KFRG ID and Background Check required for all pilots

[Felix]

This is why I'll always be an AOPA member:

----

AOPA FIGHTS BADGES AND BACKGROUND CHECKS AT GA FIELD
Pilots based at Republic Airport in Farmingdale, N.Y., could be
subjected to a background check, made to use a special security badge
to access the airport, and required to pay $70 for the privilege.
Transient pilots landing at this airport would be questioned and
escorted upon arrival. AOPA is opposing the plan implemented by the
state of New York because there are alternatives to background checks
that are far less costly and leverage existing efforts by the federal
government. Read more on AOPA Online.

----

Although my FBO got the airport to give it's students/renters the ID
for free for a limited time, its still ridiculous that we need ID!
Isn't my Pilot's License enough to prove that I should be allowed to
get to my airplane?

Thank goodness for organizations like AOPA that look out for our
interests.

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

Boycott the airfield. When fuel sales plummett and FBOs lose money,
this nonsense will be retracted.

Ron Lee

[Marco Leon[_4_]]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> Boycott the airfield. When fuel sales plummett and FBOs lose money,
> this nonsense will be retracted.

I wish it were that easy.

If the FBO's are behind this, then it must be some obscure relationship at
the top levels of the NY State government. This is a state-sponsored,
politically-motivated action. The FBO's make very little money from
transient small GA aircraft who are affected only in that they need an
escort. Since they have to go to one of the two FBO's, escorts are readily
available. The FBOs make the bulk of their money from the biz jets anyhow.
The tenants, who are the most affected by this new security system, can't
boycott the field without significant hardship to themselves.

Marco

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Marco Leon" > wrote:

> "Ron Lee" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Boycott the airfield. When fuel sales plummett and FBOs lose money,
> > this nonsense will be retracted.
>
> I wish it were that easy.
>
> If the FBO's are behind this, then it must be some obscure relationship at
> the top levels of the NY State government. This is a state-sponsored,
> politically-motivated action. The FBO's make very little money from
> transient small GA aircraft who are affected only in that they need an
> escort. Since they have to go to one of the two FBO's, escorts are readily
> available. The FBOs make the bulk of their money from the biz jets anyhow.
> The tenants, who are the most affected by this new security system, can't
> boycott the field without significant hardship to themselves.
>
> Marco

The problem is with the self-styled "progressives" who currently run the
Democratic Party, which is in charge of New York, California and several
other states. They object to our "frivolous" pursuit of aviation and
seek every excuse to punish us.

In addition, there is an unholy alliance with real estate developers,
who wish the land that our airports occupy.

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Marco Leon wrote:
>
>If the FBO's are behind this, then it must be some obscure relationship at
>the top levels of the NY State government. This is a state-sponsored,
>politically-motivated action.

I doubt that it's the FBOs. The state owns the airport. As with any
bureaucracy, they survive (and grow) in this post-9/11 world by imposing
mindless requirements on their subjects in the name of "safety".

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[Bladerunner]

On Nov 16, 9:58 am, Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
> In article >,
> "Marco Leon" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Ron Lee" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > Boycott the airfield. When fuel sales plummett and FBOs lose money,
> > > this nonsense will be retracted.
>
> > I wish it were that easy.
>
> > If the FBO's are behind this, then it must be some obscure relationship at
> > the top levels of the NY State government. This is a state-sponsored,
> > politically-motivated action. The FBO's make very little money from
> > transient small GA aircraft who are affected only in that they need an
> > escort. Since they have to go to one of the two FBO's, escorts are readily
> > available. The FBOs make the bulk of their money from the biz jets anyhow.
> > The tenants, who are the most affected by this new security system, can't
> > boycott the field without significant hardship to themselves.
>
> > Marco
>
> The problem is with the self-styled "progressives" who currently run the
> Democratic Party, which is in charge of New York, California and several
> other states. They object to our "frivolous" pursuit of aviation and
> seek every excuse to punish us.
>
> In addition, there is an unholy alliance with real estate developers,
> who wish the land that our airports occupy.

BUSH CALLS FOR USER FEES, HIGHER TAXES
President Bush on Nov. 15 announced a series of measures to reduce
airline delays, including opening restricted airspace on the East
Coast to commercial flights during the holiday season. And he renewed
the administration's call for higher taxes and user fees on general
aviation. "The president's statement is a reminder that the FAA
funding issue is far from resolved, and that there is still the
possibility of a bill coming out of Congress that would be harmful to
general aviation," said AOPA President Phil Boyer. Read more on AOPA
Online.

