Airmens' Freedoms Threatened by Harsh Congressional Proposals

Airmens' Freedoms Threatened by Harsh Congressional Proposals

As many predicted, the knee jerk congressional response to recent anti
GA news media stories threatens airmens' freedoms. Outrageously
unjust in their ill conceived penalty proposals, new legislative bills
reflect the current administration's siege mentality.



-------------------------------------------------------------
AOPA ePilot Volume 7, Issue 28 July 15, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------

TOUGH GA SECURITY LEGISLATION BEGINS TO SURFACE IN CONGRESS
The media hype following four recent airspace incursions over
Washington, D.C., and Camp David, Maryland, and two aircraft
thefts by unlicensed young people didn't help general aviation's
image in some lawmakers' minds. After suffering through repeated
evacuations, lawmakers are responding with some potentially
threatening legislation. The most severe amendment, offered by New
Mexico Sens. Pete Domenici (R) and Jeff Bingaman (D), calls for a
$100,000 fine, confiscation of the aircraft, and a five-year loss
of flying privileges for "whoever negligently flies an aircraft in
a manner that violates the [700 square mile area] Washington,
D.C., Metropolitan Area Flight Restricted Zone (FRZ) and causes
the evacuation of a federal building or any other public
property...." AOPA is already talking with Domenici's office. "The
proposed penalty is extraordinarily harsh--too harsh in fact--but
it's clear that members of Congress want to get every pilot's
attention that they will not accept any more excuses for these
transgressions," said AOPA President Phil Boyer.

A true statesman would have also included penalties imposed on ATC
personnel if they should be found to have caused an unauthorized
penetration of the FRZ, as well as have considered a pilot's emergency
authority.

Another amendment from Sens. Hillary R. Clinton (D-N.Y.) and
Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), calls for a government study of general
aviation security, including "the vulnerability posed to high-risk
areas and facilities from general aviation aircraft that could be
stolen or used as a weapon or armed with a weapon." Meanwhile, a
bill that would impose a $10,000 to $100,000 fine and a two- to
five-year certificate suspension is being contemplated in the
House. "We will continue to work on Capitol Hill to try to dial
these measures back down to 'more reasonable,'" Boyer added. "And
when you think about it, with F-16s and Patriot missile batteries
stationed around the area that are ready to inflict the ultimate
penalty on an errant pilot, what more deterrent could and should
there be?

We've got to find a way to get some GA sympathetic press coverage to
counter the nation's hysterical scapegoating of GA.

The actions of a few bad apples are spoiling it for all the rest."

Above, Boyer turns airman against airman. Disappointing.

"Do your part to diminish the media mania about every small
airplane and small airport being a terrorist threat. If we all
don’t participate in this clear and present problem, we might not
like the national and local solutions that will be handed to us."
Download Boyer's latest editorial, "
( http://download.aopa.org/epilot/2005/pp0508.pdf ).

I doubt journalists can be found who will tell the public that GA is
no threat to them. That won't sell newspapers.



http://66.218.71.225/search/cache?p=...icp=1&.intl=us
Wed, Jul 13 2005
Aero-News Alert: Senators Declaring War On GA
...
Two amendments to the Department of Homeland Security
appropriations bill* were filed this week in the U.S. Senate.

...

The second amendment, nearly as distressing, comes from Senators
Hillary R. Clinton (D-NY-Pictured, Above) and Richard Durbin
(D-IL-Pictured, Below). calls for a government study of general
aviation security, including "the vulnerability posed to high-risk
areas and facilities from general aviation aircraft that could be
stolen or used as a weapon or armed with a weapon."

The study would also include GA airport security, technology that
could easily track GA aircraft, disabling measures that could
prevent aircraft theft, and "an assessment of the threat posed to
high population arrears, nuclear facilities, key infrastructure,
military bases, and transportation infrastructure that stolen or
hijacked general aviation aircraft pose, especially if armed with
weapons or explosives."

