Security Directive Issue - Any Progress?

[West_Coast_Guy]

A while back I received an email from CAP talking about how a new TSA security directive would hamper CAP operations at airports with airline service. Recently the AOPA has reported some minimal progress in respect to transient pilots, but I'm not sure it would be sufficient to solve CAP's problem.

http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2009/090528tsa.html?WT.mc_id=090529epilot&WT.mc_sect=tts

Does anyone know if there has been significant progress in resolving CAP's concerns?

[sardak]

Attached is an update from Gen Courter issued just this week.

Mike

[♠SARKID♠]

Just so I'm clear, what is a "commercial service airport"?  Are we talking the larger style airports like O'Hare and LAX?  Or any type of airport where a business is based?

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

Just so I'm clear, what is a "commercial service airport"?  Are we talking the larger style airports like O'Hare and LAX?  Or any type of airport where a business is based?

If an airline flies out of it on a scheduled basis. I know Providence (PVD) comes under these rules and all of RIWG's a/c are based there.

[West_Coast_Guy]

I think the airliners have to have 60 or more seats to trigger this directive also.

[bosshawk]

I raised the issue with the DO and CC: the response was that the AF and National are working the issue.

Now you know as much as I know: not much.

[flynd94]

I think the airliners have to have 60 or more seats to trigger this directive also.

Negative, the rule is any Scheduled FAA Part 121 operations.  That is why some many small airports are upset.  I fly my big airliner (Beech 1900D Airliner, 19 Pax) into some small strips in CO, CA, WY, MT, IL KS, NE.  These airports now require the home based GA pilot to be security screened and badged.  Stupid rule.

[West_Coast_Guy]

Well, actually, I should have said it MAY not apply for airports that only serve airliners with 60 or fewer passenger seats. This gets a little complicated, so bear with me.

First, the version of the SD which has been published on the Web states, on page two, that it only applies to airport operators that are required to implement a complete security program under 49 CFR 1542.103(a), or to operators that are required to have a supporting security program under 49 CFR 1542.103(b) AND have elected to include SIDA or sterile areas in their security program.

49 CFR 1542.103(a) starts by saying:

"(a) Complete program. Except as otherwise approved by TSA, each airport operator regularly serving operations of an aircraft operator or foreign air carrier described in §1544.101(a)(1) or §1546.101(a) of this chapter, must include in its security program the following..."

49 CFR 1542.103(b) starts by saying"

"(b) Supporting program. Except as otherwise approved by TSA, each airport regularly serving operations of an aircraft operator or foreign air carrier described in §1544.101(a)(2) or (f), or §1546.101(b) or (c) of this chapter, must include in its security program a description of the following..."

OK, now we go to 49 CFR 1544.101(a)(1) and (2), and they say:

"(a) Full program. Each aircraft operator must carry out subparts C, D, and E of this part and must adopt and carry out a security program that meets the requirements of §1544.103 for each of the following operations:

"(1) A scheduled passenger or public charter passenger operation with an aircraft having a passenger seating configuration of 61 or more seats.

"(2) A scheduled passenger or public charter passenger operation with an aircraft having a passenger seating configuration of 60 or fewer seats when passengers are enplaned from or deplaned into a sterile area."

Are we having fun yet?

49 CFR 1546.101 appears to have similar language for foreign carriers, with some variations.

The bottom line of all this turgid prose seems to be that airports that only serve airliners with 60 passenger seats or fewer are only subject to this SD if the airport has elected to have a SIDA or sterile area as a part of its security program. So for the smaller airliners, it appears to depend on the airport.

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?sid=1a17fc0b1529d5570fdf1048d5217698&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title49/49cfrv9_02.tpl#1200

[West_Coast_Guy]

P.S. The above does NOT mean that I think this directive is a good idea. Having a patchwork of different rules for what pilots can do on the ramp at different airports is a nightmare, and I think all of it is unnecessarily restrictive. There have to be ways to secure the SIDA and sterile areas without trying to police SO MUCH real estate!

[grp3eso]

any bets that this information will appear in the airport facilty guide (green book)??

[West_Coast_Guy]

I suggested it to AOPA, and they seemed to think the idea was worth passing along.

[Flying Pig]

This isnt going to sound like a very technical response, so here it is.  This whole idea is stupid. I worked security at probably one of the most heavily and technically guarded facilities in the US and Ive been in police work for 12 years.  Again....stupid.  No need for it and it will prevent nothing.  Now back to our regularly scheduled programing.

[ThorntonOL]

I worked security at probably one of the most heavily and technically guarded facilities in the US 

Area 51?

[Flying Pig]

Nope.

However, I did preface that by saying "one of".  But I bet we had bigger guns.

A company of Infantry Marines to guard a 300 acre facility affectionately known as the "Q" at Yorktown Naval Weapons Station.  Ill let you use your imagination as to why.

[NC Hokie]

Nope.

However, I did preface that by saying "one of".  But I bet we had bigger guns.

A company of Infantry Marines to guard a 300 acre facility affectionately known as the "Q" at Yorktown Naval Weapons Station.  Ill let you use your imagination as to why.

Ohhhh...OHHHHHH!  [CAPer that grew up in Norfolk waves his hand frantically]  Did it have anything to do with stuff that could make you glow in the dark?

[SarDragon]

"It is the policy of the United States Government to neither confirm nor deny the presence or absence of special munitions in any location."

[Flying Pig]

The "Q" was closed a few years ago.  However, the Marine Security Force Company is still located there. It is still home to 2nd FAST (Fleet Anti-Terrorism Security Team)

NC....when the black van shows up in front of your house today, there is no sense in running, you'll only die tired.

[Captain Morgan]

Our squadron is based at LEX.  It is Class C with commercial operations.  All our qualified aircrew and other appropriate members have a SIDA badge.  We have hosted SAREX's there with 75+ participants.  No problem.  It's nice having our planes in a secure area.