TSA Considers Wiping Egg From Face Re. GA.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
AVflash Volume 9, Number 43a October 20, 2003
-------------------------------------------------------------------

LOY HINTS AT GA SECURITY CHANGES
The Transportation Security Administration is hinting it may relax
some of the restrictions placed on GA after 9/11. In testimony before
a House Aviation Subcommittee hearing that was supposed to deal with
airline security, TSA head Adm. James Loy said that GA was not as much
of a threat as originally thought post-9/11. In written comments he
said "more in-depth background checks" would assist in issuing waivers
for individuals such as corporate pilots into certain restricted
airspace. Loy also said, "We will advise the FAA about whether certain
airspace restrictions add real security value and we will recommend
that FAA engage in appropriate rulemaking to permanently codify those
security-based airspace restrictions that add real security value." He
said, too that the Washington ADIZ will remain for the time being.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#185895

--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

-------------------------------------------------------------------
AVflash Volume 9, Number 43a October 20, 2003
-------------------------------------------------------------------

LOY HINTS AT GA SECURITY CHANGES

We'll see. I'm a bit worried about the "we will recommend that FAA engage
in appropriate rulemaking to permanently codify" part. I suppose it'll be
nice to have restricted airspace marked on the charts at printing time, but
I'm not really looking forward to our perma-TFRs becoming permanent.

Obviously the hope is that the perma-TFRs will actually go away. But I'm
not holding my breath.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

-------------------------------------------------------------------
AVflash Volume 9, Number 43a October 20, 2003
-------------------------------------------------------------------

LOY HINTS AT GA SECURITY CHANGES

We'll see. I'm a bit worried about the "we will recommend that FAA engage
in appropriate rulemaking to permanently codify" part. I suppose it'll be
nice to have restricted airspace marked on the charts at printing time, but
I'm not really looking forward to our perma-TFRs becoming permanent.

Obviously the hope is that the perma-TFRs will actually go away. But I'm
not holding my breath.

Me neither, at least not from this initiative.

Seems to me that Loy is pretty naive about this. From what I've seen, the
person who is responsible for imposing (and eventually removing) the TFRs
(Condoleezza Rice) doesn't care one bit what anyone in the FAA or TSA or
Congress or anybody else says or thinks. Loy is certainly not the first
person in a high position in a government agency that deals with aviation and
security who has concluded that the TFRs are stupid and unnecesary. Loy can
make whatever recomendations he wants but I doubt his input carries much
weight on this issue. Maybe we'll see. But I don't think so.


David H
Boeing Field (BFI), Seattle, WA
Western Washington: TFR Capital Of America - We're Number One!!!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Visit the Pacific Northwest Flying forum:
http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/pnwflying

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:59:37 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:


-------------------------------------------------------------------
AVflash Volume 9, Number 43a October 20, 2003
-------------------------------------------------------------------

LOY HINTS AT GA SECURITY CHANGES
The Transportation Security Administration is hinting it may relax
some of the restrictions placed on GA after 9/11. In testimony before
a House Aviation Subcommittee hearing that was supposed to deal with
airline security, TSA head Adm. James Loy said that GA was not as much
of a threat as originally thought post-9/11. In written comments he
said "more in-depth background checks" would assist in issuing waivers
for individuals such as corporate pilots into certain restricted
airspace. Loy also said, "We will advise the FAA about whether certain
airspace restrictions add real security value and we will recommend
that FAA engage in appropriate rulemaking to permanently codify those
security-based airspace restrictions that add real security value." He
said, too that the Washington ADIZ will remain for the time being.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#185895

Utter drivel. Hell, the FAA just decided to require people to have
pilot's licenses to drive an ultralight. What's next, boat drivers
licenses?


Eric Pinnell

(Author, "Claws of The Dragon", "The Omega File")

For a preview, see: http://www.ericpinnell.com and click on "books"

Larry Dighera wrote:

"We will advise the FAA about whether certain
airspace restrictions add real security value and we will recommend
that FAA engage in appropriate rulemaking to permanently codify those
security-based airspace restrictions that add real security value." He
said, too that the Washington ADIZ will remain for the time being.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#185895

Sounds a lot more like they're going to make the Washington State TFRs permanent
and add some more. Doesn't sound like they think they have anything on their
faces.

