House proposal to restrict general aviation

Mike Rapoport opined

The amazing thing is that none of these guys seem to understand that TFRs do
nothing to defeat terrorism unless we are ready, willing and able to shoot
down all violators. Unless we are willing to do that, TFRs are just a
nusance to the law abiding.

Finally, someone has stated the obvious. The bad news id that now the truth is
out inthe open, all flights will need a federal marshall on board .



-ash
Cthulhu for President!
Why vote for a lesser evil?

in article , C J Campbell at
wrote on 2/28/04 9:24 AM:


Disturbing that all the sponsors of this amendment are Democrats, including
our own Norm Dicks (whom I rather liked up until now). It appears that
rather than making an issue of Republican security hysteria that the 'crats
are trying instead to outdo them.

This is because there is really just one party in this country, and the
Democratic wing of it is absolutely nutless.

I think that all Massachusetts-based newsgroupies should get on Markey's
case...he doesn't have to pay attention to the rest of us.

Bob Gardner

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
PROPOSED AMENDMENT PLACES MAJOR RESTRICTIONS ON GA


February 27, 2004 - EAA is encouraging its members to contact their
congressional representatives to express their concern about a proposed
amendment to the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HR 3798) that would place
additional restrictions on general aviation beyond what has been deemed
prudent and effective by the Transportation Security Administration and
the
Department of Homeland Security.
On February 11, Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-MA) proposed the amendment
titled "Secure Existing Aviation Loopholes." In addition to many
restrictions on commercial operation, the Bill proposes the following
restrictions on general aviation:

No-Fly Zones - The Secretary of Homeland Security-

(1) shall establish for the duration of any high threat level
announced by the Secretary (including announcements of code orange or
above), and

(2) may establish for the duration of any other threat level that
is
announced by the Secretary and that the Secretary determines appropriate,
no-fly zones around sensitive nuclear facilities, chemical facilities
identified by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency at
which a release of the facility's hazardous materials could threaten the
health of more than 1,000,000 people, and any other facilities the
Secretary
may designate.

(b) Vulnerability Assessments - The Secretary shall-

(1) require the operators of airports that serve general aviation
aircraft and landing facilities for such aircraft to complete
vulnerability
assessments developed by the Secretary for evaluation of the physical
security of such airports and facilities and of procedures,
infrastructure,
and resources used with respect to such airports and facilities; and

(2) develop a plan for addressing vulnerabilities identified by
such
assessments not later than the 365th day following the date of enactment
of
this Act.

(c) Sensitive Nuclear Facility - In this section, the term
'sensitive
nuclear facility' means-

(1) a commercial nuclear power plant and associated spent fuel
storage facility;

(2) a decommissioned nuclear power plant and associated spent fuel
storage facility;

(3) a category I fuel cycle facility;

(4) a gaseous diffusion plant; and

(5) a Department of Energy nuclear weapons materials production,
processing, storage, or research facility.

"The Transportation Security Administration and the FAA have
assessed,
and continue to do so, the security risks general aviation poses and are
taking the appropriate actions," said Earl Lawrence, EAA vice president of
regulatory & industry affairs. "Mandated no-fly zones will not improve
national security, nor will mandatory vulnerability assessments."

General aviation organizations have been working continuously with
the
TSA to develop GA airport security guidelines since the September 11,
2001,
terrorist attacks. "Let the TSA and industry develop these guidelines
before
imposing new restrictive federal laws on an already heavily regulated
industry," Lawrence said.

The Bill has been referred to the Congressional Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on
Ways
and Means for consideration.

Co-sponsors of the bill include Rep. Ed Case, (D-HI); Rep. John
Conyers, Jr., (D-MI) Rep. Norman Dicks, D-WA; Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-NY;
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-NY; Rep. Major Owens, D-NY; and Rep. Louise
McIntosh
Slaughter, D-NY.

To find contact information for your representative, visit
www.house.gov.



--
Christopher J. Campbell
World Famous Flight Instructor
Port Orchard, WA


If you go around beating the Bush, don't complain if you rile the animals.

Bob Gardner wrote:

I think that all Massachusetts-based newsgroupies should get on Markey's
case...he doesn't have to pay attention to the rest of us.

Everybody else should check the sponsors list at the end of the post. Half of
these guys are from New York. And what's with the congresscritter from Hawaii?
They don't have any sensitive facilities there, do they?

George Patterson
A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that
you look forward to the trip.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Bob Gardner wrote:

I think that all Massachusetts-based newsgroupies should get on Markey's
case...he doesn't have to pay attention to the rest of us.

Everybody else should check the sponsors list at the end of the post. Half
of
these guys are from New York. And what's with the congresscritter from
Hawaii?
They don't have any sensitive facilities there, do they?

Well, I guess you can't claim the President hasn't show real leadership in
this crisis. He went haring off the cliff of excessive security
restrictions, and it appears that even the Democrats are determined jump
right after him.

"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
news:kc40c.78885$4o.102230@attbi_s52...
I think that all Massachusetts-based newsgroupies should get on Markey's
case...he doesn't have to pay attention to the rest of us.

No, but he's not the only sponsor of the bill. Furthermore, while killing
the bill at this point is the best outcome, one must plan for the
possibility (likelihood?) that the bill will make it to the entire House.
Now is the perfect time to start creating opposition among your own
representatives, for that eventuality.

Pete

"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
news:kc40c.78885$4o.102230@attbi_s52...
I think that all Massachusetts-based newsgroupies should get on Markey's
case...he doesn't have to pay attention to the rest of us.

If he's like John McCain, he won't listen to his constituents, either.


