CALL TO ACTION!!!

Stop the Larger Aircraft Security Program

Resources for the Public

Alan Armstrong LASP Interview on Warbird Radio Live - http://www.srcfiles.com/aalaw/WRLEpisode57-StopLASP.mp3

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Alan Armstrong's Presentation on Stop LASP! - http://video.yahoo.com/search/?p=Stop+LASP

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Alan Armstrong's L.A.S.P. Presentation at ICAS 2009 in Las Vegas, NV is available for viewing now!  Go to the Video Page

------------------------------------------------------------

Alan Armstrong Flightwatch Volume 201 - THE GRASS ROOTS ACTIVIST FIGHTING TO PRESERVE CIVIL LIBERTIES

------------------------------------------------------------

Alan Armstrong's 'Help Stop LASP' Letter - Document may be viewed HERE

------------------------------------------------------------

Alan Armstrong's Summary Letter

Please feel free to cut and paste Mr. Armstrong's embedded form letter in his summary.

We need YOUR help in opposing this unconstitutional NPRM.

------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Alan Armstrong's response to the Proposed Rule from the TSA

concerning The Large Aircraft Security may be viewed HERE

-----------------------------------------------------------------

This document deals with TSA Security Directive 8F implemented (apparently, unlawfully) by TSA as a final rule without complying with the notice and comment provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act. Implementation of this gem has been postponed until June 1.  View the document HERE

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Aviation Subcommittee Contacts Lists are available here:  Document 1 - Document 2

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Official Comments of Peachtree-Dekalb Airport concerning LASP - View document HERE

-----------------------------------------------------------------

(a)     What is the threat to America’s national security that demands that private (general) aviation in this country be crippled with concomitant loss of productivity, loss of personal liberty and adverse impacts on aircraft manufacturing, sales and servicing in the USA?

(b)     Would not TSA’s resources be better spent keeping the terrorists out of our country rather than destroying the civil liberties and productivity of law-abiding American citizens? After all, it is not the machine (whether aircraft or truck or ship) that presents the danger. It is the terrorist.

(c)     Did the TSA engage in a meaningful and honest assessment of what this proposed rule will cost the United States in terms of productivity at a time when our economy is crippled?

(d)     Does the TSA understand the difference between “common carriage” where a certificated air carrier must provide air transportation to anybody who buys a ticket or is willing to charter an air taxi flight as opposed to private (general) aviation where individuals and corporations employ their aircraft for business, humanitarian and recreational purposes?

(e)     Are the numbers in the TSA proposal that purport to quantify the adverse economic impact on general aviation realistic and candid or, rather has the TSA obscured the true and inevitable economic impact of this program on general aviation as a viable and secure means of transportation and on the aviation community as a whole, e.g., aircraft manufacturing, aircraft servicing, aircraft insurance?

----------------------------------------------------------------

Internet Links and Further Resources

http://www.alabamaaviator.com/index.asp?record_no=18246

http://video.foxnews.com/12898769/safe-to-fly?category_id=949437d0db05ed5f5b9954dc049d70b0c12f2749

http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/general_aviation_affected_airports.pdf

http://www.eaa.org/news/2009/2009-01-15_opposition.asp

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/region/2009/090112ga.html?WT.mc_id=090116epilot&WT.mc_sect=tts

http://www.generalaviationnews.com/2009/01/news/an-aviation-lawyer-comments-on-lasp/

http://www.alabamaaviator.com/index.asp?record_no=15627

http://www.generalaviationnews.com/2009/01/news/%E2%80%9Cstop-lasp%E2%80%9D-group-formed/

http://www.alabamaaviator.com/

www.flightlineinternetradio.com

http://www.lzuairport.com/

http://www.goldseallive.com/

http://commemorativeairforce.org/?page=cms/index&cms_page=1267

http://www.stoplasp.com/more_from_director_of_kapa_airport

http://www.aaae.org/news_publications/aaae_press_releases/viewRelease.cfm?p=22FFEE9B-F83A-0A79-FCA786781264BA94 

http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/vipr_blockisland.shtm 

Press Coverage on AVWEB

http://www.enctoday.com/news/airport_44044_nbsj__article.html/new_authority.html

http://www.eaa.org/news/2009/2009-02-25_airports.asp

http://www.aopa.org

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/region/2009/090226ak.html?WT.mc_id=ebrief

