Originally Posted by bocastephen

Unless enough airports opt out ...

Perhaps Congress is unwilling to get rid of the TSA, but the airports could.

Originally Posted by Bart

No offense intended; however, no matter who is voted into the Oval Office or who gains the majority in Congress, very little will change in airport security. The biggest challenge currently faced by TSA which Congress gives a damn about is cargo screening in terms of finding an effective way to do it. Right now, there are random inspections and validations of shipper ID, etc. but there is always room for improvement. The biggest bone of contention are those cargo items that are permitted aboard passenger aircraft. While you may argue the common sense position that if it goes aboard a passenger plane, then it ought to be screened; that argument will fall on deaf ears because the airlines have a vested and profitable interest with the status quo.

As for the rest of it, my friend, the ugly political reality is that besides some degree of inconvenience to you and other travelers, Congress is satisfied that it has successfully put a check in the box next to "improve post-9/11 airport security."

I'm not defending this; I'm just stating what I perceive to be a political reality.

All you can expect to see along the way are minor changes to procedures based on public input. But the basic procedure will remain the same. For those who think that Congress will suddenly mandate a return to private security screening, gimme some of what yer smokin'! Because that ain't gonna happen. It's not that I see this as a threat to my job. Hell, I could move on and do just about anything if I chose to. The reality is that once a government agency has been established, and once it has survived its infancy, it is here to stay.

Originally Posted by XGSC

...The proposed GA securit regs will require International flights arriving in the US informing Customs (CBP) of Passport info for crew and passengers. This is e-APIS. The airlines have been using APIS for years, and started E APIS about a year ago. TSA is not involved with this program.
AOPA, NBAA and several other aviation groups work closely with TSA in areas regarding GA security. The relationship is not the living hell you'd like to see. TSA does have several GA security programs,for example; flight students, Part 125 and 135 charter operators. TSA and general aviation have many similar interests and the relationship is not as contentious as you believe.
I am a private pilot and AOPA member.X

Originally Posted by Bart

Sorry, but that's another fantasy. Why would the airlines want to assume the financial burden and liability that comes with airport security? Federalization was the best thing that ever happened to them. The airlines have a Whipping Boy that they can point fingers at and lay blame on.

Originally Posted by Bart

No offense intended; however, no matter who is voted into the Oval Office or who gains the majority in Congress, very little will change in airport security. The biggest challenge currently faced by TSA which Congress gives a damn about is cargo screening in terms of finding an effective way to do it. Right now, there are random inspections and validations of shipper ID, etc. but there is always room for improvement. The biggest bone of contention are those cargo items that are permitted aboard passenger aircraft. While you may argue the common sense position that if it goes aboard a passenger plane, then it ought to be screened; that argument will fall on deaf ears because the airlines have a vested and profitable interest with the status quo.

As for the rest of it, my friend, the ugly political reality is that besides some degree of inconvenience to you and other travelers, Congress is satisfied that it has successfully put a check in the box next to "improve post-9/11 airport security."

I'm not defending this; I'm just stating what I perceive to be a political reality.

All you can expect to see along the way are minor changes to procedures based on public input. But the basic procedure will remain the same. For those who think that Congress will suddenly mandate a return to private security screening, gimme some of what yer smokin'! Because that ain't gonna happen. It's not that I see this as a threat to my job. Hell, I could move on and do just about anything if I chose to. The reality is that once a government agency has been established, and once it has survived its infancy, it is here to stay.

Originally Posted by Bart

Sorry, but that's another fantasy. Why would the airlines want to assume the financial burden and liability that comes with airport security? Federalization was the best thing that ever happened to them. The airlines have a Whipping Boy that they can point fingers at and lay blame on.

Originally Posted by bocastephen

Why did SFO do it? Why do you think airlines suffer the burden?

Security funding should be handled in a very simple matter - the security fee, like the ticket tax, should be added to a fund, from which grants are disbursed to airports on the basis of operational need. In addition, the FAA can authorize airports to make up funding shortfalls from PFC revenue as well as their normal grants from the Aviation Trust. This is the current revenue distribution model for all airport project work.

There is no burden to the airline at all.

