New Aviation Security Regulations - No more ADCUS

Arnold

Arnold

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
1,480
Location
Philadelphia Area
Display Name
Display name:
Arnold
Hi Folks,

I wanted to let the community here know that the Dept. of Homeland Security is proposing new regulations for private aircraft flying internationally.

I have more information at my website http://www.arnoldfeldman.com

Here are some bullet points.

Ÿ Require Pilots to deny boarding to passengers on the TSA no fly list.
Ÿ Require Pilots to obtain written permission to leave the United States and to request that permission at least 60 minutes prior to departure.
Ÿ Require Pilots to obtain written permission to enter the United States and to request that permission at least 60 minutes prior to departure.
Ÿ Allow the DHS to direct where private aircraft can land even rerouting airborne aircraft.
Ÿ Allow the DHS to deny landing rights to airborne aircraft.
Ÿ Require Pilots to verify that all passengers possess legitimate travel documents.
Ÿ Require Pilots to provide inbound or outbound passenger manifests containing extensive and detailed information about each crew member and passenger at the time they submit their request for arrival or departure permission.
Ÿ Eliminate the use of ADCUS in the flight plan remarks section.

The comment period for these proposed regulations ends on November 19, 2007.
 
No doubt AOPA is already cranking up their Legislative office in DC on this one. If nothing else, you wanna bet DHS won't be willing to release that "banned passenger" list to us (see "Catch 22")?

However, one point that should be noted is that "ADCUS" stuff has been effectively useless for many years, and frankly, its elimination from the book will only serve to prevent pilots from falling in a hole that currently exists. As AOPA notes in their international operations section, currently you cannot rely on that in the flight plan when arriving back in the USA -- the only reliable notification method is a phone call to the customs office you will use, obtaining the initials/badge number of the customs officer whom you notify. If you just put "ADCUS" in your flight plan, and FSS (you know, those highly reliable folks at Lockheed-Martin) doesn't forward the request properly, it's your butt in a sling (and your face pressed to the concrete) when you land without notification, not Lock-Mart's.
 
Last edited:
Arnold said:
Hi Folks,

I wanted to let the community here know that the Dept. of Homeland Security is proposing new regulations for private aircraft flying internationally.

I have more information at my website http://www.arnoldfeldman.com

Here are some bullet points.

Ÿ Require Pilots to deny boarding to passengers on the TSA no fly list.
And how do we get that list?
 Ÿ Require Pilots to obtain written permission to leave the United States and to request that permission at least 60 minutes prior to departure.
Since when have we been required to obtain permission to come and go? Notification (in the form of a passport I suppose) but not permission.
 Ÿ Require Pilots to obtain written permission to enter the United States and to request that permission at least 60 minutes prior to departure.
Same as above
Ÿ Allow the DHS to direct where private aircraft can land even rerouting airborne aircraft.
Isn't that what Customs does?
 Ÿ Allow the DHS to deny landing rights to airborne aircraft.
Once again, isn't that what Customs does? And what about the fellow that doesn't have to fuel to return?
 Ÿ Require Pilots to verify that all passengers possess legitimate travel documents.
I can kinda get along with this, but once again, this is a Customs function already, isn't it?
 Ÿ Require Pilots to provide inbound or outbound passenger manifests containing extensive and detailed information about each crew member and passenger at the time they submit their request for arrival or departure permission.
This is a bit out of hand and ties in with my comments above.
 Ÿ Eliminate the use of ADCUS in the flight plan remarks section.
Been useless for years.
The comment period for these proposed regulations ends on November 19, 2007.
Click to expand...

This is one that I might actually comment on.
 
This is a mixed bag. It's nice to see US Customs being dragged, kicking and screaming, into the electronics age. With the exception of the transponder code, the information they're requesting in the passenger manifest is nothing more than the information already needed for CBP Form 178 which several of the Customs offices make me read to them over the phone now, anyway. But the logistics they propose to require are terrible and I'm quite unenthusiastic over having to ask permission to leave the country. I'll be commenting, too.

Regards,
Joe
 
How, exactly, do you get _written_ permission? And how can you request this written permission 60 minutes before departure?
-harry
 
mantakos said:
How, exactly, do you get _written_ permission? And how can you request this written permission 60 minutes before departure?
-harry
Click to expand...

The regs contemplate an internet based system. It looks like the permission will be a document of some sort that you download from the internet and print. The DOL has actually been doing this for several years on some of their certification forms.
 
Ron Levy said:
No doubt AOPA is already cranking up their Legislative office in DC on this one. If nothing else, you wanna bet DHS won't be willing to release that "banned passenger" list to us (see "Catch 22")?
Click to expand...

