Another Stupid Homeland Security Idea

Gang,

Here's a link to one of the most stupid ideas coming out of the
Department Of Homeland Security:

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/196127-1.html

I would sure like to find out who is smoking what.

Rick

RL Anderson wrote:
Gang,

Here's a link to one of the most stupid ideas coming out of the
Department Of Homeland Security:

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/196127-1.html

I would sure like to find out who is smoking what.

Rick

Rick you are so wrong. DHS has had MUCH more idiotic ideas. It's no
different than the requirements for the airlines to transmit pax info before
they enter the country. It allows them time to check those that enter the
country against the watch list instead of having to do it once they are in
the US.

In a previous article, RL Anderson said:
Gang,

Here's a link to one of the most stupid ideas coming out of the
Department Of Homeland Security:

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/196127-1.html

I would sure like to find out who is smoking what.

I hope the Canada Flight Supplement will now contain an entry for each FBO
to say whether fax or internet is available so I can tell where I'm going
to have to stop on the way home to transmit this data.

Isn't it great that with 11 million people coming across the border on
land illegally, they chose to focus on the few thousand who come across
the border in the sky legally? Don't you feel safer knowing that we're
protected against terrorists who can't walk?

--
Paul Tomblin http://blog.xcski.com/
Get with the program, jeffrey. No one is 'wrong' on Usenet. They are
either 100% totally correct, or they are 'a lying, scum sucking weasel.'
There is no in-between. -- Garrett Johnson

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 06:44:17 -0700, RL Anderson
wrote in
:

Here's a link to one of the most stupid ideas coming out of the
Department Of Homeland Security:

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/196127-1.html

Are you able to cite specific changes this proposal would require that
are not already required?

On Sep 13, 9:44 am, RL Anderson wrote:
Gang,

Here's a link to one of the most stupid ideas coming out of the
Department Of Homeland Security:

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/196127-1.html

I would sure like to find out who is smoking what.

Rick

We sort of have this now, don't we? All inbound airplanes must inform
CBP before arrival.

What puzzles me is the same requirement when leaving the country. Exit
visas? I thought only communist countries had that sort of thing.

In a previous article, Andrew Sarangan said:
We sort of have this now, don't we? All inbound airplanes must inform
CBP before arrival.

We don't have to give them a complete passenger list until we've landed.
And you can inform them of your arrival over the phone - I believe this
will require a fax or internet connection.


--
Paul Tomblin http://blog.xcski.com/
To ensure privacy and data integrity this message has been encrypted
using dual rounds of ROT-13 encryption.

On Sep 13, 9:39 am, (Paul Tomblin) wrote:
In a previous article, Andrew Sarangan said:

We sort of have this now, don't we? All inbound airplanes must inform
CBP before arrival.

We don't have to give them a complete passenger list until we've landed.
And you can inform them of your arrival over the phone - I believe this
will require a fax or internet connection.

This is going to be fun in Mexico. They are basically mandating sat
phones for all Mexico travelers.

-Robert

On Sep 13, 12:38 pm, john smith wrote:
Why not just set up the system the way CANPASS does it.
Telephone call in advance, give them the information, call again to
update time of arrival.
LockMart FSS doesn't have anything better to do.
Oh wait, that would be a change to the contract.
It has to have a competitive bid process.
Why? There weren't any competitive bids for support contracts in Iraq.

I'm saying that you need the Sat phone to call ahead in Mexico. Its
not like Canada where you have access to a telephone infrustructure
(pay phones, etc).

-Robert

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 06:44:17 -0700, RL Anderson
wrote in
:

Here's a link to one of the most stupid ideas coming out of the
Department Of Homeland Security:

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/196127-1.html

Are you able to cite specific changes this proposal would require that
are not already required?

To paraphrase what you wrote in response to someone else on another thread:

Perhaps you might consider actually reading the news article and follow the
link it provides to the proposed rule change instead of admitting your
laziness and ignorance publicly in a worldwide forum.

Anyway, since you insist on asking a question that you could have answered
yourself had you bothered to read the article, I'll try to summarize for
you by quoting some of what the DHS says will now be required that was not
required before. Quoted material before the ellipsis summarizes existing
requirements, material after ellipsis summarizes new requirements:

"The advance notice of arrival requires information about the number of
alien passengers and number of U.S. citizen passengers, but it does not
require any identifying information for individual passengers onboard to be
submitted. The current regulations do not provide a specific timeframe when
the notice of arrival shall be given, but direct that the pilot shall
furnish such information far enough in advance to allow inspecting officers
to reach the place of first landing of the aircraft.
....
Under this rule, CBP is proposing regulatory changes that include requiring
the advance electronic information of notice of arrival combined with
passenger manifest data for those aboard private aircraft that arrive in
and depart from the United States. Additionally, this rule proposes
amendments regarding notice of arrival requirements, landing rights, and
departure requirements."

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:12:55 -0000, Jim Logajan
wrote in :

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 06:44:17 -0700, RL Anderson
wrote in
:

Here's a link to one of the most stupid ideas coming out of the
Department Of Homeland Security:

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/196127-1.html

Are you able to cite specific changes this proposal would require that
are not already required?

To paraphrase what you wrote in response to someone else on another thread:

Perhaps you might consider actually reading the news article and follow the
link it provides to the proposed rule change instead of admitting your
laziness and ignorance publicly in a worldwide forum.

Your paraphrase is inaccurate. I didn't assert an admitted uninformed
opinion as the author of the article I followed up did. I requested
more information. You are capable of discerning the difference,
aren't you.

Anyway, since you insist on asking a question that you could have answered
yourself had you bothered to read the article,

Your presumption is inaccurate. I read it. I didn't see anything new
of significance, so I requested more information about what would
change. I haven't made any international flights recently, but as I
recall it was necessary to provide most of the information this NPRM
mandates when dealing with inbound and outbound Customs agents anyway.

I'll try to summarize for you by quoting some of what the DHS says will
now be required that was not required before.

Thank you.

Quoted material before the ellipsis summarizes existing
requirements, material after ellipsis summarizes new requirements:

"The advance notice of arrival requires information about the number of
alien passengers and number of U.S. citizen passengers, but it does not
require any identifying information for individual passengers onboard to be
submitted. The current regulations do not provide a specific timeframe when
the notice of arrival shall be given, but direct that the pilot shall
furnish such information far enough in advance to allow inspecting officers
to reach the place of first landing of the aircraft.
...
Under this rule, CBP is proposing regulatory changes that include requiring
the advance electronic information of notice of arrival combined with
passenger manifest data for those aboard private aircraft that arrive in
and depart from the United States. Additionally, this rule proposes
amendments regarding notice of arrival requirements, landing rights, and
departure requirements."

I don't see anything particularly burdensome there, but of course, we
are lacking specifics about notice of arrival requirements, landing
rights, and departure requirements.

Presumably most airports of entry have the means to convey electronic
roster submissions. The one hour advance notice seems reasonable to
me, as Customs delays can often exceed that. What am I missing?