Government going after Private Pilots

[Sea Demon]

Here we go:

http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2009/090219tsa.html

Hey, lets set the stage to go after private pilots now. More big government intrusions here. Thanks Obamabots and all voters for bigger, unnecessary, and more intrusive government. :down:

[Zachstar]

You know I might have gave a flying hell but if pilots feel the blame is the "Obamabots" AKA the American Public who decided in a fair and clear election then they can take a hike.

[Sea Demon]

Oh, I know you don't care about other people's freedoms or liberties. I know you don't care about people pursuing their own interests....even private aviation. It's too bad that you don't. Just wait until the intrusive and overburdening government you vote for decides that something you like to do is "risky" and needs "management". This is something Democrats never seem to understand.

[SteamWake]

You know I might have gave a flying hell but if pilots feel the blame is the "Obamabots" AKA the American Public who decided in a fair and clear election then they can take a hike.

How do I get this through to you... The public at large voted for an image, a portrayel, a demigod. They were duped or were hoping for a hand out.

They had no clue as to the actual agenda.

I have to agree with the OP big intrusive goverment telling me what I can drive, what I can drink, what I can smoke, what I can fly, is not what this country needs.

Of course I already know I'm waisting my breath.

[AVGWarhawk]

You know I might have gave a flying hell but if pilots feel the blame is the "Obamabots" AKA the American Public who decided in a fair and clear election then they can take a hike.

How do I get this through to you... The public at large voted for an image, a portrayel, a demigod. They were duped or were hoping for a hand out.

They had no clue as to the actual agenda.

I have to agree with the OP big intrusive goverment telling me what I can drive, what I can drink, what I can smoke, what I can fly, is not what this country needs.

Of course I already know I'm waisting my breath.

I have to agree hear. :D

[August]

So you're saying that the Obama administration authored this proposal?

You know I generally support conservatives but if you're going to out moonbat the moonbats I might consider changing the way I vote next time. :nope:

[GoldenRivet]

Obama is not really the issue... as a "righty" even i can see this.

The Transportation Security Administration is the issue.

Lets be fair now... remember who established those goons? Bush did. :nope:

Unfortunately, the problem is that the TSA with their thirst for power and dominance in the galaxy are wanting to impose the very same security standards to private flying as they do to airline flying.

This means that if you are a private pilot, under the TSA's new proposal, if you fly a certain type of aircraft you wont even be allowed to let your own mother on board for a local scenic tour if she is on the no fly list for whatever reason.

it also means that you and your friends will have to undergo screening, and you will not be able to bring certain liquids or gels aboard the aircraft.

so far this only applies to aircraft which weigh more than 12,500 lbs (or have 6 or more seats* though i dont know about the seat number being an issue for a fact)

the problem here is... what happens when the TSA wants more in a few years?

what happens when you are required to go through a security portal to access and operate YOUR private property?

because its coming. :nope:

[Enigma]

:har:

I'm a Ga pilot, and I'm an AOPA member. Let me just say that laying this at the feet of Democrats is hilarious.

In November 2007, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Michael Chertoff introduced the Large Aircraft Security Program (LASP) at NATA's Aviation Business (http://www.amtonline.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=6512#) Roundtable in Washington, D.C. Prior public comments by TSA officials, as well as information provided by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), explained that the new security program will require operators of aircraft with a maximum certificated takeoff weight of more than 12,500 pounds to obtain and implement the TSA's Large Aircraft Security Program. This is the same category of aircraft that today must comply with the Twelve-Five Standard Security Program if used in air charter operations. The proposed rule, if adopted, will apply to privately operated aircraft.

So, this program came to fruition under Bush's Presidency, by a man nominated by Bush.

Regardless of your opinion of the program, and personally I feel who is President has little to do with it, this is a glaring example of your unhinged need to smear anybody standing left of center, that is , anyone who disagrees with you, to the point where anything will do. It's pathetic.

[Sea Demon]

So you're saying that the Obama administration authored this proposal?

You know I generally support conservatives but if you're going to out moonbat the moonbats I might consider changing the way I vote next time. :nope:
No. I never mention Obama. :06: Only Obamabots. I just see big government intrusion here. And the party that is most likely to support something like this is the Democrat Party. With them in total control right now, I see them carrying this with some alacrity.

[Sea Demon]

:har:

I'm a Ga pilot, and I'm an AOPA member. Let me just say that laying this at the feet of Democrats is hilarious.



