Fixing Something That Is Not Broken
There is an NPRM on the  street proposing to include general aviation aircraft that weigh 12,500 pounds  or more under many of the same security rules that are in effect for commercial  airliners.
Frankly, I think this is  ludicrous. To attempt to apply the same security rules such as background  checks, passenger manifests, fingerprinting crews including maintenance  personnel, and restricting what items may be carried on the aircraft is inane.  Air carrier operations and large commercial airports are repetitive in scope  and functions enabling consistent security parameters are put in place. On the  other hand, business aircraft ops (Part 91 and 135) are by their very nature  required to be flexible. Passengers often are not confirmed to the last minute,  packages may require last minute delivery, and maintenance is often done on the  run. Dispatch reliability is foremost. Placing the same constraints that are  applicable and work for commercial airliners does not make sense for business  aviation. If this occurs, business aviation will suffer another hit in this  down economy and jobs will be lost unnecessarily.
I understand that a 757  flown privately appears to impart the same risk as one flown by an airline. In  fact, there is probably a need for some security guarantee in this area;  however, the 12,500 number just doesn’t do it for me. This is an arbitrary  number established in the 1960s to establish a federal standard for “large  aircraft.†To my knowledge there is no real basis behind this. As a result,  aircraft like King Air 350s are included as a security threat. Give me a break!
Additionally, the TSA  admits they are not staffed sufficiently to ensure operators are in compliance  with the rules and propose independent auditors be hired to do this job. The  majority of the cost for this is to be borne by the operator. Frankly, if it  were not true, this whole thing would be laughable.
I am all for greater  security for the traveling public and business aviation. I am not for  unilateral and unnecessary government regulation, especially one that has its  own critical mass and is bound to expand beyond control. There is already too  much regulation costing dollars and jobs in our business.
Sponsored
Sponsored