Proposed GA security law - "outrageous"

SteveC · September 13th, 2004, 09:05

From AvWeb today:
[ QUOTE ]
GA, Three Years (And Two Days) Later...
Shortsighted ... ridiculous ... outrageous ... lunacy ... these are just a few of the terms that quickly filled the air after U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) introduced a bill into the House last week that would impose onerous security procedures on general aviation. The bill (H.R. 5035) would require the Department of Homeland Security to ensure the screening of all passengers and property on each flight of every passenger aircraft in the U.S. -- including general aviation aircraft of all types. It would also prohibit any non-airline aircraft from flying within 1,500 feet of any structure or building and prohibit non-airline aircraft from flying over any U.S. city with a population of 1 million or more. Land of the free, home of the brave. It would further require that pilots of all aircraft in U.S. airspace remain in contact with the FAA, presumably by radio, regardless of altitude or location. "It's sad that the solemn anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks is being used to introduce this bill, which does nothing to enhance security and smacks of election-year grandstanding," said EAA's Doug Macnair, vice president of government relations. "Preposterous, unrealistic, and unnecessary," were the choice words from AOPA President Phil Boyer. "General aviation is not a threat. The TSA has already said so."

[/ QUOTE ]
AvWeb aritcle and additional information here: House Aviation Bill Proposes GA Screening...

Additional response from AOPA's website:
[ QUOTE ]
The moment word first leaked out that Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) wanted to impose security restrictions on general aviation that exceed even those of the airlines, AOPA's Legislative Affairs staff sprung into action, lobbying against the bill.

"This is preposterous, unrealistic, and unnecessary," said AOPA President Phil Boyer. "General aviation is not a threat. The TSA has already said so.

"The AOPA staff has outlined our strong opposition to the legislation in meetings with Republican and Democratic staff of the House aviation subcommittee. The association is also using its extensive network of relationships with key members of the subcommittee in fighting the bill."

Weiner's bill, H.R. 5035, would mandate the same screening for all passengers and property aboard GA aircraft that is required for the airlines. It would also prohibit any aircraft other than an airliner from flying over cities with populations of 1 million or more, or operating within 1,500 feet of any building.

"In light of everything that has already been done, requirements like those Rep. Weiner would impose would kill all of general aviation."

[/ QUOTE ]

AOPA website (newslink above posted on September 9th)

mtsu_av8er · September 13th, 2004, 09:41

Come on people, do some of that democracy stuff. Write letters, make phone calls, and make a difference - or just shut up and take it like Bubba likes.

flyover · September 13th, 2004, 09:49

[ QUOTE ]
It would also prohibit any non-airline aircraft from flying within 1,500 feet of any structure or building and prohibit non-airline aircraft from flying over any U.S. city with a population of 1 million or more.

[/ QUOTE ]

You really have to see the genius in this. I mean with all these rules the terrorists would be screwed. How could they hit a building, for example, if they weren't allowed to fly within 1500 feet of it?

On the other hand we could just solve the whole problem by making terrorist acts illegal. We could even outlaw murder. This guy could be on to something. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/spin2.gif[/img]

tonyw · September 13th, 2004, 10:34

And yet...they'll do nothing about a guy renting a moving truck, going down to the Home Depot and getting some fertilizer, and going to the Exxon and getting diesel fuel and....

ILSstud · September 13th, 2004, 10:41

Actually I think they could diminish the security threat posed from G-A by simply abandoning it all together. I can just see it now, "effective immediately: All general aviation aircraft are no longer able to fly in the contiguous United States so as to prevent would be terrorist acts." This is such bullsh**!! (excuse my language). Perhaps if politicians could see past their damn noses they'd see what BS this proposed law is....time to write a letter to someone....................