*
http://appropriations.house.gov/inde...th=5&Year=2005
Requires DHS to implement a security plan to permit general aviation
aircraft to land and take off at Ronald Reagan Washington National
Airport within 90 days of enactment of this Act;


http://appropriations.house.gov/inde...&OrderSort=ASC
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Number: H.R.2360
Date Introduced: 05/13/05

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...temp/~bdDPJX::
S.AMDT.1106
SEC. 519. (a) Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the
Secretary of Transportation, shall assess and report in writing to the
Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Homeland Security and
Government Affairs, and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate on the following:

(1) The vulnerability posed to high risk areas and facilities from
general aviation aircraft that could be stolen or used as a weapon or
armed with a weapon.

(2) The security vulnerabilities existing at general aviation
airports that would permit general aviation aircraft to be stolen.

(3) Low-cost, high-performance technology that could be used to
easily track general aviation aircraft that could otherwise fly
undetected.

(4) The feasibility of implementing security measures that would
disable general aviation aircraft while on the ground and parked to
prevent theft.

(5) The feasibility of performing requisite background checks on
individuals working at general aviation airports that have access to
aircraft or flight line activities.

(6) An assessment of the threat posed to high population areas,
nuclear facilities, key infrastructure, military bases, and
transportation infrastructure that stolen or hijacked general aviation
aircraft pose especially if armed with weapons or explosives.

(7) An assessment of existing security precautions in place at
general aviation airports to prevent breaches of the flight line and
perimeter.

(8) An assessment of whether unmanned air traffic control towers
provide a security or alert weakness to the security of general
aviation aircraft.

(9) An assessment of the additional measures that should be
adopted to ensure the security of general aviation aircraft.

(b) The report required by subsection (a) shall include cost
estimates associated with implementing each of the measures
recommended in the report.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask that Senators LAUTENBERG, CORZINE,
and SCHUMER be added as cosponsors of this amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, this is a commonsense amendment
regarding the potential threat that all of our cities and States face
from the theft or misuse of general aviation aircraft by criminals or
terrorists.

This amendment would require the Secretary of Homeland Security, in
coordination with the Secretary of Transportation, to assess the
dangers posed to high-risk, large population, and critical
infrastructure areas should general aviation aircraft be stolen and
used as a weapon by a criminal or terrorist.

[Page: S8183] GPO's PDF
This study would require the two Secretaries to assess the
vulnerability of general aviation airports and aircraft and study what
low-cost, high-technology devices could be available to better track
general aviation aircraft.

Last month, a 20-year-old young man, while intoxicated and
accompanied by two other individuals, breached a perimeter fence of an
airport in Danbury, CT. He and his companions stole a small Cessna 172
aircraft, departed from the airport without detection, flew across the
eastern border of New York, and eventually, thankfully, landed without
incident at the Westchester County Airport in New York very near to my
home.

What is alarming about this is that this happened, and it happened
without detection. So far as we know, no one knew the aircraft had
been stolen or that the joyride was taking place. This incident
occurred very close to New York City, very close to Indian Point, the
nuclear facility in the county. Thankfully, this particular incident
ended without any damage, destruction, or death, and the individuals
were eventually detained by law enforcement.

Following the incident, which, as you might imagine, happening so
close to New York City involving stolen aircraft raised a great deal
of concern among my constituents, I wrote to Secretary Chertoff and
Secretary Mineta asking for an investigation into this incident, and I
hope to hear back from them both soon. But this incident should be a
forewarning of the types of threats we still face from aircraft. We
have been very focused on the big commercial aircraft that many of us
use on a regular basis, but we cannot forget that most aircraft are in
private hands in local airports, many of them privately owned or
privately leased, and that they still pose a potential danger to key
infrastructure, to populated areas, and we need to be more aware of
what that threat could be.

The 9/11 Commission, which looked at this, concluded:


Major vulnerabilities still exist in cargo and general aviation
security. These, together with inadequate screening and access
controls, continue to present aviation security challenges.


In addition, the 9/11 Commission told us that we needed to be
imaginative, we needed to think outside the box. Unfortunately, we
needed to think like those who wish us harm about what the new and
emerging threats could be.

