Great article

Who Is Your Passenger, Really?
By Erick McDaniel

As you’re driving to the airport to meet with your student, he calls your cell phone to ask, “Hey, can I bring a passenger on today’s flight?” You consider the weight and balance and agree. But have you ever thought to ask who that passenger is – or the legal ramifications of that person joining you?

Two weeks ago, I had a student in the Caribbean tell me he wanted to fly to the Dominican Republic. He had two passengers, one of whom we’d be doing a “big favor” for.

That one, a young lady, had at least 130 pounds of luggage, and with the four of us, plus gas, this wouldn’t work in the DA40 we were set to fly. I left them to negotiate the compromise on luggage, and when they did, we loaded the airplane and did a weight and balance to ensure everything worked out.

Then things got interesting. An international flight requires clearing customs, which seemed to jangle the nerves of the passengers.

As I collected passports from my student and his passengers, I couldn’t help but notice that the woman, a “U.S. citizen,” didn’t have a U.S. passport, only a Dominican passport that expired six years ago. When I started asking questions, it became apparent that this young lady was in the country illegally, and she had overstayed her rights by years.

I put on my investigator hat and made sure I understood every aspect of the situation before I made a go/no-go decision. The bottom line was that both gentlemen knew she was here illegally, and the flight was intended to return her to the Dominican Republic without conferring with customs. In their opinion, returning her without notification would save a significant amount of heartbreak and paperwork for everyone involved.

And maybe it would have – for everyone but me, the pilot in command.

Customs departments communicate about the majority of country-moving transactions on the Internet, through systems such as eAPIS and others.

Taking this young lady to the Dominican Republic would have caused the Dominicans to notify the U.S. government that she had left our country and was now permanently back in theirs. In turn, U.S. Customs and Border Protection would sit back, scratch their heads, and set about investigating exactly how she was able to leave the country.

When they make the connection that I, as the pilot in command, flew her out without proper notification, they could arrest me, seize the aircraft, and revoke my pilot certificates. No single flight is ever, ever worth taking that amount of risk. Doing things the right way with any governmental agency is simply the best practice – but that requires you to know the rules.

The flight was immediately canceled, and before I knew it, the young woman was gone. The gentleman accompanying her had her out the door like the building was on fire. I’ve since referred them to an immigration attorney, and they are taking steps to return her to her native country the right way.

The bottom line is, on every one of your flights, you’re the pilot in command, and whether you know what you’re doing is illegal or not, the buck stops at you.

Erick McDaniel is chief flight instructor for Bohlke International Airways in St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. Share your thoughts or experiences on the business of instructing by submitting your own “Right Seat” to NAFI@eaa.org.

Was the Austin crash terrorism? DHS says no

Well, bully for the DHS. Yes there are bad people with bad ideas. And they will fly airplanes into building, or start shooting in classrooms, or set off bombs in Olympic Gardens when it’s crowded.

These people deserve prosecution. We do not deserve to be lumped with them.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/03/napolitano-rules-out-terrorism.html

Funding problems

Here’s an article that covers actions within DHS that were bound to come up as a result of the Stack Attack in Austin.  Go about half way down the article; it begins with Rep. Charles Dent of PA.

Time to get ready.

USA Today article about TSA’s investigation into the Austin crash

Here is the article by USA Today about TSA’s investigation into the Austin crash. There are several problems here, first the “expert” has not been named, second that the TSA has never sought to regulate small planes (SD-8G, Operations Playbook?) and lastly, we’ll see how the TSA has decided not to promote fear now.

You see, the TSA’s standing up to Congressional pressure  (read comments from the NATA ) isn’t the point.  Empire building is the problem.  We all know that the only way to solve an Austin type incident is to ground everybody. 

Even if LASP applied to aircraft of that weight, he was the owner and would have had access to his private property (unless the government is going to start limited that now?).

He might have had a barrel of “accelerator” in the plane, again his private property.  I store three barrels of oil in my hangar, all withing fire code and safe.

He posted stuff on the web that might be an issue — yes he did, and that’s called police work and is not an aviation issue.

No, we’re not advocating Big Brother read everybody’s emails.  But, no amount of hardware and no amount of restrictions of civil liberty is going to stop a determined foe (or nut case), that’s what cops do.

Update on Austin

With the recent acts of a couple disgruntled, suicidal individuals, individuals that acquired aircraft through legal or illegal means (Austin and LAX), we once again have to defend ourselves against the unknowing, ignorant or hysterical.

