pilot602
If specified, this will replace the title that
Feel that? That\'s what it feels like to get reamed by the TSA
Just found this over at another aviation site, and on AOPA.org (top story) - what a total and complete crock of BS.
[ QUOTE ]
ANN
In the Federal Register Friday, you'll be able to see that you can be knocked out of the air -- just like that -- if the TSA alleges that you pose a 'security risk.' Pilots will be immediately grounded; mechanics, DERs -- everybody who holds a certificate of any kind from the FAA -- can be immediately out of a job.
The TSA will notify you that you are considered a 'security risk.' It will notify the FAA; and the FAA will immediately suspend your ticket(s), pending your 'appeal.'
You will then have to convince the TSA (which already declared you a 'security risk') that you are not a 'security risk,' without your knowing why they think you are such a risk. Then, when the TSA issues its final ruling, the FAA will revoke your papers.
We wanted some confirmation on this, and called the TSA. Chris Rhatigan, in the press office there, said, "You may have to talk to the FAA on that."
We read her a part of the summary, which says, "This final rule expressly makes a person ineligible to hold FAA-issued airman certificates if the Transportation Security Administration notifies the FAA in writing that the person poses a security threat."
As we continued reading, and noted that the TSA was calling the shots, she said, "Hold on a second." She returned, and said, "This [determination that you're a security threat] comes from an intelligence database." OK -- so, how do we know how big a threat, or how it's determined that one even is such a threat? "We don't tell people how to get on to that database," she said. In other words, if you're denied your certificate, you won't be able to find out why -- just that someone, somewhere, thinks you're a 'security risk.'
Ms Rhatigan informed us that everything would be spelled out in the NPRM, and that we'd have to wait until Friday, to see what was getting published in the Federal Register. Well, folks the law goes into effect Friday. No NPRM. No discussion. Decree. Tough.
Well, we have an advance copy of that law. The document's "explanation" is merely procedural; there is no underlying reasoning explained; and the airman is simply screwed, without recourse.
First, you're grounded -- no questions asked. Then you can start the 'appeal' process.
Here's how it works: the TSA will notify the purported 'security risk' that he is considered a 'security risk,' and the FAA will immediately ground the flier/mechanic/etc. The accused can then tell the TSA that he's not a 'security risk;' but, without knowing on what basis the determination was initially made, the accused is defending himself, blindfolded. The TSA is then the final arbiter of determining whether the accused (whom they have already declared a 'security risk,' while possibly taking away his means of making a living and likely ruining his reputation) actually is a 'security risk.'
ALPA's Initial Reaction
John Mazor, spokesman for ALPA, the largest pilots' union, told ANN that his organization is taking a close look at the NPRM. It was too early to say anything definitive (we had told the union of this NPRM just minutes earlier); but he was willing to say, "As described, it has some disturbing implications." He assured us, "ALPA's security people are interested in studying the NPRM."
Part II
We reported yesterday that the FAA was rolling over, and allowing the TSA, in the interest of 'national security,' to tell the FAA who can have pilot training, who can fly an aircraft, who can design an aircraft, who can work on an aircraft, who can build an aircraft, etc.
We, at first, thought (based on the preliminary look we got) that there would at least be a public comment period before the hammer came down. Even though the document has pages of information, and even a cutoff date, concerning how public reaction can be gathered, this is no NPRM -- it's the law.
Here's how this usurpation of 'government by the people' is explained:
"This action is being taken without providing the opportunity for prior notice and comment, and it provides for immediate effectiveness upon adoption. The Administrator has determined this action is necessary to prevent a possible imminent hazard to aircraft, persons, and property within the United States. The FAA, after consultation with the TSA, has determined that this action is necessary to minimize security threats and potential security vulnerabilities to the fullest extent possible. The FAA, TSA, and other federal security organizations have been concerned about the potential use of aircraft to carry out terrorist acts in the United States since September 11. The FAA now believes it is appropriate to provide expressly by rule that an individual determined by the TSA to be a security threat is ineligible for airman certification. This rule thus codifies the fundamental and inherently obvious principle that a person who poses a security thr eat should not hold an FAA-issued airman certificate.
"The FAA finds that notice and comment are unnecessary, impracticable, and contrary to the public interest, pursuant to section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)..."