I'm a California Private Pilot and also an AOPA member. So as somebody who fly's, why vote for the people most likely to carry it far enough to make this happen. It's no secret why AOPA is worried now. Even if you don't realize what can happen here, many in AOPA do.

[August]

No. I never mention Obama.
You didn't? If you know that President Obama had nothing to do with this TSA proposal then why add it?

Like I said, out-moonbatting the moonbats is not the way to go.

[Tribesman]

Hey, lets set the stage to go after private pilots now. More big government intrusions here. Thanks Obamabots and all voters for bigger, unnecessary, and more intrusive government
Why didn't you make this topic before the election ?
You know when it was drawn up under tha last administration ?
You do realise that it was published under the last government under rules set by the last government don't you ?
The TSA invited people and organisations to comment on the proposals before the election , if you object so much why didn't you comment then ?

[Sea Demon]

No. I never mention Obama.
You didn't? Then explain this statement in the OP:

Thanks Obamabots and all voters for bigger, unnecessary, and more intrusive government.
If you know that President Obama had nothing to do with this TSA proposal then why add this?

Like I said, out-moonbatting the moonbats is not the way to go.

Re-read my post above. Him and his voters are two different people. One votes for big government like this. One is the executive who is likely to support big government initiatives. That is a legitimate concern. Nowhere do I say he authored it, nor do I say that he is doing anything in relation to it. Calm down August. :)

[Enigma]

Well, then as an AOPA pilot you know that the AOPA has been concerned about this and programs like it since 9/11. All of which, except for 30 days, has been under a Republican administration. Yet, you immediately name "Obamabots" (how original) as those to be "thanked" for such "government intrusion". It's glaring proof of your unflinching bias in the face of facts. Point, case, etc.

Had you just posted the details, or your personal dislike for the program, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Instead, we might have a good and reasonable conversation about the program, based on facts,and as pilots and AOPA members. Maybe you should take this little lesson as an indication that your constant barrage of political yakking is self defeating.

[Sea Demon]

Hey, lets set the stage to go after private pilots now. More big government intrusions here. Thanks Obamabots and all voters for bigger, unnecessary, and more intrusive government Why didn't you make this topic before the election ?
You know when it was drawn up under tha last administration ?
You do realise that it was published under the last government under rules set by the last government don't you ?
The TSA invited people and organisations to comment on the proposals before the election , if you object so much why didn't you comment then ?

I actually did complain about big government under the last administration. I will always complain about government intrusion whether it comes from Republicans or Democrats. No. I didn't like Bush when he acted like Democrats. But nobody under the last administration seemed as bent as this current government to propose and limit people's activities. So it is an issue now. Bush nor Obama have indicated anything leading to punish, or limit private pilots. But in the current political environment.....you never know. I think that's why AOPA has made it an issue as a potential pre-emptive safeguard. My issue is, why put people into power who are likely to limit your free choices, or make it difficult to pursue an interest in aviation.

[August]

No. I never mention Obama.
You didn't? Then explain this statement in the OP:

Thanks Obamabots and all voters for bigger, unnecessary, and more intrusive government.
If you know that President Obama had nothing to do with this TSA proposal then why add this?

Like I said, out-moonbatting the moonbats is not the way to go.
Re-read my post above. Him and his voters are two different people. One votes for big government like this. One is the executive who is likely to support big government initiatives. That is a legitimate concern. Nowhere do I say he authored it, nor do I say that he is doing anything in relation to it. Calm down August. :)

I did reread it and had already edited my post to reflect it.

Either way thanking the "Obamabots" for this is wrong. If anyone is to blame here it is you and me for voting for the man who created the TSA in the first place.

You are doing the conservative cause no favors by alienating a majority of the country. Think about what you are saying.

[August]

Well, then as an AOPA pilot you know that the AOPA has been concerned about this and programs like it since 9/11. All of which, except for 30 days, has been under a Republican administration. Yet, you immediately name "Obamabots" (how original) as those to be "thanked" for such "government intrusion". It's glaring proof of your unflinching bias in the face of facts. Point, case, etc.

Had you just posted the details, or your personal dislike for the program, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Instead, we might have a good and reasonable conversation about the program, based on facts,and as pilots and AOPA members. Maybe you should take this little lesson as an indication that your constant barrage of political yakking is self defeating.