Cherokee_Cruiser · September 13th, 2004, 10:54

The guy's last name is Weiner (aka "weener"). What did you expect? [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cwm27.gif[/img]

flyover · September 13th, 2004, 10:56

[ QUOTE ]
And yet...they'll do nothing about a guy renting a moving truck, going down to the Home Depot and getting some fertilizer, and going to the Exxon and getting diesel fuel and....

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure about the "nothing" thing. Supposedly anyone that has been selling fertilizer since the Oklahoma City bombing has had to report any large or unusual sales. Having spread a lot of fertilizer in my youth, I find it hard to believe they could do more than that. Most fertilizer dealers know their coustomers very well, so a stranger pulling up for a rental truck full kind of stands out.

pilot602 · September 13th, 2004, 10:58

Not like someone could buy a little here and a little there until his (insert vehicle here) is full ... or steal it from a farm ... or steal it from the dealer ... or ...

Icelandair · September 13th, 2004, 11:21

And while they are at it they ought to take away our guns! No guns, no planes, the terrorists would never hit us again!

Doug Taylor · September 13th, 2004, 11:21

"Dammit, Hamid! That HR2035 has foiled our plans again!"

September 13th, 2004, 11:35

And if you do get within 1500FT of a building? There is not enough time for anyone to stop the aircraft from doing whatever it is going to do.

flyover · September 13th, 2004, 11:35

[ QUOTE ]
Not like someone could buy a little here and a little there until his (insert vehicle here) is full ... or steal it from a farm ... or steal it from the dealer ... or ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree. Truck bombs are a big threat right now. I was just pointing out that they weren't quite to the "nothing" point on it. There has been quite a lot of information given to fertilizer dealers and requests to report suspicious activity, opening up an outside chance that sloppy terrorists could get caught. And of course, some targets have been "hardened" somewhat by blocking access. Not enough, but I don't know how you clamp the lid tight on ferilizer and diesel fuel.

But it does point out the absurd fascination some have with ga aircraft as terrorist devices when there are other threats much more potent out there. Maybe a law to forbid rental trucks within 1500' of buildings would do it?

tonyw · September 13th, 2004, 11:39

[ QUOTE ]
But it does point out the absurd fascination some have with ga aircraft as terrorist devices when there are other threats much more potent out there. Maybe a law to forbid rental trucks within 1500' of buildings would do it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup. Why bother to go through all the trouble of teaching someone how to fly a plane when a terrorist can just get on the subway with a duffel bag full of plastic explosives and nails and setting it off like they did in Madrid. Or putting a bomb in a trash container at a mall. Or a million other things!

flyover · September 13th, 2004, 12:02

[ QUOTE ]
Yup. Why bother to go through all the trouble of teaching someone how to fly a plane when a terrorist can just get on the subway with a duffel bag full of plastic explosives and nails and setting it off like they did in Madrid. Or putting a bomb in a trash container at a mall. Or a million other things!

[/ QUOTE ]

The only issue is that apparently the main intent of 9/11 was to cripple the US economy and they felt that aviation was the perfect venue for that. (Not a bad estimation). Also remember that another, earlier, coordinated attack was discovered and foiled. Couple that with the latest coordinated attacks on airliners by Islamic fundamentalist terrorists and you get the feeling that they may not be done with aviation yet. Of course there are many avenues to attack aviation besides using pilots.

But it seems prudent that commercial aviation consider itself a, if not the, primary target.

Icelandair · September 13th, 2004, 13:22

True blowing up a plane does more damage to the economy as a whole than it would do if they blew up a ryder truck in front of a synagogue

Doug Taylor · September 13th, 2004, 13:26

I'm not so sure. Most of the rest of the country sees NYC as some other nation, but if you blew up a school in South Dakota, I think it would be a lot more personal to more of us.

And then the backbiting politicians crank up the spin machine ("Vote for me! I'll save you!") and then we've got new commissions, spending, paranoia, et al.

kellwolf · September 13th, 2004, 16:07

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not so sure. Most of the rest of the country sees NYC as some other nation, but if you blew up a school in South Dakota, I think it would be a lot more personal to more of us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or a federal building in Oklahoma? The major difference between 9/11 and OKC was the audacity and the death toll.

