Nick -

I have not read the link but this was being discussed the other day amongst the group of pilots here. If I understand it - this proposal would be for ALL aircraft over 12,500#s. So...not only P91 flight Depts - but Richie Rich's own fully owned private jet would fall under these restrictions correct? Also - if this is the case, then EVERY last tiny FBO in the country is going to have to have a full security set-up for processing correct? IMAGINE the cost!

USMCFLYR

 

One and the same...a privately owned & operated jet is by default a Part 91 operation, same as an aircraft owned by a corporation.

 

OK - so they are all operated under the Part 91. So it is true, if I were rich enough to own my own Citation X and have it hangared in little ole' Ada, Oklahoma airport and I want to fly it to San Diego to go to Sea World, I'm going to have to go through a TSA approved screening process?

USMCFLYR

 

Ridicoulous, we are loosing our freedoms for no reason other then to make some mid level beaurocrat feel better about themselves.

 

Under the LASP proposal, yup...

An owner-pilot of a CJ3 would have to have audits, designate a coordinator, screen his family and run their names before going to the condo in Florida...but if he trades down to a CJ2 then POOF its no longer required.

Same for a Citation II (13.3k MTOW) vs. a Citation 551 (same exact airframe, but AFM limited to 12.5k MTOW), or a King Air 300 vs. a KA200.

 

DHS: Fact Sheet: General Aviation


This information has been out for awhile (11/5/2007). I think the true problem with GA is that we all know any willing & wanting criminal pilot can break into your Joe Dirt Airport and take your Lear Jet 33A and create havoc. Remember the teenager that went for a citation joyride a couple of years ago? That's a scary scenario and yes I've heard the standard AOPA argument about a rental truck. Again I say you all better come up with some ideas, obviously the TSA has some for you that you don't like.

 

never heard of a lear 33a

 

I dont think it matters what level of security you have in place, if the bad guys want to inflict harm with a GA airplane, they will do it. Do you think the bad guys give a rats a$$ about taking off over weight in a King Air 200 (stolen) loaded with explosives in the middle of the night?

The LASP currently proposed will not do anything to make GA any safer. It will most likely make GA smaller and put a lot of people out of work.

If this goes through it will probably be the end for me. It will be a totally useless program that I do not intend to comply with and is where I draw the line (hopefully). Guess I better get that BBQ B-Plan going.

 

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.

 

Sorry about that my GA bizjet types are rusty.

The point I was trying to make is most small GA airports I've been to are not attended 24/7 while obviously large 121 airports are. Sure if someone's bent on trouble they will make trouble but I'd rather go to the small airport that closes at 9pm and pick a target. Furthermore, yes you need to submit some ideas to the Feds, as you point out they "know nothing about bizav" but have some very significant ideas for you...regardless if you personally think your system is "far from broken". I've spoke my peace, good luck to all of you GA drivers, you're going to need it while dealing with the TSA. Hopefully your CEOs have some very powerful lobbyists in their back pockets.