Damn, now you got me agreeing with Enigma! Thanks a lot SD! :nope:

[Sea Demon]

Well, then as an AOPA pilot you know that the AOPA has been concerned about this and programs like it since 9/11. All of which, except for 30 days, has been under a Republican administration. Yet, you immediately name "Obamabots" (how original) as those to be "thanked" for such "government intrusion". It's glaring proof of your unflinching bias in the face of facts. Point, case, etc.

Had you just posted the details, or your personal dislike for the program, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Instead, we might have a good and reasonable conversation about the program, based on facts,and as pilots and AOPA members. Maybe you should take this little lesson as an indication that your constant barrage of political yakking is self defeating.

No. I am just concerned by this in conjunction with a current government that is more likely to inhibit freedom in this area. And now, concerns within AOPA is rising. I hope my concerns are muted as I can't fly as much as I like as it is. Any limitations that will prevent me from getting the few hours I currently get will be irritating to say the least. And I see this current political climate as being more conducive to it. Understand?

[Sea Demon]

I did reread it and had already edited my post to reflect it.

Either way thanking the "Obamabots" for this is wrong. If anyone is to blame here it is you and me for voting for the man who created the TSA in the first place.

You are doing the conservative cause no favors by alienating a majority of the country. Think about what you are saying.

Well, don't know what's happened to you. I also thought you were fearful of government intrusions as well as I. And I also thought you knew that the current political climate has made it alot easier to limit choices and freedoms. Perhaps using the Obamabots line caused concern. Well OK, I can accept that error. But it changes nothing in how I think that the current government is more likely to promote this. I mean they are talking things like fairness doctrine, there has been talks of rolling 401(k)'s into government annuities, and this. I'm just real guarded right now and am seeing this in the same perspective as the others. Government going to manage something in a way they shouldn't that's already looking fine. I don't like the TSA, and opposed it with Bush in office. But I never saw Bush or any Congress with him likely to infringe on this area. Sorry if it offends you. And I don't mean that sarcastically. I am being real.

[Tribesman]

My issue is, why put people into power who are likely to limit your free choices,
You have in essence a two party system over there , over here we have many parties , no matter under which electoral system you have the people in power are going to limit your freedom and choices .
I suppose you could have a revolution to change it , but the revolution will only put in some different people who also will limit your free choices .
Thats life , you can choose one bunch of lying gob****es for goverment or another bunch of lying gob****es , at the end of the day there will still be lying gob****es running the government .

[Enigma]

Clearly, I'm not the one lacking understanding here....

Damn, now you got me agreeing with Enigma! Thanks a lot SD!

:haha: Soorrr-ry.

[antikristuseke]

Damn, now you got me agreeing with Enigma! Thanks a lot SD! :nope:

HA. Now you know what it feels like to agree with the ENEMY! In your face.:har:

This post is not to be taken seriously by anyone

[Sea Demon]

Thats life , you can choose one bunch of lying gob****es for goverment or another bunch of lying gob****es , at the end of the day there will still be lying gob****es running the government .

I don't accept that at all. I gotta rebut, even if it's turning August into a Democrat. :) What you don't do is install a government that proposes tax increases in the face of an economic crises, talks of solving non-existent problems like fairness doctrine (limitations of free speech), talks of rolling private 401(k)'s into government annuities, and begins initiatives into telling automakers what type of car they can environmentally build, what type of cars choices consumers are mandated to have, while they're financially desperate and it's proven that automobile is not in demand in the free sector, etc. And all of that record puts me on guard regarding any limitations on private aviation. It really makes no sense.

[Zachstar]

To say this topic is Epic Fail is an understatement.

May I suggest redoing the topic when there is news on the subject? Maybe this time with a little accurate history of the TSA and without the alienation.

[GoldenRivet]

To say this topic is Epic Fail is an understatement.

May I suggest redoing the topic when there is news on the subject? Maybe this time with a little accurate history of the TSA and without the alienation.
agreed.

i think there are only like 2 or 3 "politically un-biased" posts in the whole thread :nope:

~ Unite or Die ~

[AVGWarhawk]

To say this topic is Epic Fail is an understatement.

May I suggest redoing the topic when there is news on the subject? Maybe this time with a little accurate history of the TSA and without the alienation.
agreed.

i think there are only like 2 or 3 "politically un-biased" posts in the whole thread :nope:

~ Unite or Die ~


I disagree! :har:

[Platapus]

Many have pointed out that while the current proposal, which targets aircraft weighing more than 12,500 pounds, would not apply to them, they are concerned that the TSA would continue to expand its reach to encompass all general aviation operations.