The Transportation Security Administration, known as TSA, issued
security guidelines for general aviation airports in May of 2004, and
they outlined some guidelines that general aviation airports should
follow in order to secure the aircraft and the airfield.

There are more than 19,000 landing facilities nationwide, including
heliports, lakes, and dirt landing strips from which aircraft could be
launched and more than 200,000 general aviation aircraft in our
country.

Of course, it is impossible to avoid every threat that is posed to
the public or that we can imagine, but we should be vigilant to make
sure we have a partnership so that local communities, private
individuals, and private businesses can all take necessary steps to be
vigilant and protective.

My amendment requires the Secretary of Homeland Security, in
coordination with the Secretary of Transportation, to conduct a threat
assessment posed by security breaches at general aviation airports and
to look at the potential impact such threats could pose to a number of
potential targets if an aircraft were used as weapon or were loaded
with explosives by terrorists.

The Department of Homeland Security would assess low-cost
technologies to track general aviation aircraft, the feasibility of
implementing additional security measures and background checks, an
analysis of airports with unmanned air traffic control towers and what
costs may be associated with implementing necessary additional
security measures.

We have been very blessed that we have not suffered another
terrorist attack. That is due to the hard work and vigilance of
countless Americans who have responded not just heroically but in a
very steadfast, daily way to prevent, detect, deter, and defend
against potential threats.

In this building, we have experienced evacuations which,
thankfully, were caused by either false alarms or as a result of
errors by pilots. Recently, another general aviation aircraft breached
the airspace over Camp David while the President of the United States
was present.

It is important to evaluate the threats that could be posed. In its
2004 report, the TSA stated that as many vulnerabilities within other
areas of aviation have been reduced, general aviation may be perceived
as a more attractive target and consequently more vulnerable to
misuses by terrorists.

I have flown in just about every little kind of plane you can
imagine--medium-sized plane, big plane, crop dusters. I have had doors
blow off, windows blow off, I have had emergency landings in pastures
and cow fields and roads. I have been in so many airports at all hours
of the day and night when no one was around except those getting into
the airport or those just landing. I have a good idea how available
these airfields are.

I appreciate the work the Aviation Security Advisory Committee
Working Group did in advising the TSA. However, given the heightened
vulnerability that we all are aware of, given some of the recent
events--including the evacuations of our own Capitol involving general
aviation aircraft--we need to roll up our sleeves and take another
hard look at this. I hope we can do it hand in hand with the general
aviation fixed-base operators, pilots, owners, airport managers, and
others who have been working hard to increase security measures at so
many of these small airports.

I believe in general aviation. I take advantage of it practically
every week. It is a significant and important contributor to our
national economy. I want to be sure we do everything possible to make
sure it is not in any way affected by any potential criminal or
terrorist activity.

This amendment does not mandate any new costs for general aviation.
It simply requires the study be conducted on vulnerabilities and a
report made to Congress within 120 days. Most people who own these
airports, most people who own these general aviation aircraft, want to
be safe. They want to do what is necessary to protect their
investment. But we need to have a good analysis of what the threats
might be so we can be smart about how we address them. We certainly do
not want to wait until an incident happens.

I appreciate Chairman Gregg and Senator Byrd who have agreed to
accept this amendment.

I ask unanimous consent amendment 1106 be agreed to.

Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be agreed to.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the
amendment.

The amendment (No. 1106) was agreed to.

--------------------------------------------------



http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...temp/~bdov20::
S.AMDT.1168
Amends: H.R.2360
Sponsor: Sen Domenici, Pete V. [NM] (submitted 7/11/2005)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...pTXLG:e280978:

SA 1168. Mr. DOMENICI (for himself and Mr. Bingaman) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2360, making
appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes; which was
ordered to lie on the table; as follows:


At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18.

(a) In General.--Chapter 2 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following: ``§1A39. Violation of
Washington, D.C. airspace

``Whoever negligently flies an aircraft in a manner that violates
the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area Flight Restricted Zone (as
defined by the Federal Aviation Administration) and causes the
evacuation a Federal building or any other public property shall be
subject to a fine of $100,000, confiscation of the aircraft, and loss
of the right to fly in United States airspace for 5 years.''.