As far as the GA thing, get your hours in now, cause if this bill goes through pretty much the ONLY way to train will be in the desert (at least until they outlaw THAT) or in the military. I HIGHLY doubt this one will go through since it infringes on so many personal rights and liberties......

Kristie · September 13th, 2004, 17:22

I just don't see how it's possible that it would even get close to getting through.

I mean it would effecively shut down every inner city airport down creating a pretty dense wasteland and thereby losing countless jobs for cities that intend to continue to grow based on airport/airpark facilities.

SteveC · September 13th, 2004, 17:28

This one's not going anywhere. I really just posted it as an example of how utterly ridiculous some lawmakers can be, especially when they're clueless on a particular topic...

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

danielsexton · September 13th, 2004, 17:34

[ QUOTE ]
I just don't see how it's possible that it would even get close to getting through.

I mean it would effecively shut down every inner city airport down creating a pretty dense wasteland and thereby losing countless jobs for cities that intend to continue to grow based on airport/airpark facilities.

[/ QUOTE ]

The republicans will never allow this to pass...

It would outlaw corporate jets.

VOTE REPUBLICAN!

aloft · September 13th, 2004, 17:43

[ QUOTE ]
It would also prohibit any non-airline aircraft from flying within 1,500 feet of any structure or building and prohibit non-airline aircraft from flying over any U.S. city with a population of 1 million or more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't we established that an airliner slamming into a building will cause more damage than a Cessna?

mtsu_av8er · September 13th, 2004, 17:43

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just don't see how it's possible that it would even get close to getting through.

I mean it would effecively shut down every inner city airport down creating a pretty dense wasteland and thereby losing countless jobs for cities that intend to continue to grow based on airport/airpark facilities.

[/ QUOTE ]

The republicans will never allow this to pass...

It would outlaw corporate jets.

VOTE REPUBLICAN!

[/ QUOTE ]

If it really were that simple....I'd give up flying.

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Kristie · September 13th, 2004, 17:52

LIKE YEAH... remember that cessna (or was it a piper) crash into the skyscraper in downtown tpa after 9/11? didn't do a whole heck of a lot!

Doug Taylor · September 13th, 2004, 17:57

Probably broke a window and gave the media lots of ideas for followup stories.

(clears throat and puts on gravelly 'shocking news' voice)

"Terror from the Skies. Plane veers over schoolbus packed to the brim with children and makes a suicidal plunge into office building in TAMpaaaaaaaaah. News at 6 after our 'Hot New Swimsuits for Summer' segment and Wacky Jacky's Super Dooper Doppler Nine-hundred-million-thousand StormTracker report... Only on channel siiiiiiiix. Take your seats folks, but you'll only need the eddddddddge".

aloft · September 13th, 2004, 18:00

[ QUOTE ]
LIKE YEAH... remember that cessna (or was it a piper) crash into the skyscraper in downtown tpa after 9/11? didn't do a whole heck of a lot!

[/ QUOTE ]

Bizactly. A Cessna poses the same sort of threat to us that Iraq did.