Bob Gardner

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
PROPOSED AMENDMENT PLACES MAJOR RESTRICTIONS ON GA

C J Campbell wrote:


On February 11, Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-MA) proposed the amendment
titled "Secure Existing Aviation Loopholes."

Hmm, Markey's my Congressman. Frankly I'm not surprised by this, although I am
surprised that his colleague Marty Meehan (D-Mass) didn't come up with this
first. Any suggestions for explaining in a letter why this is a bad idea or is
that just a waste of my time? About 3-4 years ago, AOPA had a legislative
alert to contact Senator Kerry (D-Mass) about a pending bill. I tried, even
called his office, but I might as well have tossed a fruitcake at a freight
train. I finally did get through to some staffer who explained to me that all
of my ideas were wrong, have a nice day.

Don't send letters, send a fax. All congressional mail now goes through
decontamination and takes a couple weeks to get there. Better, call and follow up
with a fax.

Talking points:

1. The bill requires the DHS to establish TFRs whenever the threat level is orange
or higher. If the level is raised because of a specific, credible threat in Los
Angeles this language requires TFRs everywhere, even the East coast.

2. During the immediate post-9/11 period the FAA issued a nuke TFR but refused to
release the geographic coordinates of the plants to pilots so they could avoid the
facilities. Are we to be faced with the same dilema for thousands of sites across
the country, or is the government going to release "targeting data" to the public?
Is there even a navigational data base available with the locations of all
"sensitive" installations?

3. Given the large number of installations involved (potentially thousands) the
entire Victor airway system along with possibly hundreds of instrument approaches
would be compromised. Virtually all IFR GA traffic would be halted.

4. Many DOE facilities and other installations described in the legislation are
already located inside Restricted areas.

5. Congress should not be trying to micro-manage the Executive branch.

Dave Reinhart


John wrote:

C J Campbell wrote:


On February 11, Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-MA) proposed the amendment
titled "Secure Existing Aviation Loopholes."

Hmm, Markey's my Congressman. Frankly I'm not surprised by this, although I am
surprised that his colleague Marty Meehan (D-Mass) didn't come up with this
first. Any suggestions for explaining in a letter why this is a bad idea or is
that just a waste of my time? About 3-4 years ago, AOPA had a legislative
alert to contact Senator Kerry (D-Mass) about a pending bill. I tried, even
called his office, but I might as well have tossed a fruitcake at a freight
train. I finally did get through to some staffer who explained to me that all
of my ideas were wrong, have a nice day.

Next they will want the airports to add foaming/gelling agents in to our
100LL then put a foaming tax on the fuel


"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
PROPOSED AMENDMENT PLACES MAJOR RESTRICTIONS ON GA


February 27, 2004 - EAA is encouraging its members to contact their
congressional representatives to express their concern about a proposed
amendment to the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HR 3798) that would place
additional restrictions on general aviation beyond what has been deemed
prudent and effective by the Transportation Security Administration and
the
Department of Homeland Security.
On February 11, Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-MA) proposed the amendment
titled "Secure Existing Aviation Loopholes." In addition to many
restrictions on commercial operation, the Bill proposes the following
restrictions on general aviation:

No-Fly Zones - The Secretary of Homeland Security-

(1) shall establish for the duration of any high threat level
announced by the Secretary (including announcements of code orange or
above), and

(2) may establish for the duration of any other threat level that
is
announced by the Secretary and that the Secretary determines appropriate,
no-fly zones around sensitive nuclear facilities, chemical facilities
identified by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency at
which a release of the facility's hazardous materials could threaten the
health of more than 1,000,000 people, and any other facilities the
Secretary
may designate.

(b) Vulnerability Assessments - The Secretary shall-

(1) require the operators of airports that serve general aviation
aircraft and landing facilities for such aircraft to complete
vulnerability
assessments developed by the Secretary for evaluation of the physical
security of such airports and facilities and of procedures,
infrastructure,
and resources used with respect to such airports and facilities; and

(2) develop a plan for addressing vulnerabilities identified by
such
assessments not later than the 365th day following the date of enactment
of
this Act.

(c) Sensitive Nuclear Facility - In this section, the term
'sensitive
nuclear facility' means-

(1) a commercial nuclear power plant and associated spent fuel
storage facility;

(2) a decommissioned nuclear power plant and associated spent fuel
storage facility;

(3) a category I fuel cycle facility;

(4) a gaseous diffusion plant; and

(5) a Department of Energy nuclear weapons materials production,
processing, storage, or research facility.

"The Transportation Security Administration and the FAA have
assessed,
and continue to do so, the security risks general aviation poses and are
taking the appropriate actions," said Earl Lawrence, EAA vice president of
regulatory & industry affairs. "Mandated no-fly zones will not improve
national security, nor will mandatory vulnerability assessments."

General aviation organizations have been working continuously with
the
TSA to develop GA airport security guidelines since the September 11,
2001,
terrorist attacks. "Let the TSA and industry develop these guidelines
before
imposing new restrictive federal laws on an already heavily regulated
industry," Lawrence said.

The Bill has been referred to the Congressional Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on
Ways
and Means for consideration.

Co-sponsors of the bill include Rep. Ed Case, (D-HI); Rep. John
Conyers, Jr., (D-MI) Rep. Norman Dicks, D-WA; Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-NY;
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-NY; Rep. Major Owens, D-NY; and Rep. Louise
McIntosh
Slaughter, D-NY.

To find contact information for your representative, visit
www.house.gov.



--
Christopher J. Campbell
World Famous Flight Instructor
Port Orchard, WA


If you go around beating the Bush, don't complain if you rile the animals.