House proposal to restrict general aviation

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.

Its election year and, I guess that they have to have something to talk
about...more to come we can be certain.

Mike
MU-2


"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.

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
link.net...
Its election year and, I guess that they have to have something to talk
about...more to come we can be certain.

Mike
MU-2

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.

C J Campbell wrote:

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.

Though Edwards has a section on his web site that complains about the security
craze trampling on civil rights.

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.

Though Edwards has a section on his web site that complains about the
security
craze trampling on civil rights.

Lip service -- nothing more.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:R180c.427101$xy6.2499642@attbi_s02...
Though Edwards has a section on his web site that complains about the
security
craze trampling on civil rights.

Lip service -- nothing more.

Setting up his brethren for more work?

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


C J Campbell wrote:

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.

Though Edwards has a section on his web site that complains about the
security
craze trampling on civil rights.

Coming from a plaintiff's trial attorney, I'd say that was rather
interesting.

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.

Mike
MU-2


"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
link.net...
Its election year and, I guess that they have to have something to talk
about...more to come we can be certain.

Mike
MU-2

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.

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
link.net...
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.

Like not understanding an issue has ever stopped them in the past?

Unless we are willing to do that, TFRs are just a
nusance to the law abiding.

Most laws only target the law abiding...the bunch you don't have to worry
about in the first place.

(Let's not get a gun control thread going..shall we?)

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
link.net...
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.

Actually, the bill is an excellent example of why the Washington ADIZ should
be changed to a prohibited area. We need to be protected from areas of
dangerous legislation. Pilots and other members of the productive population
cannot risk exposure to the brain-eating stupid waves radiating from such
places. Best just to wall the whole place off. I doubt if the mutated
inhabitants can be saved, anyway.