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/SHELVE031609.xml&headline=House%20Lawmakers%20Resist%20BizAv%20Security%20Rule&channel=busav

http://www.myphl17.com/sns-dc-gitmo-court,0,442210.story

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Below are some links to several webcasts on the TSA's L.A.S.P. Fight

http://www.xiosoftpresenter.com/default.asp?eventid=5502009

http://planehook.com/_wsn/page4.html

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/TSASUIT022309.xml&headline=TSA%20BizAv%20Security%20To%20Face%20Legal%20Challenge&channel=busav

http://www.noplanenogain.org

http://forums.aopa.org/showthread.php?t=52187

http://industry.bnet.com/travel/1000946/large-aircraft-security-proposal-threatens-to-strangle-general-aviation/

http://www.wctc.edu/wctcsys/cja_training_session/desc.php?record=350

http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2009/090312lasp.html?WT.mc_id=090313epilot&WT.mc_sect=tts

http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2009/090312tsaliaison.html?WT.mc_id=090313epilot&WT.mc_sect=tts

http://www.eaa.org/news/2009/2009-03-09_userfees.asp

http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2009/090402lasp.html?WT.mc_id=090403epilot&WT.mc_sect=gan

http://download.aopa.org/epilot/2009/090402lasp.pdf

http://eaa690.org/article.php?story=20090208111757794

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/mi03_ehlers/TSA_amendment.html

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2009/07/01/meserve.aviation.threat.cnn

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2009/07/01/meserve.aviation.threat.cnn?iref=24hours

http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2009/08/28/askthepilot332/index.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Letters Concerning L.A.S.P.

Letter from Russ Still:

 If the TSA was truly interested in effectiveness rather than appearance, they would be addressing the problem from an objective and statistical basis.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Letter Dated January 28, 2009

I just returned from the TSA public hearing in Houston.  I estimate there were over 300 in attendance with 86 of us who chose to speak.  The NBAA and AOPA were well represented.  The anti-NPRM message was loud and clear.  Doug Carr, NBAA VP for Safety, Security & Regulations, commented that there has been over 1,000 attendees for all 5 public hearings and not one of the presenters supported the NPRM.  Craig Spence, AOPA VP for Aviation Security, was in attendance as well.  There was a good mix of airport, flight department, small business owners, Fortune 500 senior executives, and security industry experts who clearly expressed their lack of support.  All-in-all I'd say our message was extremely clear:  No to the NPRM.
 
Cheers from the Alamo,
 
Dave
 
David C. Hook, PSP
President
Planehook Aviation Services, LLC

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alan:
 
I just finished uploading the video of my presentation at the Houston hearing.  This was the video that quite nearly wasn't.  The TSA wanted me to turn off my video camera at a public hearing (mine was the only video camera there).  But I had already received approval of the TSA public affairs representative there.  So all that happened was the TSA panel members embarassed themselves by making a fuss over it.  Anyway, here is the address for the presentation:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Emd8stTI3dU
 
The word is getting out about the hearings via Internet Flightline Radio.  With any luck the result of my latest interview will be to get the fence-sitters to submit comments to their TSA.  I'll have my remarks to the TSA available for download from Planehook's website:  www.planehook.com.  We're already preparing for the next step in battling this.  I'll let you know how things progress from our side of things.
 
