Proposed TSA Rules for GA

HammerHead

HammerHead

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Feb 14, 2009
Messages
6
Location
Overland Park, KS
Display Name
Display name:
Mark B
I'm quite suprised that there isn't more talk of the TSA's attempt to revise GA security practices at our local airfields. One fact remains, our chance to voice our opinions as the pilots who will be affected by these changes is closing. I believe the date is in late February.

If you haven't already, please take some time to write your local, state & federal agencies to express your views, both positive and/or negative. My opinion is that a handwritten or typed and signed letter that is mailed will hold more weight than a simple e-mail or phone call.

I want GA to remain within reach of those that aspire to be a pilot. For me, for my family and others that choose this path. If these security measures are implimented, they have to be paid for. Does anybody think their FBO or airfield will be glad to absorb these costs for us? I think not....
 
What attempt is that? Can you point us to the NPRM covering "GA security practices at our local airfields"? The only one I'm familiar with adds a badging requirement at airports with commercial air carrier service using aircraft with more than 60 seats. While that will add some costs to us, it also has the benefit of improving anti-theft security for our planes, too.
 
>... it also has the benefit of improving
>anti-theft security for our planes, too.

No it doesn't.
 
Another view of its effect:

Best,

Dave
=======================


TSA LASP “Can we afford it?”

I believe General Aviation (GA), with aircraft, “under 12,500 pound” has yet to realize the impact of the “Large Aircraft Security Program (LASP) Notice of Public Rulemaking (NPRM)“ proposal and it’s cost. Many GA pilots and aircraft owners have largely ignored this subject because the NPRM addresses only aircraft with gross weight over 12,500 pounds. Don’t bet on it.

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) proposed the LASP program in a 260 page NPRM (Docket No. TSA-2008-0021) on Oct. 30, 2008, in which TSA “proposes to amend current aviation transportation security regulations to enhance the security of general aviation by expanding the scope of current requirements and by adding new requirements for certain large aircraft operators and airports serving those aircraft.” The public response deadline is Feb. 27, 2009.

I have talked to DVT tenants and am frequently told the NPRM doesn’t affect “small aircraft”. Most of us DVT tenants own aircraft under 12,500 pounds which is probably the case at most Arizona GA airports. So, how are we small aircraft owners affected? What quickly got my attention, after a discussion with our airport manager, is the implication that we will be tagged to pay for this. If this proposal is approved, our hanger rent will likely increase, maybe double. The reason is because there is no federal funding in this proposal and funding will be unlikely, especially with the current government stimulation and bailout actions underway. This possibility is pretty alarming considering that my aircraft isn’t in the category mentioned. Don’t think for a minute that the airport will not look to ALL tenants to share this cost burden.

After Googling many articles and reading the AOPA & EAA LASP positions, the common thread I found is there is little to no support for the new proposed rules. I have since reached and summarized the following conclusions.

This new ruling will create an additional layer of bureaucracy, rules, regulations and cost for the over 12,500 pound crowd plus harness airports with unnecessary expense to enforce these security regulations. This is where the smaller guys (under 12,500 pounds) will also feel the impact. Airports will receive no federal funding but will be required to comply with and find the extra revenue. DVT obtains revenue from federal and state grants and rents from tenants. If there is no federal money and in the case of Arizona airports, where last year the aviation fund was swept of all funds due to the budget shortfall, the burden will be placed on tenants for revenue. Airports will eye tenant wallets for the revenue stream. So what are the teeth TSA has put into this proposal? The teeth will be to make airports non-compliant with grant assurances causing them to lose all federal funding if they don’t comply. This could force municipalities to close airports because they cannot afford the extra security overhead expense required by this program. Any way you cut it, the TSA is going to make someone pay and it sure won’t be their agency.

