Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Another ridiculous TSA idea on GA

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Major, major, MAJOR league pain in the ass...especially for your average 1-2 aircraft light jet operator.

The thing that bothers me most is requiring small airports capable of serving aircraft over 12.5k to implement similar security programs. That's a slippery slope to airline-style screenings "In the name of public safety" that I don't even want to consider...:angryfire
 
Google "49 CFR 1550".
I had to submit a program to the TSA for my 91 operations in anticipation of this reg being enforced.
It was a very simple four page doc which addressed verifying pax and their bags, securing the acft when away, and procedures for bag and pax control within a sterile/secure area. They don't care about screening (wanding/x-ray) for 91 ops because there isn't any written guidelines yet.
Most TSA reps are clueless at this point and just pencil whip the endorsement so I recommend that you do it sooner then later.
 
I can almost see my job ending if this piece of crap goes through. How am I supposed to come up with a security program for a single pilot operation on a 16k aircraft? We don't have the resources. I'm going to have to hire an aviation lawyer, and a book keeper just to track our security progress. Then, I'm going to have to pay a 3rd party to verify that I have a lawyer and book keeper for the security on this little airplane that flies the boss and his friends around. This is the most absurd action the government can take. How can anyone justify hiring two extra people to just do paper work on a turbo prop. Guess I better hit the books and get my real estate license. :bawling:
 
I can almost see my job ending if this piece of crap goes through. How am I supposed to come up with a security program for a single pilot operation on a 16k aircraft? We don't have the resources. I'm going to have to hire an aviation lawyer, and a book keeper just to track our security progress. Then, I'm going to have to pay a 3rd party to verify that I have a lawyer and book keeper for the security on this little airplane that flies the boss and his friends around. This is the most absurd action the government can take. How can anyone justify hiring two extra people to just do paper work on a turbo prop. Guess I better hit the books and get my real estate license. :bawling:


Get use to it, it isn't the end of the world. I have been dealing with this for years part 135. One plane two pilots, 135 FAA crap, TSA crap, scheduling and planning maintenance and still fly 400-500 hrs a year.

Oh...and by the way...its our goverment and they can't be stopped !!! :angryfire
 
By Thomas Frank, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Travelers who fly on private corporate jets would have to clear background checks before boarding under a new proposal made Thursday by the Transportation Security Administration.
The TSA is seeking to impose the security requirements on roughly 15,000 corporate jets and 315 small airports that currently have none.
A group of private-plane owners and pilots warned that the proposal could be costly and represent an unprecedented intrusion into private flying. Hundreds of thousands of people travel each year on such jets.
There is no specific threat to corporate jets, but the TSA said in its 260-page proposal that many are the same size and weight as commercial planes "and they could be used effectively to commit a terrorist act." Private jets, possibly packed with explosives, could fly into a building or could transport terrorists or dangerous materials, the TSA said.
"This is an important milestone," said Michal Morgan, TSA head of general aviation security. "It's the evolution of security into a new operating environment."
The proposal would take effect next year at the earliest and be phased in over two years. The TSA said it would cost $200 million a year, with corporate jet owners paying 85%.
Passengers would have to be checked against a terrorist watch list, just like airline passengers. They would also have to give their names and birth dates. The TSA says the checks would likely be done by companies that specialize in the process.
Morgan said passengers who regularly fly on corporate jets could be cleared once and would not have to face background checks again. Pilots of corporate jets would also have to pass criminal background checks.
The proposal does not require physical screening of passengers and does not regulate more than 150,000 smaller piston planes.
Andy Cebula, government-affairs chief for the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, warned that the TSA might try to regulate the small planes in the future. "It's a big step," Cebula said. "It would be like if you were driving your car and now you had to go through a background check."
spacer.gif


Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2008-10-09-background_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip
 
We should have shut our mouths, too many of us spouting about how g.a. was able to circumvent the idiotic TSA. Now they are onto it...anything to build their pyramid & justify their continued growth.
Oh well. At least we get to do body cavity searches! Wait! I am thinking of who I usually carry! Scratch that idea.
 
Get use to it, it isn't the end of the world. I have been dealing with this for years part 135. One plane two pilots, 135 FAA crap, TSA crap, scheduling and planning maintenance and still fly 400-500 hrs a year.

Oh...and by the way...its our goverment and they can't be stopped !!! :angryfire

2nd amendment.
 
Incredible waste of money. The TSA can't do their job with the airlines, why the hell would they be able to do it with GA?
 

Latest resources

Back
Top