Adventures in TSA land

You should be glad you have Canada to go back to.

Until it is declared a threat by our goverment and we occupy it then take
it
over.


There's oil in Canada?

--

Roger Long

"Roger Long" wrote in message =
...
You should be glad you have Canada to go back to.

Until it is declared a threat by our goverment and we occupy it then =
take=20
it
over.

=20
There's oil in Canada?
=20
--=20
=20
Roger Long
=20
=20
Yep... lots of it:

http://api-ec.api.org/filelibrary/May03imp.pdf

Jerry

Yes, and lots and lots of lumber (trees)... take off hoser.

"Roger Long" wrote in message .. .
You should be glad you have Canada to go back to.

Until it is declared a threat by our goverment and we occupy it then take
it
over.


There's oil in Canada?

Mark Hansen wrote
This is not the rule, but is the Sanctions document.

Mea culpa. Inadequate proofreading on my part. Sorry.

Do you have a link to the actual rule?

http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf90/296897_web.pdf

Michael

"David Brooks" wrote
A letter written yesterday, and added to the docket today, by the TSA chief
counsel says that it can continue.

Yeah, that showed up after I posted.

They don't say how they justify that opinion

Irrelevant, really. It's the chief counsel opinion, so it's official.

The Category 4 rule (which covers BFRs)

No, it does not. It does not cover ANY recurrent training under Part
91 except subpart K (which isn't us). See specifically:
http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf90/296897_web.pdf
Refer to p.36: Only those getting recurrent training under Part 121,
125, 135 or Subpart K of Part 91 (fractrionals) are covered.

Michael

"Jim Burns" wrote in message ...
I wonder if John and Martha, our buddy Hal, and the AOPA are busy trying to
produce some kind of TSA training video course that will qualify. I can
hardly wait to see what shape Martha's hair takes next.

My biggest disappointment over all this does not come from the rules
themselves, but from the orgainizations, especially NAFI, that claim to keep
CFI's informed and represent them.

Thanks for the update.
Jim
Jim
I concur wholeheartedly. I was a member of NAFI nearly from its
inception with a number #0962, and of the AOPA with #1950330. Neither
of them seemed to do anything but shake like a dog shi&&ting prune
seeds and bend over to acquiesce to more ill thought out government
legislation. I suspect it was written by some college grad with no
real world experience who slipped in to suck on the government tit and
the rest of us have to pay for it.
Why should I have to do the TSA's work in determining an applicants
citizenship and keep records of it, and to further be the TSA snitch
at MY expense? It stinks. If the INS can't do it with their billions
of dollars, why in hell should I be subjected to extreme fines and
penalties for making a paperwork error and at perhaps $25 per hour of
my instructional time. Something is really wrong here with this
picture.
In case you didn't notice, my independent back is really up on this
one...and I'll still vote for Bush. Kerry would have the UN determine
what is best for us and we all see what that portends.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.775 / Virus Database: 522 - Release Date: 10/8/2004

"Michael" wrote in message
om...
"David Brooks" wrote


The Category 4 rule (which covers BFRs)

No, it does not. It does not cover ANY recurrent training under Part
91 except subpart K (which isn't us). See specifically:
http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf90/296897_web.pdf
Refer to p.36: Only those getting recurrent training under Part 121,
125, 135 or Subpart K of Part 91 (fractrionals) are covered.

As I pointed out in my submission, and AOPA pointed out in their submission
filed today, the document in the Federal Register contains a clear mistake.
The legal document is the IFR itself, not its preamble. In the rule itself,
definitions section, recurrent training includes training required under
Part 61, without qualification.

However, there's a flurry of "clarifications" by TSA on the docket today.
One of them affirms that Part 61 is included in "recurrent training", but
then goes on to exempt flight reviews etc, and specifically 61.56 and 61.57.
There is no logic provided; it is clearly an attempt to use a hastily
written counsel opinion to put a band-aid on a poorly researched regulation.

Another "clarification" grants a 60-day extension for aliens who already
have a pilot certificate.

Sorry, I have work to do, and I can't read any more. It's all on the docket.

-- David Brooks

"Roger Long" wrote in message
...
You should be glad you have Canada to go back to.

Until it is declared a threat by our goverment and we occupy it then
take
it
over.


There's oil in Canada?

For all your idiotic claims about Iraq, we sure haven't seen any from there.

Sorry, I have work to do, and I can't read any more. It's all on the
docket.

Could someone please provide links to where I can see this "docket" for
myself?


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.778 / Virus Database: 525 - Release Date: 10/15/2004

http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchResu...hTy pe=docket,
and hit "Reverse Order" to see the last few days' postings from TSA.

As I just posted in r.a.s, one clarification is to narrow the definition of
training to that taken in pursuit of a certificate or rating. That answers
the protests around safety/currency, but is still a major burden on flight
training. No new alien students, and citizens in training still have to
provide proof of citizenship.

-- David Brooks

"Geoffrey Barnes" wrote in message
ink.net...
Sorry, I have work to do, and I can't read any more. It's all on the
docket.

Could someone please provide links to where I can see this "docket" for
myself?


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.778 / Virus Database: 525 - Release Date: 10/15/2004