September 13th, 2004, 09:05	#1
SteveC Moderator Join Date: May 2003 Location: GRR Posts: 8,349	Proposed GA security law - \"outrageous\" From AvWeb today: [ QUOTE ] GA, Three Years (And Two Days) Later... Shortsighted ... ridiculous ... outrageous ... lunacy ... these are just a few of the terms that quickly filled the air after U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) introduced a bill into the House last week that would impose onerous security procedures on general aviation. The bill (H.R. 5035) would require the Department of Homeland Security to ensure the screening of all passengers and property on each flight of every passenger aircraft in the U.S. -- including general aviation aircraft of all types. It would also prohibit any non-airline aircraft from flying within 1,500 feet of any structure or building and prohibit non-airline aircraft from flying over any U.S. city with a population of 1 million or more. Land of the free, home of the brave. It would further require that pilots of all aircraft in U.S. airspace remain in contact with the FAA, presumably by radio, regardless of altitude or location. "It's sad that the solemn anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks is being used to introduce this bill, which does nothing to enhance security and smacks of election-year grandstanding," said EAA's Doug Macnair, vice president of government relations. "Preposterous, unrealistic, and unnecessary," were the choice words from AOPA President Phil Boyer. "General aviation is not a threat. The TSA has already said so." [/ QUOTE ] AvWeb aritcle and additional information here: House Aviation Bill Proposes GA Screening... Additional response from AOPA's website: [ QUOTE ] The moment word first leaked out that Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) wanted to impose security restrictions on general aviation that exceed even those of the airlines, AOPA's Legislative Affairs staff sprung into action, lobbying against the bill. "This is preposterous, unrealistic, and unnecessary," said AOPA President Phil Boyer. "General aviation is not a threat. The TSA has already said so. "The AOPA staff has outlined our strong opposition to the legislation in meetings with Republican and Democratic staff of the House aviation subcommittee. The association is also using its extensive network of relationships with key members of the subcommittee in fighting the bill." Weiner's bill, H.R. 5035, would mandate the same screening for all passengers and property aboard GA aircraft that is required for the airlines. It would also prohibit any aircraft other than an airliner from flying over cities with populations of 1 million or more, or operating within 1,500 feet of any building. "In light of everything that has already been done, requirements like those Rep. Weiner would impose would kill all of general aviation." [/ QUOTE ] AOPA website (newslink above posted on September 9th)

September 13th, 2004, 09:41	#2
mtsu_av8er Old Skool Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Utopia Posts: 12,403	Re: Proposed GA security law - \"outrageous\" Come on people, do some of that democracy stuff. Write letters, make phone calls, and make a difference - or just shut up and take it like Bubba likes.

September 13th, 2004, 09:49	#3
flyover Old Skool Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Georgia Posts: 3,389	Re: Proposed GA security law - \"outrageous\" [ QUOTE ] It would also prohibit any non-airline aircraft from flying within 1,500 feet of any structure or building and prohibit non-airline aircraft from flying over any U.S. city with a population of 1 million or more. [/ QUOTE ] You really have to see the genius in this. I mean with all these rules the terrorists would be screwed. How could they hit a building, for example, if they weren't allowed to fly within 1500 feet of it? On the other hand we could just solve the whole problem by making terrorist acts illegal. We could even outlaw murder. This guy could be on to something. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/spin2.gif[/img]

September 13th, 2004, 10:34	#4
tonyw Old Skool Join Date: May 2002 Location: Maryland Posts: 15,124	Re: Proposed GA security law - \"outrageous\" And yet...they'll do nothing about a guy renting a moving truck, going down to the Home Depot and getting some fertilizer, and going to the Exxon and getting diesel fuel and....

September 13th, 2004, 10:41	#5
ILSstud Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 532	Re: Proposed GA security law - \"outrageous\" Actually I think they could diminish the security threat posed from G-A by simply abandoning it all together. I can just see it now, "effective immediately: All general aviation aircraft are no longer able to fly in the contiguous United States so as to prevent would be terrorist acts." This is such bullsh**!! (excuse my language). Perhaps if politicians could see past their damn noses they'd see what BS this proposed law is....time to write a letter to someone....................

September 13th, 2004, 10:54	#6
Cherokee_Cruiser Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 1,419	Re: Proposed GA security law - \"outrageous\" The guy's last name is Weiner (aka "weener"). What did you expect? [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cwm27.gif[/img]

September 13th, 2004, 10:56	#7
flyover Old Skool Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Georgia Posts: 3,389	Re: Proposed GA security law - \"outrageous\" [ QUOTE ] And yet...they'll do nothing about a guy renting a moving truck, going down to the Home Depot and getting some fertilizer, and going to the Exxon and getting diesel fuel and.... [/ QUOTE ] Not sure about the "nothing" thing. Supposedly anyone that has been selling fertilizer since the Oklahoma City bombing has had to report any large or unusual sales. Having spread a lot of fertilizer in my youth, I find it hard to believe they could do more than that. Most fertilizer dealers know their coustomers very well, so a stranger pulling up for a rental truck full kind of stands out.