Cheers from the Alamo,
 
Dave

David C. Hook, PSP
President
Planehook Aviation Services, LLC
 
"Securing aviation one airport at a time"

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gentlemen:

I don't know if you are aware of the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM)  that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has posted in the Federal Register at this time – it is called the Large Aircraft Security Program (LASP).  This rule will significantly affect ALL business and corporate aviation operators operating airplanes that weigh more than 12,500 lbs. (Teds and Taylors)

Is this only the beginning?  Probably.  My guess is that ALL airplanes (King Airs, Cheyennes, and even small Cessnas) will be next.

The LASP will significantly restrict the utility of your airplane.  Below are some issues of which you should be aware.

This rule will:

1) Restrict items that you will be allowed to take on board your OWN airplane
     a. i.e,:  No firearms (Hunting trips?),  No liquids over 3 ounces (Do you carry toothpaste or shampoo or wine on board?),  No knives (Do you carry a survival kit? Do you ever enjoy meal catering that needs forks and knives? Carry a pocket knife?),  Many tools will be restricted (Do employees take tools to any of your construction or work sites?).

2) You and your passengers will need to be screened prior to each and every flight to make sure that none of you are terrorists.
     a. You will not be able to vet any of these people yourself, and this includes you, your wife, your children, your parents,  any guests you invite, your employees, your customers, etc.

3) You will need to ask for permission from the Federal Government (DHS) prior to each and every flight.
     a. They have no time limit on when (after you request permission) you might receive such permission.
        i. You will quite possibly face significant delays while the government gets around to granting you permission to fly.

4) You will sometimes need to make room for a DHS Air Marshal if they decide that, for this flight, they might want to send one along.
     a. No room?  Too bad,  you will need to bump one of your passengers.
     b. And, oh, by the way,  guess who gets to pay for the Air Marshal, and his expenses associated with the trip? You.

5) Your pilots will need to submit to criminal background checks including fingerprinting.
     a. If you are a pilot,  you will need to submit to this.
     b. Guess who will have to make sure that has been done - you.

     c. There will, of course, be significant fines if you don't make sure this is done.

6) You will have to appoint a Director of Security and this lucky person will have to create a security manual and this manual will need to be approved by the DHS.
     a. Guess who gets to pay for that?  You.

7) You could be forced to submit to a third party, DHS-approved audit of your airplane operation on a semi-annual basis
     a. Guess who gets to pay for that audit? You.

And, yes,  there is way more to this than listed above.

Please send this email to as many private airplane operators or owners as you can.  The time to mobilize against this ridiculousness is now, as the comment period, as specified in the NPRM, closes 27 Feb 2009.


For more information, please follow the following links:

http://www.nbaa.org/ops/security/programs/lasp/

http://www.nbaa.org/news/pr/2009/20090106-001.php

http://www.nbaa.org/advocacy/testimony/20090106.php

Podcast

http://www.nbaa.org/advocacy/testimony/20090106-bolen-lasp-hearing.mp3


If you have any influence with any members of the U.S. House of Representatives or U.S. Senate,  I strongly encourage you to use it.  If this becomes the law, your expensive airplane could become a burden rather than a tool.

Remember, if we do nothing, this will happen.  The time to act is NOW.


Best,

Toby Blanton
Chief Pilot/Vice President
Flying T LLC
toby.blanton@tedturner.com
4043862643

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments from Greg Kelly:

There are a number of airports which are beginning to push back on all TSA initiatives to force them through the NPRM process when the initiative would have long term financial and operational consequences to airports, airlines and the GA community.  The staff of the Airports Council International has been given direction from the BOD to work with Congress and the new Administration to achieve this goal.  We feel strongly that the TSA is engaged in mission creep and that they should be forced back into line as a Federal Agency and only engage in regulatory and passenger/bag screening activities.  Initiatives such as 08F which bypass the NPRM process are actually unfunded mandates that do little to improve security at our airports but go along way towards dragging our industry down.  They are systematically suffocating the very industry they were created to protect.  We believe ATSA can be amended if all of the members of the aviation community form a unified front on this.  Now is the time to make headway while the new Administration personnel are being infused into the agencies. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Letter from Stephan Brown, President of the Commemorative Air Force

February 25, 2009

The Commemorative Air Force needs your help! The public comment period for
the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) proposed Large Aircraft
Security Program (LASP) ends this Friday, Feb. 27, 2009. If this proposal is
put into effect, the CAF will face many negative consequences. Please take a
moment to write a letter to your Congressional representative on behalf of
the CAF.

