Airport Badge-ing Requirements (split topic)

[GAHorn]

A little revolution is what Thos. Jefferson thought good for the occasional return-to-health for the nation. I plan to continue to conduct myself exactly as I always have on airport ramps. If someone is concerned about me on the ramp and wants to walk alongside, as long as they are pleasant company I have no objection. I will not tolerate anyone who attempts to prevent my excersizing of my privileges of airmanship or citizenship. And I have no plans whatsoever of obtaining a security-badge at any airport. I do not claim to operate from only one, or any one, particular airport, nor do I operate solely at airline-served airports. It seems to me that if the airlines want to conduct business at certain airports the onus of security for their customers is THEIR responsibility. This knee-jerk reaction (and over-RE-action by the GA pilot community) is without validity. The kneejerk has been to corral the vast-majority instead of requiring the problematical minority (airlines and their customers). They should isolate/sanitize/contain AIRLINES and their passengers, not the public and the public areas of publicly-owned property.

I will revolt against the chains the authorities plan to put about me by refusing to obtain a security badge. If they become overwhelmed by the multitudes who do not comply with their silly badge-ing requirements, then so-be-it.

(Besides, the FAA had ample opportunity to solve this problem virtually cost-free when they first issued plastic pilot certificates,...and again when they required replacement of those plastic certificates with those that pronounce "English Proficient". They could have included photographs of the certificate holder at that time and that certificate could have been clipped to one's shirt and utilized as a security-badge at any/all airports.

WHAAT? You mean the Fed. Gov't. doesn't perform background checks on all persons to whom they issue pilot certificates? DOH!

[c170b53]

Settle down George, this is only a temporary measure until the full body x-ray and retina eye scan machines can be ordered.

[Brad Brady]

Badges!!!!......We don't need No stinking Badges........Brad

[Robert Eilers]

Provo George! I am holding out hope that the Federal Busget deficit will result in someone asking what they are funding the TSA for

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Brad you bet me to it.

When are we Americans going to say enough is enough. The TSA is out of hand. Just read the FAA has said No UAVs for police forces...yet.

Never thought it could happen so fast but I've seen major jumps towards a police state in the USA in the last 10 years. Scary.

[voorheesh]

Without taking sides in the political part of this issue, pilots need to know that airports certificated under Part 139 are required to have individual or unique security programs designed to protect the airline operational areas on the airport. Right or wrong, it is not a one size fits all. Before and after 9/11, medium size airports (other than DFW, ORD, etc.) were allowed to have "soft" barriers between GA ramps and the airline "SIDAs". These were usually red lines on the ramp and signs warning unauthorized personnel that the SIDA was restricted.
For some reason, this is changing. I do not know if it was planned or if it is in reaction to recent increase in threat levels but now GA pilots are going to have to face a higher level of security. In sunny Fresno, CA, this means that tennants of the airport are supposed to have a background check, receive fairly minimal training, and get a badge allowing them access to ramps. Unfortunately, this badge won't mean anything in Bakersfield because that airport has its own security program that is distinct from Fresno. I have not verified this, but I am told that FBOs at these airports will be responsible for monitoring itinerant pilots and passengers who do not have badges and, in some cases "challenge" them. I was recently trained to do that at Fresno when I qualified for my badge. I have been recently challenged by FBO personnel (very politely) when I forgot to display my badge properly. It did not bother me one bit. I just put the old badge on like I should have in the first place.
I am a CFI and I can tell you that it takes about 30 to 90 days to get a background check on a foreign student or a foreign pilot who wants training or a restricted US certificate. Are you suggesting the FAA do that check for all pilots getting a US certificate? If so, who will pay for the cost? Taxpayers or users? Is it fair to burden taxpayers so we can walk around on a ramp unchallenged? Would you be willing to pay $300 for your background check? The 9/11 hijackers had US pilot certificates and drivers liscences. The challenge that politicians/govt officials face is that if they do something, they are accused of taking our rights away and if they don't do anything, they are accused of being asleep at the wheel if a terrorist attack occurs.
I don't know what the answer is. I do know I am not going to argue with an airport official doing their job and airports are still my favorite place to be.

[GAHorn]

... GA pilots are going to have to face a higher level of security. ....this means that tennants of the airport are supposed to have a background check, .... this badge won't mean anything in Bakersfield because that airport has its own security program that is distinct from Fresno. ... FBOs at these airports will be responsible for monitoring itinerant pilots and passengers who do not have badges and, in some cases "challenge" them. ....it takes about 30 to 90 days to get a background check on a foreign student or a foreign pilot ....who will pay for the cost? The 9/11 hijackers had US pilot certificates and drivers liscences. ....

