[Infowarrior] - Air Security Could Involve Private Jets

[Richard Forno]

January 6, 2009
Air Security Could Involve Private Jets
By CHRISTINE NEGRONI


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/business/06private.html?pagewanted=print


One of the biggest convenience’s of private aviation is the speed with  
which passengers can get on the plane and off the ground.

But that may be about to change. The Department of Homeland Security  
is proposing to extend to private aviation many of the security rules  
imposed on commercial airlines. Those include requiring fingerprint- 
based background checks on pilots, checking passenger names against a  
government watch list and restricting what items may be carried onto  
the airplane.

The proposal could affect 10,000 previously exempt air operators,  
including not only wealthy businessmen like Microsoft’s co-founder,  
Paul Allen, who owns a Boeing 757, but also fractional jet ownership  
companies and even some recreational fliers.

The proposal to extend the jurisdiction of the Transportation Safety  
Administration to include private jets has angered many. Organizations  
representing private airplane owners have complained so vigorously  
that the Transportation Department has extended the comment period for  
the proposal and scheduled a series of public meetings. The first will  
be held Tuesday at Westchester County Airport in White Plains, one of  
the nation’s busiest for private and corporate aviation.

“Businesses have airplanes in order to transport what they produce,  
sometimes because it’s too difficult or impossible to carry onto an  
airliner,” said Ed Bolen, president of the 8,000-member National  
Business Aviation Association. “Tool companies that can’t take their  
own products, sporting goods companies that can’t take their own  
products on to their own airplanes, that doesn’t make sense.”

Even airplanes the size of commercial airliners, if operated  
privately, are currently exempt from the 9/11 security measures. It is  
this inconsistency that prompted the proposed regulation.

In its notice, published in the Federal Register last October, the  
Transportation Security Administration suggests that the improvements  
in safeguarding public air carriers have shown the weaknesses in  
private operations. “Terrorists may view general aviation aircraft as  
more vulnerable and thus attractive targets.”

In an interview, Christopher White, a spokesman for the security  
agency, said: “What we’re looking to do is address risk based on size  
and weight. Whether it’s public or private doesn’t matter. It’s based  
on the weight of the plane.”

The proposal would affect owners of any airplane weighing more than  
12,500 pounds — considered “large” by federal standards. For the most  
part, these are jet aircraft. But even a Beechcraft King Air 350, a  
twin-engine turboprop that seats 11, would be included.

The idea that large planes are flown for the most part by large  
companies that can afford to hire a security chief, pay to check  
passengers against the watch list and security auditing is a  
misconception, according to the business aviation association.

Eighty-five percent of its members are small to midsize businesses,  
the association says, and many of the planes they fly are small enough  
to fit, nose to tail, across the width of a Boeing 747.

“The size of the aircraft they have picked is very, very small,” Mr.  
Bolen said. “To suggest that an airplane weighing 12,500 pounds is  
similar to a commercial transport airplane doesn’t hold water.”

On Tuesday, more than a hundred aircraft owners are expected to argue  
that the proposed rule will have a major impact on general aviation.  
For the smaller operators, in particular, they say, the requirements  
may be too onerous.

“We want the feedback from the community. We need their input to be  
able to make sure it works for everyone,” said Michal Morgan, general  
manager of business operations for the T.S.A. Final action on the  
proposal is not expected before late spring.

The Westchester meeting is the first of five scheduled nationwide, a  
response to the request from the general aviation industry and a  
letter to the Department of Homeland Security from Representative Sam  
Graves, a Missouri Republican who is a private pilot.

“My focus is rare antique airplanes and rare vintage warbirds,” Mr.  
Graves said. “Some of these not-for-profits, they give rides to help  
support the upkeep and maintenance of the airplane, and this will  
place an undue burden on them.”

Private jet owners are also angry that the security agency is  
proposing to hand security functions over to private companies,  
notable since the T.S.A. was created after 9/11 in part because of  
concerns that private companies had failed to adequately screen  
passengers at commercial airports.

In seeking to significantly expand the number of airplane operators  
subject to security, the T.S.A. would depend on private firms that it  
would certify.

“They’re expanding their regulatory scope so dramatically and  
outsourcing regulatory oversight,” said Andy Cebula, executive vice  
president for government affairs at the Aircraft Owners and Pilots  
Association. “That’s like the most basic responsibility of government  
to go out and enforce its regulations.”

Hiring security experts to conduct audits on so many private airplane  
operations is expected to be the most expensive part of the  
regulation. Airplane operators would pay about 83 percent of the total  
costs, estimated at $196 million annually. The T.S.A. calculates that  
would represent about $44 a flight.

The price is certain to be a large part of the debate at the public  
meetings, with proponents of general aviation arguing that the T.S.A.  
is trying to fix something that is not broken and the government  
arguing that reducing the risk of using airplanes as terror weapons is  
worth the increased supervision.