Write in about the TSA LASP

[Mvich]

As you probably know the TSA is proposing new security rules regarding aircraft over 12500 lbs. This is useless & burdensome regulation that would have severe consequences for the Fractional industry. Please take a minute to voice your opinion about this legislation. You can get the info you need by following this link from AOPA.

http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articl...ity.html?WT.mc_id=090102epilot&WT.mc_sect=tts

 

[gutshotdraw]

For those that don't know, LASP stands for Latest Attempt To Steal Power.

Just more hugs and kisses from your government.

 

[gret]

B19 Flyer

Comment?

 

[dalegribble]

This TSA proposal needs to be stopped. I urge everyone to do their best to try and stop this.

 

[Fozzy]

This TSA proposal needs to be stopped. I urge everyone to do their best to try and stop this.

Remove "TSA" and insert "government".

 

[o2bflyn]

Other than actually checking the bags for weapons, most reputable companies do all of that anyway. The only potential issue I see is having crew root around "Mr Smith's" bags looking for a butter knife. The rest does not bother me one bit.

 

[o2bflyn]

B19 Flyer

Comment?

For god sake...don't start. You are just as bad for bringing it up.

 

[gret]

Sorry. You're right. What was I tinking? Obviously I wasn't.

 

[AvroGuy]

Other than actually checking the bags for weapons, most reputable companies do all of that anyway. The only potential issue I see is having crew root around "Mr Smith's" bags looking for a butter knife. The rest does not bother me one bit.

I am thinking of a small single aircraft mom and pop charter outfit flying a be-350 or say a CJ4 or even a private owner(if that applies) That is a buch of bs. Now if the government pays for the backgound checks and passenger info for free...Still not a good.

 

[atpcliff]

Hi!

Is the LASP REALLY for ALL aircraft over 12.5, or just -91 aircraft over 12.5.

I am asking because USA Jet has to fullfill the requirements of the LASP when they fly private charter, but regionals, flying aircraft of 50 seats or less, and doing private charter, do NOT have to fullfill the requirements of the LASP.

So, if the LASP only applies to -91, then some -91 operations would be WAY more restrictive than some -121 operations.

Also, it is NOT easy to fullfill the LASP requirements. The most difficult is the manifests. Everyone has to be on the manifest, and is has to be run through the DHS No-Fly, and all other PAX lists, to be allowed on the plane. It is a pain in the A$$!

cliff
GRB

 

[Mvich]

I forgot to mention that there are several meetings being held also.

The TSA will be holding a series of public meetings to hear how the proposed rule will impact GA. The meetings – which will each begin at 9 a.m. local time (with registration starting at 8 a.m. local time) – will be held at the following locations:
White Plains, NY, Jan. 6, 2009: Westchester County Airport (HPN), Building 1 Airport Road, White Plains, NY 10604
Atlanta, GA, Jan. 8, 2009: Renaissance Concourse Hotel Atlanta Airport, One Hartsfield Centre Parkway, Atlanta, GA 30354
Chicago, IL, Jan. 16, 2009: Crowne Plaza Chicago O'Hare Hotel & Convention Center, 5440 North River Road, Rosemont, IL 60018
Burbank, CA, Jan. 23, 2009: Burbank Airport Marriot Hotel & Convention Center, 2500 North Hollywood Way, Burbank, CA 91505
Houston, TX, Jan. 28, 2009: Hilton Houston Hotel-North Greenspoint Conference Center, 12400 Greenspoint Drive, Houston, TX 77060
Each speaker will be allowed three minutes to explain to TSA the impact of this rule. A representative from AOPA will be attending each of the meetings to be on hand to discuss this proposal with members.

 

[o2bflyn]

I am thinking of a small single aircraft mom and pop charter outfit flying a be-350 or say a CJ4 or even a private owner(if that applies) That is a buch of bs. Now if the government pays for the backgound checks and passenger info for free...Still not a good.

I see your point. In the big picture it is all in the price of doing business. If you are a charter outfit, then move the price on to the customer. No one says you have to eat the cost. I don't know if it is a 91 requirement, but if it is it you probably do not have to do it everytime. You probably fly the same people around most of the time. Maybe your company has already done the checks on these people when they were hired and you can use that.

AOPA is a great group. I am a member myself, but sometimes, like all media outfits, they go on their little crusades. I think this maybe one of them.

 

[gutshotdraw]

It is aimed DIRECTLY at Part 91 and it WILL have to be done for EVERY flight. Every flight department (1 airplane, 10 airplanes, 100 airplanes over 12.5 K lbs) would have to name a "Security Officer," develop a TSA approved security program and HIRE an OUTSIDE AUDITER EVERY YEAR to review the security program.

When you get in your car (or your Ryder Rental Truck if you remember the Murrah Building), do you have to jump through dozens of useless and expensive hoops to do so? I didn't think so. Getting in your own airplane should be no different than driving your car in terms of ease of access.

The LASP is partly intended to help destroy the corporate aviation industry but it is mainly just another prime example of a federal government run amok.

 

[CA1900]

Just bureaucrats building empires at our expense.

Sickening...

 

[landlover]

as far as customer inconvenience we do this at my place of work, we are a 135. it is basically up to the captain to conduct the searches. they never get done. it is basically paperwork once a year. pretty pointless if you ask me.