(b) Chapter Analysis.--The table of sections for chapter 2 of
title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:


``Sec..39..Violation of Washington, D.C. airspace.''.

Stupid rules (ADIZ) beget bad legislation. Meanwhile, what about mass
transit?

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 14:17:46 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:


Airmens' Freedoms Threatened by Harsh Congressional Proposals

Boyer added. "And
when you think about it, with F-16s and Patriot missile batteries
stationed around the area that are ready to inflict the ultimate
penalty on an errant pilot, what more deterrent could and should
there be?

There is not a PATRIOT missile anywhere near that area.

Ask me how I know that PATRIOT is an acronym! My wife invented it
and I have worked on PATRIOT since 1977.

JOVIAL is the password.

Mike Weller

How long before Daley wants the same thing?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
The most severe amendment, offered by New
Mexico Sens. Pete Domenici (R) and Jeff Bingaman (D), calls for a
$100,000 fine, confiscation of the aircraft, and a five-year loss
of flying privileges for "whoever negligently flies an aircraft in
a manner that violates the [700 square mile area] Washington,
D.C., Metropolitan Area Flight Restricted Zone (FRZ) and causes
the evacuation of a federal building or any other public
property...."

He already asked.

Steve Foley wrote:
How long before Daley wants the same thing?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
The most severe amendment, offered by New
Mexico Sens. Pete Domenici (R) and Jeff Bingaman (D), calls for a
$100,000 fine, confiscation of the aircraft, and a five-year loss
of flying privileges for "whoever negligently flies an aircraft in
a manner that violates the [700 square mile area] Washington,
D.C., Metropolitan Area Flight Restricted Zone (FRZ) and causes
the evacuation of a federal building or any other public
property...."

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

Airmens' Freedoms Threatened by Harsh Congressional Proposals

As many predicted, the knee jerk congressional response to recent anti
GA news media stories threatens airmens' freedoms. Outrageously
unjust in their ill conceived penalty proposals, new legislative bills
reflect the current administration's siege mentality.

Well, the penalties are clearly ridiculous. But then, so is the ADIZ. It
shouldn't be much of a surprise that the Congress-critters, having gotten
annoyed at having to get out of their chairs and leave the building a couple
of times, would choose this reaction, rather than to pose the serious
question as to what the ADIZ and other flight restrictions in the area are
actually doing (answer: nothing, with respect to protecting DC).

I welcome the study, however. Assuming it's done honestly and efficiently
(two words not well-known among politicians, I realize), it could be just
what we need to get rid of the ADIZ altogether. The one major flaw in the
proposal is that it does not compare the risk to the public presented by
aviation to the risk presented by other forms of transportation. It is
insufficient to identify risks; those risks must be evaluated in context,
something the general public and the government are both chronically rotten
at doing.

Pete

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:37:12 -0500, Mike Weller wrote in
1121437780.ac75d9e53f97f2fff4939e955b76e1dc@onlyn ews::

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 14:17:46 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:


Airmens' Freedoms Threatened by Harsh Congressional Proposals

Boyer added. "And
when you think about it, with F-16s and Patriot missile batteries
stationed around the area that are ready to inflict the ultimate
penalty on an errant pilot, what more deterrent could and should
there be?

There is not a PATRIOT missile anywhere near that area.

Ask me how I know that PATRIOT is an acronym! My wife invented it
and I have worked on PATRIOT since 1977.

JOVIAL is the password.

Mike Weller



Right. As I recall, they were shoulder fired.

Paul kgyy wrote:
Stupid rules (ADIZ) beget bad legislation. Meanwhile, what about mass
transit?


How dare you inject logic into the maelstrom.