George Patterson
To a pilot, altitude is like money - it is possible that having too much
could prove embarassing, but having too little is always fatal.

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 22:37:27 -0400, "G.R. Patterson III"
wrote in Message-Id:
:



Larry Dighera wrote:

"We will advise the FAA about whether certain
airspace restrictions add real security value and we will recommend
that FAA engage in appropriate rulemaking to permanently codify those
security-based airspace restrictions that add real security value." He
said, too that the Washington ADIZ will remain for the time being.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#185895

Sounds a lot more like they're going to make the Washington State TFRs permanent
and add some more. Doesn't sound like they think they have anything on their
faces.

I suppose the success of the changes depend on WHO asses the security
value of the airspace restrictions based on WHAT CRITERIA. But if Loy
feels that the threat from GA has been exaggerated, optimistically
some reduction in ineffective restricted airspace may result.
However, the cynic in me agrees with your assessment. On face, it
looks like a smoke screen intended to lessen alarm at permanently
grabbing security related TFRs' airspace by changing its status from
temporary to permanent.
The true Axis Of Evil in America is our genious at marketing
coupled with the stupidity of our people. -- Bill Maher

Eric Pinnell proclaimed:
Utter drivel. Hell, the FAA just decided to require people to have
pilot's licenses to drive an ultralight. What's next, boat drivers
licenses?


Eric Pinnell

What in the world are you talking about? When did the FAA change Part 103?

Hell, the FAA just decided to require people to have
pilot's licenses to drive an ultralight.

Due tell...

What's next, boat drivers licenses?

Now there's an idea whose time has come.

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 11:31:02 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in Message-Id:
:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

-------------------------------------------------------------------
AVflash Volume 9, Number 43a October 20, 2003
-------------------------------------------------------------------

LOY HINTS AT GA SECURITY CHANGES

We'll see. I'm a bit worried about the "we will recommend that FAA engage
in appropriate rulemaking to permanently codify" part.

You'll have to speak to Ms. Rice about that. :-)

It would be nice if there were a voice that represented pilots in the
TSA group that will assess airspace restrictions for real security
value. Is it reasonable that our government should be permitted to
shut the users of the airspace out of its assessment process?
Wouldn't a reasonable person consider the fact that pilots would
likely be capable of providing valuable input? Just a thought ...

I suppose it'll be nice to have restricted airspace marked on the charts
at printing time, but I'm not really looking forward to our perma-TFRs
becoming permanent.

I don't know how congested the skies are in Washington, but within 100
nm of KLAX you're getting traffic calls all along your route. I
wonder if anyone has figured out at what point the "security measures"
compress VFR traffic into such cramped quarters, that it begins to
increase the rate of mishaps? Are there any quantified limits
established, or is it a TERPS thing?

I don't know any pilots who look foreward to airspace grabs.

Obviously the hope is that the perma-TFRs will actually go away. But I'm
not holding my breath.

Everyone want's things to go back the way they were in kinder and
gentler times long ago; not likely, IMO. Osama's strike at the icons
of our "invincable" nation have forever done their damage in the eyes
of the people of the world. All the king's horses, and all the kings
men, ...

[As I add TSA to my spell-check dictionary, I cringe.]

Larry Dighera wrote:

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 11:31:02 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in Message-Id:
:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

-------------------------------------------------------------------
AVflash Volume 9, Number 43a October 20, 2003
-------------------------------------------------------------------

LOY HINTS AT GA SECURITY CHANGES

snip

Obviously the hope is that the perma-TFRs will actually go away. But I'm
not holding my breath.

Everyone want's things to go back the way they were in kinder and
gentler times long ago; not likely, IMO. Osama's strike at the icons
of our "invincable" nation have forever done their damage in the eyes
of the people of the world.

Don't blame Osama for the TFRs and other post 9/11 airspace grabs by the
Feds. Osama may have been responsible for the attacks on 9/11, but Americans
were (and continue to be) resposnible for the airspace restrictions.

David H
Boeing Field (BFI), Seattle, WA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Visit the Pacific Northwest Flying forum:
http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/pnwflying