New proposed rules for international flights.


#1

Homeland Security is now taking comments on its new proposed rules for aircraft departing from a US airport for a foreign country, and arriving into the US from a foreign country. If their new rules go into effect all aircraft will have to summit a complete manifest to DHS by Internet before leaving the US or leaving a foreign country for the US. This will need to be done at least 60 minutes before departing from the airport. And you will need a clearance from this government agency before you will be able to leave.

For those of you that fly international know that phone contact into the US is difficult or impossible from many airports in foreign countries. To require Internet access to request and then wait for your request to be process and receive a clearance will be even more difficult.

If I see any interest in this subject posted here. I will come back with the procedure to make your comments known to the proper officials, and what should be told to them.

The proposed new rules can be seen by going to
dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/eAPI … 091107.pdf


#2

already posted my comments - if you can’t find a telephone in some places, how the heck do they expect you to find internet access.

What a bunch of bureaucrats.

Its easier sneaking across the border - at least I can land where I want then.

The EZ solution here to is pre-screen all the pilots who want to fly internationally. Put us all on the white list where possible.

Then exempt us from the reporting requirement via internet [keep ADCUS and current reporting] if you are traveling solely with American citizens on American passports with less than 9 seats exercising only a private pilot privileeges. This way, real GA gets the break, and the corporate flight departments and charter outfits have the paperwork requirements also have the local American staff with internet access to make it work.

By traveling only with Americans on American passports and not exercising the privileges of a Commercial certificate, 95% of the trips are with family. With 3 or 4, one of whom is pre-cleared, they can simply scan the passports of the other family members.

Then they need to give us access to the black list so we can check it. . . . like the airlines.


#3

Yet another “throw corporate under the bus” scheme. Geesh!

Why isn’t good for the gander if it is good enough for the goose? Just because we operate for corporations, it is ok for us to have to spend more money – because we are corporations? I guess companies that have aircraft must have more money, resources, and time than they know what to do with, right? Hey, that fat cat owner of a company also owns a plane which is flown by an ATP – just get him to follow the rules. Surely he has more money than he knows what to do with. Shame on you erisajd!

The corporations, ultimately, will not pay for that. Guess what – they will pass it on to you. You will get to pay for us to make phone calls back home. You will pay for us to hire a dispatcher to sit by the phone and computer when we are away. You will pay for us to utilize the services of handlers, who I guarantee you will be happy to help us out…for a price – higher than what we already pay.

I am tired of politicians and fellow pilots looking at companies who happen to have aircraft with their pippers locked on us, and expecting us to foot the bill for everyone else. In the end, if it comes to that, we won’t pay a thing – everyone else will. Moreover, if we want private/general aviation to continue (and I include corporate into that bunch), it would suit us all to stand for one another – all gen av. pilots and flight departments need to stick together. Without that unified front, the airlines will surely get their way as we will be too busy lobbying for our own self interests. No, if it is good enough for a Commercial or ATP pilot, then it is surely good enough for a Private pilot, and vice versa in my humble opinion.

Just my two cents…of course, I could be wrong.

Chris


#4

Not what I meant westward . . . take chill pill - and understand the reality behind the comment.

Corporate flight departments operate Part 91. but for the most part operate internally like Part 135 operations. They do this to get lower insurance rates. This means they already HAVE the people and the paper and the recordkeeping and all the other elements. It will not cost them ten cents more to do it the way they are proposing.

As for Charters, they already ARE Part 119/135 and thus have the recordkeeping requirements already. I think there is a MAJOR difference between me operating a Comanche with my family on board between Canada and the Bahamas and a Part 135 operation taking all comers with the ability to pay, whether they are citizens or not. There is quite a larger risk with the latter. I said to limit the safe harbor to Part 91 ops with all US passport holding citizens on board. Technically, we can NEVER be on the denied entry list - ne pas? This way, when you do a charter to the Bahamas, and return part 91, you can come back in without resorting to he preclearance since, well, there is no reason for it.

TSA just wants us all to be safe [tongue firmly in cheek] so I understand WHY they want the net notification [why have to answer a phone? thats so 20th century and cannot be done while eating donuts] - I just do not think it is ever practicable.

I’m all for a ‘white’ list for us pilots. I’m all for pre-registration. Maybe we can get TSA to just put a satellite operated internet kiosk at every airport around the world so we can get their idiot approvals before we launch. Maybe the tooth fairy will drop off a PC-12 for me tomorrow.


#5

Wow, you told me! I want to apologize to you for overestimating my qualifications and generally spouting off. I don’t know what I was thinking about giving my professional opinion based on my experiences. I suppose the time I have as a professional just isn’t enough to qualify me to respond. I suppose my time as a Director of Operations and a Chief Pilot aren’t enough to compare to your time as both. In hindsight, I guess in my time in both of those positions that I just didn’t have enough time to learn everything that I should have. Further, I guess my time as a business owner of an aircraft management company also isn’t enough to have learned everything that you know about this industry. You know, I have been around this industry since I was 8 years old – how did you come to know so much, so quickly – I want to be on the fast track that you apparently have been on in your professional aviation career.