Note that the FAA is merely rubber-stamping the TSA's diktat. The FAA goes to great lengths to ensure that unqualified people don't get certificates, and that qualified people work hard to maintain them. The TSA, with no need to answer to anyone, can now tell the FAA that the FAA has to rescind that certificate, and the FAA will do so immediately.
We asked the FAA.
We talked briefly with Paul Takemoto, a spokesman at the FAA, who got stuck trying to explain what's going on. He explained the procedure quite clearly. [It's clearly written.] We wanted to understand, though, how the TSA could simply make the FAA irrelevant.
How, please tell us, can a person avoid being placed on that 'security threat' list?
He said, "If the TSA tells the FAA that the person poses a security threat -- you'll have to go to the TSA on what constitutes a security threat."
We did go to the TSA,
...and were told, ""This [determination that you're a security threat] comes from an intelligence database."
OK -- so, how do we know how big a threat, or how it's determined that one even is such a threat? "We don't tell people how to get on to that database," was the TSA's spokeswoman's terse reply.
So, let me get this straight -- the TSA says you're a security threat, and the FAA yanks your license. You are then unemployed, and a pariah in your former workplace, and you must defend yourself (to the TSA). The TSA won't tell you why you're a suspect; you're just supposed to convince that agency, the agency that has already tagged you, that you didn't do, plan, talk about, or think... something. Yes -- that's how it is.
The FAA doesn't have any review authority at all. As Mr. Takemoto said, "We're totally at the mercy of the agency that is responsible for aviation security. They are responsible for security; we are not."
"You have no review?" we asked, incredulously. "Correct," he said.
Recap:
The TSA maintains a secret database, containing secret information, from secret sources. If it determines that you are a 'threat to security,' it tells you (and the FAA) that it considers you a threat, and your ticket is suspended immediately. (If you're a student, your training is suspended, immediately.) You may then, without knowing any specifics about the TSA's concern, "defend" yourself, and try to convince the TSA that its original assessment is wrong. When the TSA finds that, no, it didn't make any mistake, the FAA will revoke your certificate, and you're finished.
The TSA doesn't need to prove anything, present any evidence, or even check its facts. It answers to no one. Since you don't know why they're after you, you can't refute their dark database. You're not 'innocent until proven guilty;' you're just out of luck, out of a job, and out of options. The FAA won't do anything to defend you, or even listen to you. It doesn't have any more clue than you have; it's just a rubber stamp, for our growing police state.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
AOPA
Congressionally ordered TSA and FAA security rules go into effect
TSA can order immediate revocation of a pilot license
Jan. 23 — The FAA and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) tomorrow will publish "direct final rules" that permit FAA to immediately suspend, revoke, or refuse to issue an airman certificate of anyone that TSA has determined poses a threat to transportation security. The agencies issued the rules under the authority Congress gave them when it passed the Aviation Transportation Security Act of 2001 and directed TSA and FAA to "make modifications in the system for issuing airman certificates related to combating acts of terrorism."
"AOPA solidly supports every reasonable action to prevent terrorist acts, but these rules beg many questions as to the rights of pilots," said AOPA President Phil Boyer. "AOPA's legal and technical staff will examine them letter by letter to understand all of the implications, and in the coming days, we will formulate the right response to the comment period that follows, rather than precedes, this form of rulemaking."
The new rules go into effect immediately since the agencies issued them as a direct final rule without prior public notice or comment. However, the agencies are soliciting public comments after the fact and may modify the rules. Members are encouraged to comment and copy the association.
The rules establish procedures for notifying the airman and an appeal process. U.S. citizens may ultimately appeal to the head of TSA, while foreign citizens have lesser appeal rights.
TSA said that perhaps one person per year might be flagged as a security threat.
Initial analysis indicates that the Transportation Security Administration holds the sole authority in a pilot appeal. AOPA has historically fought to ensure that more than one agency is involved in adjudicating certificate revocations.
"With all due regard to national security, we're deeply concerned that the rules appear to permit taking away a pilot's license without an independent review," said Boyer.
[/ QUOTE ]
Essentially aviation is now under martial law. No due process, no right to a fair trial, no nothing. Hell, confessed, convicted serial killers now have more rights than does a federally certificated, monitored and trained pilot who has done nothing wrong and who has not been (nor could he under the TSA's "definition" of a "security risk") be charged with a crime.
