The International Cessna^® 170 Association

From AOPA pres. Craig Fuller:

Dear GEORGE,

I didn't wait long!

I have been president of AOPA for less than six weeks and already I need to make a call to action!

A proposed rule to impose comprehensive security requirements on a great many aircraft in the general aviation fleet was pushed out the door by the Bush administration's Transportation Security Administration (TSA) just before they left Washington. It addresses a security threat that doesn't seem to exist. It contemplates that private aircraft with six, seven, eight or more seats might be used as weapons of destruction by terrorists.

I have seen many proposed rules during my nearly three decades in Washington. Many have had flaws, but few have been based solely on what someone imagines might happen!

That is what this does. By imagining that aircraft weighing over 12,500 pounds might be a threat, the TSA is proposing that a large number of general aviation aircraft owners establish full security programs patterned after the airlines.

AOPA and the other general aviation organizations have all voiced opposition to this proposal. We have provided witnesses with considerable expertise in security to testify at TSA hearings across the county. In the face of overwhelming opposition to this measure, the TSA's regulatory process is marching forward.

I believe that if one segment of general aviation can be unjustly regulated, then any segment can face the imposition of unfair regulatory burdens. So, this fight is one we all have a stake in, regardless of what type of aircraft we fly.

When I say burdensome, let me explain that the TSA has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) which, if enacted, will apply commercial air carrier security measures to GA aircraft weighing more than 12,500 pounds, regardless of how those aircraft are used. The costly proposal calls for crewmember criminal record checks, watch list matching of passenger manifests, biennial third-party audits of each aircraft operator, and new airport security requirements. The proposal fails to recognize the inherent differences between private and commercial aviation, and it attempts to impose expensive and unnecessary security regulations without justification.

All of us in the general aviation community care about security. Over a period of several years we have taken many prudent steps to ensure that our aircraft are secure and not used for hostile purposes. AOPA has been a leader in GA security and has worked with other industry groups to put into place a series of comprehensive policies and programs that work.

Having said this, I must tell you that none of this seems to matter to those who proposed this rule. Without pilots speaking out NOW, this rule may become final.

If there is any "good news" about the rule-making process, it is that it allows you and other pilots to formally object to this proposal, and to share your thoughts with Congress. I urge you to immediately let the TSA and your representatives in the House and Senate know how you feel.

All of us at AOPA will continue to work hard to fight this proposal. But we can't do it alone! When you take action, we all have a better chance of success. We need your help. So please, log onto the AOPA LASP Member Action Center ( http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/gasecurity/index.html ), follow the instructions, and let your voice be heard. AND, PLEASE ACT RIGHT NOW!



Sincerely,


Craig Fuller
AOPA President

P.S. The TSA must receive your comments before February 27, so please contact them by e-mail, mail, or fax right away. I also encourage you to send a copy to me at gasecurity@aopa.org and to copy your members of Congress, as well.


Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association • 421 Aviation Way • Frederick, MD 21701-4798
800/USA-AOPA • http://www.aopa.org

===============

Thanks, George. I submitted this comment:

I am the owner/operator of three small aircraft that will not be affected by this rule, but I am very sure that the very large adverse economic impact this rule will have on a much bigger segment of General Aviation than mine will trickle down to me through the loss of FBOs, maintenance shops, fuelers, runways, and airports that I help support and depend upon.

I buy fuel at a self-serve pump, just a few gallons at a time. Occasionally I'll find a receipt left in the pump by a prior customer, for 500 gallons of jet fuel. These are the operators this rule will put out of business, and they're the ones supporting the aviation industry on which I depend. This segment of aviation does not present a problem big enough to warrant a "solution" that will destroy the industry.

I recall that Osama bin Laden's stated goal in the 9/11 attacks was to provoke the US government to react in ways that would result in the bankruptcy of our country. Please, can we find smarter ways to respond?

Here are the airports which will be affected by the proposed rule. Do you need airline-style security and it's fees imposed on you at these airports?
http://download.aopa.org/epilot/2009/09 ... rports.pdf

AOPA: "Because the proposal does not recognize the inherent differences between commercial and GA operations, AOPA sees the potential for these requirements to be applied to the entire GA fleet in the future. Similarly, although approximately 312 airports would initially be regulated by the TSA, the security requirements could be expanded to include the additional 4,300 public-use airports across the country."