TSA Large Aircraft Security Proposal

[A2C]

According to the AOPA website, the TSA is feeling the ire of the GA community:

http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2 ... c_sect=tts

[Bill Greenwood]

AOPA does a very good job of lobbying when issues like this come up. It only cost $39 to join, and you can do it on line. The magazine is worth that, alone. I hope most everyone who is a pilot or crew or even just an enthusiast is a member. AOPA is the larger and broader aviation group, really all non military or non airline interest. It is not, per se, sport aviation or warbirds, but includes that and when broad bills come up they join with EAA, CAF, and others to work together. They know the game to play and they can meet with the politicians whereas sometimes we as individuals might not have much pull.
Hey join em all if you can, But at $39 you can't go wrong with this one.

[Matt Gunsch]

Pilots and aircraft owners are now going thru what gun owners have been going thru for years. The only defence is to stand together and not give ANY ground.

[engguy]

I would like to post something on this but won't if no one is interested.

[Lynn Allen]

Funny thing with this BS is that you have to verify your boss and the pax's are not the bad guys mean while a Gbird or a Fearjet full of surprises from a foreign county lands and they don't have to abide by these rules
They need to worry about the containers that come into port and run up and down the highway. They are out to kill GA. Not to mention the list of items that will be banned. They are making life for people like me on the street right now a lot harder.......
But we are talking about the people that can't see a gun on the radar screen...

Lynn

[Bill Greenwood]

The corporate types may oppose this on their own. But they are used to a lot of regulation and "security" and may accept it if they can pass the cost on to customers.

It seems to me that warbird operators need to work together to have historic type airplanes exempted.

I wonder who is behind this and who is pushing it?

[Dave Downs]

I've got a real chilling thought.....

What happens when someone in the TSA that doesn't know the difference between a B-17 and a B-747 realizes that one of the areas affected by this proposal is people who own, fly and actually give rides to people in.......BOMBERS.....Yep, real, honest to gosh BOMBERS with actual machine guns and turrets and bombays and in some case they even have bombsights mounted in them. And......they can fly them around the skies of America without even being required to file a flight plan!!!!

To you and I the above is laughable as threat, but to someone without a clue it is a terrifiing thought, guaranteed to keep them awake at night worrying about someone hi-jacking 'Aluminum Overcast', bombing it up and wreaking havoc on some poor, unsuspecting city.

Don't take this as a rant against any specific political party, but as a well-founded fear of a government AGENCY or REGULATORY body that, by nature, must grow to justify its existance, and by growing, it rewards those in charge. More threats equals more personell equals more budget equals more power.

And for those owners of fighter aircraft, don't think you are safe because you're under the 12,500 lb limit - just wait until someone realizes that they too can be configured to drop bombs in addition to already being fitted with machineguns.

No, I'm not paranoid, and I've never seen black helicopters hovering over my backyard, but I am old enough to have seen a number of limits put upon my individual freedoms, and all started with the best of intentions.*

I know we went through this before with the military equipment and were able to thwart that particular threat, but times have changed.

*How many of you can remember when airliners flew with the cockpit door open, and passengers would sometimes be admitted to the cockpit during flight? I can.

[warbird1]

What happens when someone in the TSA that doesn't know the difference between a B-17 and a B-747 realizes that one of the areas affected by this proposal is people who own, fly and actually give rides to people in.......BOMBERS

Your point is very valid and it scares me too. There are many, many uneducated and uninformed people in the TSA who will do whatever it takes to eliminate any kind of perceived threat, whether it is valid or not. I have to work with the TSA on a daily basis in my flying now, and quite frankly, some of the stuff I see scares me even now. This can not only happen, but I would say it is very probable to happen. About knowing the difference between a B-17 and a B-747 - Europe already went through that. Although the root of their regulatory laws were more tax/liability based than threat based, two B-17's were effectively grounded because the B-17 was lumped into the same category as Commercial airliners. I believe that the French B-17, Pink Lady, was permanently grounded from this. Also, recall that the last commercial flying DC-3's in Great Britain were recently grounded in England because they would have had to adhere to new legislation regarding anti-terrorist measures such as new cockpit doors, etc. The cost was so prohibitive to modify the old DC-3's that the company just went out of business instead. Score one for the terrorists.

*How many of you can remember when airliners flew with the cockpit door open, and passengers would sometimes be admitted to the cockpit during flight? I can.

I can remember numerous times when I was a little kid growing up in the early 70's, when I got to go up in the cockpit on commercial airliners during flight. I remember one instance when I was about 8 or 9 when the Captain let me fly the 727 we were on. Granted, I didn't actually touch the controls, per se, but he let me turn the Autopilot knob, which turned the plane. Can you imagine what would happen today if that occurred? You would not only get fired, but probably go to jail for breaking Federal TSA and/or FAA regulations.

[RickH]

Bill, wrong answer, you don't want to give exemptions. You want to kill it all together. Just like the demil issue, it is wrong across the board and shouldn't be implemented in its present form. Divided we fall !

[RyanShort1]

The corporate types may oppose this on their own. But they are used to a lot of regulation and "security" and may accept it if they can pass the cost on to customers.

It seems to me that warbird operators need to work together to have historic type airplanes exempted.

I wonder who is behind this and who is pushing it?

Bill,

The folks with the National Business Aviation Association are clearly opposed. This is going to be a HUGE problem for FBOs and business people.

Like Rick said, this is a BAD thing and needs to be stopped dead in the water and then torpedoed. I'd then drop depth charges on the wreck to prevent it's salvage.