Welcome to The New America folks - "Where we take your freedom in order to protect your freedoms" - enjoy the ride.
Just found this over at another aviation site, and on AOPA.org (top story) - what a total and complete crock of BS.
[ QUOTE ]
ANN
In the Federal Register Friday, you'll be able to see that you can be knocked out of the air -- just like that -- if the TSA alleges that you pose a 'security risk.' Pilots will be immediately grounded; mechanics, DERs -- everybody who holds a certificate of any kind from the FAA -- can be immediately out of a job.
The TSA will notify you that you are considered a 'security risk.' It will notify the FAA; and the FAA will immediately suspend your ticket(s), pending your 'appeal.'
You will then have to convince the TSA (which already declared you a 'security risk') that you are not a 'security risk,' without your knowing why they think you are such a risk. Then, when the TSA issues its final ruling, the FAA will revoke your papers.
We wanted some confirmation on this, and called the TSA. Chris Rhatigan, in the press office there, said, "You may have to talk to the FAA on that."
We read her a part of the summary, which says, "This final rule expressly makes a person ineligible to hold FAA-issued airman certificates if the Transportation Security Administration notifies the FAA in writing that the person poses a security threat."
As we continued reading, and noted that the TSA was calling the shots, she said, "Hold on a second." She returned, and said, "This [determination that you're a security threat] comes from an intelligence database." OK -- so, how do we know how big a threat, or how it's determined that one even is such a threat? "We don't tell people how to get on to that database," she said. In other words, if you're denied your certificate, you won't be able to find out why -- just that someone, somewhere, thinks you're a 'security risk.'
Ms Rhatigan informed us that everything would be spelled out in the NPRM, and that we'd have to wait until Friday, to see what was getting published in the Federal Register. Well, folks the law goes into effect Friday. No NPRM. No discussion. Decree. Tough.
Well, we have an advance copy of that law. The document's "explanation" is merely procedural; there is no underlying reasoning explained; and the airman is simply screwed, without recourse.
First, you're grounded -- no questions asked. Then you can start the 'appeal' process.
Here's how it works: the TSA will notify the purported 'security risk' that he is considered a 'security risk,' and the FAA will immediately ground the flier/mechanic/etc. The accused can then tell the TSA that he's not a 'security risk;' but, without knowing on what basis the determination was initially made, the accused is defending himself, blindfolded. The TSA is then the final arbiter of determining whether the accused (whom they have already declared a 'security risk,' while possibly taking away his means of making a living and likely ruining his reputation) actually is a 'security risk.'
ALPA's Initial Reaction
John Mazor, spokesman for ALPA, the largest pilots' union, told ANN that his organization is taking a close look at the NPRM. It was too early to say anything definitive (we had told the union of this NPRM just minutes earlier); but he was willing to say, "As described, it has some disturbing implications." He assured us, "ALPA's security people are interested in studying the NPRM."
Part II
We reported yesterday that the FAA was rolling over, and allowing the TSA, in the interest of 'national security,' to tell the FAA who can have pilot training, who can fly an aircraft, who can design an aircraft, who can work on an aircraft, who can build an aircraft, etc.
We, at first, thought (based on the preliminary look we got) that there would at least be a public comment period before the hammer came down. Even though the document has pages of information, and even a cutoff date, concerning how public reaction can be gathered, this is no NPRM -- it's the law.
Here's how this usurpation of 'government by the people' is explained:
"This action is being taken without providing the opportunity for prior notice and comment, and it provides for immediate effectiveness upon adoption. The Administrator has determined this action is necessary to prevent a possible imminent hazard to aircraft, persons, and property within the United States. The FAA, after consultation with the TSA, has determined that this action is necessary to minimize security threats and potential security vulnerabilities to the fullest extent possible. The FAA, TSA, and other federal security organizations have been concerned about the potential use of aircraft to carry out terrorist acts in the United States since September 11. The FAA now believes it is appropriate to provide expressly by rule that an individual determined by the TSA to be a security threat is ineligible for airman certification. This rule thus codifies the fundamental and inherently obvious principle that a person who poses a security thr eat should not hold an FAA-issued airman certificate.
"The FAA finds that notice and comment are unnecessary, impracticable, and contrary to the public interest, pursuant to section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)..."
