As Clark notes, this isn't directly related to space transportation regulation, but you can see it coming:
The proposed regulation, titled the Large Aircraft Security Program, would require owners of those aircraft to obtain permission from TSA to operate their own personal aircraft every time they carry passengers. Additionally, all flight crews would be required to undergo fingerprinting and a background check, all passengers would have to be vetted against the government's terrorist watch lists, and numerous security requirements would be imposed on airports serving these "large" aircraft. EAA adamantly opposes this regulation and urges all members to respond to TSA...
"...We thank the TSA for agreeing with the many industry group and EAA members' requests for an extension, providing an additional two months to study and react to the proposal," said Doug Macnair, EAA vice president of government relations. "This proposal would be an unprecedented restriction on the freedom of movement for private U.S. citizens. It would also, for the first time, require governmental review and authority before a person could operate his/her own personal transportation conveyance.
First they came after the private aircraft pilots, and I said nothing, because I wasn't a private aircraft pilot.
Worse than that - this would make it very difficult for bizjet charter and fractional ownership companies to do business. So there's one more example of the guvmint just getting in the way. Guarantee you they haven't considered the economic impact, though they're supposed to. And also guarantee they don't care.
I work for one of the fractionals, and can see this really throwing a wrench in things. Haven't looked at the public comments yet but would imagine we're all over it.
The goons at TSA have done enough to already to make things inconvenient without doing a @$%! thing to really improve security.
Picking on people with resources and connections. Let's see how far they get with that.
Oh, I see. It will only apply to republicans.
So, despite your invocation of Martin Niemoller's poem
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...),
I don't know what to think about this.
The proposal covers planes that weigh over 12,500 pounds (I don't know if that's empty weight or not). A Cessna 182 weighs 1540 lbs, and a Cessna CitationJet weighs 6,765lbs (max takeoff weight of 10,700 lb).
Is there a kind of plane that should be covered by these kind of regulations? Should the Google Founders' private 767 be covered? Is weight the right criterion? After 9/11, I was worried about crop dusters rather than heavy private planes.
What about spacecraft? At some point, a hijacked spacecraft really could be a devastating weapon, right? Is maximum kinetic energy the issue to worry about? Or is it range? (Unmanned SpaceX-type launches should be vetted, so as to not alarm Russia and China, right? So, won't large manned orbital craft have the same problem?)
I only have questions, but I'm commenting to show that a pro-NewSpace, pro-EAA, but fairly ignorant guy like me isn't going to reflexively be against these proposals, let alone the completely uninformed general public.
What lunacy. This would cover such mainstays of the corporate fleet as the Beech King Air 200/350 and even the small Learjets. This is just a naked power grab by a bunch of bureaucrats.
Yep. "Naked power grab" pretty well sums up TSA in my opinion.
There were "security uber alles" types within DOT who wanted to clamp down on Gen Av long before 9/11, and that gave them their long-awaited pretext. I'm surprised it's taken this long, frankly. The security tail has been trying to wag the aviation dog ever since.
Here's the fundamental misconception, I believe - Joe CEO does not climb onboard his company's G-IV and wonder, "who's that scary-looking guy in the back?". It'd be more like, "get this clown off my airplane!".
The probabilty of one of these things getting hijacked and doing any serious damage has to be ridiculously low. Same effect as gun control - all they'll end up doing is inconveniencing or bankrupting law-abiding citizens. Those with nefarious intent will certainly find a way around the system.
Ranks right up there with the infamous Disneyland TFR (temporary flight restriction):
!FDC 3/2123 ZLA CA. FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS ANAHEIM, CA. EFFECTIVE 0303182000 UTC (MARCH 18 AT 1200 LOCAL) UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE. PURSUANT TO RESTRICTIONS DETAILED IN SECTION 352 OF PUBLIC LAW 108-7, AND 14 CFR SECTION 99.7, SPECIAL SECURITY INSTRUCTIONS. AIRCRAFT FLIGHT OPERATIONS ARE PROHIBITED AT AND BELOW 3,000 FEET AGL, WITHIN A 3 NAUTICAL MILE RADIUS OF THE DISNEYLAND THEME PARK (334805N/1175517W OR THE SEAL BEACH /SLI/ 067 DEGREE RADIAL AT 6.7 NAUTICAL MILES. THIS RESTRICTION DOES NOT APPLY TO (A) THOSE AIRCRAFT AUTHORIZED BY ATC FOR OPERATIONAL OR SAFETY PURPOSES, INCLUDING AIRCRAFT ARRIVING OR DEPARTING FROM AN AIRPORT USING STANDARD AIR TRAFFIC PROCEDURES; (B) DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, LAW ENFORCEMENT, OR AEROMEDICAL FLIGHT OPERATIONS THAT ARE IN CONTACT WITH ATC. THOSE WHO MEET ANY OF THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA MAY APPLY FOR A WAIVER TO THESE RESTRICTIONS: (A) FOR OPERATIONAL PURPOSES OF THE VENUE INCLUDING THE TRANSPORTATION OF EQUIPMENT OR OFFICIALS OF THE GOVERNING BODY; (B) FOR SAFETY AND SECURITY PURPOSES OF THE VENUE. INFORMATION REGARDING WAIVER APPLICATIONS CAN BE OBTAINED FROM THE FAA WEBSITE AT HTTP://WWW.FAA.GOV/ATS/ATA/WAIVER, OR BY CALLING 571-227-1322.
The Mouse called in some favors after 9/11 and used the unreasoned fear of terrorism to get TFRs at Disneyland (and Disney World too, IIRC). They were really going after banner planes that flew during the tourist season and disrupted "The Happiest Place On Earth". Despite the "temporary" in the name, these are still on the books more than 7 years after 9/11. Guess they worked - there have been no terrorist incidents against either site! (sarcasm mode off)
... And people wonder why some folks fear government "aid".
This is the equivalent of every RV or big truck owner needing to request permission to drive their vehicles. I'm shocked ANY US government agency or agent would suggest such a thing!
I strongly suggest you protest this.
Someone comment that if this is the attitude of Washington, all suborbital or other space craft will be outlawed except under strict control of and supervision of government bureaucrats. One wonders how long before small private aircraft (already being threatened) come under their interest.