“While my own flight operations would not initially be impacted by this proposal, the logic used to create the LASP proposal could easily be stretched and distorted to apply to all general aviation aircraft in the future, to even deeper economic and GA cultural detriment,” wrote Andrew Formella.


This is what is called a "camel's nose" fallacy.

These types of articles are why I never supported the AOPA when I was flying.

The limit of 12,500 Max take-off weight is a bit low but unless you are rich enough to fly a Beachcraft King Air you should be good to go. I would hazard that the vast number of GA pilots fly something a bit smaller when they fly for pleasure.

It probably should be about 16,000 pounds to allow all twin props to fly. But I imagine that a King Air could do a real job crashing into a building, especially if it is packed with explosives (5,000 pounds worth).

[GoldenRivet]

Many have pointed out that while the current proposal, which targets aircraft weighing more than 12,500 pounds, would not apply to them, they are concerned that the TSA would continue to expand its reach to encompass all general aviation operations.
“While my own flight operations would not initially be impacted by this proposal, the logic used to create the LASP proposal could easily be stretched and distorted to apply to all general aviation aircraft in the future, to even deeper economic and GA cultural detriment,” wrote Andrew Formella.

This is what is called a "camel's nose" fallacy.

These types of articles are why I never supported the AOPA when I was flying.

The limit of 12,500 Max take-off weight is a bit low but unless you are rich enough to fly a Beachcraft King Air you should be good to go. I would hazard that the vast number of GA pilots fly something a bit smaller when they fly for pleasure.

It probably should be about 16,000 pounds to allow all twin props to fly. But I imagine that a King Air could do a real job crashing into a building, especially if it is packed with explosives (5,000 pounds worth).

The fact remains that if i do own a king air - its MINE to own and operate.

the TSA has no business telling me who and what i can bring aboard

period.

[Zachstar]

Actually if the law says it does it does.. Period.

And yes a King Air could do some serious damage in the hands of a terrorist. Its a seriously powerful aircraft.

Am I saying I agree with the policy? No its a bit too harsh. But the "Its MINE ALL MINE!" Argument fails utterly in a post 9/11 world (How about that for Irony)

Unless you are willing to make that King Air into a UAV for carrying stuff. One has to accept a small amount of inconvenience.

[August]

Damn, now you got me agreeing with Enigma! Thanks a lot SD! :nope:
HA. Now you know what it feels like to agree with the ENEMY! In your face.:har:

This post is not to be taken seriously by anyone

No it's E N I G M A not E N E M Y... sheesh!

[GoldenRivet]

So Zach

whats it going to be ?

put TSA guards and a security check point at every FBO at every Podunk airport in the United States?

the ruling is ridiculous.

The owners of these aircraft are usually the pilots, and in cases where they are not the pilots, the pilots they have employed know their customers well.

i could see applying the rules to part 135 air carriers... but not private owners.

The ruling is costly to both the aircraft owner, and the tax payer, it is so vast in scope that it is impractical and it is a gross invasion of privacy by big government.

i for one dont support it.

this "plan" is only one step away from requiring every weekend warrior in a cessna 150 to fall in line with the same BS.

I have worked professionally in the aviation industry for over 10 years... i know first hand what it is like to deal with an "organization" like the TSA.

this plan is BAD for general aviation - plain and simple.

inconvenience is one thing Zach... a gross invasion of privacy and an overstepping of bounds is a whole other matter.

The TSA needs to stick to regulating PUBLIC transportation security and keep their noses out of my Gadamned private hangar.

[Enigma]

No it's E N I G M A not E N E M Y

One and the same?:arrgh!:

[Tribesman]

The fact remains that if i do own a king air - its MINE to own and operate.

the TSA has no business telling me who and what i can bring aboard

period.
That is completely wrong , no matter if you own the plane or not there are piles of laws that tell you when you can fly , if you can fly , how you can fly ,where you cannot fly and who and what you cannot bring onboard .
After all a plane is no different to a car in that manner .

[Enigma]

there are piles of laws that tell you when you can fly , if you can fly , how you can fly ,where you cannot fly and who and what you cannot bring onboard .

Just to satisfy my curiosity, which laws do you speak of?

[Zachstar]

The ones that say you cant fly into Military airspace for one.

[Tribesman]

Just to satisfy my curiosity, which laws do you speak of?
The big pile of laws which regulate avaition , aircraft safety , pilots , flights and licencing.

[Enigma]

Ok. I was kinda looking for particulars.