I would like to take a moment to outline the LASP proposal and its impact on
the CAF. As you write your letter, please feel free to use these points.
Also, I have listed below this letter contact information for the
representatives who serve on the House Committee on Homeland Security and
the House Aviation Subcommittee.

The LASP proposal, as it is currently written, includes all aircraft over
the Maximum Takeoff Gross Weight of 12,500 lbs. There is no distinction
between types of aircraft, their uses, or the types of ownership outlined in
the proposal.  Therefore, the CAF would like TSA to exempt museum aircraft
operated by non-profit organizations where operation of the aircraft is the
responsibility of volunteers that restore and operate historical military
airplanes to advance the heritage and history of those who gave so much to
preserve our freedom.

The Commemorative Air Force operates 14 aircraft over 12,500 lbs. Thirteen
of these aircraft carry passengers and all are based in different locations.
Approximately half of the passenger flights are simply moving members to and
from air shows to help tell the public about the story of the airplane, its
mission and the mission of the CAF. We know all of these members personally,
they fly frequently and security checks should not be required. The same
goes for the pilots. The current language about a preapproved list does not
eliminate the inspection for each intended flight.

The second half of the CAF passenger flights are rides given to the public.
These rides give the public first-hand experience flying in an airplane with
an important military history while they hear about the sacrifices our
military made to preserve the freedoms we have in America. We charge a fee
for these flights, which amounts to a donation to the airplane and
membership in the CAF, under a FAA Letter of Authorization to Part 125.147
for standard category aircraft and under a deviation (6802F) for limited and
experimental aircraft.

The donations for these rides cover a part of the cost of the flights and
maintenance of the airplane. The CAF is a non-profit organization and all of
the money from these flights is used to keep the airplanes flying. CAF
aircraft are maintained and operated by volunteers and the cost of
maintaining them is paid by donations to the airplanes.  The CAF does not
make a profit, but simply preserves the historic airplanes. The cost of the
LASP will significantly reduce our means to preserve and present the history
of these airplanes and the roles they played in preserving our freedom.

The most significant impact on the CAF is the indirect cost. It is the time
our volunteers would need to devote to administration and training. These
volunteers are the lifeblood of the CAF, they want to fly and work on these
historic airplanes and are not motivated to come to the hangar and spend
many days a month completing paperwork.

In sum, the Commemorative Air Force faces detrimental consequences should
the proposal be accepted. We believe museum aircraft operated for non-profit
educational purposes should be exempt from the proposed rule.  There are
many other issues besides those outlined here that will negatively impact
our ability to continue our education mission and the preservation of these
airplanes. We are relying on you to help the CAF by take a stand. We ask
that you take a moment to send your input on this proposal.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Letter from Stan Bloyer:

The Large Aircraft Security Program is an appallingly mis-guided initiative that will
provide negligible benefit as a counter-terrorist measure, will destroy the General
Aviation industry in the United States, and will thus have significant adverse effects
on our National economy, which is already in dire straits.

I am a retired pilot in the US Navy (26 years active service). I hold an Airline
Transport Pilot and Certified Flight Instructor ratings.

As a flight instructor, I am very familiar with the General Aviation industry.

I currently fly a wide variety of vintage military aircraft, from WWII bi-plane trainers
to heavy bombers, some weighing up to 50,000 lbs Maximum Gross Takeoff
Weight for private owners and non-profit foundations at airshows and other events,
educating the American public on our Nation's history and the contributions of
military heroes past and present to our Liberty.

