DCA to reopen to GA

[H.P.]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,157573,00.html

Reagan Nat'l Airport Reopening to Private Planes

Tuesday, May 24, 2005
WASHINGTON - Private planes will be allowed to take off and land at Reagan
National Airport (search) for the first time since Sept. 11, 2001, the
Transportation Security Administration is expected to announce Wednesday,
according to people in government and aviation who have seen the plan.

Congress (search) has long been pressuring the TSA to reopen the airport to
charter aircraft, business jets and private planes. It is far more
convenient to downtown Washington than the other two airports in the region,
Dulles International Airport and Baltimore-Washington International Airport.

But the TSA has been reluctant to reopen Reagan National Airport to private
aircraft because it's so close to the Capitol, the White House and other
potential terrorist targets.

It took weeks after the terror attacks for security officials to reopen the
airport to commercial airlines.

"It's overdue," said Rep. John Mica, the Florida Republican who chairs the
House Transportation Committee's (search) aviation subcommittee. "It can be
done safely. I've been convinced all along."

The requirements will be strict, said people familiar with the plan who
spoke on condition of anonymity because the TSA had not yet made an
announcement.

In 90 days, the plan would allow 48 flights into the airport a day. Their
crews will have to have their backgrounds checked and an armed law
enforcement officer will have to be on board, the people said.

[Jay Honeck]

> WASHINGTON - Private planes will be allowed to take off and land at Reagan

Great news!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose]

>>WASHINGTON - Private planes will be allowed to take off and land at Reagan
>
> Great news!

Uh, not so fast. 45 a day (ok, that's a start), security clearances
first (which probably includes fingerprinting like a common criminal - I
understand that other airports in the area already do this), and an
armed officer being on board the aircraft. Presumably this is an
appropriately vetted officer. Where are they going to get these
officers? Land at Gaithersberg first? Have them flown out to the
originating airport?

This sounds like just enough to open the airport to corporate jets,
which is just enough to shut enough people up so that it stops there.
Maybe I'm just too cynical from living in the Northeast, and I hope it
goes well and leads to our government granting us more privileges in our
nation's captiol, but I'm not holding my breath.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Dave S]

> first (which probably includes fingerprinting like a common criminal - I
> understand that other airports in the area already do this),
>
> Jose

Not only common criminals are fingerprinted.

I have been fingerprinted voluntarily numerous times.. A few times for
the purpose of obtaining and renewing my state's concealed handgun
license (which by the way, is NOT banned in small planes.. only the
airliners..).

Dave

[Ron Natalie]

H.P. wrote:
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,157573,00.html
>
> Reagan Nat'l Airport Reopening to Private Planes
>
> Tuesday, May 24, 2005
> WASHINGTON - Private planes will be allowed to take off and land at Reagan
> National Airport (search) for the first time since Sept. 11, 2001, the
> Transportation Security Administration is expected to announce Wednesday,
> according to people in government and aviation who have seen the plan.

This just goes to show that Congress's greedy self-interst can benefit
the general population a little bit. The airport panders to Congress
directly (frankly DCA should have been abandoned a long time ago if it
weren't for Congress). The people who want to fly in there more than
anybody else are those providing "assistance" to congressmen.

[[email protected]]

I don't see how it's such "Great News". With a requirement to have a
law enforcement officer on board, it does nothing for those of us with
small planes. I have to have a cop sitting in my Skyhawk to land
there? Where do I get one? Where do I put him if I have my wife and
baggage with me?

It's just more silly, unnecessary bull****.

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:

> I don't see how it's such "Great News". With a requirement to have a
> law enforcement officer on board, it does nothing for those of us with
> small planes. I have to have a cop sitting in my Skyhawk to land
> there? Where do I get one? Where do I put him if I have my wife and
> baggage with me?
>
> It's just more silly, unnecessary bull****.
>

How hard is it to get deputized? :-)

Matt

[Peter R.]

Rosspilot wrote:

> Where do I put him if I have my wife and baggage with me?

On the wing.

--
Peter

[Jay Honeck]

>I don't see how it's such "Great News". With a requirement to have a
> law enforcement officer on board, it does nothing for those of us with
> small planes.

It's a step in the right direction, plain and simple.

Nothing more, nothing less.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[John T]

wrote:
> I don't see how it's such "Great News". With a requirement to have a
> law enforcement officer on board, it does nothing for those of us with
> small planes.

This is true. The "private" planes they're talking about are corporate and
charter aircraft, not your run-o-the-mill GA aircraft.

> It's just more silly, unnecessary bull****.

There may be something to that... :)

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[Guy Elden Jr]

No, I disagree. It is as someone else mentioned, just enough of a step
to shut up the people who actually matter to the gov't. The rest of us,
unfortunately, only get heard through AOPA, and they obviously don't
have enough clout to get us our rightful access to the DC-3 airports...
honestly, I could care less about flying into DCA... the other airports
that have been shutdown are far more GA friendly. At least there is a
way to get in to them, but it requires jumping through way too many
hoops for the occasional transient pilot.