As stated before, I'm a pilot so I'm familiar with aviation law. Your statement just seems perhaps a tad broad.

That is completely wrong , no matter if you own the plane or not there are piles of laws that tell you when you can fly , if you can fly , how you can fly ,where you cannot fly and who and what you cannot bring onboard .

You see, a week ago I hopped into an airplane at the time of my choosing, with people of my choosing and flew to an aiport of my choosing. I didn't ask permission from anyone at any time. Granted when I completed my flight training for my PPL and passed a medical, I got permission. If you refer to medical parameters on licensing or restricted airspace, that's another mater all together...

[Aramike]

Ok. I was kinda looking for particulars.

As stated before, I'm a pilot so I'm familiar with aviation law. Your statement just seems perhaps a tad broad.

That is completely wrong , no matter if you own the plane or not there are piles of laws that tell you when you can fly , if you can fly , how you can fly ,where you cannot fly and who and what you cannot bring onboard .

You see, a week ago I hopped into an airplane at the time of my choosing, with people of my choosing and flew to an aiport of my choosing. I didn't ask permission from anyone at any time. Granted when I completed my flight training for my PPL and passed a medical, I got permission. If you refer to medical parameters on licensing or restricted airspace, that's another mater all together...Maybe he's referring to flight rules?

[Platapus]

this "plan" is only one step away from requiring every weekend warrior in a cessna 150 to fall in line with the same BS.


If your Cessna 150 is exceeding 12,500 pounds on take off, I think you have other problems than the TSA. :D

[Tribesman]

I didn't ask permission from anyone at any time.
so you had no dealings with anyone concerning your departure , route or arrival ?

[GoldenRivet]

The fact remains that if i do own a king air - its MINE to own and operate.

the TSA has no business telling me who and what i can bring aboard

period. That is completely wrong , no matter if you own the plane or not there are piles of laws that tell you when you can fly , if you can fly , how you can fly ,where you cannot fly and who and what you cannot bring onboard .
After all a plane is no different to a car in that manner .
this nonsense holds no water

the federal aviation regulations dont tell me when i can or cant fly. sure they have areas where i cant fly - and for good reason - but these regulations have NOTHING to do with the TSA inspecting your aircraft and your passengers.

There is a doctor on my airport who operates a king air. He uses it exclusively to fly his wife and kids to ski trips or other vacations.

should he be forced to dump all the shampoo, coca-cola, bottled water and finger nail clippers out of bags and purses while the TSA stands there and pats them down?? hell no!

sorry tribesman... your dealing with professionals here that KNOW their aviation rights.

Enigma is completely correct. airspace restrictions is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MATTER that the TSA standing on the ramp next to your private aircraft dumping out your belongings and telling you "sorry sir, your wife is on the no fly list so she cant go with you on this trip"

they dont and should not have the right!!!

[GoldenRivet]

I didn't ask permission from anyone at any time. so you had no dealings with anyone concerning your departure , route or arrival ?

No.

VFR aircraft in the united states are not required to submit flight plans or propose an estimated time of departure or arrival on domestic flights.

This is America - not Soviet Russia and i for one would prefer to keep it that way.

thousands of planes take off and land under VFR (visual flight rules) every day without bogging down the ATC system with needless requests and communications.

Yes... even King Airs and Lear Jets sometimes operate VFR

[SteamWake]

I didn't ask permission from anyone at any time. so you had no dealings with anyone concerning your departure , route or arrival ?

No.

VFR aircraft in the united states are not required to submit flight plans or propose an estimated time of departure or arrival on domestic flights.

This is America - not Soviet Russia and i for one would prefer to keep it that way.

thousands of planes take off and land under VFR (visual flight rules) every day without bogging down the ATC system with needless requests and communications.

Yes... even King Airs and Lear Jets sometimes operate VFR

Hrm... with the operating altitudes of the King Air and Lears you would think it would be a requirement to at very least post a cruising altitude. They are at the very least required to set a transponder and get the occasional call "Traffic at xxx fl xxx report them in sight".

[GoldenRivet]

Nope... as long as you dont go above 18000 feet.

I lifted off in a King air once and flew about 250 miles at 12,000 feet - transponder set for VFR.

the only two people i spoke with was the fueler at the home airport that told me to "have a nice flight"... and the fueler at the destination that said "How much fuel will you need, and by the way your rental car is here and ready to go."

given it is not a typical situation - but it does happen - and it is perfectly legal

[Sea Demon]

Nope... as long as you dont go above 18000 feet.