September 13th, 2004, 10:58	#8
pilot602 Old Skool Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: who haa Posts: 3,750	Re: Proposed GA security law - \"outrageous\" Not like someone could buy a little here and a little there until his (insert vehicle here) is full ... or steal it from a farm ... or steal it from the dealer ... or ...

September 13th, 2004, 11:21	#9
Icelandair Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: North Dakota, USA Posts: 247	Re: Proposed GA security law - \"outrageous\" And while they are at it they ought to take away our guns! No guns, no planes, the terrorists would never hit us again!

September 13th, 2004, 11:21	#10
Doug Taylor Agent Smith Join Date: Dec 1969 Location: KSDL Posts: 39,749 Blog Entries: 1	Re: Proposed GA security law - \"outrageous\" "Dammit, Hamid! That HR2035 has foiled our plans again!"

September 13th, 2004, 11:35	#11
Lurker Posts: n/a	Re: Proposed GA security law - \"outrageous\" And if you do get within 1500FT of a building? There is not enough time for anyone to stop the aircraft from doing whatever it is going to do.

September 13th, 2004, 11:39	#13
tonyw Old Skool Join Date: May 2002 Location: Maryland Posts: 15,124	Re: Proposed GA security law - \"outrageous\" [ QUOTE ] But it does point out the absurd fascination some have with ga aircraft as terrorist devices when there are other threats much more potent out there. Maybe a law to forbid rental trucks within 1500' of buildings would do it? [/ QUOTE ] Yup. Why bother to go through all the trouble of teaching someone how to fly a plane when a terrorist can just get on the subway with a duffel bag full of plastic explosives and nails and setting it off like they did in Madrid. Or putting a bomb in a trash container at a mall. Or a million other things!

September 13th, 2004, 12:02	#14
flyover Old Skool Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Georgia Posts: 3,389	Re: Proposed GA security law - \"outrageous\" [ QUOTE ] Yup. Why bother to go through all the trouble of teaching someone how to fly a plane when a terrorist can just get on the subway with a duffel bag full of plastic explosives and nails and setting it off like they did in Madrid. Or putting a bomb in a trash container at a mall. Or a million other things! [/ QUOTE ] The only issue is that apparently the main intent of 9/11 was to cripple the US economy and they felt that aviation was the perfect venue for that. (Not a bad estimation). Also remember that another, earlier, coordinated attack was discovered and foiled. Couple that with the latest coordinated attacks on airliners by Islamic fundamentalist terrorists and you get the feeling that they may not be done with aviation yet. Of course there are many avenues to attack aviation besides using pilots. But it seems prudent that commercial aviation consider itself a, if not the, primary target.

September 13th, 2004, 13:22	#15
Icelandair Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: North Dakota, USA Posts: 247	Re: Proposed GA security law - \"outrageous\" True blowing up a plane does more damage to the economy as a whole than it would do if they blew up a ryder truck in front of a synagogue

September 13th, 2004, 13:26	#16
Doug Taylor Agent Smith Join Date: Dec 1969 Location: KSDL Posts: 39,749 Blog Entries: 1	Re: Proposed GA security law - \"outrageous\" I'm not so sure. Most of the rest of the country sees NYC as some other nation, but if you blew up a school in South Dakota, I think it would be a lot more personal to more of us. And then the backbiting politicians crank up the spin machine ("Vote for me! I'll save you!") and then we've got new commissions, spending, paranoia, et al.

