LASP NPRM in ATL

[ksu_aviator]

I am aware of what will happen if this program is implemented. I hope it doesn't happen, but it is fearmongering to say everyone will lose their job if/when it happens. Many of us have been preparing for something like this for years.

Don't blame the TSA, they are just doing what Congress told them to do. You should focus your efforts on getting Congress and the President to ammend the law that established this process.

Right now, we need to focus on stopping this rule. Later, we can work on the TSA. However, it is damn hard to eliminate a bureaucracy after it has been established. It would be like fighting city hall by trying to eliminate city hall...it just isn't going to happen.

Also, it is not fear mongering to suggest that most will lose their job if this program is implemented. Most, if not all, single aircraft operations won't be able to afford the expenses that come with this program. Single aircraft operators are going to switch to fractionals in droves to avoid the head aches.

 

[ksu_aviator]

DATES: The public meetings will be on January 6, 2009, in White Plains,
NY; January 8, 2009, in Atlanta, GA; January 16, 2009, in Chicago, IL;
January 23, 2009 in Burbank, CA; and January 28, 2009 in Houston, TX.
The meetings will begin at 9 a.m., and registration will start at 8
a.m. All interested persons may provide written comments, which must be
received in the public docket by February 27, 2009.

ADDRESSES: The public meetings will be held at the following locations:
(1) White Plains, NY: Westchester County Airport (HPN), Building 1
Airport Road, White Plains, NY 10604;
(2) Atlanta, GA: Renaissance Concourse Hotel Atlanta Airport, One
Hartsfield Centre Parkway, Atlanta, GA 30354;
(3) Chicago, IL: Crowne Plaza Chicago O'Hare Hotel & Conference
Center, 5440 North River Road, Rosemont, IL 60018;
(4) Burbank, CA: Burbank Airport Marriott Hotel & Convention
Center, 2500 North Hollywood Way, Burbank, CA 91505; and
(5) Houston, TX: Conference Center, Hilton Houston Hotel--North
Greenspoint, 12400 Greenspoint Drive, Houston, TX 77060.
Participants should check in with TSA staff when they arrive at the
public meeting.

 

[svcta]

Why does no one care more about this. It has the potential to be far more sweeping and worse than TARP legislation.

GA airports, for example, indicate that the cost of compliance with LASP will be well over 1 million to start with an annual cost of between $150 and $250K to maintain. How many municipal airports do you know of that can afford that? Certainly not the one where I used to work as a gas pumper years ago. Any airport that can accept an a/c over 12,500 will have to comply. The cost will be staggering. Airports will close. Maybe yours. Then what are you going to do? Are we all going to move operations to CLT, DFW, ATL, ORD, etc?

Does this get any more of your collective attention?

 

[blzr]

We are in a hangar with 15 other aircraft. The way the new rules were explained to me, if they go into effect, we will not be allowed to enter the hanger to access our aircraft PERIOD! we would be violating the restricted area around the other aircraft and would be subject to fines ot worse. Also, my boss wouldn't be able to carry tools, which he needs to do his job, in the aircraft. Since we don't have external baggage, kinda eliminates the need for the aircraft anyway. Also, no access to the ramp without a TSA escort (at our expense after hours). This whole thing is just rediculous. I think it is designed to put general aviation out of buisness to bolster the airlines and fractionals. Either we get this stopped or try like hell to get on with an airline or fractional, aor get out of aviation entirely.

 

[svcta]

Absolutely correct. No tools, no fluids more than 3 oz., no pocket knives, no flares (there go your life rafts), nothing that can't also be carried on an airliner. And criminal charges for a pilot that gets caught not properly screening his bosses bags. No passengers that aren't checked against the no-fly list on every single leg of a trip (even if the passenger list doesn't change). And what about the crash axe in the cockpit of our jets? Who's gonna pay for hardened cockpit doors and emergency cockpit exits in all private and business aircraft above 12,500#?

 

[Headwind]

How will this effect the jet market? Will light jets like the CJ1 (10,500#) go up in value and A Brovo go down?

 

[svcta]

That's a little myopic, isn't it?

 

[blzr]

Docket Management Facility
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
West Building Ground Floor
Room W12-140
Washington, DC 20590-0001
Fax 202-493-2251

RE: RIN 1652-AA53

Dear Sir or Madam:

I have reviewed the rules proposed in RIN 1652-AA53 and I wish to submit a few comments.

I appreciate the need for good security to prevent the loss of innocent life. However, I believe that this rule over reaches the bounds of reasonable security. The hardest hit will be small operators, operating small aircraft for pleasure.

The definition used to determine what aircraft is large, and thus covered by the proposed rule changes, is not the same definition used by the FAA or ICAO for determining the aircraft’s size. The definition used was intended for certification of airmen. A more accurate definition can be found on http://www.flyingineurope.be/Flightplan.htm

H — Heavy (aircraft with a maximum certificated takeoff weight of 136,000 kg/300,000 lb or more).​

M — Medium (aircraft with a maximum certificated takeoff weight of less than 136,000 kg/300,000 lb, but more than 7,000 kg/15,500 lb).​

L—Light (aircraft with a maximum certificated takeoff weight of 7,000 kg/15,500 lb or less).​

As I read the proposed rule, I wonder if the rule isn’t intended for 300,000 lb aircraft and larger.

I am an Aircraft Manager for a small Medium-Light aircraft (16,000 lbs). Our company is so small; I am the Aircraft Manager, Chief Pilot, Bookkeeper and Dispatcher. I am the only employee. Under the proposed rule change, I will have to hire an aviation lawyer, bookkeeper and a third party auditor to comply with the rules. This will more than triple our annual salary budget.

Keep in mind; our passengers consist of the aircraft’s owner, his wife and eight friends. Our need for a security program is minimal at most. Our situation is not unique. There are thousands of small aircraft that fit into the large aircraft definition used in this proposed rule. Most, will operate under a similar situation to ours.

The facts are, this proposed rule will be cost prohibitive to thousands of General Aviation operators. May I suggest adjusting the rule to cover the ICAO definition for Heavy aircraft? Heavy aircraft (300,000 lbs or more) are far more likely to fly passengers that are not well known to the pilots or the owners. This is the area that is in the greatest need for new security requirements.

Below, I will attach pictures for several different aircraft that will be covered by the plan. All of these aircraft have a seating capacity of 18 passengers or less.

Have they responded to you? I am about to write an email to Eric Jansen and I have a bad feeling that he doesn't care a RAT what we think.

 

[ksu_aviator]

Have they responded to you? I am about to write an email to Eric Jansen and I have a bad feeling that he doesn't care a RAT what we think.

No response. I will be at the meeting in Houston. Boss agreed that we need to do everything we can.

 

[jross]

Absolutely correct. No tools, no fluids more than 3 oz., no pocket knives, no flares (there go your life rafts), nothing that can't also be carried on an airliner. And criminal charges for a pilot that gets caught not properly screening his bosses bags. No passengers that aren't checked against the no-fly list on every single leg of a trip (even if the passenger list doesn't change). And what about the crash axe in the cockpit of our jets? Who's gonna pay for hardened cockpit doors and emergency cockpit exits in all private and business aircraft above 12,500#?

svcta, where are you reading this? I have all 260 pages in front of me and having a hard time finding these specifics.