The Patriot system has a 7.4 foot long missile powered by a single stage
solid propellant rocket motor that runs at mach 3 speeds.The missile itself
weighs 2200 pounds and its range is 43 miles. The Patriot is armed with a
200 pound high-explosive warhead detonated by a proximity fuse that causes
shrapnell to destroy the intended target. Each Patriot missile system has
eight m-901 storage/transportation containers that serve as launchers, and
every launcher contains four missiles. The launchers are hooked to an m-860
trailer. The system possesses an MSQ-104 engagement control station, which
is mounted on an M-818 tractor. The Track Via Missile guidance system is the
basis of the overall system.

The system is built around radar and fast computers.The missile is launched
and guided to the target through three phases. First, the missiles guidance
system turns the Patriot toward the incoming missile as that missile flies
into the Patriot's radar beam. Then the Patriot's computer guides the
missile toward the incoming Scud missile. Finally, the Patriot Missile's
internal radar receiver guides it toward the interception of the incoming
missile. (Boyne, Walter Colonel U.S.A.F. (Ret) Gulf War-A comprehensive
guide to people, places and weapons Signet 1991)

I believe the Patriot they refer to is this puppy here

I believe the original "Patriot" missle was done in the 70's wasn't it? Was
it really shoulder fired? Wow must have been a heck of alot smaller than the
modern Patriot?



Patrick

student SPL

aircraft structural mech



"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:37:12 -0500, Mike Weller wrote in
1121437780.ac75d9e53f97f2fff4939e955b76e1dc@onlyn ews::

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 14:17:46 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:


Airmens' Freedoms Threatened by Harsh Congressional Proposals

Boyer added. "And
when you think about it, with F-16s and Patriot missile batteries
stationed around the area that are ready to inflict the ultimate
penalty on an errant pilot, what more deterrent could and should
there be?

There is not a PATRIOT missile anywhere near that area.

Ask me how I know that PATRIOT is an acronym! My wife invented it
and I have worked on PATRIOT since 1977.

JOVIAL is the password.

Mike Weller



Right. As I recall, they were shoulder fired.

The Patriot was never shoulder fired. Here's a website on it.
www.army-technology.com/projects/patriot


"W P Dixon" wrote in message
...
The Patriot system has a 7.4 foot long missile powered by a single stage
solid propellant rocket motor that runs at mach 3 speeds.The missile
itself weighs 2200 pounds and its range is 43 miles. The Patriot is armed
with a 200 pound high-explosive warhead detonated by a proximity fuse that
causes shrapnell to destroy the intended target. Each Patriot missile
system has eight m-901 storage/transportation containers that serve as
launchers, and every launcher contains four missiles. The launchers are
hooked to an m-860 trailer. The system possesses an MSQ-104 engagement
control station, which is mounted on an M-818 tractor. The Track Via
Missile guidance system is the basis of the overall system.

The system is built around radar and fast computers.The missile is
launched and guided to the target through three phases. First, the
missiles guidance system turns the Patriot toward the incoming missile as
that missile flies into the Patriot's radar beam. Then the Patriot's
computer guides the missile toward the incoming Scud missile. Finally, the
Patriot Missile's internal radar receiver guides it toward the
interception of the incoming missile. (Boyne, Walter Colonel U.S.A.F.
(Ret) Gulf War-A comprehensive guide to people, places and weapons Signet
1991)

I believe the Patriot they refer to is this puppy here

I believe the original "Patriot" missle was done in the 70's wasn't it?
Was it really shoulder fired? Wow must have been a heck of alot smaller
than the modern Patriot?



Patrick

student SPL

aircraft structural mech



"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:37:12 -0500, Mike Weller wrote in
1121437780.ac75d9e53f97f2fff4939e955b76e1dc@onlyn ews::

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 14:17:46 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:


Airmens' Freedoms Threatened by Harsh Congressional Proposals

Boyer added. "And
when you think about it, with F-16s and Patriot missile batteries
stationed around the area that are ready to inflict the ultimate
penalty on an errant pilot, what more deterrent could and should
there be?

There is not a PATRIOT missile anywhere near that area.

Ask me how I know that PATRIOT is an acronym! My wife invented it
and I have worked on PATRIOT since 1977.

JOVIAL is the password.

Mike Weller



Right. As I recall, they were shoulder fired.