A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

House proposal to restrict general aviation



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 28th 04, 07:57 AM
C J Campbell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.



  #2  
Old February 28th 04, 06:07 PM
Mike Rapoport
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.





  #3  
Old February 28th 04, 06:24 PM
C J Campbell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #4  
Old February 28th 04, 06:27 PM
Bob Gardner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.





  #5  
Old February 28th 04, 06:42 PM
G.R. Patterson III
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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.
  #6  
Old February 28th 04, 06:44 PM
G.R. Patterson III
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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.
  #7  
Old February 28th 04, 07:26 PM
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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


  #8  
Old February 28th 04, 10:49 PM
Jay Honeck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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"


  #9  
Old February 29th 04, 02:37 AM
John
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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.

  #10  
Old February 29th 04, 03:04 AM
Thomas J. Paladino Jr.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.




Carolyn McCarthy happens to live in my parent's neighborhood; my mother has
run into her several times, and they have a good repor, although my parents
are not Democrats.

I think that I'll have my mother get in touch with her office on my behalf,
then maybe I can speak with her myself.






 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
General Aviation Legal Defense Fund Dr. Guenther Eichhorn Home Built 3 May 14th 04 11:55 AM
General Aviation Legal Defense Fund Dr. Guenther Eichhorn Aerobatics 0 May 11th 04 10:43 PM
General Aviation Legal Defense Fund Dr. Guenther Eichhorn Owning 0 May 11th 04 10:43 PM
General Aviation Legal Defense Fund Dr. Guenther Eichhorn Owning 0 May 11th 04 10:36 PM
MSNBC Reporting on GA Security Threat Scott Schluer Piloting 44 November 23rd 03 03:50 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.