Again, please accept my apologies; thanks for setting me straight; and, good luck in your professional aviation career.

Regards,

Christopher Dean


#6

Chris - geesh.

As for qualifications, I never said I had any - only experience with bureaucrats.

You simply cannot disagree that the likelihood of bringing a person on the no-entry list is higher for a charter operator than a Part 91 op with known persons on board. A Corporate Part 91 op has less of a risk than a charter. The objection is the the IDEA but how to implement the idea. You have to see that.

It is very very very hard to fight these ‘security’ rules since the press gets leaked that ‘GA is against security’ by both the bureaucrats and whatever politician was denied a free ride home by Netjets that week.

It is hard to find political cover for politicians predisposed to help GA out here because of the fact that the idea has merit but the implementation is too hard to make workable. By working with the DHS to find an acceptable scheme which takes into account the REALITY of how the operations happen, is what will work. Simply saying no way no how - does not work with bureaucrats. Especially security apparatus.

Try not to be snide - I do not understand you troubles running a corporate flight department since you were 8 years old, but I do understand massaging and dealing with bureaucrats.


#7

Two things…

I never said that I had run a flight dept. since the age of 8 – I have been around the industry since the age of 8.

I believe the line of logic that you utilize in your most recent dissertation on how the political world works was called “collaboration” by the Vichy Government in Nazi France.

Sorry – I believe that government works for us, not the other way around. And, until we put people in there who believe that, and until we eliminate the nacissistic sycophants who want to compromise to save their own asses (at the cost of screwing another group(s) – i.e. collaboration), this industry, and in a larger scale and magnitude, this nation is in trouble. We, as a nation, have let the individual interests cloud common sense from the equation resulting in the people working for the government and those aforementioned service the government.

Now, you may have the last word, which I am certain you will take to inform me how I am wrong, and generally tell me “how the world works.” Thanks, but no thanks – I am not interested in your world, which apparently suits you just fine. I further can guarantee you the last word as I will no longer respond to you.

You win!


#8

Chris - we’re alot closer than we are apart . . .

there are battles to fight- and there are battles to settle. This is one to work out.

And I was facetious when I commented upon you being in the biz since you were 8, give me a break here.


#9

I just cannot WAIT for James, Pika, Damiross, et al to get a hold of this one! :smiley:


#10

Wow, somebody said we were too serious where I come from? Welcome comrades! It reminds me of the allmighty airspace of the Soviet Union! Except they were able to scramble a couple of silver pipes instead of messing with internet nonsense. Who in the hell will physically verify that that internet info is correct? Local federales? This makes absolutely no sense. Gluey spiderweb of useless complications having nothing to do with safety of the Motherland. Putin must be rolling under his table laughing!


#11

Pass. We don’t have enough bandwidth for me to share my thoughts on the stupidity of the INS and TSA or the government in general.


#12

Who wants pie?


#13

LOLOL

:laughing:


#14

Hi westwardair, how do you like Marana airport?


#15

I love it – that is where we keep our other Starship (in storage, in a hangar). Rick Barter does a great job!

Did we by chance meet when we were there last?

Chris


#16

No, but I remember admiring the line up of the Starships when I landed there with a King Air. I wondered why Raytheon abandoned that airplane. To see them parked there in the afternoon sun and watch quiet employees with plastic ID’s on their neck having lunch in the caffeteria made me feel like in some kind of a sci-fi movie. The food was good. Some dark military helicopters were practicing over the runways and I had to go around for them. That airport felt good to me for some reason, it felt like home to me.


#17

Yeah, there are five or six out there stored outside, and then there is our other one (NC-43) which is in a hangar. NC-43 is restorable, and we haven’t decided if we want to restore her, or sell her to someone who does. We really don’t need 2 Starships, but it would be fun to have 2 flying!

Robert Scherer (owns and flies NC-51, N514RS) owns 4 of those stored outside. One of those 4 is one that I flew back in the 90s. It was sad to see her like that when we were there last – first time I had seen her since I last flew her.

Ours that we fly has been flying since the day she was born (10/15/92). She is the oldest one flying, and the highest time Starship flying. She was used as a brochure aircraft by Raytheon, and featured in Flying and Business & Commercial Aviation magazines. She is the only Starship in existence that still has her original N#. We absolutely love her!

I can appreciate what you were saying about the feeling there. Although, for me, it was surreal. I saw a plane that I used to fly that I never thought I would see anymore’ moreover, missing her engines and props, sitting too high on her gear, and seeing the paint faded was just plain weird – like looking at a corpse – body was there, but no soul. Then, walking into our hangar and seeing NC-43…all over the place, but still somewhat intact – very surreal. You are right – food was good. But, on that day, we didn’t have any helo’s around. Jack Nicklaus’ Gulfstream was there though.

Long Live the Starship!

Chris


#18

Sorry, too busy fighting off a stupid river tax here in Tulsa…


#19

Yes, I heard about that over there – very silly indeed.

Say hi to Kevin Mead at MMOPA. I went to one of those, and enjoyed it very much!

Good Luck with the tax issue.

Chris


#20

I would say hi, but just to look at the vendor displays, they still want to charge $500. Not a good business decision if you ask me.