TSA’s initial Arizona target airports are listed below: Others will most likely follow as aircraft categories are revised. “NON-FEDERALIZED” & “RELIEVER” airport lists include: GCN, 1G4, SDL & CHD, GEU, GYR, FFZ, DVT, IWA, SDL, AVQ, RYN

The LASP proposal seems to have no positive GA benefits, security or otherwise and creates BIG expenses to be borne by the pilot and aircraft owner. AOPA and EAA have been alerting GA; however, the message is focused on the over 12,500 pound GA group. Both organizations have encouraged pilots to respond to the NPRM. As of this writing, there have been approximately 3,000 responses. This response level is peanuts compared to the number of pilots and owners impacted. (AOPA has 414,000 members and 3,000 isn’t even 1% of their membership.) Unfortunately, that is the history of the aviation community. Our tendency is to try to “un-ring the bell” after we see the consequence. Forget about “Do Overs”, if this ruling succeeds, it is another nail in the GA coffin.

Suggestions I see from many Web postings is to respond to the NPRM but also more importantly is to WRITE YOUR SENATOR AND CONGRESSMEN. The TSA security issue is going to be fought in the political arena. Your opinions, as constituents, are important in determining how your U.S. representatives will respond to this legislation. As to the NPRM, the TSA will politely thank general aviation for their responses. They will tell us we don’t understand the situation and they will continue to help make America safe. Every pilot is concerned about safety and security, however, this proposal provides no value in those areas.

NOW is the time to act on this important issue. Write your legislators and copy AOPA and EAA! Go to http://www.house.gov and http://www.senate.gov to find who and how to contact your legislators.

----------
 
Bob Noel said:
>... it also has the benefit of improving
>anti-theft security for our planes, too.

No it doesn't.
Click to expand...
Let me try this again...

If everyone wandering around inside the airport fence has to have a badge, it's pretty easy to spot the person who doesn't belong there. Kinda like neigborhood watch, and the like. Problem without badges at the airport is that you don't know everyone who belongs, and many folks have a natural reticence to challenge those they don't know. If everyone is supposed to have a badge, those without badges are fair game to report to security for them to deal with. In addition, that rule requires security code access, which may be harder for thieves to get on the grounds. I can live with both, and maybe my insurance company will like it, too.

Again, note that this only applies to airports with over-60-seat air carrier aircraft -- this is not the same as the LASP program discussed by David. I'm having trouble understanding what LASP costs would be allocated to the unaffected users, or even how that could be done. I simply don't see hangar rents being affected by this any more than by the installation of baggage/passenger screening in the airline terminal.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
What attempt is that? Can you point us to the NPRM covering "GA security practices at our local airfields"? The only one I'm familiar with adds a badging requirement at airports with commercial air carrier service using aircraft with more than 60 seats. While that will add some costs to us, it also has the benefit of improving anti-theft security for our planes, too.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure which one he's referring to either, but I don't know that requiring badges will improve anything, including theft rates...

The way to know is to check Massport's insanity from a few years ago and see if it helped.
 
Ron: I'm not sure how it fits either. It's just another point of view I thought worth sharing. If the programs aren't federally funded, someone will have to pay for it. I don't know that hanger rents will double, but it will come from somewhere we probably won't like.

Best,

Dave
 
It just doesn't matter. The FAA received 20K comments and three days of testimony about making the ADIZ (something that was supposed to be justified before Congress but never was) permanent. My comments were in the pile. It didn't matter.

The DHS, TSA, and other alphabet soup agencies have no accountability to anyone.
 
(I had a nice long reply to this message, but the (@*#&$(#*($ login timeout got me)

bottomline: I've seen this "security" at KBED. It doesn't increase security. It makes
it harder to get to the airport. It makes it less likely people will feel welcome
(we MUST see your papers!)

btw - you have to get close to see a badge, and then do you think the
average pilot (or above average pilot) can spot a fake badge?