By far the calmest, coolest heads have been from those closed to the incident in Austin – the Mayor and the Chief of Police.

The facts are, no amount of regulation is going to prevent bad people from doing bad things.  No matter what the “experts” trundling themselves out in front of the news cameras are telling you.  Their agenda is not ours, nor is it even correct in most cases.  You should ask yourselves what product line or services this ‘consultant’ offers for sale when not in front of a camera.

Perhaps that is our biggest issue in GA today – lack of understanding.  Congress, the media, and the general public don’t understand what we are and what we do.  Again from somebody close to Austin, the airport manager – we enjoy the freedom of the skies like motorcyclists enjoy the freedom of the road.

We need to convey this better.  Find your local Congressman and take him for a ride, they work for you, make them make the time.  Find your local reporter and take them for a ride.  Show the utility; Young Eagles, Angel Flight, the Haitian relief effort.  And most of all, explain that LASP (even applied to all aircraft), SD-8G, Operation Playbook, etc., would have stopped NOTHING.

Big Brother cannot save you, only you can save you.  Lock your aircraft, secure your keys – yes, it’s that simple for a start.  The guy who landed at LAX walked in and took the keys that were lying there to steal the airplane he used.

Let Big Brother protect you will fail.  Even today, you can drive a semi truck with thirty thousand pounds of diesel and fertilizer right past the passenger unloading curb at Orlando airport (MCO).  You can still carry a stake board on board a commercial airliner; imagine six or seven guys swinging those things around.  Yet we do nothing to outlaw or regulate skate boards or semi trucks; because people know those things and are familiar.

We are targeted because we are unknown, because we are unknown we are misunderstood, because we are misunderstood we are feared.

Alan Armstrong speaking about LASP to EAA Chapter 690

What does TSA Docket No. 2008-0021, the LASP, mean to you?

As a “normal” GA pilot, not much, at least on the surface. It only applies to aircraft over 12,500 pounds MTOW, things you need a type rating for, right? Well, sort of, allow me to point some things out:

The MTOW of 12,500 pounds is specified in the NPRM, but there’s no reason why. There are some discussions near the back about 10.5 and 14.5, but I think they picked 12.5 because of the FAR definition of “large”. However, there’s no distinction between any large aircraft. So, if you have a Part 135 Charter operation, you are already under a couple TSA rules going back to April 2003, supposedly that will get simpler. If you own your own Citation, or DC-3, or Grumman Albatross, or Chance-Vought F4U Corsair, you will be required to:

– Have a Director of Security, who will receive training (which you’ll pay for), both initial and recurrent (which you’ll pay for) and be available 24/7 to the TSA should they have some vital piece of intelligence to pass on about the threat your personal aircraft will pose. These folks will also have 90 days to submit the Operator’s Security Program (that’s the one you develop) to the TSA for approval.

– You’ll also have a Ground Security Coordinator (GSC), who may or may not be the same person as the DirSec. They’ll receive training (initial and recurrent) which you’ll pay for. They’ll be around for every flight and be responsible for clearing the pilots and passengers on the aircraft. They’ll also be responsible for initial response in case a terrorist tries to steal your DC-3, because dialing 911 isn’t enough.

– You, the pilot, or any other pilot’s you have that fly your personal aircraft will have a 5 year background check (with finger prints, which you’ll pay for) done on them, which you’ll pay for. And they’ll have to have one every 5 years to make sure they haven’t made any threats against the government in that time, which you’ll pay for. These people will require training from the GSC in response issues and will also receive training to become the Inflight Security Coordinator (ISC), (both initial and recurrent), which you’ll pay for. And at each flight the GSC and ISC will have a final check, like every Part 121 flight you’ve ever been on since before 9/11. Oh, and if you or your pilots don’t pass the background check, it’s OK, there’s an appeal process — like the one for airline passengers, where if the evidence against you is classified — you don’t get to see it.

– Each passenger who gets on your aircraft must be checked against a no-fly list and terrorist watch list, each passenger — your wife, your children, your best friend that you were in elementary school with. This, however, is too much to ask the TSA to do itself, so they have decided to allow Watch List contractors, who will check your passenger list against all those of the various intelligence agencies and get word back to you that it’s OK to put your kids on board, presumably before you wanted to take off. Of course, you’ll pay for this service each time you use it. Fear not, the TSA doesn’t wish to cause an undue economic burden and has provisions for you to vet those passengers who are likely to travel with you a lot, like your family. Presumably you only have to pay for them to get on the approved list once.