--
jr

[Ron Natalie]

Guy Elden Jr wrote:
> No, I disagree. It is as someone else mentioned, just enough of a step
> to shut up the people who actually matter to the gov't. The rest of us,
> unfortunately, only get heard through AOPA, and they obviously don't
> have enough clout to get us our rightful access to the DC-3 airports...

Anybody can get access to the DC-3 airports. You just have to go
through the vetting process. That was opened up a few months ago.
Of course, the process is annoying to get vetted and mildly annoying
(on a busy day when both the Leesburg FSS and Potomac approach have
long call queues0.

[Ron Natalie]

John T wrote:
> wrote:
>
>>I don't see how it's such "Great News". With a requirement to have a
>>law enforcement officer on board, it does nothing for those of us with
>>small planes.
>
>
> This is true. The "private" planes they're talking about are corporate and
> charter aircraft, not your run-o-the-mill GA aircraft.
>
The private planes their talking about is corporate aircraft that are
being used as legal bribes for congressional members.

[George Patterson]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>WASHINGTON - Private planes will be allowed to take off and land at Reagan
>
>
> Great news!

Sorta -- it's definitely a good first step. But AOPA has pulled the article on
this from their web site (it was there a few hours ago). That article said that
the pilots must have undergone a security check and cleared by the FBI, there
will only be 24 arrivals and departures allowed each day, and there must be an
armed LEO aboard.

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

[George Patterson]

Jose wrote:
>
> ...., and an
> armed officer being on board the aircraft. Presumably this is an
> appropriately vetted officer. Where are they going to get these
> officers?

Well, if your State has such a thing, apply for an honorary deputy sheriff's
position and take the required training.

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

[John T]

Ron Natalie wrote:
>
> The private planes their talking about is corporate aircraft that are
> being used as legal bribes for congressional members.

No doubt.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[RST Engineering]

It's going to be a witch to get Ron Wattanja's single seater in there, isn't
it?

Jim


there must be an
> armed LEO aboard.

[Icebound]

"H.P." > wrote in message
m...
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,157573,00.html
>
> Reagan Nat'l Airport Reopening to Private Planes
>
> Tuesday, May 24, 2005
> WASHINGTON - Private planes will be allowed to take off and land at Reagan
> National Airport (search) for the first time since Sept. 11, 2001,
> ...snip...
>
> In 90 days, the plan would allow 48 flights into the airport a day. Their
> crews will have to have their backgrounds checked and an armed law
> enforcement officer will have to be on board, the people said.
>
>
>

Statistically, one armed law enforcement officer in so many (I don't know
how many) is a rogue. Is that any less of a threat than one passenger in so
many (I don't know how many) being a terrorist?

Would I feel safer in a 12-pax corporate jet where 1 person (who I don't
know) has a gun, or in one where nobody has a gun?

[Blueskies]

"H.P." > wrote in message m...
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,157573,00.html
>
> Reagan Nat'l Airport Reopening to Private Planes
>

Doesn't sound very open to me...

[Neil Gould]

Recently, > posted:

> I don't see how it's such "Great News". With a requirement to have a
> law enforcement officer on board, it does nothing for those of us with
> small planes. I have to have a cop sitting in my Skyhawk to land
> there? Where do I get one? Where do I put him if I have my wife and
> baggage with me?
>
> It's just more silly, unnecessary bull****.
>
So, carry your own gun. Give a new meaning to PIC. ;-)

Neil

[George Patterson]

RST Engineering wrote:
> It's going to be a witch to get Ron Wattanja's single seater in there, isn't
> it?

Depends. Can anyone deputize Ron?
\
George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

[George Patterson]

Icebound wrote:
>
> Would I feel safer in a 12-pax corporate jet where 1 person (who I don't
> know) has a gun, or in one where nobody has a gun?

Actually, I'd feel safer if everyone on the plane had one.

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

[Matt Whiting]

Icebound wrote:

> "H.P." > wrote in message
> m...
>
>>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,157573,00.html
>>
>>Reagan Nat'l Airport Reopening to Private Planes
>>
>>Tuesday, May 24, 2005
>>WASHINGTON - Private planes will be allowed to take off and land at Reagan
>>National Airport (search) for the first time since Sept. 11, 2001,
>>...snip...
>>
>>In 90 days, the plan would allow 48 flights into the airport a day. Their
>>crews will have to have their backgrounds checked and an armed law
>>enforcement officer will have to be on board, the people said.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Statistically, one armed law enforcement officer in so many (I don't know
> how many) is a rogue. Is that any less of a threat than one passenger in so
> many (I don't know how many) being a terrorist?
>
> Would I feel safer in a 12-pax corporate jet where 1 person (who I don't
> know) has a gun, or in one where nobody has a gun?

I'd feel safer if I had my gun. :-)

Matt