WITH REGARDS TO YOUR "DEMOCRATS" COMMENTARY .......... ENOUGH
SAID

[Mike Isaksen]

>> "Ron Lee" wrote...
>> > Boycott the airfield. When fuel sales plummett and FBOs lose money,
>> > this nonsense will be retracted.

> "Marco Leon" wrote:
>> If the FBO's are behind this, then it must be some obscure relationship
>> at
>> the top levels of the NY State government. This is a state-sponsored,
>> politically-motivated action. The FBO's make very little money from
>> transient small GA aircraft who are affected only in that they need an
>> escort. Since they have to go to one of the two FBO's, escorts are
>> readily
>> available. The FBOs make the bulk of their money from the biz jets
>> anyhow.
>> The tenants, who are the most affected by this new security system, can't
>> boycott the field without significant hardship to themselves.

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote ...
> The problem is with the self-styled "progressives" who currently run the
> Democratic Party, which is in charge of New York, California and several
> other states. They object to our "frivolous" pursuit of aviation and
> seek every excuse to punish us.
>
> In addition, there is an unholy alliance with real estate developers,
> who wish the land that our airports occupy.

This issue is definitely not about "an unholy alliance with real estate
developers". This is about the NYS DOT's attempt to implement a "model"
security system at its airports. And much like the NYS legislature's
bonehead attempt to implement an "aviation student background check" using
quasi-governmental entities, this program is wobbling, will stall, and auger
in. Quickly to be replaced by Version 2, where us tenants will be out
another $70, while the Officials tell us how lucky we are.

Details about New York State student background program defeated in a court
challenge with the help of AOPA: NYS legislature feels they "must do
something" about all those potential terrorist flight students learning in
NYS flight schools. Implements a law that "flight schools" must submit
personal information to NYS, from any person taking primary or upgrade
flight training, for a criminal background check. The law did not define the
Type of training (ie if logbook endorsements are included). The law cited
"training organizations", but omitted any reference to the individual CFI.
The law required a single NYS law enforcement agency to check all in-state
records, and seek similar info from normal Federal sources, then review and
return the data to a designated rep (to be stored) at the flight school. The
FBI immediately declined to participate because the data would not remain in
the full control a Law Enforcement entity. The law was challenged in court
within months of taking effect, and most schools simply did not gather or
process the data, as it was generally understood that NYS set aside zero
budget for any investigative or enforcement activity. The law was overturned
about a year after taking affect. All the politicians felt good about "doing
their best". I'm convinced they, and their aids that wrote the law, knew
perfectly well it would not stand up to challenge. But they got a sound bite
and that's what matters.

Details of the Republic (FRG) airport security program: ALL "air-side"
persons will be vetted and badged, or will be 100% accompanied by such a
person at all times. This means no owner/renter/student may proceed to his
airplane without a badge or escort. If you and the family are at the plane
loading, and jr needs to use the restroom in the FBO, you as the badgeholder
must go with him (the jury is out on if the whole family needs to go with
you as well). Anyone can apply for a badge, thru a sponsor. It may or may
not cost you $70 for the security check and badge. And in those details lies
the devil.
There are over a dozen sponsors (major private aviation businesses on the
field), and the two large FBOs with dozens of sub-sponsors (or tenants). The
NYS DOT owns the airport and has (i believe) only one employee onsite, they
contract out the Management to URS Corporation (about 4 people), and they in
turn contract out the Operations to AvPorts Corp (a whole bunch of people
(maint, fire rescue, security)). The Nata Corp was contracted as a private
company to perform the criminal background checks and badges (that solved
one problem of the failed state law). The original concept was one of "lets
be fair to everyone", but money got in the way. The whole airport got a new
fence and security perimeter courtesy of the tax payer, but the money wasn't
there for free badges for everyone.
So the infighting started on who should get free badges. The final (if
anything can ever be called that in gvmt) decision was the individual
tiedown owners get 2 free badges per airplane, the major businesses (big
hangers, mostly turbine maint & charter ops) would get their employees and
flight crews free, the 2 FBOs would get similar deals for themselves and
their subtenants (flight schools, spancan maint, t-hangers). Also,
everything turns into a pumpkin on Nov 1st, and thereafter everybody must
pay.
Of course Nov 1st came and went, some people are still getting free badges.
Several of the flight/rental schools (there are about six total)
submitted/sponsored their entire 200 to 400+ customer list as "flight crew"
or as "students in progress", so the computer accepted them as free. And the
entire effort was based on a per badge budget estimate which is now blown
out of the water. Seems like the only people actually paying anything are
the individual partnership owners and club owners. Yup, the little guys, how
suprising is that? So stay tuned, the end is not near.