I also have a small, veteran-owned business, flying relatively modern foreign
military jet fighters and helicopters weighing up to 30,000 pounds Maximum Gross
Takeoff Weight on contract with the US Air Force and US Marine Corps to train
their pilots and air defense units.

First, as to negligible security benefit: Your own government study underlying the
proposed rule indicates that there is little evidence of terrorist intent to use General
Aviation aircraft. Pilots, passengers, and operators of large Business and
Corporate aircraft invariably know each other. It is ludicrous to think that strangers
could board and commandeer such aircraft.

Second, the proposed aircrew and passenger vetting procedures will add
tremendously to the costs and reduce the flexibility of operating General Aviation
aircraft, from medium twin propeller aircraft through corporate jets. You clearly
have no idea of the economic value of General Aviation. The principal component of
that value is the flexibility to carry people and cargo to and from all kinds of
airports on short notice. Your proposed rule will have tremendous adverse impact,
not only on "Fat Cat" corporate operations, but also the automobile industry,
florists, hospitals, funeral directors, and many others who rely on fast, flexible air
transportation in many aircraft weighing more than 12,500 pounds Maximum
Gross Takeoff Weight.

Third, your proposed rule will absolutely eliminate the ability of museums and non-
profit educational organizations to operate many historic aircraft, such as Douglas
DC-3/C-47 transports, P-51 Mustang fighters, B-25 Mitchell medium bombers
(used in Doolittle Raid on Tokyo in early WWII), and the famous Boeing B-17
Flying Fortress heavy bomber. Almost all of the operators of these airplanes
depend on appearance fees earned at airshows and fees charged for rides to keep
these expensive machines flying. There is no way these operators could comply
with your proposed passenger vetting rules. And your other impending rules about
airport access will put air shows out of business.

Fourth, your rule would add significantly to my business costs as a contract
operator of foreign military aircraft, and thus add to the costs of training US Armed
Forces.

Fifth, and most importantly, your proposed LASP infringes in a major way on the
Liberty of private citizens to travel freely in and about our country on private
business. If the LASP is implemented for aircraft weighing more than 12,500
pounds Maximum Takeoff Weight, based on flawed analysis of threat and
misunderstanding of General Aviation as a whole, what prevents extension of such
rules to aircraft weighing less, or even private automobiles?

Life is full of risks. It is not TSA's job to reduce the risks of terrorist action to zero.
You go way beyond reason with LASP.

I urge you to discard LASP in its entirety. I will so recommend to the President,
and my Congressmen and Senators.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   FAA gets unanimous response on LASP
An FAA spokeswoman says it's too early to speculate on the future of the Large Aircraft Security Program, which drew more than 4,000 responses during its 120-day public comment period. "We've just embarked on the review process," Lauren Gaches says. "Our goal is to get input from the industry." AOPA's Chris Dancy says there was plenty of input during five public meetings scheduled by the agency to seek reaction from the GA community. "Not one person stood to speak in favor of the proposed rule," Dancy says. "Instead, hundreds stood up to oppose it." The Frederick News-Post (Md.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From the Alliance for Aviation Across America