I lifted off in a King air once and flew about 250 miles at 12,000 feet - transponder set for VFR.

the only two people i spoke with was the fueler at the home airport that told me to "have a nice flight"... and the fueler at the destination that said "How much fuel will you need, and by the way your rental car is here and ready to go."

given it is not a typical situation - but it does happen - and it is perfectly legal

Must be nice to fly in your state. It's difficult where I live to avoid Charlie or Bravo airspace. I have to fly inland, and there happens to be MTR low-level routes for Beale AFB aircraft in those areas. I don't wish to become a permanent fixture on the windshield of one of those black T-38's. So I fly South and request a transition through a Class C facility to get there.

Anyway, when flying VFR, I always make it a habit to file a flight plan and use flight following wherever I'm going. And neither is required. It's a safety thing.

[Enigma]

so you had no dealings with anyone concerning your departure , route or arrival ?

As covered above, no. I flew from one uncontrolled airport to another, and required no airspace transition in the process. In my part of the country, most of my flying is done that way. At most, I speak with a controller at my destination airport. But not nearly always....

[Platapus]

How about these guys?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/25/mule.skinner.blues/index.html

TSA: Mule skinners need background checks, too
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A federal anti-terror law that requires longshoremen, truckers and others to submit to criminal background checks has ensnared another class of transportation worker -- mule drivers.

Yes, so-called mule skinners -- in this case, seasonal workers who dress in colonial garb at a historical park in Easton, Pa. -- must apply for biometric Transportation Worker Identification Credentials (TWIC), according to the Transportation Security Administration, which says it is bound by federal law.

The requirement has officials of the Hugh Moore Historical Park perplexed.

"We have one boat. It's pulled by two mules. On a good day they might go 2 miles per hour," said Sarah B. Hays, the park's director of operations.

The park's two-mile canal does not pass any military bases, nuclear power plants or other sensitive facilities. And, park officials say, the mules could be considered weapons of mass destruction only if they were aimed at something resembling food.

In December, Hayes wrote to Rep. Charles Dent, R-Pennsylvania, about the requirement. Dent, in turn, wrote to the TSA requesting a waiver, noting the mode of transportation involved was "mule-drawn canal boats."

In January, the TSA responded, noting the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 applies to all mariners holding U.S. Coast Guard-issued credentials.

"We encourage the crew members... who possess Coast Guard mariner credentials to obtain a TWIC at their earliest convenience to comply with these requirements and not risk suspension or revocation of their other credentials," the TSA wrote.

On Wednesday, the mule skinner debate reached Capitol Hill, when Dent asked new Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano about the necessity of conducting background checks on mule drivers. He displayed a photo of two mules, Hank and George, tugging a canal boat in the company of two park employee mule drivers in colonial working attire.

"Now Hank and George, while sometimes are ornery, they are not terrorists," Dent said. Napolitano said she would try to be flexible.

"Obviously this is a picture designed to say 'Hey, isn't it absurd that they be required to have TWIC cards.'" Napolitano said. "Um, let's work with you on this particular case, if we might."

Park officials say four or five park employees typically have Coast Guard credentials to operate the canal boat, and the extra expense of a TWIC card, which is at least an extra $100 on top of fees for Coast Guard credentials, is unwelcome.

"I think the rule was written and the policy was set up for all the big shipping, and they never even considered something outside the normal bounds," Hays said.

Dent said he will work on a "common sense" solution with Napolitano.

On the surface seems pretty funny but it is not aimed at the mule operators but holders of a specific class of Coast Guard certification.

[GoldenRivet]

personally i think the TSA neesds to stick to airlines, and freight carriers.

everybody else needs to be left alone :yep:

that or be dismantled altogether

[Etienne]

How about these guys?

(...)

On the surface seems pretty funny but it is not aimed at the mule operators but holders of a specific class of Coast Guard certification.

The funnest part of the TWIC card thing is that unless terminals offer to escort crewmember to and from the gates, foreign seamen arriving in US ports will have to stay on board for the duration of their stays.

Say two days loading at an offshore buoy in Nigeria, three weeks accross the pond, two days unloading at a US port where you can't get off, three weeks accross the pond...

Rinse, lather repeat for an eight month contract. (And there are other places in the world where you aren't allowed to get off, it's not a US specific problem, althought it is rumored to be more common there)

And people wonder why there's a manpower shortage in the merchant marine.