MEMBER ALERT: AOPA Pilot Information Center and Member Services will be closed today, Dec. 12, after 2:30 p.m. Eastern, and will reopen Dec. 13 at 8:30 a.m. Eastern. Thank you for your understanding.
February 21, 2003
The Honorable James M. Loy Under Secretary of Transportation for Security Transportation Security Administration 400 Seventh St., SW, 10126 Washington, DC 20590
Dear Admiral Loy:
I am writing to follow up on our phone conversation last week about the recent TSA rule to revoke pilot licenses. I am still very concerned that the rights of pilots may be adversely affected if the rule is implemented as currently written.
This rule was issued without notice and comment. It is hard to understand why more than 16 months after the 9/11 terrorist attacks it was suddenly necessary to issue this rule. If there is new intelligence that indicates that pilots are a greater threat, I would like to hear about that from you.
Of greater concern to me is there does not seem to be any meaningful avenue of appeal. A pilot whose license is revoked by TSA for security reasons may be told the reasons for revocation are classified. Therefore, the pilot will be unable to defend himself or establish grounds for appeal. Even if he could learn the reasons for the revocation, any appeal would evidently be heard by TSA, the very same agency that revoked the license in the first place. This is unfair and probably unconstitutional.
While I am certainly aware that some of the 9/11 hijackers had taken flight training, they boarded the planes as passengers, not as pilots. It was the failure of our intelligence, immigration, and perhaps airport security systems that allowed them to board those planes and commit terrorist acts. This does not justify taking away the rights of U.S. citizen pilots more than 16 months after the fact.
A few months ago, TSA staff approached this Committee and asked us to consider legislation that would allow the emergency revocation of pilot licenses. However, the security legislation that was subsequently approved by the Aviation Subcommittee (Title III of H.R.5506) did not give TSA this authority. Additionally, such authority is not encompassed by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act.
I would urge you to reconsider this rule. First, I suggest you give the pilots affected an opportunity to comment. Second, and more importantly, I urge you to provide a reasonable right to appeal.
Under current law, the Federal Aviation Administration may immediately revoke a pilot's license for safety reasons. However, pilots are informed of the reasons for the revocation and have the right to appeal to an independent third body, the National Transportation Safety Board. I suggest you adopt a similar procedure for pilot revocations by TSA. If not, I will have no alternative but to explore a legislative solution to this problem.
DON YOUNG Chairman
February 20, 2003
Transportation Security Administration,
Advocacy and Legislation,
For pilots, the 60,000-plus-member Civil Air Patrol readily comes to mind when an aerial role in a rescue is launched.
AOPA is looking to the Michigan Senate for “refinement” of proposals amended unfavorably in last-minute House action.
The General Aviation Pilot Protection Act would allow pilots to use the driver’s license medical standard for noncommercial VFR flights in aircraft weighing up to 6,000 pounds with no more than six seats, as long as they carry five or fewer passengers, fly below 14,000 feet msl, and fly no faster than 250 knots.
AOPA thanks our members for their continued support in protecting the freedom to fly.