Tennants of an airport are not terrorist-threats. Terrorists do not buy airplanes and enter into long-term contracts for hangarage at airports. (Besides, credit-worthiness checks of signers of hangar contracts are much better background checks than anything TSA does. ) Wasting time and money on background checks for legitimate tennants is stoopid.

Airports which have "their own" security program are part of the problem. No uniformity, therefore no security, therefore a waste of time, money, and a threat to ordinary citizens.

FBO...being "responsible" for security is the greatest foolishness of all. They hire minimum wage high-schoolers and unskilled ramp-rats that are themselves often actual fugitives from law enforcement. I have personally sat in the right-seat of a rental-car and observed the driver (foolish goof co-worker) press the security-gate intercom-button and when the girl behind the counter responded "May I help you?"... the driver jokingly said, "Arab Terrorists" into the microphone. I cringed. But the gate activated and opened up! DOH!

No one is supposed to "challenge" anyone else if an actual danger is suspected. And no ordinary citizen should have to play "cop" anyway. From personal experience I have had actual cops (municipal airport police) refuse to make an arrest or even question a suspicious person because that cop did not personally observe the suspicious behavior. (running thru the security gate behind me, as I had the pass-code and they did not.) I was under threat of fine and imprisonment if I failed to prevent that act, yet the cop would not even approach the suspect. At that point, I decided that I would NEVER "challenge" anyone again, especially in these times of anger-management-run-amok and gun-toters. If law enforcement officials will not take upon themselves the responsibility for which they are trained, equipped, paid, and legally obligated.... then I damn sure am not going to do it for them.

As for background checks.... U.S. Citizens are not terrorist suspects according to TSA. (All that is req'd to gain approval for training in large aircraft is a US passport and/or birth certificate or other proof of US citizenship.) Therefore all citizens already holding pilot certificates and no arrest records should automatically have a security clearance attached to their pilot certificates. No cost involved! Foreign students and pilots should pay for their background checks and/or expect to be escorted (because they are not displaying a security-badge/US pilot certificate.)

How complicated is that?

[voorheesh]

George, I completely agree with most of what you are saying and it is a very frustrating situation for law abiding citizens. I also want to say I may not fully understand what is happening at my home airport of Fresno. I have heard more than one explanation of this badge rule from people who are suposed to know what is going on. My experience with FBO employees in Fresno and a few nearby airports has been very positive. Some have been around for 10-15 years plus and are a pleasure to work with. I trust these guys and I sense they take their jobs seriously. Background checks, the way I understand them do involve time and some level of expense in excess of whatever the FAA spends on issuing pilot certificates. Having said that, there should be a simple inexpensive system that verifies who we are and is valid nationwide. That does not seem too much to ask. I am sure AOPA is working hard for GA in that regard. Another thing I do as I get older is to avoid busy airports. You really appreciate a quiet country airport in this day and age where pilots actually say hello and some level of trust still exists.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

When I am subject to this type of ridiculous security I am once again reminded the terrorists are winning.

I hate badges. Voorheesh, your not bothered wearing a badge but it is just the start. When a number tattoo is required on your far head will that cross the line? But what is the difference, tattoo or badge?

Soon we will be injected with chip to identify us. We will pass our hand with embedded chip by the pump to pay for gas and our coffee. It will get us pass all the "security" gates and track our wear abouts every moment. Think it won't happen. It is already except it's not a chip but credit cards, magic wands on our key chains, our GPS cell phones and badges we all carry now.

Twenty years ago I scoffed at this idea. Now I'm not so sure it won't happen in the next twenty. Boy you say "Bruce has gone of the deep end here". Think about it, have I?

Let me correct my first sentence. Terrorist have won if we think this type of security program will stop a terrorist while it restricts the freedoms we once enjoyed.

[GAHorn]

My previous comments are not simply criticisms of present/proposed security programs. They are serious suggestions which may be implemented inexpensively and efficiently.... if bureaucrats and corporations who stand-to-profit from more complex systems will simply BUTT-OUT of the process.

I once made a suggestion to the state of Texas when I was in their employ. It was regarding the problem of firearms-purchases and back-ground checks. Gun owners don't like to be individually identified apart from other citizens, that's why a Brady-Bill and a Federal Firearms Application (yellow sheet) is so offensive to them. And it's so for valid reasons: If you perform a background check on me or my firearm, you can later identify me, where I live, and where that firearm is likely to be located. Anti-gun folks like that and feel even more restrictive controls should exist because they worry that dangerous folks might obtain firearms from gun shows and dealers.

The "Brady" bill was introduced, yet the required background check was slow and expensive and onerous to gun-enthusiasts. What is the answer?

Simple.

A state driver's license/I.D. is already required for most citizens to identify themselves and/or to drive a car. No one objects to a drivers license. That drivers license already has provisions for displaying certain qualifications unique to the holder, i.e., M= motorycle, C=Commercial vehicle, A=Class A motorhome, etc etc etc.

Whenever you appear at the drivers licensing bureau, they will check your vision, update your photograph, collect your money, and in some cases administer a written or oral test. Ever notice the police-officer who is ever-present in that office? Why is he there? To administer an applicant's driving-test? (That's what most observe him to do and/or think he is there for.)

No. The reason he is there is, because as you are taking your eye-test and paying your fee, the computer is running a background check on you. And if you have any outstanding warrants....that officer is there to ARREST you. The DPS officers HATE that duty. They see it as boring and a waste of their time. And it is. But it's necessary.

So I came up with a suggestion: When each and every citizen applies for a drivers license, charge an increased fee (approximately $12) one-time only, and perform ....in lieu of a state-wide warrant-check.....a NATIONAL background check for those items which are disqualifying for gun-ownership. The applicant receives a temporary driver's license (just exactly as they do presently) and in 45 days they receive their PERMANENT license...complete with a "G" in the restrictions-box indicating they are eligible for gun-ownership. Now if they want to buy a gun, they can walk into any dealer's store, lay down the money, show his license which has the "G"... and walk out with the gun. Those license applicants who are released felons or otherwise do not qualify for gun-ownership do not have a "G" applied to their license. Anyone not wishing to be background-checked for firearms will not receive the "G",...i.e., they can "opt-out". (The point is, that most citizens will have the "G" applied whether they want a firearm or not, and gun-owners will not be singled out from the rest of the world because the "G" is applied automatically to all drivers licenses unless specifically refused by the carrier....or gun-eligibility is not approved.)

How will it work?

If the gun-owner is arrested because he looks like the bank-robber in the APB, then all the cop does is use a common school-teacher's hole-punch and punch out the "G" on the license until the trial. The license with the missing "G" will not allow another gun purchase. If and when the trial proves the owners innocence, a new license is issued with the "G" restored.

Who could possibly be opposed to such a simple system, you ask? Follow the money. The companies who provide background-check software and the related hardware to administer the present system, that's who! You'd be surprised at how they spend money on lobbyists to quickly kill such ideas. They will give money to Handguns, Inc. and any other anti-gun group just to keep them fired-up over the issues. Even NRA sometimes opposes certain suggestions because a simplified system encroaches upon their membership-rosters and ability to raise PAC-money.

After ten years as a pilot for the state, carrying politicians and legislators as my passengers and attempting to interest them into sponsoring such a bill, I gave up when I realized who the real opposition was.

The same forces are at work in the present "airport security" argument, and the badge-ing issue. Follow the money! and you'll find out who the real enemy is.

"We have found the enemy and he is US." - Pogo.

[Joe Moilanen]

Everything you said Bruce, everything you said.

One rule at a time, they're chipping away at what freedoms we have. We all need to stand unified together.

Sometimes getting old may not be that bad, but I sure feel bad for my kids and grandkids.

No badges here.

Joe

[hilltop170]

Following George's idea of using the drivers license to allow gun ownership, why not use the drivers license to determine citizenship to be used as an ID as well as proof of citizenship for voting?

There has been great controversy about giving illegals drivers licenses. I say REQUIRE everyone driving in the USA to have a valid drivers license! Then, simply include "Nationality" on the license just like the pilot license every pilot carries. Make each applicant show real proof of nationality and give them the required tests to obtain the license and prove competence as a driver. Also make the applicant show proof of insurance.

Then if someone gets caught driving without a license and is illegal, deport them.

Again, it's an idea that is too simple for beaurecrats to accept.

[lowNslow]

A national drivers license is actually proposed by the TSA but the states,so far, are not going along with this because many feel it infringes on state (and individual) rights. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act

[GAHorn]

National I.D.'s ... "smack" of the sort of thing that communist and national-socialist (NAZI0 gov'ts do. Americans are loathe to go along with that. So the US gov't issues a SSN that is NOT TO BE USED FOR IDENTIFICATION..... then requires it to prove who you are.

[hilltop170]

A national drivers license is actually proposed by the TSA but the states,so far, are not going along with this because many feel it infringes on state (and individual) rights. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act

I wasn't suggesting a national drivers license. I was suggesting adding "Nationality", as in what country are you a citizen of, to existing state drivers licenses. It would cost nothing and yield many benefits. The states need to strongly defend their sovreignty before it's too late and the feds take over control of everything.