Note that the FAA is merely rubber-stamping the TSA's diktat. The FAA goes to great lengths to ensure that unqualified people don't get certificates, and that qualified people work hard to maintain them. The TSA, with no need to answer to anyone, can now tell the FAA that the FAA has to rescind that certificate, and the FAA will do so immediately.
We asked the FAA.
We talked briefly with Paul Takemoto, a spokesman at the FAA, who got stuck trying to explain what's going on. He explained the procedure quite clearly. [It's clearly written.] We wanted to understand, though, how the TSA could simply make the FAA irrelevant.
How, please tell us, can a person avoid being placed on that 'security threat' list?
He said, "If the TSA tells the FAA that the person poses a security threat -- you'll have to go to the TSA on what constitutes a security threat."
We did go to the TSA,
...and were told, ""This [determination that you're a security threat] comes from an intelligence database."
OK -- so, how do we know how big a threat, or how it's determined that one even is such a threat? "We don't tell people how to get on to that database," was the TSA's spokeswoman's terse reply.
So, let me get this straight -- the TSA says you're a security threat, and the FAA yanks your license. You are then unemployed, and a pariah in your former workplace, and you must defend yourself (to the TSA). The TSA won't tell you why you're a suspect; you're just supposed to convince that agency, the agency that has already tagged you, that you didn't do, plan, talk about, or think... something. Yes -- that's how it is.
The FAA doesn't have any review authority at all. As Mr. Takemoto said, "We're totally at the mercy of the agency that is responsible for aviation security. They are responsible for security; we are not."
"You have no review?" we asked, incredulously. "Correct," he said.
Recap:
The TSA maintains a secret database, containing secret information, from secret sources. If it determines that you are a 'threat to security,' it tells you (and the FAA) that it considers you a threat, and your ticket is suspended immediately. (If you're a student, your training is suspended, immediately.) You may then, without knowing any specifics about the TSA's concern, "defend" yourself, and try to convince the TSA that its original assessment is wrong. When the TSA finds that, no, it didn't make any mistake, the FAA will revoke your certificate, and you're finished.
The TSA doesn't need to prove anything, present any evidence, or even check its facts. It answers to no one. Since you don't know why they're after you, you can't refute their dark database. You're not 'innocent until proven guilty;' you're just out of luck, out of a job, and out of options. The FAA won't do anything to defend you, or even listen to you. It doesn't have any more clue than you have; it's just a rubber stamp, for our growing police state.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
AOPA
Congressionally ordered TSA and FAA security rules go into effect
TSA can order immediate revocation of a pilot license
Jan. 23 — The FAA and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) tomorrow will publish "direct final rules" that permit FAA to immediately suspend, revoke, or refuse to issue an airman certificate of anyone that TSA has determined poses a threat to transportation security. The agencies issued the rules under the authority Congress gave them when it passed the Aviation Transportation Security Act of 2001 and directed TSA and FAA to "make modifications in the system for issuing airman certificates related to combating acts of terrorism."
"AOPA solidly supports every reasonable action to prevent terrorist acts, but these rules beg many questions as to the rights of pilots," said AOPA President Phil Boyer. "AOPA's legal and technical staff will examine them letter by letter to understand all of the implications, and in the coming days, we will formulate the right response to the comment period that follows, rather than precedes, this form of rulemaking."
The new rules go into effect immediately since the agencies issued them as a direct final rule without prior public notice or comment. However, the agencies are soliciting public comments after the fact and may modify the rules. Members are encouraged to comment and copy the association.
The rules establish procedures for notifying the airman and an appeal process. U.S. citizens may ultimately appeal to the head of TSA, while foreign citizens have lesser appeal rights.
TSA said that perhaps one person per year might be flagged as a security threat.
Initial analysis indicates that the Transportation Security Administration holds the sole authority in a pilot appeal. AOPA has historically fought to ensure that more than one agency is involved in adjudicating certificate revocations.
"With all due regard to national security, we're deeply concerned that the rules appear to permit taking away a pilot's license without an independent review," said Boyer.
[/ QUOTE ]
Essentially aviation is now under martial law. No due process, no right to a fair trial, no nothing. Hell, confessed, convicted serial killers now have more rights than does a federally certificated, monitored and trained pilot who has done nothing wrong and who has not been (nor could he under the TSA's "definition" of a "security risk") be charged with a crime.
Welcome to The New America folks - "Where we take your freedom in order to protect your freedoms" - enjoy the ride.