September 13th, 2004, 16:07	#17
kellwolf Old Skool Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Memphis, TN Posts: 13,208	Re: Proposed GA security law - \"outrageous\" [ QUOTE ] I'm not so sure. Most of the rest of the country sees NYC as some other nation, but if you blew up a school in South Dakota, I think it would be a lot more personal to more of us. [/ QUOTE ] Or a federal building in Oklahoma? The major difference between 9/11 and OKC was the audacity and the death toll. As far as the GA thing, get your hours in now, cause if this bill goes through pretty much the ONLY way to train will be in the desert (at least until they outlaw THAT) or in the military. I HIGHLY doubt this one will go through since it infringes on so many personal rights and liberties......

September 13th, 2004, 17:22	#18
Kristie Big Chief's Woman Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Scottsdale, Arizona Posts: 17,682 Blog Entries: 3	Re: Proposed GA security law - \"outrageous\" I just don't see how it's possible that it would even get close to getting through. I mean it would effecively shut down every inner city airport down creating a pretty dense wasteland and thereby losing countless jobs for cities that intend to continue to grow based on airport/airpark facilities.

September 13th, 2004, 17:28	#19
SteveC Moderator Join Date: May 2003 Location: GRR Posts: 8,349	Re: Proposed GA security law - \"outrageous\" This one's not going anywhere. I really just posted it as an example of how utterly ridiculous some lawmakers can be, especially when they're clueless on a particular topic... [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

September 13th, 2004, 17:34	#20
danielsexton Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: CSG Posts: 186	Re: Proposed GA security law - \"outrageous\" [ QUOTE ] I just don't see how it's possible that it would even get close to getting through. I mean it would effecively shut down every inner city airport down creating a pretty dense wasteland and thereby losing countless jobs for cities that intend to continue to grow based on airport/airpark facilities. [/ QUOTE ] The republicans will never allow this to pass... It would outlaw corporate jets. VOTE REPUBLICAN!

September 13th, 2004, 17:43	#21
aloft Old Skool Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Inside your OODA loop Posts: 6,722	Re: Proposed GA security law - \"outrageous\" [ QUOTE ] It would also prohibit any non-airline aircraft from flying within 1,500 feet of any structure or building and prohibit non-airline aircraft from flying over any U.S. city with a population of 1 million or more. [/ QUOTE ] Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't we established that an airliner slamming into a building will cause more damage than a Cessna?

September 13th, 2004, 17:52	#23
Kristie Big Chief's Woman Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Scottsdale, Arizona Posts: 17,682 Blog Entries: 3	Re: Proposed GA security law - \"outrageous\" LIKE YEAH... remember that cessna (or was it a piper) crash into the skyscraper in downtown tpa after 9/11? didn't do a whole heck of a lot!

September 13th, 2004, 17:57	#24
Doug Taylor Agent Smith Join Date: Dec 1969 Location: KSDL Posts: 39,749 Blog Entries: 1	Re: Proposed GA security law - \"outrageous\" Probably broke a window and gave the media lots of ideas for followup stories. (clears throat and puts on gravelly 'shocking news' voice) "Terror from the Skies. Plane veers over schoolbus packed to the brim with children and makes a suicidal plunge into office building in TAMpaaaaaaaaah. News at 6 after our 'Hot New Swimsuits for Summer' segment and Wacky Jacky's Super Dooper Doppler Nine-hundred-million-thousand StormTracker report... Only on channel siiiiiiiix. Take your seats folks, but you'll only need the eddddddddge".

September 13th, 2004, 18:00	#25
aloft Old Skool Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Inside your OODA loop Posts: 6,722	Re: Proposed GA security law - \"outrageous\" [ QUOTE ] LIKE YEAH... remember that cessna (or was it a piper) crash into the skyscraper in downtown tpa after 9/11? didn't do a whole heck of a lot! [/ QUOTE ] Bizactly. A Cessna poses the same sort of threat to us that Iraq did.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode