House proposal to restrict general aviation

[C J Campbell]

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]

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.
>
>
>

[C J Campbell]

"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.

[Bob Gardner]

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.
>
>
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

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.

[G.R. Patterson III]

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.

[Peter Duniho]

"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

[Jay Honeck]

> 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"

[John]

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.

[Thomas J. Paladino Jr.]

"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.

[MRQB]

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.
>
>
>

[Mike Rapoport]

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.
>
>

[Tom Sixkiller]

"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.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"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?

[Tom Sixkiller]

"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?)

[Tom Sixkiller]

"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

[C J Campbell]

"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.

[C J Campbell]

"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.

[Philip Sondericker]

in article , C J Campbell at
wrote on 2/28/04 9:24 AM:


> 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.

This is because there is really just one party in this country, and the
Democratic wing of it is absolutely nutless.

[Ash Wyllie]

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?

[David Reinhart]

Don't send letters, send a fax. All congressional mail now goes through
decontamination and takes a couple weeks to get there. Better, call and follow up
with a fax.

Talking points:

1. The bill requires the DHS to establish TFRs whenever the threat level is orange
or higher. If the level is raised because of a specific, credible threat in Los
Angeles this language requires TFRs everywhere, even the East coast.

2. During the immediate post-9/11 period the FAA issued a nuke TFR but refused to
release the geographic coordinates of the plants to pilots so they could avoid the
facilities. Are we to be faced with the same dilema for thousands of sites across
the country, or is the government going to release "targeting data" to the public?
Is there even a navigational data base available with the locations of all
"sensitive" installations?

3. Given the large number of installations involved (potentially thousands) the
entire Victor airway system along with possibly hundreds of instrument approaches
would be compromised. Virtually all IFR GA traffic would be halted.

4. Many DOE facilities and other installations described in the legislation are
already located inside Restricted areas.

5. Congress should not be trying to micro-manage the Executive branch.

Dave Reinhart


John wrote:

> 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.