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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"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? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"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?) |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 02:50 AM |