Massport at KBED constantly whines about losing money. Do you think
the tie-down increases and *HUGE* hangar rent increases aren't partly
caused by the BS "security" at KBED?
 
steingar said:
It just doesn't matter. The FAA received 20K comments and three days of testimony about making the ADIZ (something that was supposed to be justified before Congress but never was) permanent. My comments were in the pile. It didn't matter.

The DHS, TSA, and other alphabet soup agencies have no accountability to anyone.
Click to expand...


And that right there is the problem.

Ron, part of the problem is that it will require certain security measures at airports that have no such requirements now. I believe that the move is to (further) try and justify the investments that TSA have made in such things as "Secure Flight" that requires all airline passengers (and soon 12.5 and above GA aircraft) have government permission to travel. They built the system, and now need to try and demonstrate that they've getting every dollar of "value" they can out of the thing. Notwithstanding the fact that the underlying data is flawed.

I agree with the folks that say there is a short step to trickle down to the rest of us.... especially those of us at GA airports that have larger GA aircraft. I expect it to affect the FBO I use - there will be expense installing additional equipment and taking additional security measures. Those costs will not be limited to large aircraft - there is at least one competing FBO at the field, and several other airports with FBOs that will compete. Aside from the practicality, *if* the burden is too high, the FBO will be forced to stop serving jets. And *if* that happens, the FBO cannot support itself solely on prop/small GA user... and that will kill the FBO. Or they just raise the costs on the rest of us to make up for the loss.

This is yet another government burden that will kill the little guy - if not directly, then my a million little cuts.
 
Bob Noel said:
(I had a nice long reply to this message, but the (@*#&$(#*($ login timeout got me)

bottomline: I've seen this "security" at KBED. It doesn't increase security. It makes
it harder to get to the airport. It makes it less likely people will feel welcome
(we MUST see your papers!)

btw - you have to get close to see a badge, and then do you think the
average pilot (or above average pilot) can spot a fake badge?

Massport at KBED constantly whines about losing money. Do you think
the tie-down increases and *HUGE* hangar rent increases aren't partly
caused by the BS "security" at KBED?
Click to expand...
MASSPORT is the same organization responsible for the TURNPIKE. As part of MA Governor Patrick's government, they are looking to US to resolve their budget crisis by increasing "USER FEES" (read revenue generation).
Reasonable security is prudent. The TSA is not. It is just another government beauracracy. Take all the money WASTED there, give it to the local LEOs. Let them implement and maintain airport security.
 
wsuffa said:
I believe that the move is to (further) try and justify the investments that TSA have made in such things as "Secure Flight" that requires all airline passengers (and soon 12.5 and above GA aircraft) have government permission to travel. They built the system, and now need to try and demonstrate that they've getting every dollar of "value" they can out of the thing.
Click to expand...

As further support for that theory, I note in today's news that the "Strip search" machines will become MANDATORY for ALL passenger screening at a half-dozen airports starting within the next week. Metal detectors will not be used (but will be available as an option).

This after the TSA said that the machines would only be used for secondaries, not primary, screening.

Oh, the machines cost 15 times as much as the metal detector, and they take up to 10 times as long to screen people. TSA doesn't care about either cost, delays, or inconvenience, nor have they done a real cost-benefit.
 
wsuffa said:
As further support for that theory, I note in today's news that the "Strip search" machines will become MANDATORY for ALL passenger screening at a half-dozen airports starting within the next week. Metal detectors will not be used (but will be available as an option).

This after the TSA said that the machines would only be used for secondaries, not primary, screening.

Oh, the machines cost 15 times as much as the metal detector, and they take up to 10 times as long to screen people. TSA doesn't care about either cost, delays, or inconvenience, nor have they done a real cost-benefit.
Click to expand...

Do you suppose that the TSA's program for GA is more about taking away the attractiveness provided by the opportunity to leave one's shoes on etc?
 
lancefisher said:
Do you suppose that the TSA's program for GA is more about taking away the attractiveness provided by the opportunity to leave one's shoes on etc?
Click to expand...

