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.