• NC Software is proud to announce the release of APDL - Airline Pilot Logbook version 10.0. Click here to view APDL on the Apple App store and install now.
  • Logbook Pro for Apple iOS version 8.1 is now available on the App Store. Major update including signature endorsements and dark/light theme support. Click here to install now.

TSA Large Aircraft Security Program NPRM

pilotyip

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
13,629
Total Time
14000
this has nothing to do with making the US safer, it has to do with regulation gone wild in the name bueuricratic growth.
 

ultrarunner

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
4,324
Total Time
10000
Incredible. Well, along with submitting my own comments, we all need to make our feelings know to the trade organization that we pay big bucks to every year, to nip this pronto!
 

AZ Typed

Hobby's Flyin
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Posts
377
Total Time
4500
Total Pork.

Comment submitted, forwarded to other pilots to comment on as well.

AZT
 

Hawker800

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2006
Posts
316
Total Time
5300
It is not about security. It is about the Government making it it's business to know where the passengers are going and who is on board for tax reasons. Personal use of business aircraft.
 

Be 23

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Posts
127
Total Time
3500
Thanks for the link. You got a comment from one pilot who wouldn't have found it himself.
 

atpcliff

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
4,260
Total Time
6000
Hi!

The ONLY thing I like about the rule change is it makes it more fair for us.

We have a -121 50 seat airplane. When we do a private charter, we have to screen the pax and bags, and do a manifest check via DHS.

When our competitors come in with a -121 50 seat airplane for private charter, they do NOT have to screen the PAX, do NOT have to screen the bags, and do NOT have to do a manifest check via DHS.

It adds cost and complexity to our operation, that our competitors don't have-bogus!

cliff
YIP
 

BoilerUP

Citation style...
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Posts
5,311
Total Time
1500+
atpcliff said:
The ONLY thing I like about the rule change is it makes it more fair for us.

We have a -121 50 seat airplane. When we do a private charter, we have to screen the pax and bags, and do a manifest check via DHS.

When our competitors come in with a -121 50 seat airplane for private charter, they do NOT have to screen the PAX, do NOT have to screen the bags, and do NOT have to do a manifest check via DHS.

It adds cost and complexity to our operation, that our competitors don't have-bogus!

The key here, cliff, is both you and your competitor are part 121.

This NPRM will apply to non-commercial part 91 operators.

I don't know why the disparity between you and a 50 seat RJ other than MTOW difference and the DC9 falling under the existing program, but there's no reason for a PRIVATE operator to go through this rigmarole.
 

pilotyip

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
13,629
Total Time
14000
Based on A/C weight

The key here, cliff, is both you and your competitor are part 121.

This NPRM will apply to non-commercial part 91 operators.

I don't know why the disparity between you and a 50 seat RJ other than MTOW difference and the DC9 falling under the existing program, but there's no reason for a PRIVATE operator to go through this rigmarole.
Airplanes over 90K MGTOW have to screen, under doesn't
 

steve937

Member
Joined
May 3, 2005
Posts
18
Total Time
350
Exactly what will the TSA require us part 91 people do? I'm not up to speed on the "Large Airplane Security Program"
 

LJ45

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 2, 2005
Posts
1,081
Total Time
13,000
Exactly what will the TSA require us part 91 people do? I'm not up to speed on the "Large Airplane Security Program"

I would suggest getting up to "speed" and read the NPRM for yourself, before you get run over.

:beer:
 

Princedietrich

Retired Starchecker
Joined
Oct 27, 2004
Posts
1,437
Total Time
Enough
Added my comments, and they certainly are not in favor of adopting this rule.
 

thatpilotguy

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Posts
217
Total Time
Some
Here is a brief quote from an AIN article regarding the proposed TSA NPRM. This is something that everyone, Fractional (91.k), 135, and 91 should be concerned about. Regardless of what part of the industry you belong, or hope to work in, this is another example of the TSA over reaching and not providing any additional security. I agree with the statement that it boils down to cash...the TSA see's a way to increase it's cash flow, need for additional staff and justify it's existance.

[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']“Here’s what you could not do if the rules become law:

• Fly your spouse or children in your single-pilot Citation S/II without first having them cleared against the TSA’s watch list.

• Fly your boss to a business meeting in the company Hawker 800 without having him or her cleared against the watch list.

• Fly yourself in your own Super King Air 300 without having your in-house security coordinator (it could be you) check the airplane for stowaways.

• Fly yourself in your own single-pilot Premier IA without getting yourself vetted with a fingerprint and criminal-history records check.

The NPRM is specific and clear about what owners and operators of general aviation aircraft weighing more than 12,500 pounds must do once the rules take effect. To fly any Part 91 flight in any aircraft with an mtow of more than 12,500 pounds, the following will be mandatory:

• A TSA-approved security plan;

• a third-party audit of that plan six months after TSA approval of the plan and every two years thereafter;

• an in-house security coordinator, who has been provided initial and annual recurrent training;

• flight crew who have undergone FBI criminal-history records checks and fingerprint checks and TSA security threat assessments;

• preflight checks of all passengers against TSA watch lists (no-fly and selectee lists). This would be done through TSA-approved third parties, and the watch list would no longer be released to operators.

To the TSA, the proposed Large Aircraft Security Program regulations make perfectly good sense, but general aviation operators for the most part oppose the rules as unnecessary, costly, logistically difficult to implement and impossible to enforce.”
[/FONT]


http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/large-aircraft-nprm-raises-more-questions-than-answers/

Here is the link to the proposal, and comments section.

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=0900006480784e85
 

LJ45

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 2, 2005
Posts
1,081
Total Time
13,000
I am already doing all that part 135 myself with no help! and it sucks !!!
 

siouxicide

Gimme yo' change
Joined
Sep 19, 2003
Posts
153
Total Time
0-9000
I've been out of the whole loop for a while, but checking the No-Fly list consisted of just looking to see if the person's name was there and then filling out a form saying you "checked" it. Is this still the case? Don't get me wrong, I think this program is completely irrelevant to Corp. flying. I'm just trying to plan ahead and hopefully find loopholes.
 

thatpilotguy

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Posts
217
Total Time
Some
It goes beyond the no fly list. It's not completely clear what all will be included in the program, that is the biggest problem with the proposal. There is language that baggage checks will be included, I have read that TSA security officers or air marshalls may need to ride on corporate aircraft. Now I have to admit that I didn't read the entire 260 page doc, but they have made a mess of the airlines and would really like to see them stay as far away from the corporate world as possible.
 

Fblowjets

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 1, 2005
Posts
150
Total Time
5600
Can I also wear the blue shirt, while my passengers board my 350? BTW all shoes will be placed in the wing lockers..
 
Top