Originally Posted by Bart

SFO was one the original five airports Congress designated for the private security screening experiment. I think (and may be mistaken) that only a handful, and I'm talking about less than five, airports "opted" to go to private screening when they had the option to do so. And these were airports that TSA found financially expedient to go to private screening, and we're talking about one-horse airports, or in this case, one-airline airports with perhaps a morning flight or two and an evening flight or two....

Originally Posted by bocastephen

This is where the grassroots momentum will come from. If Congress refuses to respond to public demands to neuter or eliminate the TSA, the public (with guidance from those in the know) will turn their attention to putting pressure on airports - and the airports in turn will discover it's in their best interests to opt out.

That will put the airports on a collision course with Congress and draw a line in the sand - will Congress bar opt-outs and force the TSA on airports and travelers or use the stampede as an excuse to dismantle the agency...

Originally Posted by bocastephen

Well, I've communicated with plenty of people who take an opposite view, with the exception of Customs notification, which has always been a small part of private flying.

How would you feel if the TSA took the authority upon itself to clear you to fly your own aircraft, or ride on someone else's private aircraft? How about if they decided if you were able to fly or not - or had the authority to ground your aircraft if you declined to provide information you weren't comfortable releasing or subject yourself or your aircraft to intrusive inspections and checks or give them access to your aircraft outside your presence? What if the TSA banned GA from certain airports or airspace without appropriate cause, or decided certain classes of people could not pilot aircraft?

Still feeling the love?

Originally Posted by bocastephen

That will put the airports on a collision course with Congress and draw a line in the sand - will Congress bar opt-outs and force the TSA on airports and travelers or use the stampede as an excuse to dismantle the agency...

Originally Posted by XGSC

I am asumming that you are referring to the Maryland Three? While TSA is enforcing certain flight restrictions, those airport restrictions come from another agency. I am not aware of TSa deciding that certain classes of people can not pilot aircraft. I am aware that persons who are not US citizens must obtain a security threat asessment before begininh training, but that is not what you said. And yes, I do feel the love!
X

Originally Posted by bocastephen

Why did SFO do it? Why do you think airlines suffer the burden?

Security funding should be handled in a very simple matter - the security fee, like the ticket tax, should be added to a fund, from which grants are disbursed to airports on the basis of operational need. In addition, the FAA can authorize airports to make up funding shortfalls from PFC revenue as well as their normal grants from the Aviation Trust. This is the current revenue distribution model for all airport project work.

There is no burden to the airline at all.

Originally Posted by XGSC

...And for the record, the five airports that use private screening still have a TSA management structure. The private screeners report to TSA managers. Frankly, I'm not sure whose argument that last fact helps!
X

Originally Posted by knotyeagle

Please read up on Federal Aviation Regulations 61.18 before you make such a statement. The Transportation Security Administration can direct the FAA to revoke ALL of my airman certificates at any time. And my appeal is to the very agency that directed the FAA to revoke my certificate. It has nothing to do with my safety record or violations of Federal Aviation regulations.

How would people feel if their driver's licenses (perhaps even commercial ones) were revoked by the Department of Motor Vehicles because "the TSA said so"?

This is my business that the TSA can decide to take away. I'll always have as much respect for the TSA and their regulations equal to what they show to my FAA earned airman certificates.

Oh, and by the way. Revoking my certificates certainly does not decrease my knowledge/skill level nor what I can teach others. It only means I cannot lawfully act as pilot-in-command of an aircraft.

61.18 Security disqualification.

top
(a) Eligibility standard. No person is eligible to hold a certificate, rating, or authorization issued under this part when the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has notified the FAA in writing that the person poses a security threat.

(b) Effect of the issuance by the TSA of an Initial Notification of Threat Assessment. (1) The FAA will hold in abeyance pending the outcome of the TSA's final threat assessment review an application for any certificate, rating, or authorization under this part by any person who has been issued an Initial Notification of Threat Assessment by the TSA.

(2) The FAA will suspend any certificate, rating, or authorization issued under this part after the TSA issues to the holder an Initial Notification of Threat Assessment.

(c) Effect of the issuance by the TSA of a Final Notification of Threat Assessment. (1) The FAA will deny an application for any certificate, rating, or authorization under this part to any person who has been issued a Final Notification of Threat Assessment.

(2) The FAA will revoke any certificate, rating, or authorization issued under this part after the TSA has issued to the holder a Final Notification of Threat Assessment.

[Doc. FAA–2003–14293, 68 FR 3774, Jan. 24, 2003]