I can't find any mention on the public pages and I'm not a member. I hope they do deal with it. The NBAA is looking at it too. Their website says they are getting a briefing from DHS as part of their current conference.
 
Originally Posted by Arnold
Hi Folks,

I wanted to let the community here know that the Dept. of Homeland Security is proposing new regulations for private aircraft flying internationally.

I have more information at my website http://www.arnoldfeldman.com

Here are some bullet points.

Ÿ Require Pilots to deny boarding to passengers on the TSA no fly list.
And how do we get that list? - You don't. It looks like if the person is on the list you will be advised as Pilot not to allow that person to board. You may or may not have notice prior to the arrival of law enforcement - which may or may not be notified by CBP/DHS.
Ÿ Require Pilots to obtain written permission to leave the United States and to request that permission at least 60 minutes prior to departure.
Since when have we been required to obtain permission to come and go? Notification (in the form of a passport I suppose) but not permission. Since now it seems.
Ÿ Require Pilots to obtain written permission to enter the United States and to request that permission at least 60 minutes prior to departure.
Same as above Same as above.
Ÿ Allow the DHS to direct where private aircraft can land even rerouting airborne aircraft.
Isn't that what Customs does? DHS is the parent agency for Customs which is now CBP (a combination of the old customs inspection staff with the old INS border and port staff) I sometimes slip into the use of DHS but you are correct, this will be done by CBP - just remember that they report to DHS and ultimately DHS will be deciding thing.
Ÿ Allow the DHS to deny landing rights to airborne aircraft.
Once again, isn't that what Customs does? And what about the fellow that doesn't have to fuel to return? If you mean - doesn't CBP decide when someone gets here whether or not they will be admitted, then the answer is yes. They are working to see to it that this is not necessary even if it means denying landing permission. Second - there is an exception for emergencies.
Ÿ Require Pilots to verify that all passengers possess legitimate travel documents.
I can kinda get along with this, but once again, this is a Customs function already, isn't it? Yes it is a custom's function, but the idea here is to have the pilot do it before the aircraft departs the foreign port with the idea that unwanted individuals will be denied boarding rather than arriving in the U.S. and then face removal proceedings - after all a person in removal proceedings has some due process rights and the right to have an attorney, while the person who is denied boarding does not.
Ÿ Require Pilots to provide inbound or outbound passenger manifests containing extensive and detailed information about each crew member and passenger at the time they submit their request for arrival or departure permission.
This is a bit out of hand and ties in with my comments above.
Ÿ Eliminate the use of ADCUS in the flight plan remarks section.
Been useless for years. Perhaps it was useless, but now it is not needed since the Pilot will have been in contact with CBP.

The comment period for these proposed regulations ends on November 19, 2007.
This is one that I might actually comment on. That would surely be helpful.
 
Yeah, don't know how I missed that, I try to check first before posting. Thanks Kent.
 
These idiots obviously live in DC. How, precisely, does one find internet access in Podunk, Alberta, or Tequilia, Senora?
 
One has always been required to notify customs in advance of your international arrival. Until now we were allowed to do so simply by putting the notation ADCUS in the remarks section of the flight plan. As mentioned above it has not been all that effective of late.
 
Arnold said:
One has always been required to notify customs in advance of your international arrival. Until now we were allowed to do so simply by putting the notation ADCUS in the remarks section of the flight plan. As mentioned above it has not been all that effective of late.
Click to expand...
Ah so ADCUS= ADvise CUStoms then?
 
smigaldi said:
Ah so ADCUS= ADvise CUStoms then?
Click to expand...

Yep, and as stated above, ideally if you put ADCUS in the remarks section of the flight plan, then customs should be notified of your arrival. Unfortunately, even in the years before 9/11 pilots were warned that they still had to call customs personally, which basically made ADCUS useless. Oh, and big trouble (even bigger now) if customs was NOT notified.
 
Even before this, if you put ADCUS in your flight plan, and FSS did not pass it to Customs, you were still personally responsible for FSS's failure -- and that could be very expensive. As a result, no experienced international flyers relied on it, and always called Customs directly before launching. Thus, all this does is eliminate a chance for the unwary to fall into a trap.
 
Radar doesn't go all the way to the ground in a lot of places. :D
 
EdFred said:
Radar doesn't go all the way to the ground in a lot of places. :D
Click to expand...
Around most of the borders it does! That's why they have those 14,000'+ tall balloons up there! Heck, they're looking for boats as much as for planes down south.
 
I dont see any balloons in Lake Superior!
 
EdFred said:
I dont see any balloons in Lake Superior!
Click to expand...
You could be right. I did some research, and it appears that the balloons, operated by, you guessed it, Lockheed-Martin, were first installed on the Southern border of the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captive_balloon said:
The Drug Enforcement Administration has contracted with Lockheed Martin to operate a series of radar-equipped moored balloons to detect low-flying aircraft attempting to enter the United States. A total of twelve moored balloons are positioned approximately 350 miles apart, from California to Florida to Puerto Rico, providing unbroken radar coverage along the entire southern border of the US.[2]
Click to expand...


Of course, the source of that information (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/airdef/tars.htm) hasn't been updated since 2000, so it's quite possible that, post 9/11, they have added additional sites on the Northern border, too.


I did find an Air Force site that's more recent and lists the following sites:
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=3507 said:
Operational Sites: Yuma and Fort Huachuca, Ariz.; Deming, N.M.; Marfa, Eagle Pass, and Rio Grande City, Texas; Cudjoe Key, Fla.; and Lajas, Puerto Rico. Sites located at Morgan City, La., and Matagorda, Texas, are in a cold-storage configuration. Contract management office and logistics hub are located in Chesapeake, Va.
Click to expand...
 
IMO, whether there are balloon-hung radars along the US-Candian border or not, it would be exceedingly unwise to bet your money, ticket, or freedom on being able to run in from Canada undetected.
 
there's one of those balloons (aerostats) just west of Marfa, TX. its a great indicator of when strong winds or bad weather is coming in, you can see them pulling down the balloon.
 
tonycondon said:
there's one of those balloons (aerostats) just west of Marfa, TX.
Click to expand...
Ah yes, the balloon at Marfa. Yes, the radar works, but not necessarily all the way to the ground. Yes, they will send someone to intercept you if they think you are doing something suspicious. :rolleyes:
 
EdFred said:
Radar doesn't go all the way to the ground in a lot of places. :D
Click to expand...

A Lansing FSS guy told me last year, there are a couple of AWACs covering the Great Lakes. I don't know if he was leading me on but he sure took a lot of time making sure I was aware of the info. I just wanted to fly to Grosse Ile! It's a good mile from the border.

Barb
 
Just remember, especially with President Bush in charge, that you're Never Alone up there! You may not see them, but...
 
Last edited:
Arnold said:
Hi Folks,

I wanted to let the community here know that the Dept. of Homeland Security is proposing new regulations for private aircraft flying internationally.

I have more information at my website http://www.arnoldfeldman.com

Here are some bullet points.

Ÿ Require Pilots to deny boarding to passengers on the TSA no fly list.
Ÿ Require Pilots to obtain written permission to leave the United States and to request that permission at least 60 minutes prior to departure.
Ÿ Require Pilots to obtain written permission to enter the United States and to request that permission at least 60 minutes prior to departure.
Ÿ Allow the DHS to direct where private aircraft can land even rerouting airborne aircraft.
Ÿ Allow the DHS to deny landing rights to airborne aircraft.
Ÿ Require Pilots to verify that all passengers possess legitimate travel documents.
Ÿ Require Pilots to provide inbound or outbound passenger manifests containing extensive and detailed information about each crew member and passenger at the time they submit their request for arrival or departure permission.
Ÿ Eliminate the use of ADCUS in the flight plan remarks section.

The comment period for these proposed regulations ends on November 19, 2007.
Click to expand...

Ok, well, it sounds like the terrorists won, all bow towards Mecca....
 
I recently had a brief conversation with one of the TSA lawyers involved in this outrageous regulation. I will not recount the details of the conversation except to say that my concerns that the requirement that I obtain permission from my government to depart the United States as being "Stalinist" were met with a shrug of the shoulders and no apparent recognition that they were proposing to further transform the U.S. into a totalitarian state. While this individual was not speaking for the TSA or any other government agency, it seemed clear that the issue was of little or no concern.
 
Arnold said:
I recently had a brief conversation with one of the TSA lawyers involved in this outrageous regulation. I will not recount the details of the conversation except to say that my concerns that the requirement that I obtain permission from my government to depart the United States as being "Stalinist" were met with a shrug of the shoulders and no apparent recognition that they were proposing to further transform the U.S. into a totalitarian state. While this individual was not speaking for the TSA or any other government agency, it seemed clear that the issue was of little or no concern.
Click to expand...

It seems (IMHO) that the citizens are of little concern to the bureaucrats and administration officials. Regardless of party.

Your reaction comes as no surprise. And I expect our comments to be met with the cockroach reaction.
 
December 3, 2007



Fellow Aviators:

The deadline for comments on the CBP NPRM Docket: USCBP-2007-0064-0001 (see www.regulations.gov). Is tomorrow December 4, 2007.

I have taken some time to review a sample of the comments that have been submitted to date.
I agree wholeheartedly with the general categories of comments. As an attorney concentrating on federal regulatory law I have more than a decade of reading and analyzing Notices of Proposed Rulemaking, and most importantly, the government's response to comments.

Below are a few of the most common comments with my expectation of the government's response.

a) Impractical - too many non U.S. departure airports are without reliable telephone service and Internet service is even more problematic.

Potential CBP response: The numerous comments pointing to the impracticality of the eAPIS requirement do not convince us that the pilot would be unable to make an intermediate stop at a point prior to departing for the United States and at that intermediate stop make the required notification. The regulation permits the operator to use the services of a third party so even if the only access at that intermediate stop is by telephone, the pilot can still comply with the requirements.

b) Impractical - the flexibility general aviation affords individuals, companies and service organizations will be adversely impacted as passenger manifests may change up to the moment before departure.

Potential CBP response: The important national security needs outweigh the small inconvenience caused by last minute changes to the manifest. The regulations allow the CBP to approve a departure in a shorter time frame than 60 minutes and we expect that in the small number of cases where there is a last minute change in the passenger manifest that they will make every effort to do so.

c) Discriminatory - you are not regulating boats or cars in this manner so you should not be regulating aviation in this manner.

Potential CBP response: CBP acknowledges that there are similar concerns regarding other modes of transportation and we will address those modes in separate rulemaking. However, this rulemaking is specifically limited to the security of aviation.

d) Un-American - I should not need my government's permission to leave the United States.

Potential CBP response: The Supreme court has held that the right to travel internationally is a liberty interest protected by the due process requirements of the fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution, however, it is not a fundamental right and therefore is subject to restrictions that are reasonable to meet legitimate government concerns. We believe that the requirements of the regulation are consistent with the relevant court decisions as it is narrowly tailored to achieve a specific government objective and does not discriminate on any prohibited grounds.

We will need to wait and see what truly comes out of the DHS, but in the meantime, with one day left to respond, each of us should post comments. The more they have to read the longer it will take them to further restrict our liberties.
 
In addition to the comments most frequently posted, I have identified several other areas of concern.

EMERGENCIES - The regulations allow for landing at an airport other than the initially approved arrival airport in the event of an emergency.

COMMENT - The regulations do not address what happens if the DHS determines that an emergency was not, in their opinion, an emergency. While the FAA has always wisely taken the position that the PIC decision to declare an emergency is always respected, there is no reason to believe that DHS which is primarily a law enforcement agency will take such an enlightened position. Will they impose penalties on pilots and/or aircraft operators who deviate due to an emergency that the DHS later determines was not an emergency?

COMMENT - Emergency Landings at airports with on duty Customs and Border Protection (CBP) personnel will likely not be a problem. Landing at an airport that does not have a CBP presence will be problematic, and are not addressed by the regulations.

DEPARTURE TIME - The regulations require that the PIC of any aircraft either arriving in the U.S. or departing from the U.S transmit extensive data about the crew and passengers no later than 60 minutes prior to the departure.

COMMENT - The regulations indicate that even if the DHS permission to depart is received quickly the aircraft must remain on the ground until the original proposed departure time which still may be some time into the future. The regulations should allow flexibiltiy for the CBP to authorize a departure prior to the full 60 minute time frame, especially if the port of entry is a major international gateway.

PASSENGER/CREW MANIFEST CHANGES - If the passenger or crew manifest changes the PIC will be required to submit a new request for landing authorization and await written approval by DHS before departing to/from the U.S.

COMMENT - The regulations indicate that changes within the 60 minute window preceding the departure can be accommodated by submitting an amended manifest and the original 60 minute window and departure time will remain intact. Unfortunately the regulations do not make this interpretation explicit.

COMMENT - The regulations do not indicate what action must be taken by the pilot if the actual departure time is later than that reported to the DHS. If an aircraft experiences a mechanical problem during taxi out and two hours go by while repairs are made, is the previously granted permission still valid so long as there is no change to the manifests?

COMMENT - While the regulations themselves use the term "amended manifest" the introductory material which may at some time in the future prove relevant for enforcement proceedings discusses both "corrected manifest" and "amended manifest" issues. Whether or not this is an important issue is of course only a matter of speculation at this point. In promulgating regulations the DHS should draft with clarity.

NO FLY LISTS - The regulations will allow the CBP to cross check private aircraft passengers against the same databases used for airline passengers and may instruct the pilot to deny boarding to a passenger.

COMMENTS - The relevant databases are known to be extremely flawed, overly inclusive, difficult or impossible to repair and generally just plain unreliable. Nonetheless the CBP will now exercise the same control over private aircraft passengers as it does with airline passengers and will do so with the same flawed data.

COMMENTS - The regulations refer to another set of proposed rules that purport to provide the many innocent travelers relief from the repeated inconvenience the CBP has been subjecting them to based on the faulty databases. The relevant section does nothing more than provide the traveler with a way to register their complaint and in return they are issued a "redress number." What happens after that is unclear.

24 HOUR POINT OF CONTACT - The arrival and departure information must include a 24 hour point of contact. The regulations parenthetically suggest "broker, dispatcher, repair shop."

COMMENT - Many small aircraft operators and some operators of large equipment rely on the FAA flight service stations as their dispatch (in fact man part 135 manuals specifically allow this). Can the DHS be directed to contact the FAA if there is an issue.

COMMENT - The regulations state that a 24 hour "point of contact" and telephone number must be provided. The regulations do not state if the that point of contact must have any specific knowledge, expertise or authority. Is the pilot's sleeping, but available spouse adequate. What if that spouse has no specific knowledge of the flight. The suggested list of contact points certainly suggests the pilot is required to provide a point of contact with some expertise - but it does so parenthetically and so we don't know what the true intent is. Further, if the flight is completed at the scheduled time, then the requirement for a 24 hour point of contact is unnecessary. The regulation should be limited to requiring a point of contact during relevant flight times.

PRIVACY - The arrival and departure manifest requirements each list 13 items that must be transmitted to the DHS. The notice of arrival and notice of departure requirements each list 21 items. Much of the information is personal in nature including birth date, residence and other personally identifiable information. This of course is only natural for a system that seeks to personally identify everyone.

COMMENT - In its "Privacy Impact Assessment Updated" the CBP states that this personal information will only be retained in the APIS system for a period of 12 months. It also states that the information will be shared with a host of other systems including; BCIS, TECS, SORN, US-VISIT, and ADIS. Information may be shared with other agencies and while it is not specifically stated, the information is likely to be shared with friendly foreign governments. Thus the CBP will be widely disseminating this information with no way to control or even predict the privacy impact, making the impact assessment essentially meaningless.

PILOTS MUST NOT DISCLOSE INFORMATION - The Privacy Impact Assessment Update states that message information provided to pilots may not be disclosed to any passenger, crew member, or other person without DHS permission and that pilots must take steps to protect the information. The DHS cites to laws it claims gives the government the right to fine or imprison pilot offenders.

COMMENT - It is impractical to demand that the pilot of a private aircraft delay a flight, while preventing them from telling their passengers why it is delayed. While this is possible in the airline industry where there are many layers of interference between the pilot and the passenger, this is not the case with private aviation.

PILOTS MUST VERIFY TRAVEL DOCUMENTS - The regulations state that the Pilot is "responsible for submitting . . . information." The comments to the regulations state that the Pilot must verify the validity of the travel documents for each crew member and passenger.

COMMENT - Verifying the validity of travel documents is a most troublesome requirement. DHS officers go through many months of training and still get this wrong from time to time. More frequently they must make extra efforts to verify the documents at a secondary inspection point. The DHS includes a URL for the pilot to reference, in a footnote on page 53397. This two page flyer gives a brief introduction to various types of valid travel documents, but does not address all possible situations, does not address security features and does not address detection of fraudulent documents. Will the Pilot be held responsible if any of the areas DHS has not addressed become an issue in the future?
 
I say F em. I'll have my passport with me, and they can just deal with me leaving or not leaving. I'm not asking for the goverment's f'ing permission.
 
EdFred said:
I say F em. I'll have my passport with me, and they can just deal with me leaving or not leaving. I'm not asking for the goverment's f'ing permission.
Click to expand...
Let us know how that works out for you, won't you?:blowingkisses:
 
Actually, I thought of a much better idea. Just get everyone to submit their information, and then cancel because "something came up". Then wait an hour. Send the info again, maybe change a passenger name, then cancel because "something came up." Wait an hour, repeat ad infinitum.

Being in a border state, I'm probably just going to be a huge pain in the ass about it. If they ask why, I'll say because I never know when I want to fly to Windsor to see some titties so I always need to be ready to go. I'm a single guy, I have needs. You don't like it, rescind this stupid requirement. I'm just complying with the rules.
 
EdFred said:
If they ask why, I'll say because I never know when I want to fly to Windsor to see some titties so I always need to be ready to go. I'm a single guy, I have needs. You don't like it, rescind this stupid requirement. I'm just complying with the rules.
Click to expand...
:needpics:
:yes::D:rofl:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top