letter to my representative re GA legislation

Hey all,

Following is the email I just wrote to my representative regarding the
GA non-security bill just introdouced into the House. I hope some of it
will read it and get some ideas for writing your own respresentative.
BTW, make sure you put your address at the end of the letter so he/she
know it is from one of their constituents.

Write your representative!!!!

Neil Bratney
PS. This was also posted to rec.aviation.student

***********************

Dear Representative Boswell,

I am writing with concern regarding (H.R. 5035) recently introduced by a
colleague of yours from New York. I have been informed that the bill
will require additional screening of general aviation flights, restrict
airspace for general aviation, and require constant contact with air
traffic control.

As a pilot, I believe this is terrible legislation. Each section calls
for truly unfeasible action without significant increase in security. I
have used some facts and quotes from the EAA and AOPA below while
writing this letter.

First, the act calls for commercial flight level of security on
non-commercial flights. The TSA would need to provide this security for
more than 17,000 landing facilities and nearly 200,000 aircraft in the
United States. It is difficult to imagine that the TSA and FAA could
ever develop, fund and administer such a plan. The DHS and the TSA have
repeatedly indicated that general aviation does not warrant such levels
of security when compared to other transportation modes and threats.

Thinking of the airports I fly from in Ankeny, Perry, Newton, and
Council Bluffs, it is unimaginable how such a plan can be implemented at
these locations. Instead, programs like AOPA's Airport Watch, similar
to a Neighborhood Watch, have been instituted, and have increased
security around these small airports.

Second, the act restricts altitudes and locations that general aircraft
can fly. It prohibits non-commercial flight from flying over cities
greater than 1,000,000. While cities like Des Moines, Omaha, and
Minneapolis would not be covered, I can't see why Chicago should be. The
FAA has already taken steps to provide appropriate security around
Washington DC, as well as special events like the Democrat and
Republican national conventions. Arbitrary restrictions like this will
demand costly resources, while again offering little if no increase in
security.

Finally, this bill demands every aircraft remain in contact with air
traffic control at all times. This would have two major effects. One,
it would spell the end of "visual flying" as we know it. Today, when
pilots are away from major cities and busy airspace, they are free to
fly and navigate as they wish, as long as they are in accordance with
FAA rules. It is very similar to the freedom you have to drive as you
wish, according to local laws. This very freedom was one of the biggest
reasons I decided to become a pilot. If it is taken away, myself, and
thousands of pilots like me would severely curtail our tourism, travel,
and hobby, and the impact on business that serve us would be quite grave.

Two, demanding that everyone of these tens of thousands of flights daily
be in contact with ATC would demand an incredible increase in the
abilities of the ATC system. Imagine the staff needed to safely control
ten to twenty times more aircraft! Add on top of this the facilities,
radio networks, and radar services needed for this control, and you see
that this is, once again, an incredible cost for a minimal increase in
security.

At most this bill demands millions of dollars in increased ATC
facilities, drastically weakens aviation's benefits to both large and
small business, and robs freedoms from tens of thousands of pleasure
pilots across our country. I would prefer not to endure this all
without adding one more inch of security to this country.

Thank you for your time, and I am interested in your reply. I will
carefully watch the progress of this bill through the house.

Neil A. Bratney, MD
4515 Beaver Ave
Des Moines, IA 50310

Neil,

You are fortunate in that your congresscritter, Rep. Leonard Boswell, is a
longtime pilot, AOPA member, sits on a transportation commitee, and is
generally what I would consider one of the good guy. I know he has been
good on GA issues in the past and would expect him to fight this stupidity.
Kudos to him.

I'm working on my letters right now.


--
David Herman
N6170T 1965 Cessna 150E
Boeing Field (BFI), Seattle, WA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Visit the Pacific Northwest Flying Forum:
http://www.pacificnorthwestflying.com/

"Neil Bratney" wrote in message
...
Hey all,

Following is the email I just wrote to my representative regarding the
GA non-security bill just introdouced into the House. I hope some of it
will read it and get some ideas for writing your own respresentative.
BTW, make sure you put your address at the end of the letter so he/she
know it is from one of their constituents.

Write your representative!!!!

Neil Bratney
PS. This was also posted to rec.aviation.student

***********************

Dear Representative Boswell,

I am writing with concern regarding (H.R. 5035) recently introduced by a
colleague of yours from New York. I have been informed that the bill
will require additional screening of general aviation flights, restrict
airspace for general aviation, and require constant contact with air
traffic control.

As a pilot, I believe this is terrible legislation. Each section calls
for truly unfeasible action without significant increase in security. I
have used some facts and quotes from the EAA and AOPA below while
writing this letter.

First, the act calls for commercial flight level of security on
non-commercial flights. The TSA would need to provide this security for
more than 17,000 landing facilities and nearly 200,000 aircraft in the
United States. It is difficult to imagine that the TSA and FAA could
ever develop, fund and administer such a plan. The DHS and the TSA have
repeatedly indicated that general aviation does not warrant such levels
of security when compared to other transportation modes and threats.

Thinking of the airports I fly from in Ankeny, Perry, Newton, and
Council Bluffs, it is unimaginable how such a plan can be implemented at
these locations. Instead, programs like AOPA's Airport Watch, similar
to a Neighborhood Watch, have been instituted, and have increased
security around these small airports.

