impacted. This includes nearly all larger corporations that charter aircraft. Large universities sports teams will be affected- I noticed the Husker woman’s volleyball team (University of Nebraska) departing a chartered jet recently. I doubt that any of those people posed any security threat.

The Commemorative Air Force and Experimental Aircraft Association both raise money to maintain their fleet of older aircraft (Ford Trimotor, B-17) by selling short rides on these aircraft. Since these planes are in excess of 12,500 pounds, the passengers will need to be screened for a short 15 minute flight Since the passenger names will need to be submitted ahead of time, the income from the flights will be significantly curtailed or eliminated.

Businesses that perform parachute jump operations will find their activities impacted. Some of the jump planes are larger than 12,500 pounds for group jumps. It is unreasonable to screen these passengers for a 5 minute flight, especially when these operations take place at smaller airports such as Crete, Nebraska and Cross Keys, NJ.

I have observed charter aircraft operations at small airports such as Millville, NJ; Cape May, NJ, Beatrice, NE; and McCook, NE. These airports are unable to easily afford the infrastructure to support a team of TSA agents. The airports mentioned in Nebraska are not near any airport that have commercial air service- the time to get to the commercial airport would be nearly the same as the actual flight to the destination. The cost of supporting the TSA will need to be spread among all users of the small airport, regardless of whether they require TSA services.

The proposed rule is unneeded, infringes on liberty, and will have significant negative impact on many businesses and organizations.
 
Cap'n Jack,

Given the apathy pilots have about these things, it's great that you took the time to submit a comment. Unfortunately, I think your letter misses the mark for a few reasons.

First, the type of charter aircraft used by sports teams and the like, are already covered by a security program. The proposed rule would replace several existing rules and would further incorporate all private aircraft over 12,500 lbs. Therefore, TSA's response will be that the rule won't impact sports teams and similar groups.

Second, your comments on the significant reduction in the time saved by corporate executives using private aircraft and the inability of small airports to afford the infrastructure required to support teams of TSA agents appears to be based on a misunderstanding of the proposed screening requirements. Under the proposed rule, the aircraft's crew, not the TSA, is responsible for passengere screening. Again, TSA will say the rule will not a have a substantial impact.

Based on CBP's responses to comments on the recently-finalized border crossing rule, it appears we need to provide comments on specific provisions of the proposed rule and clearly explain why they would not enhance security, why they be an undue burden (cost, impact to operations, etc.) on operators, how TSA's cost/benefit analysis is faulty, etc.

Attached are some of the issues I've identified so far in case anyone wants a head start on writing their comments.
 

Attachments

  • Large Aircraft NPRM Issues.doc
    49.5 KB · Views: 6
I'm working on my comments, too.

In my opinion, it comes down to two very basic and simple issues:

1) There is no evidence that GA poses any threat to public safety. Whether or not this program has merit is therefore inconsequential.

2) The program has no merit whatsoever in preventing terrorism. Every single provision can be easily circumvented. (This will be the place to show how every single stipulation of this provision is onerous and inefficient)

-Felix
 
I'd like to post a comment, but somehow I think that saying the TSA is a bunch of terrorists that need to no longer exist will not go over well.

But seriously....we terrorize our own people, causing more damage than the terrorists did on September 11th, and that's acceptable?

I'd rather be waterboarded. Where's AOPA on this one. Haven't heard much of a peep from 'em.
 
Probably the most effective comments would address the risks that this
NPRM attempts to reduce and the effectiveness of the measures.
Comparing GA to rented trucks/vans may not help very much - it'll just
give them something else to go after.
 
Bob- when they go after the people that rent trucks, I think that may be the time that the average Joe gets annoyed enough to say "enough is enough"
 
My congressman, Jeff Fortenberry, had someone (one of his aides) call me about this- the call came just after I got home today. He asked about where I saw this proposed rule and indicated that they hadn't gotten any calls about it prior to me although he imagined that the aviation community was pretty unhappy about it.

There's a group of us on POA that live in Jeff's district- if a couple more of us write to him maybe he'll look into it more.
 
kkoran said:
First, the type of charter aircraft used by sports teams and the like, are already covered by a security program.
Click to expand...

Reference? I've watched the local university's sports teams show up the airport on a Badger bus (local motor coach company) which is driven out onto the ramp, whereupon they walk onto an airplane ranging in size from an RJ up to an MD80.
 
mikea said:
It's not the "people" that are behind this. The "people" pretty much know it's all mere theater.

There is now a huge and ever-growing bureaucracy that like all organizations, has the #1 goal of growing in size, money and power. This nonsense can continue because no politician whjo could stop it wants to be the one who has to answer for being responsible for the next loss because he or she opposed the new rules which had nothing to do with it.

We can also suspect that the airlines have been pushing to burden GA so the CEOs stop flying the competitive way where don't have to take their shoes off. Like that's going to happen.
Click to expand...

Sorry Mike, but I DO know a lot of "people" that are sheeple that DO want "total security".
 
kkoran said:
Cap'n Jack,

First, the type of charter aircraft used by sports teams and the like, are already covered by a security program. The proposed rule would replace several existing rules and would further incorporate all private aircraft over 12,500 lbs. Therefore, TSA's response will be that the rule won't impact sports teams and similar groups.
Click to expand...

flyingcheesehead said:
Reference? I've watched the local university's sports teams show up the airport on a Badger bus (local motor coach company) which is driven out onto the ramp, whereupon they walk onto an airplane ranging in size from an RJ up to an MD80.
Click to expand...

I too have seen the Husker woman volleyball team just show up & board some kind of larger 2-engine jet (engines under the high-wing). You can often see them at the FBO on Tuesday evenings. I didn't question Koran's comment because I don't know if sports teams are "pre-screened"- they are known not to be terrorists, so just board them.
 
Last edited:
tdager said:
Sorry Mike, but I DO know a lot of "people" that are sheeple that DO want "total security".
Click to expand...

I just saw that the TSA is going to start a PR campaign to remind travelers that there is still a huge risk of terrorism so they should shut up about not making their flight.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Reference? I've watched the local university's sports teams show up the airport on a Badger bus (local motor coach company) which is driven out onto the ramp, whereupon they walk onto an airplane ranging in size from an RJ up to an MD80.
Click to expand...

49 CFR, Part 1500

erDate 11<
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top