– And those potential terrorists will be limited to three ounces of liquids or gels, subject to possible metal detection and X-ray before boarding (security procedures in line with the rest of the aviation community according to the NPRM). Their luggage will be searched for potential terrorists, and terrorist implements of destruction. No more tools, no more pocket knives, no more Leatherman’s. If you fly into Pierre, SD for quail hunting — not only do you need a reservation on the ramp, but unless you have a secure baggage hold, you’ll have to ship those shotguns. Or store them in the passenger compartment in a lockbox — which you have the key to, because it’s your gun and your airplane.

– Except the FAMs, did I mention that you’ll have to have provisions for FAMs to board and ride on your aircraft when the TSA deems the threat high enough on whatever flight you’re making to have them there. And you’ll provide the ability for them to “blend in” with your family or employees with blowing their cover. Although the TSA recognizes this may be a problem so it’ll only apply to aircraft over 100,000 pounds (45,500 kilos).

– And to make sure this runs smoothly and correctly, you’ll be audited every two years. And since this is also too much work for the TSA to do, you’ll be audited by an outside contractor to the TSA, which you’ll pay for.

– And the airports you fly out of, since they now have a potential weapon of mass destruction in their midst will have to have an Airport Security Director (who’ll be available to the TSA 24/7), who’ll need initial and recurrent training (which the airport will pay for) and higher fences (which Federal Grant money pays for), a place and procedure to store classified material (which they’ll pay for). The local police, since they are now responding to an aircraft threat might need to be equipped with VHF radios and be training on how to stop somebody from stealing your aircraft. I guess your taxes are going up.

– And if you’re not a DC-3 or Citation owner, but somebody parks one on the ramp at your podunk flying field; since you’re not cleared, checked, screened and searched… you may not get to your aircraft for a while (it depends on how you read the vague mentioned of “secure area”).

The TSA admits, starting about page 116, they don’t really know what this would cost, but it’d be good for national security. Secretary Chertoff, in his speech concerning this abomination last November, talked about threats from overseas (already handled by the US Customs and Border Patrol changes that have recently taken effect), threats from airliners and threats from people who buy tickets to get on airplanes. The most credible threat he came up with is a European aircraft leasing agent who stated he really doesn’t know who gets on his airplanes.

So, because a European under their rules (whatever those are) doesn’t know who has booked passage in his aircraft operated for charter, you, the private, Part 91 operator will have to have this new, for national security, program shoved down your throat. That’s the best they could come up with.

Frankly, aviation security and the security of this country is very important. I spent over eight years of my life defending the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I have no problem with anybody who can gain access to an aircraft through the simple act of buying a ticket, or booking a charter, being searched and or checked against an intelligence threat list.

However, in reading the entire LASP NPRM, it is very obvious that the “subject matter experts” employed by the TSA in researching this document are not experts in this subject matter. There is no distinction made for Part 91, even rarely is its existence even mentioned. A smattering of times for Part 91 and once the word “recreational” is used. The rest of the time, we are just little airliners, flying unknown agents over the population of this country, capable of using the aircraft as a missile or a dispersal agent of a bio/chem threat or delivery vehicle for a nuclear threat.

Private aircraft are just that “private”. As explained in the latest editorial column in Flying magazine, not just anybody walks on Xerox’s Gulfstream. And speaking of the background checks for pilots, not just anybody gets to fly Xerox’s Gulfstream — WE all know the difficulty experienced in landing a job like that, the TSA thinks you fill out a form and get hired like civil servants. Likewise, part of the aviation department’s job is protection of the asset; that would be the CEO. Similarly, when you can afford a DC-3 or Citation, you don’t pick up hitchhikers.

Other documents in this folder speak better to the security issues and the economic impact, particularly to airports, that this NPRM would entail. From an operational standpoint, it is ludicrous.

As explained above, the private carriage individual has almost familial knowledge of his passengers, it is not necessary to have these measures applied. Conversations with the TSA/DHS will promote the idea that the “family” member could be the terrorist. This is true, locks were made to keep honest people honest, and the FBI and other police agencies in this country are charged with investigation and arrest of people that would do harm prior to them using a vehicle of any kind.

The charge that we [general aviation pilots] are “lawless” and “elitist” is unfounded, the point that we would be perceived that way if we don’t accept a rule has no merit. We have no rules now and we aren’t performing terrorist activity.

The charge that GA is dangerous and the public perception of ‘all these crashes’ is driving this, again, has no basis in fact. The idea that limited a passenger to three ounces of liquids or gels would prevent an aviation mishap boarders on insanity.