Yeppers. Maybe the TSA is listening - to the airlines who want to abduct the very profitable business class execs who fly on corporate jets partly because they avoid searches taking off their shoes.

That'll work.... if they just also fix not going when and where they want on time and go to the closest airport and not sitting next to a baby or worse and not having to deal with cabin crew which has all of the customer service skills of the SS guards at Auschwitz...
 
Ron Levy said:
What attempt is that? Can you point us to the NPRM covering "GA security practices at our local airfields"? The only one I'm familiar with adds a badging requirement at airports with commercial air carrier service using aircraft with more than 60 seats. While that will add some costs to us, it also has the benefit of improving anti-theft security for our planes, too.
Click to expand...

I agree. I don't really see an issue with it. When I was based up at KLNK,
we had to have security badges and used them to get into the gates to
the hangar area and had to wear them inside the fence. The airport police
patrolled the hangar area and anyone not belonging there would be stopped.
I did feel more secure.

Now I'm at an airport out in the country, with holes in the fence. Someone
who wanted to break into hangars or aircraft would have an easy time of it.
Security there involves those of us who concealed carry.
 
Badging alone isn't the issue. What the TSA did in Nashville (and yes, it was confirmed) was to SEARCH private citizens heading out to THEIR airplanes, essentially claiming the entire airport was a SIDA. This was a "misinterpretation" according to TSA HQ, but if they're that dumb, they shouldn't be writing rules in the first place.

The LASP rule also applies the same "no carry" rules used on airliners to pivate airplanes above 12,500 lbs. Sorry, no tools, no firearms, no golf clubs, etc. and I don't see you getting through the FBO screening station with a "IBut 'm going to that little Cessna" excuse. Screening of Pax on these airplanes against the no-fly list is now required, but there's nothing that explains how John and Jane Q Public are going to be able to submit the names in the first place.

Finally, you just KNOW that they'll apply these rules to ALL airplanes (at least at the airports that get the new security) in the future.
 
Question - I'm sure I might stir something up, but I'm curious:

I know that an FAA or law enforcement official can inspect my license and that I must "surrender" it long enough for them to look at it.

Here's my question --

I've never been ramp checked - I assume that I must let the FAA inspector check whatever he deems necessary or I'll probably have to answer to the FSDO on why I didn't. How about the law-enforcement/TSA officer? Or is that a case where they would need a warrant?

edit: part of the reason I'm asking is because my airport is on the list of airports that will have to implement the new TSA requirements. I don't know what's going to happen if we get TSA folks hanging around.
 
Nope - a recent rewrite added TSA to the list. Keep in mind that TSA has two types of people with badges:
Screeners - who are not sworn law officers, and do not have arrest powers
Inspectors/Agents - who ARE criminal investigators, and do have arrest powers. They're the ones with the guns.


For an example of how TSA "redefined" it's existing rules to make whole AIRPORTS SIDAs, see...http://www.enctoday.com/news/airport_44044_nbsj__article.html/new_authority.html. Notice that the cost is borne by the airport (which means it's passed on to the pilots).
 
RogerT said:
I agree. I don't really see an issue with it. When I was based up at KLNK,
we had to have security badges and used them to get into the gates to
the hangar area and had to wear them inside the fence. The airport police
patrolled the hangar area and anyone not belonging there would be stopped.
I did feel more secure.

Now I'm at an airport out in the country, with holes in the fence. Someone
who wanted to break into hangars or aircraft would have an easy time of it.
Security there involves those of us who concealed carry.
Click to expand...

I rent out of KLNK most of the time- I don't have a badge & just walk onto the ramp. Seems something has changed?
 
TMetzinger said:
Badging alone isn't the issue. What the TSA did in Nashville (and yes, it was confirmed) was to SEARCH private citizens heading out to THEIR airplanes, essentially claiming the entire airport was a SIDA. This was a "misinterpretation" according to TSA HQ, but if they're that dumb, they shouldn't be writing rules in the first place.
Click to expand...

These are the same (level of) folks that used the probes as hand-holds when climbing on airplanes at ORD.

I agree: a government agency lives to expand it's authority. It will be very easy to see a boogey-man (boogey-plane?) in GA.
 
Matthew said:
I know that an FAA or law enforcement official can inspect my license and that I must "surrender" it long enough for them to look at it.
Click to expand...
Pardon my pedantry, but you must "present" it, not "surrender" it. The term "surrender" in this context has a very specific legal meaning and has nothing to do with "presenting" for inspection.
I've never been ramp checked - I assume that I must let the FAA inspector check whatever he deems necessary or I'll probably have to answer to the FSDO on why I didn't.
Click to expand...
Not "whatever he deems necessary," just those things which the regulations require you to allow the Inspector to examine, like your pilot/medical certificates, photo ID, ARROW documents, etc.
How about the law-enforcement/TSA officer? Or is that a case where they would need a warrant?
Click to expand...
You are required by 14 CFR 61.3(l) to present on demand your pilot/medical certificates and photo ID to:
(1) The Administrator; [Note: effectively, this means any FAA Inspector]
(2) An authorized representative of the National Transportation Safety Board;
(3) Any Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer; or
(4) An authorized representative of the Transportation Security Administration.
No warrant, probable cause, or reasonable suspicion required. Beyond that, they need some other regulatory or legal justification for examining you, your documents, your aircraft, or your possessions, and those would vary depending on who wants to see what.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
I rent out of KLNK most of the time- I don't have a badge & just walk onto the ramp. Seems something has changed?
Click to expand...

You're accessing the ramp thru the FBO. They're responsible to monitor
who goes out to the ramp from their facility and why. Wander back to
the hangars or away from the aircraft boarding area and see how that
works out with the airport police. When I was back working in my hangar
they'd always stop and say hi and of course they were making sure I
had a badge and was supposed to be there. Same if I was walking to
someone else's hangar back there.

When our EAA chapter has the B-17 or TriMotor there and we're all out there working, at least one of us there has to have a security badge and be monitoring who's out there and that they stay in the area.
 
OK, Cap'n - I didn't have my FAR with me, but I knew there was some technicality in the wording between "surrender" and "present" but I couldn't remember it at the time, thanks for straightening me out on that.

>
Not "whatever he deems necessary," just those things which the regulations require you to allow the Inspector to examine, like your pilot/medical certificates, photo ID, ARROW documents, etc.
<

OK - thanks for the clarification on that, too.

The last part, though, was what I was really getting at:

>
No warrant, probable cause, or reasonable suspicion required. Beyond that, they need some other regulatory or legal justification for examining you, your documents, your aircraft, or your possessions, and those would vary depending on who wants to see what.
<

I know it's a real open-ended question, full of "that depends" answers, but my airport is very busy, but also very open (no gates, parking lots that open directly to the ramps, a lot of transient pilots, ...) I can see the day coming when TSA starts looking more closely at who is coming/going and begins asking questions like "What's in the bag?" and "What's in the back?" and the ever famous "If you have nothing to hide, you wouldn't mind if we took a look then, would you?". Knowing me, I'd probably say something that would get me in trouble, or at least invite further scrutiny, probing, or processing. I was trying to find out just what the limits are for a ramp check or what other LE agencies are allowed to do without that "regulatory or legal justification". I guess, basically, would it be any different than my rights after being stopped in my car?

Thanks,
Matt
 
Matthew said:
and the ever famous "If you have nothing to hide, you wouldn't mind if we took a look then, would you?".
Click to expand...

Or their favorite: "Do you want to fly today?"... I've heard that a couple of times.

Constitution be damned.
 
Matthew said:
...or what other LE agencies are allowed to do without that "regulatory or legal justification". I guess, basically, would it be any different than my rights after being stopped in my car?
Click to expand...
I think that's a fair assessment as far as private light GA flying is concerned.
 
I just got this in an email today - not sure if it's the same as the above discussion?
-----------------------------------
Here are some of the letters that are out there, one is in the body and two are attached. [GDK - attachments obviously not attached here] This seems very real as witnessed by Googling "SD1542-08-04-F". Get them to whoever you can let see if we can make a difference.


> NOTICE TO NMPA MEMBERS FROM MEMBER MARC COAN
>
> Date: February 25, 2009
> To: All General Aviation Pilots
> Subject: TSA to require criminal background checks for GA pilots
>
> Dear Fellow Pilot,
>
> This is a sad day! Just when you thought TSA's proposed Large Aircraft
> Security Program was about the worst thing that could happen to General
> Aviation, a new, possibly far more serious threat has arisen.
>
> Unconfirmed reports are beginning to surface of a "classified" TSA
> Security Directive which is applicable to all 450+ airports served by an
> airline flying aircraft with more than 10 seats. It requires the airport
> to develop a security plan to restrict access to all operations areas of
> the airport to only those people who have passed a criminal background
> check, received a security clearance, and been issued an airport security
> badge. (The same badge airline and airport operations personnel would be
> issued at that airport.)
>
> This applies to ALL "behind the fence" areas, even if the GA facilities
> are located on the other side of the airport from the airline terminal.
> Those persons without a badge, including visiting GA pilots and their
> passengers, must be escorted to/from their aircraft by someone with a
> badge.
>
> The fee to obtain a security clearance and badge is typically around $175.
> Anyone with a felony conviction in the past 10 years will not be issued a
> badge, nor will anyone on the TSA's secret "do not fly" list. And, even if
> you've been issued a badge at one airport, it only works at that single
> airport: There is no "universal" TSA badge planned!
>
> The directive applies not only to the airports served by MAJOR airlines,
> but ALL 450+ airline airports, including most of the 105 small airports on
> this list: http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/aviation/rural/proximity.pdf , which
> receive subsidized service by small commuter airlines. We're talking about
> places like Great Bend, KS; Clovis, NM; Alamosa, CO; Grand Island, NE, and
> dozens more that receive only 2 or 3 commuter airline flights per day in a
> Beech 1900.
>
> Unlike the Large Aircraft Security Program, this new 14-page Security
> Directive is not available for public viewing or comment. Not even AOPA,
> USPA, EAA, NBAA, etc. have been allowed to view it. All AOPA says is,
> "Unfortunately, despite our best efforts, the TSA is proceeding with this
> program. While the full details of the program are classified, it will
> essentially require all persons with access to the secure portion of the
> airport have a TSA approved airport access badge."
>
> The directive is supposedly effective April 30.
>
> Here are some news articles about Coastal Carolina Regional Airport and
> how its complying with the directive:

http://www.enctoday.com/news/airport_44044_nbsj__article.html/new_authority.html

http://www.enctoday.com/news/security_44155_nbsj__article.html/coastal_airport.html

> Pilots there are upset, but 90 of the 10 regular users of the airport
> have already applied for their badges.
>
> There are just so many reasons to oppose this directive. Here are four.let
> me know if you think of others:
>
> 1. It will be a massive inconvenience. Think about it: If you are
> visiting even a tiny airline airport, at any time of day, you won't be
> able to use the self-serve fueling station, won't be able to drive your
> rental car out to plane to get your bags, and won't be able to wander over
> and look at that cool airplane with the "For Sale" banner you saw on the
> ramp. Your needs are not important.
>
> 2. It means that, even though you are a federally-licensed pilot
> carrying both a pilot's license and the required photo ID, you are ASSUMED
> to be a security threat to the country that issued you the license.
>
> 3. It will be an enormous burden on FBOs, and will cause a further
> reduction in their business (during the middle of an economic depression,
> at least in aviation). Many pilots will choose to avoid airline airports
> they used to fly to. (I will no longer stop for fuel at one of my favorite
> airports.) And, when we do use those airports, an FBO employee will have
> to drop what they're doing to meet us and play escort service. (I guess a
> side benefit is we might get better service from small-town FBOs, but many
> of those operators only have 2-3 people working at a time, if that. Is TSA
> going to compensate FBOs so they can hire more staff? Yeah, right!)
>
> 4. It will cause even more of an "us vs. them" attitude by GA pilots
> vs. the airlines. GA pilots will strongly resist adding airline service to
> airports that don't already have it and many will call for the abolishment
> of the Essential Air Service program that enables their own small airport
> to have airline service.
>
> Remember, this is coming on the heels of the TSA's Large(?) Aircraft
> Security Program, which will require all private operators of aircraft
> bigger than a King Air 300 to have an airline-style security plan,
> including screening all their passengers against the "do not fly" list and
> inspecting their bags. All for a threat that has yet to be proved to
> exist.
>
> I do not see how GA is a threat to this country when compared with trucks
> which can be rented by anyone from U-haul or Ryder. (Remember the first
> World Trade Center and Oklahoma City bombings? Those were trucks, not
> planes.) And, if GA pilots are such a great threat to this country, how
> come the government hasn't even done such a simple thing as run all pilots
> through the "do not fly" list, revoking the licenses of those who are on
> it?
>
> Folks, this may well be The Big One that requires thousands of us to fly
> our planes to Washington in protest. (Of course, we'll have to take the
> FAA's Washington ADIZ test first!) Hopefully, the actual "badge" directive
> is not as severe as the early reports are saying...perhaps not all airline
> airports are affected. But we just don't know because they aren't telling
> us!
>
> If true, something has to be done, and it sounds like the only thing we
> can do is try to get the attention of Congress, which controls the purse
> strings of TSA. About the only compromise I can think of is a universal
> pilot badge that costs $50 and is good at ALL airline airports. But TSA is
> not proposing such a thing, and they aren't taking public comments on
> their proposal.
>
> Please forward this message to every GA pilot you know; don't delay! And
> if you hear any further news, or learn what YOUR airport is being forced
> to do to comply, please let me know so I can alert others.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Marc C. Coan,
> marc@skymachines.com
 
Don't suppose Obama and the team of "Too much security is just as bad as too little" are going to be jumping on this....
 
So far, the only proposal for this involves airports with airliners of over 60, not 10, seats. The airport manager here (where we have 50-seaters) has confirmed this with TSA. Sorta changes the scope of this thing.
 
wsuffa said:
Or their favorite: "Do you want to fly today?"... I've heard that a couple of times.

Constitution be damned.
Click to expand...

Read the comments from teh fine, fine, fine customer-focused TSA professionals:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7AWw7t5zj0

No thank you, Mr. Functional Illiterate. I'll drive.

(Not that he woudl know what "functional illiterate" means. He'd probably tell the local cop you swore at him.)

"Congratulations. Did you get a commendation for being able to find the front door of the terminal again today?"
 
Ron Levy said:
So far, the only proposal for this involves airports with airliners of over 60, not 10, seats. The airport manager here (where we have 50-seaters) has confirmed this with TSA. Sorta changes the scope of this thing.
Click to expand...
But, tis only a step further to keep "the plan" going. The "60" is going to catch Austin. What's the next step down where it will catch the smaller airports like College Station?

How many of us thought it would stop at only 121 operations?
 
Ron Levy said:
So far, the only proposal for this involves airports with airliners of over 60, not 10, seats. The airport manager here (where we have 50-seaters) has confirmed this with TSA. Sorta changes the scope of this thing.
Click to expand...

Ron, I don't know where you're getting this, but I saw the list and my airport was on it. Nothing that flies in here holds 60 people. More importantly, it is the proverbial camel's nose under the tent. Once they get the program going it can go down to 50, or 10, or whatever some unelected bureaucrat sitting in a bunker who knows squat about aviation decides. All to deal with a nonexistent threat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top