Ryan

[spookythecat]

It was mentioned at the Cascade Warbirds meeting that stricter policies weren't put into place after the Oklahoma City bombing. Maybe every person renting a U-Haul for the weekend needs the same background check.

And the other thing is, how could someone not totally load a 172 with explosives. Do they think that's not possible?

And why is it every time I fly commercially and I get a can of soda I think about why I couldn't bring my bottle of water from home yet I can totally drink the can of soda they give me, tear it up and make a pretty nasty weapon out of the aluminum.

[warbirdcrew]

The corporate types may oppose this on their own. But they are used to a lot of regulation and "security" and may accept it if they can pass the cost on to customers.

It seems to me that warbird operators need to work together to have historic type airplanes exempted.

I wonder who is behind this and who is pushing it?

Bill I think you're missing the point here. As many people have pointed out, the NBAA is vehemently opposed to this proposal because it has major implications for their sector of GA. Having worked at an FBO, I can appreciate that it is not just charter companies "who will pass on the costs to their customers" who will be affected. We get alot of customers flying on their own personal jets, registered to themselves or to their own companies who would simply not entertain the vetting process to board their own personal aircraft. Many people choose to travel this way, on personally-registered jets, to avoid the hassle of airline travel. I can assure you that the director of the CIA, who flies on a civilian registered jet registered to a CIA civilian front-company, is not going to entertain being matched up against a no-fly list every time he boards said jet.
And as RickH pointed out, we do not want to create exceptions for particular groups within GA. All this does is open the door down the road to future questioning of the purpose of these exceptions, and then we are right back where we started. The solution in the here and now is to stop this in its tracks and to create an effective solution that will satisfy the TSA while allowing all GA groups the freedom and the flexibility to carry out their business. As other industries in the United States topple due to the current economic crisis, can the government really afford to be tightening the noose around other multi-billion dollar industries?

[Robbie Roberts]

It was mentioned at the Cascade Warbirds meeting that stricter policies weren't put into place after the Oklahoma City bombing. Maybe every person renting a U-Haul for the weekend needs the same background check.

And the other thing is, how could someone not totally load a 172 with explosives. Do they think that's not possible?

And why is it every time I fly commercially and I get a can of soda I think about why I couldn't bring my bottle of water from home yet I can totally drink the can of soda they give me, tear it up and make a pretty nasty weapon out of the aluminum.

I know a kid(20s) that just flew back from the holidays out west, and realized a couple days after he got back that he'd flown with a small box cutter on his keyring! It was in a case shaped like a key, made out of plastic. Flip it over, and it had one of those 1/4" wide box cutter blades which has the snap-off segments... Wonder if he'd still be in stir if they found that... But then again, makes you wonder how they missed it!

Robbie

[JDK]

Just a point of order. With things like this it's important to be accurate, although I agree with your point overall.

About knowing the difference between a B-17 and a B-747 - Europe already went through that. Although the root of their regulatory laws were more tax/liability based than threat based, two B-17's were effectively grounded because the B-17 was lumped into the same category as Commercial airliners. I believe that the French B-17, Pink Lady, was permanently grounded from this.

Not so. It was an insurance/liability issue, rather than 'tax', and only (IMHO) indirectly to do with the so-called anti terrorism activities. I'm not sure what Pink Lady's status is, but it will continue to be operated, I'm sure. The UK's B-17 Sally B is still operational, after intensive lobbying.

Also, recall that the last commercial flying DC-3's in Great Britain were recently grounded in England because they would have had to adhere to new legislation regarding anti-terrorist measures such as new cockpit doors, etc. The cost was so prohibitive to modify the old DC-3's that the company just went out of business instead. Score one for the terrorists.

Not so. The Air Atlantique Classic Flight are STILL operating, and offering pleasure flying in de Havilland Dragon Rapides as well as other aircraft. The issue was more the mandatory evacuation items like slides etc. that were the issue for the Daks. UK and continental legislation for pleasure flying in ex military aircraft (rather than old airliner types) has always been more restrictive than the US.

The only 'secure door' issue with DC-3s I've heard of was the Alaskan operators. (My memory may be at fault.)

This is a quick comment from memory; I'm sure those in the UK and Europe can provide more accurate data, but the situation there is not, IMHO, a good case study for argument. HTH.

*How many of you can remember when airliners flew with the cockpit door open, and passengers would sometimes be admitted to the cockpit during flight? I can.

I can remember numerous times when I was a little kid growing up in the early 70's, when I got to go up in the cockpit on commercial airliners during flight. I remember one instance when I was about 8 or 9 when the Captain let me fly the 727 we were on. Granted, I didn't actually touch the controls, per se, but he let me turn the Autopilot knob, which turned the plane. Can you imagine what would happen today if that occurred? You would not only get fired, but probably go to jail for breaking Federal TSA and/or FAA regulations.

From 6 up to the age of 20, I'd never actually landed in in airliner still in the cabin; I usually was invited back for a view from the jump seat after a chat during the flight.

And another general caution - this is a public forum, and we need to also be careful about (political) name calling those we might not agree with or respect - only appropriately made responses and actions will be useful. However tempting it may be to let of steam with what you really think.

[warbird1]

Thanks for the clarifications JDK. I was going from my not so perfect memory. Anyways, my point remains. Politicians make wide sweeping broadly interpreted laws which can have far reaching consequences way beyond their initial intentions. That is the danger in this case with this proposal.

Someone associated with Pink Lady wrote a thread about the grounding of their B-17 some time last year, stating that that season was to be it's last. I haven't heard anything since. Is it still operating or not?