cestmoi123

I was using "pay for" in the sense of budgeting "pay-fors." If you prefer, I could phrase it as "offset the additional spending for barriers by cutting funding at least as much for the FAM program."

Boggie Dog

Not everyone seems to understand that things from government are not really free.

I would agree reducing the FAM budget but would really like to see it come from the TSA screeners funding.

The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 was signed into law on 5 October 2018 which includes a provision for barriers to be installed on new aircraft.

2018 FAA Reauthorization Brings Major Advocacy VictoriesI recognize that this bill only mandates the barrier on new manufactured aircraft so in effect MacLean's call for secondary barriers has been met. As aircraft are retired new aircraft should have the barrier.

Isn't this thread moot with the passage of 2018 FAA Reauthoriztion Act?

WillCAD

I wouldn't say so.

Secondary barriers on new aircraft will be installed at the factory, by the manufacturer. Depending on the manufacturer, the barriers may be something sourced from another company, like engines, or they may be something developed in-house by the manufacturer. But for efficiency's sake, each manufacturer will likely buy or develop as few types of barriers as they can get away with. This would tend to limit the market for secondary barriers - how many total aircraft of all models does Boeing or Airbus produce in a year? And how many of them enter service in the United States? I would guess that the max number per year would be measured in the hundreds (someone please correct me if I'm way off-base here!)

Secondary barriers retrofitted onto existing aircraft, on the other hand, will be installed by the aircraft owners - the carriers - and since there are a lot more carriers, with a much wider variety of aircraft in their fleets, this opens the market for many types, sizes, and styles of secondary barrier. There are hundreds of thousands of commercial aircraft in the world, tens of thousands operating in the US - a potential gold mine for any company that sells such barriers. Imagine the competition for the WN contract alone!

So I would expect to see continued push for this legislation, driven by the lobbyists of the people who stand ready to make millions of dollars from the sales of these products. And I expect the carriers, who would be expected to shell out those beaucoup buckeroonies, to lobby just as hard against such legislation.

Boggie Dog

I'm suggesting that HR 911 is simply not needed. No cockpit breach in 18 years suggests there is of time to let current airplanes retire from service to be replaced with new metal with this change incorporated. I would even suggests the requirement of the modification after a certain amount of time if aircraft remain in service. This standard only applies to aircraft operated under FAR Part 121 so there might not be a world market. To install a barrier on an aircraft is a bit more complicated than just designing the barrier. For each aircraft type/model attachment points have to be determined and that will require access to engineering drawings at a minimum. Then the FAA has to sign off on the modification of the aircraft. I think that likely rules out the small contractor and throws any potential work to the majors. Probably the big money will be at the lobbyists level pushing for/against the barriers.

WillCAD

I agree completely, it's not needed, but whether it is or not, there is money to be made by the passage of the bill into law, and so there will be significant pressure to pass the bill put onto lawmakers by those who stand to make that money.

And of course, since this would also represent a significant monetary outlay from the carriers, they will put just as much pressure on lawmakers to not pass the bill.

Boggie Dog

Wonder how long a bill sits in committee before some action takes place? How long before knowing it's DOA or still kicking?

petaluma1

I believe it's alive until that particular session of Congress is completed.

MacLeanBarrier

February 27, 2019 press release from the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association (FLEOA) supporting the passage of U.S. Congress bill H.R. 911. FLEOA is not a bargaining unit/union. I am not a member of FLEOA:

http://bit.ly/HR911FLEOA

Often1

There are hundreds of bills such as this introduced in Congress every year. Rarely do they ever proceed. Once in a while, maybe a subcommittee hearing. This one hasn't even had one of those scheduled.

This has all the signs of legislation which was introduced to keep some constituency happy. Most likely manufacturers of secondary barriers. The telltale (and death knell) here is that the proposal does not contain any funding and does not authorize FAA to use any of its funding.

When you see a bill such as this with not even a fake authorization to spend, it's DOA.

Ari

Perhaps because it is stupid and useless.

It sure kept the inventor of secondary barriers happy.

Boggie Dog

Not sure what weight the FLEOA would carry. What expertise do they bring to the aviation security table?

Often1

This is not about expertise, it is about pandering. Nobody wants to offer legislation and say that it's because it will make a donor rich. Better to say the cops want it.

If the experts thought it was necessary and reasonable, FAA has plenty of authority to issue regulations without Congress sticking its beak into this.

Ari

Exactly. I think they call this process rulemaking. It usually involves stakeholders, not constituents.

MacLeanBarrier

FLEOA represents 30,000 current and retired federal law enforcement officers. U.S. Department of Homeland Security / Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Federal Air Marshals, TSA Criminal Investigators, and U.S. Department of Transportation / Office of Inspector General Criminal Investigators are federal law enforcement officers under 5 U.S.C. § 8336(c) All federal law enforcement officers are authorized to fly armed.

Boggie Dog

Ok, FLEOA represents current and former Federal LEO's. That still doesn't demonstrate any expertise in cockpit barriers.