Dear Alan,   Ever since inauguration day, general aviation has been the topic of many discussions, both in Washington and across the country.  As a result, we at the Alliance for Aviation Across America have some major news items to share with you.   House Panel Passes FAA Reauthorization Bill, NextGen Development This month marked a milestone for general aviation, as the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure approved H.R. 915, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009.  This bill will fully fund FAA operations, as well as badly-needed investments in our air traffic control system through an increase in aviation fuel taxes.   The Alliance for Aviation Across America applauds Chairman Oberstar and his colleagues for recognizing the vital role general aviation plays in the daily lives of Americans, and we look forward to working with Congress to help pass this critical piece of legislation.   LASP "Twelve-Five" Rule Under Review Acknowledging the importance of general aviation, Chairman Bennie Thompson of the House Committee on Homeland Security requested that Congress be given time to hear from experts and to debate the Large Aircraft Security Proposal (LASP) before the proposed rules become law.   LASP, as proposed, would reclassify large aircraft as those over 12,500 lbs. for the purpose of applying security measures.  This would place a burden on general aviation, making small planes less viable as tools of business and community access.   Obama Budget Proposal Contains "User Fees" Unfortunately, the Obama Administration recently released its budget proposal for 2010, which includes over $7 billion in "direct user charges" or "user fees."  As you are well aware, "user fees" would dramatically increase the administrative burden on small aircraft and the businesses and communities that depend on them.  The Alliance has already sent a letter to President Obama urging him to consider the disastrous burden that user fees would have on general aviation, and we will be working hard over the next couple of months to get our message to lawmakers and the President.   Spread The Word!   The Alliance for Aviation Across America will continue to keep you informed as these situations develop. Please forward this message to your friends and colleagues, and encourage them to sign up at  www.aviationacrossamerica.org.   Thank you for your steadfast support of general aviation.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Betty:

The presentation went well. It was filmed and should be posted at www.Yahoo.com  very soon. Mike Van Wie, deputy director at PDK noted yesterday via email that not all reliever airports like PDK are currently requiring badging unless it is served by an air carrier or there is a significant air taxi operator presence.

Fred McCosby, the security chief at Savannah Hilton Head International Airport noted last night that responses to the TSA airport survey can invite more government regulation. So, be careful what you ask for. Skipper Hyle noted the negative impact of all these draconian TSA regulations will have on the next generation of pilots, the youth of America. Both Skipper and Fred have a deep appreciation for the implications of badging at reliever airports. For example, the certifying entity that gives you your badge only takes responsibility that you were trained as a pilot about your security obligations at your particular airport. That is why there has not been nationwide or uniform badging for all airports.

As far as my comments were concerned:

(1) On December 30, 2008, 60 days after the Large Aircraft Security Program  Notice of Proposed Rule Making was published in the Federal Register, the TSA made a finding that General Aviation did not present a threat to the homeland.

(2) On May 27, 2009, Richard L. Skinner, Inspector General for the Department of Homeland Security issued a report declaring the threats that the Large Aircraft Security Program is designed to address are largely “hypothetical.”

(3) On February 28, 2002, Dr. Kenneth Nolde, a Senior Analyst for the Defense Intelligence Agency wrote a report about the potential threat of terrorists using General Aviation aircraft to deploy “weapons of mass destruction.” Dr. Nolde concluded that because of the limited speed and payload of General Aviation aircraft, coupled with the ability for their being detected and tracked by radar, they were a poor choice for delivery of “weapons of mass destruction.” To be more explicit, he wrote: “Given their limitations as vehicles of destruction, security risks from GA aircraft are negligible. Moreover, given the choice between GA planes and ground vehicles as delivery platforms, ground is the clear winner.”     

Colonel Ralph Peters was interviewed on Fox this morning. He said it is time to stop punishing the American people. Peters also said we already have a bloated in ineffective bureaucracy. The issue at hand is not quantity at the TSA but quality. I could not have said it better myself.    

Best Regards,

Alan  

----------------------------------

Alan:  This is what I sent to the our ACI leadership the other day.

The TSA is slowly crippling our industry with their ongoing incompetency, ineptness and implementation of absurd reactionary  and gimmicky security measures.  We need to start holding them accountable for the damage they are causing to the image of airport security.  Airport operators work too hard at ensuring our airports are safe and secure to have a misdirected incompetent federal agency like TSA take our legs out from under us.  This is very very disturbing.  I would think that all airport management professionals would be outraged at this point.  

Happy New Year to the ACI staff.  

Greg