Second, the act restricts altitudes and locations that general aircraft
can fly. It prohibits non-commercial flight from flying over cities
greater than 1,000,000. While cities like Des Moines, Omaha, and
Minneapolis would not be covered, I can't see why Chicago should be. The
FAA has already taken steps to provide appropriate security around
Washington DC, as well as special events like the Democrat and
Republican national conventions. Arbitrary restrictions like this will
demand costly resources, while again offering little if no increase in
security.

Finally, this bill demands every aircraft remain in contact with air
traffic control at all times. This would have two major effects. One,
it would spell the end of "visual flying" as we know it. Today, when
pilots are away from major cities and busy airspace, they are free to
fly and navigate as they wish, as long as they are in accordance with
FAA rules. It is very similar to the freedom you have to drive as you
wish, according to local laws. This very freedom was one of the biggest
reasons I decided to become a pilot. If it is taken away, myself, and
thousands of pilots like me would severely curtail our tourism, travel,
and hobby, and the impact on business that serve us would be quite grave.

Two, demanding that everyone of these tens of thousands of flights daily
be in contact with ATC would demand an incredible increase in the
abilities of the ATC system. Imagine the staff needed to safely control
ten to twenty times more aircraft! Add on top of this the facilities,
radio networks, and radar services needed for this control, and you see
that this is, once again, an incredible cost for a minimal increase in
security.

At most this bill demands millions of dollars in increased ATC
facilities, drastically weakens aviation's benefits to both large and
small business, and robs freedoms from tens of thousands of pleasure
pilots across our country. I would prefer not to endure this all
without adding one more inch of security to this country.

Thank you for your time, and I am interested in your reply. I will
carefully watch the progress of this bill through the house.

Neil A. Bratney, MD
4515 Beaver Ave
Des Moines, IA 50310

BTW, according to AOPA, your congressman Leonard Boswell was the guy who
pulled Weiner aside and slapped, er, talked some sense into him and got him
to back off on this stupid bill.
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...5security.html

You guys there in Iowa need to make sure you keep Lenny in the House.


--
David Herman
N6170T 1965 Cessna 150E
Boeing Field (BFI), Seattle, WA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Visit the Pacific Northwest Flying Forum:
http://www.pacificnorthwestflying.com/



"Neil Bratney" wrote in message
...
Hey all,

Following is the email I just wrote to my representative regarding the
GA non-security bill just introdouced into the House. I hope some of it
will read it and get some ideas for writing your own respresentative.
BTW, make sure you put your address at the end of the letter so he/she
know it is from one of their constituents.

Write your representative!!!!

Neil Bratney
PS. This was also posted to rec.aviation.student

***********************

Dear Representative Boswell,

I am writing with concern regarding (H.R. 5035) recently introduced by a
colleague of yours from New York. I have been informed that the bill
will require additional screening of general aviation flights, restrict
airspace for general aviation, and require constant contact with air
traffic control.

As a pilot, I believe this is terrible legislation. Each section calls
for truly unfeasible action without significant increase in security. I
have used some facts and quotes from the EAA and AOPA below while
writing this letter.

First, the act calls for commercial flight level of security on
non-commercial flights. The TSA would need to provide this security for
more than 17,000 landing facilities and nearly 200,000 aircraft in the
United States. It is difficult to imagine that the TSA and FAA could
ever develop, fund and administer such a plan. The DHS and the TSA have
repeatedly indicated that general aviation does not warrant such levels
of security when compared to other transportation modes and threats.

Thinking of the airports I fly from in Ankeny, Perry, Newton, and
Council Bluffs, it is unimaginable how such a plan can be implemented at
these locations. Instead, programs like AOPA's Airport Watch, similar
to a Neighborhood Watch, have been instituted, and have increased
security around these small airports.

Second, the act restricts altitudes and locations that general aircraft
can fly. It prohibits non-commercial flight from flying over cities
greater than 1,000,000. While cities like Des Moines, Omaha, and
Minneapolis would not be covered, I can't see why Chicago should be. The
FAA has already taken steps to provide appropriate security around
Washington DC, as well as special events like the Democrat and
Republican national conventions. Arbitrary restrictions like this will
demand costly resources, while again offering little if no increase in
security.

Finally, this bill demands every aircraft remain in contact with air
traffic control at all times. This would have two major effects. One,
it would spell the end of "visual flying" as we know it. Today, when
pilots are away from major cities and busy airspace, they are free to
fly and navigate as they wish, as long as they are in accordance with
FAA rules. It is very similar to the freedom you have to drive as you
wish, according to local laws. This very freedom was one of the biggest
reasons I decided to become a pilot. If it is taken away, myself, and
thousands of pilots like me would severely curtail our tourism, travel,
and hobby, and the impact on business that serve us would be quite grave.

Two, demanding that everyone of these tens of thousands of flights daily
be in contact with ATC would demand an incredible increase in the
abilities of the ATC system. Imagine the staff needed to safely control
ten to twenty times more aircraft! Add on top of this the facilities,
radio networks, and radar services needed for this control, and you see
that this is, once again, an incredible cost for a minimal increase in
security.

At most this bill demands millions of dollars in increased ATC
facilities, drastically weakens aviation's benefits to both large and
small business, and robs freedoms from tens of thousands of pleasure
pilots across our country. I would prefer not to endure this all
without adding one more inch of security to this country.

Thank you for your time, and I am interested in your reply. I will
carefully watch the progress of this bill through the house.

Neil A. Bratney, MD
4515 Beaver Ave
Des Moines, IA 50310