Warbird Information Exchange

Groundpounder, its not just warbirds that are affected by this. It is any civilian flight in an aircraft greater than 12,500 lbs MTOW. Everyone from Eric in his Skyraider to the Joe Blow executive in his G-V is subject to the proposal. BTW, the proposal doesn't include for airline style security stations, but it does call for comparing the passenger manifest against a no-fly list and presumably other government agency 'black-lists'.

_________________
real airplanes have round engines

No, it's waay more than that. Basically, they want ANY privately owned aircraft (including things such as P-51, etc...) that are above 12,500 lbs. to be under the regulatory system. There will have to be someone assigned for security and even pilots will have to go through the background checks (not like most of us don't at some point anyway!). While the effect on warbird owners would likely be horrific, I'm actually more concerned about it's impact on aircraft operated by private individuals, small businesses, and corporations. Most of these folks don't need the extra costs (probably high) that this will impose on their flight operations for a minuscule and probably insignificant improvement in security.

Ryan

_________________
Aerial Photographer with Red Wing Aerial Photography currently based at KRBD and tailwheel CFI.
Websites: Texas Tailwheel Flight Training, DoolittleRaid.com and Lbirds.com.

The horse is prepared against the day of battle: but safety is of the LORD. - Prov. 21:31 - Train, Practice, Trust.

Groundpounder Wrote:


NO. This applies to all flights in any aircraft over 12,500LBS.
This means that instead of coming out to the airport on a Sunday afternoon and flying around the pattern for kicks, or for a 30 min currency flight VFR, I would have to have background checks for all crew members, check with a TSA approved vendor to get an approval of the passengers (my friends), designate someone to be the Security Coordinator, pay for a bi annual audit ($2200-9000), maintain a file on each flight to be audited later and be subject to U.S. Air Marshalls (perhaps).

Sounds like a lot of fun. My aircraft is experimental-exhibition, which prohibits selling rides in the first place.

As for "learning to live with it"......I could probably learn to live with the horrible effects of cancer, but I will avoid it if at all possible.

_________________
Eric

"I spent most of my money on alcohol, women and skyraiders....and the rest of it I just wasted."

No, this goes further than airline passengers. This would include a 10 year background check complete with fingerprints from the FBI.

_________________
If God had wanted man to fly behind a flat motor, Pratt Whitney would've built one.

that little bug crawling around sure is annoying. oh well, off to buy a new monitor...........

Hmmm more of that change stuff acomin. And its going before the freedom lovin bunch for a vote. Oh well too much greenhouse gas anyway. Sad days a comin.

Don't you just love the smell of defeatism in the air? Goodness gracious. The reason crap like this flies ((pun unintended)) is because people sit around on their duffs and do NOTHING. There is an attitude of 'well i can't do anything about it' and well that's entirely wrong. As someone suggested earlier, CONTACT your friggin Representatives and hammer them on this, if enough people raise hell on this subject something can be done.

One good example is gun control, while I know not everyone here probably agree's on this issue it is a example that proves a point. Many gun-control laws have been shot down due to immense flak from the voters, politicians take notice when angry people are threatening to vote them out of office if they don't respect the will of the people. Everyone should get on top of this and head it off at the pass, phone calls, letters and e-mails, get your wives, mothers, fathers and children in, every voice counts.

Otherwise? Yup, Sad days are coming.

This is true. I have a friend who was on a PAC (Political Action Committee) who lobbied various Congressmen at the Hill. He told me the following:

1) A letter, sent through the mail, and signed by a constituent, holds a great deal of weight to most Congressmen. E-mails, are pretty much perceived as being a nuisance and are generally disregarded. The rationale is that anybody can write an e-mail in just a few minutes. Handwritten letters, mailed via the Postal Service, take a great deal longer to make and send. This shows the seriousness and weight of the matter to the Congressman, because somebody who cares about the issue is going to take the time to make it. Phone calls seem to have the impact of somewhere between letters and e-mails - in other words, partially effective at best.

2) Most Congressmen have a "critical mass" of between 15 to 25 letters. In other words, if a Congressman receives that many letters in the mail about a particular issue, it is considered a huge response and something that must be addressed in a timely manner.

3) Congressmen work for their constituents. If they get an overwhelming response, most feel compelled to keep their constituents happy, for fear of losing the next election.

4) Vocal, but small numbers of people often get things changed in Washington.

So, people, the best thing to do is contact your local Congressman, and WRITE them, not e-mail them, about exactly how you feel about this new proposed rule. We CAN make a difference. Remember, as little as 15 people can make a Congressman take action!

My advice for the day!

Two excellent posts.

I can't comment about the US political system, but I can talk about the publishing biz. The comment above is paralleled by the fact that the majority of people tell their friends, or post on boards, rather than addressing the magazine. Those few who do write in have a disproportionate effect. e-mail is a bit better than nothing, but as warbird1 says, its very facility means it's often under-regarded. Petitions, unless huge, and presented with a well managed PR hoo-ha at the gate aren't worth anything.

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com