Originally Posted by
BoilerUP
Just because you've heard the rental truck argument before doesn't mean its any less pertinent to this conversation, especially when you keep telling us about the "risk" our airplanes pose to public safety.
You have to consider the simple matter of physics when it comes to airplanes being used as weapons. A Saab 340 has a MTOW of 29,000lb...which in comparable bizjets puts you well into the midsize class of aircraft, and is heavier than a 900XP, G150, LR60XR. And if you're at "Joe Dirt Airport" (let's say TUP, GLH, CKB, GGG, LCH, etc) that has both GA and airline service, its just as easy to steal a Saab as it is a Hawker if you know what you are doing...and no level of governmental bureaucracy is going to prevent a determined individual from doing so.
Now let's consider the TSA's arbitrary weight limit of 12,500lb for the LASP program, which is a gross misapplication of the FAA's definition of "large aircraft". I've already mentioned a Saab and the bizjets it compares to; even a lowly Beech 1900 with a MTOW of 17,120 is heavier than the vast majority of "light" jets (CJ1-4, CE501 thru Encore+, Lear 31A). When you step up to even the smallest of regional jets, the 37 passenger Embraer 135, its 41,887lb MTOW is now heavier than the Gulfstream 200, Falcon 50 & 2000, Challenger 300, and if the 135LR, the Challenger 601. The Falcon 7x has a MTOW of 69.0k and the G450 is 73.9k...putting them both squarely in the CRJ-700 range and well lighter than the E170. The E170 holds more fuel than a fully loaded Citation Excel or LR40XR at MTOW for goodness sakes!
A CJ3 has a MTOW of 13,870 and would fall under LASP; a CJ2+ with MTOW of 12,500 would not; does that extra 1,370lb all of the sudden make it a risky, deadly weapon? Another example is the one I used yesterday - the airplane I fly now (Citation II) has a MTOW of 13,300lb, but with a couple grand to Cessna for a service bulletin and an AFM revision I would be flying a 551 with a placarded MTOW of 12,500lb - on the exact same airframe. Again, does that really make it any less of a "threat"?
You keep saying we need to come up with better ideas for security...missing the point that DHS is trying to "fix" a situation that is FAR from being "broken". There isn't a NEED for a better idea...there isn't a NEED for any idea in the first place, given the nature of how business aviation operates (which if you'll read the NPRM, the TSA proves they know nothing about bizav). This is nothing more than an attempt to justify an ever-growing DHS/TSA budget...and a job justification action with programs in place that could mke *former* DHS employees millions of dollars in the cottage industries that would inevitably spring up to help operators with LASP compliance.