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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Airmens' Freedoms Threatened by Harsh Congressional Proposals
Airmens' Freedoms Threatened by Harsh Congressional Proposals As many predicted, the knee jerk congressional response to recent anti GA news media stories threatens airmens' freedoms. Outrageously unjust in their ill conceived penalty proposals, new legislative bills reflect the current administration's siege mentality. ------------------------------------------------------------- AOPA ePilot Volume 7, Issue 28 July 15, 2005 ------------------------------------------------------------- TOUGH GA SECURITY LEGISLATION BEGINS TO SURFACE IN CONGRESS The media hype following four recent airspace incursions over Washington, D.C., and Camp David, Maryland, and two aircraft thefts by unlicensed young people didn't help general aviation's image in some lawmakers' minds. After suffering through repeated evacuations, lawmakers are responding with some potentially threatening legislation. The most severe amendment, offered by New Mexico Sens. Pete Domenici (R) and Jeff Bingaman (D), calls for a $100,000 fine, confiscation of the aircraft, and a five-year loss of flying privileges for "whoever negligently flies an aircraft in a manner that violates the [700 square mile area] Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Area Flight Restricted Zone (FRZ) and causes the evacuation of a federal building or any other public property...." AOPA is already talking with Domenici's office. "The proposed penalty is extraordinarily harsh--too harsh in fact--but it's clear that members of Congress want to get every pilot's attention that they will not accept any more excuses for these transgressions," said AOPA President Phil Boyer. A true statesman would have also included penalties imposed on ATC personnel if they should be found to have caused an unauthorized penetration of the FRZ, as well as have considered a pilot's emergency authority. Another amendment from Sens. Hillary R. Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), calls for a government study of general aviation security, including "the vulnerability posed to high-risk areas and facilities from general aviation aircraft that could be stolen or used as a weapon or armed with a weapon." Meanwhile, a bill that would impose a $10,000 to $100,000 fine and a two- to five-year certificate suspension is being contemplated in the House. "We will continue to work on Capitol Hill to try to dial these measures back down to 'more reasonable,'" Boyer added. "And when you think about it, with F-16s and Patriot missile batteries stationed around the area that are ready to inflict the ultimate penalty on an errant pilot, what more deterrent could and should there be? We've got to find a way to get some GA sympathetic press coverage to counter the nation's hysterical scapegoating of GA. The actions of a few bad apples are spoiling it for all the rest." Above, Boyer turns airman against airman. Disappointing. "Do your part to diminish the media mania about every small airplane and small airport being a terrorist threat. If we all don’t participate in this clear and present problem, we might not like the national and local solutions that will be handed to us." Download Boyer's latest editorial, " ( http://download.aopa.org/epilot/2005/pp0508.pdf ). I doubt journalists can be found who will tell the public that GA is no threat to them. That won't sell newspapers. http://66.218.71.225/search/cache?p=...icp=1&.intl=us Wed, Jul 13 2005 Aero-News Alert: Senators Declaring War On GA ... Two amendments to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill* were filed this week in the U.S. Senate. ... The second amendment, nearly as distressing, comes from Senators Hillary R. Clinton (D-NY-Pictured, Above) and Richard Durbin (D-IL-Pictured, Below). calls for a government study of general aviation security, including "the vulnerability posed to high-risk areas and facilities from general aviation aircraft that could be stolen or used as a weapon or armed with a weapon." The study would also include GA airport security, technology that could easily track GA aircraft, disabling measures that could prevent aircraft theft, and "an assessment of the threat posed to high population arrears, nuclear facilities, key infrastructure, military bases, and transportation infrastructure that stolen or hijacked general aviation aircraft pose, especially if armed with weapons or explosives." * http://appropriations.house.gov/inde...th=5&Year=2005 Requires DHS to implement a security plan to permit general aviation aircraft to land and take off at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport within 90 days of enactment of this Act; http://appropriations.house.gov/inde...&OrderSort=ASC DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Number: H.R.2360 Date Introduced: 05/13/05 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...temp/~bdDPJX:: S.AMDT.1106 SEC. 519. (a) Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of Transportation, shall assess and report in writing to the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate on the following: (1) The vulnerability posed to high risk areas and facilities from general aviation aircraft that could be stolen or used as a weapon or armed with a weapon. (2) The security vulnerabilities existing at general aviation airports that would permit general aviation aircraft to be stolen. (3) Low-cost, high-performance technology that could be used to easily track general aviation aircraft that could otherwise fly undetected. (4) The feasibility of implementing security measures that would disable general aviation aircraft while on the ground and parked to prevent theft. (5) The feasibility of performing requisite background checks on individuals working at general aviation airports that have access to aircraft or flight line activities. (6) An assessment of the threat posed to high population areas, nuclear facilities, key infrastructure, military bases, and transportation infrastructure that stolen or hijacked general aviation aircraft pose especially if armed with weapons or explosives. (7) An assessment of existing security precautions in place at general aviation airports to prevent breaches of the flight line and perimeter. (8) An assessment of whether unmanned air traffic control towers provide a security or alert weakness to the security of general aviation aircraft. (9) An assessment of the additional measures that should be adopted to ensure the security of general aviation aircraft. (b) The report required by subsection (a) shall include cost estimates associated with implementing each of the measures recommended in the report. Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask that Senators LAUTENBERG, CORZINE, and SCHUMER be added as cosponsors of this amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, this is a commonsense amendment regarding the potential threat that all of our cities and States face from the theft or misuse of general aviation aircraft by criminals or terrorists. This amendment would require the Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Secretary of Transportation, to assess the dangers posed to high-risk, large population, and critical infrastructure areas should general aviation aircraft be stolen and used as a weapon by a criminal or terrorist. [Page: S8183] GPO's PDF This study would require the two Secretaries to assess the vulnerability of general aviation airports and aircraft and study what low-cost, high-technology devices could be available to better track general aviation aircraft. Last month, a 20-year-old young man, while intoxicated and accompanied by two other individuals, breached a perimeter fence of an airport in Danbury, CT. He and his companions stole a small Cessna 172 aircraft, departed from the airport without detection, flew across the eastern border of New York, and eventually, thankfully, landed without incident at the Westchester County Airport in New York very near to my home. What is alarming about this is that this happened, and it happened without detection. So far as we know, no one knew the aircraft had been stolen or that the joyride was taking place. This incident occurred very close to New York City, very close to Indian Point, the nuclear facility in the county. Thankfully, this particular incident ended without any damage, destruction, or death, and the individuals were eventually detained by law enforcement. Following the incident, which, as you might imagine, happening so close to New York City involving stolen aircraft raised a great deal of concern among my constituents, I wrote to Secretary Chertoff and Secretary Mineta asking for an investigation into this incident, and I hope to hear back from them both soon. But this incident should be a forewarning of the types of threats we still face from aircraft. We have been very focused on the big commercial aircraft that many of us use on a regular basis, but we cannot forget that most aircraft are in private hands in local airports, many of them privately owned or privately leased, and that they still pose a potential danger to key infrastructure, to populated areas, and we need to be more aware of what that threat could be. The 9/11 Commission, which looked at this, concluded: Major vulnerabilities still exist in cargo and general aviation security. These, together with inadequate screening and access controls, continue to present aviation security challenges. In addition, the 9/11 Commission told us that we needed to be imaginative, we needed to think outside the box. Unfortunately, we needed to think like those who wish us harm about what the new and emerging threats could be. The Transportation Security Administration, known as TSA, issued security guidelines for general aviation airports in May of 2004, and they outlined some guidelines that general aviation airports should follow in order to secure the aircraft and the airfield. There are more than 19,000 landing facilities nationwide, including heliports, lakes, and dirt landing strips from which aircraft could be launched and more than 200,000 general aviation aircraft in our country. Of course, it is impossible to avoid every threat that is posed to the public or that we can imagine, but we should be vigilant to make sure we have a partnership so that local communities, private individuals, and private businesses can all take necessary steps to be vigilant and protective. My amendment requires the Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Secretary of Transportation, to conduct a threat assessment posed by security breaches at general aviation airports and to look at the potential impact such threats could pose to a number of potential targets if an aircraft were used as weapon or were loaded with explosives by terrorists. The Department of Homeland Security would assess low-cost technologies to track general aviation aircraft, the feasibility of implementing additional security measures and background checks, an analysis of airports with unmanned air traffic control towers and what costs may be associated with implementing necessary additional security measures. We have been very blessed that we have not suffered another terrorist attack. That is due to the hard work and vigilance of countless Americans who have responded not just heroically but in a very steadfast, daily way to prevent, detect, deter, and defend against potential threats. In this building, we have experienced evacuations which, thankfully, were caused by either false alarms or as a result of errors by pilots. Recently, another general aviation aircraft breached the airspace over Camp David while the President of the United States was present. It is important to evaluate the threats that could be posed. In its 2004 report, the TSA stated that as many vulnerabilities within other areas of aviation have been reduced, general aviation may be perceived as a more attractive target and consequently more vulnerable to misuses by terrorists. I have flown in just about every little kind of plane you can imagine--medium-sized plane, big plane, crop dusters. I have had doors blow off, windows blow off, I have had emergency landings in pastures and cow fields and roads. I have been in so many airports at all hours of the day and night when no one was around except those getting into the airport or those just landing. I have a good idea how available these airfields are. I appreciate the work the Aviation Security Advisory Committee Working Group did in advising the TSA. However, given the heightened vulnerability that we all are aware of, given some of the recent events--including the evacuations of our own Capitol involving general aviation aircraft--we need to roll up our sleeves and take another hard look at this. I hope we can do it hand in hand with the general aviation fixed-base operators, pilots, owners, airport managers, and others who have been working hard to increase security measures at so many of these small airports. I believe in general aviation. I take advantage of it practically every week. It is a significant and important contributor to our national economy. I want to be sure we do everything possible to make sure it is not in any way affected by any potential criminal or terrorist activity. This amendment does not mandate any new costs for general aviation. It simply requires the study be conducted on vulnerabilities and a report made to Congress within 120 days. Most people who own these airports, most people who own these general aviation aircraft, want to be safe. They want to do what is necessary to protect their investment. But we need to have a good analysis of what the threats might be so we can be smart about how we address them. We certainly do not want to wait until an incident happens. I appreciate Chairman Gregg and Senator Byrd who have agreed to accept this amendment. I ask unanimous consent amendment 1106 be agreed to. Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The amendment (No. 1106) was agreed to. -------------------------------------------------- http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...temp/~bdov20:: S.AMDT.1168 Amends: H.R.2360 Sponsor: Sen Domenici, Pete V. [NM] (submitted 7/11/2005) http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...pTXLG:e280978: SA 1168. Mr. DOMENICI (for himself and Mr. Bingaman) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2360, making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: At the appropriate place, insert the following: SEC. __. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18. (a) In General.--Chapter 2 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: ``§1A39. Violation of Washington, D.C. airspace ``Whoever negligently flies an aircraft in a manner that violates the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area Flight Restricted Zone (as defined by the Federal Aviation Administration) and causes the evacuation a Federal building or any other public property shall be subject to a fine of $100,000, confiscation of the aircraft, and loss of the right to fly in United States airspace for 5 years.''. (b) Chapter Analysis.--The table of sections for chapter 2 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: ``Sec..39..Violation of Washington, D.C. airspace.''. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|