Oh,... and here's the kicker: NOT ONE APPLICANT HAS BEEN REJECTED YET DUE TO
ANYTHING FOUND IN THEIR BACKGROUND CHECK. Money well spent, not!

[Bladerunner]

On Nov 16, 12:51 pm, "JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote:
> Marco Leon wrote:
>
> >If the FBO's are behind this, then it must be some obscure relationship at
> >the top levels of the NY State government. This is a state-sponsored,
> >politically-motivated action.
>
> I doubt that it's the FBOs. The state owns the airport. As with any
> bureaucracy, they survive (and grow) in this post-9/11 world by imposing
> mindless requirements on their subjects in the name of "safety".
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>
> --
> Message posted viahttp://www.aviationkb.com

test

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article
>,
Bladerunner > wrote:

> On Nov 16, 9:58 am, Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "Marco Leon" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > "Ron Lee" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > > Boycott the airfield. When fuel sales plummett and FBOs lose money,
> > > > this nonsense will be retracted.
> >
> > > I wish it were that easy.
> >
> > > If the FBO's are behind this, then it must be some obscure relationship at
> > > the top levels of the NY State government. This is a state-sponsored,
> > > politically-motivated action. The FBO's make very little money from
> > > transient small GA aircraft who are affected only in that they need an
> > > escort. Since they have to go to one of the two FBO's, escorts are readily
> > > available. The FBOs make the bulk of their money from the biz jets anyhow.
> > > The tenants, who are the most affected by this new security system, can't
> > > boycott the field without significant hardship to themselves.
> >
> > > Marco
> >
> > The problem is with the self-styled "progressives" who currently run the
> > Democratic Party, which is in charge of New York, California and several
> > other states. They object to our "frivolous" pursuit of aviation and
> > seek every excuse to punish us.
> >
> > In addition, there is an unholy alliance with real estate developers,
> > who wish the land that our airports occupy.
>
> BUSH CALLS FOR USER FEES, HIGHER TAXES
> President Bush on Nov. 15 announced a series of measures to reduce
> airline delays, including opening restricted airspace on the East
> Coast to commercial flights during the holiday season. And he renewed
> the administration's call for higher taxes and user fees on general
> aviation. "The president's statement is a reminder that the FAA
> funding issue is far from resolved, and that there is still the
> possibility of a bill coming out of Congress that would be harmful to
> general aviation," said AOPA President Phil Boyer. Read more on AOPA
> Online.
>
> WITH REGARDS TO YOUR "DEMOCRATS" COMMENTARY .......... ENOUGH
> SAID

They are in it with the Republicans -- after all, a lot of the
developers play both sides of the track. The Dem hard Left, however,
hate us on class warfare grounds, not just because we are in their way.

Yes -- Bush & Co. are certainly playing the demagogic line on this one,
as they see us as an insignificant, "privileged" minority.

[Ray Andraka]

Mike Isaksen wrote:

>
> This issue is definitely not about "an unholy alliance with real estate
> developers". This is about the NYS DOT's attempt to implement a "model"
> security system at its airports. And much like the NYS legislature's
> bonehead attempt to implement an "aviation student background check" using
> quasi-governmental entities, this program is wobbling, will stall, and auger
> in. Quickly to be replaced by Version 2, where us tenants will be out
> another $70, while the Officials tell us how lucky we are.
>

This is nothing new for those of us based at some air carrier airports.
There it is supposedly a TSA requirement even though the GA facilities
are separated from the main terminal by an active runway. I'm not saying
it is right, just that it isn't anything new. Oh, and family can't stay
out with the plane if the only badge holder goes in to take a leak:
everyone on the ramp either has to have a badge worn on the outside of
his clothing or be closely escorted by someone who does. Our free
badges as well as vehicle access went the way of the dodo in 2001 after
9/11. The badges also have to be renewed every couple years, for a fee.