Phil Boyer has served as president of AOPA since 1991.
In the hours following the terrible events of September 11, 2001, AOPA was deluged with calls from members who were stranded at distant locations as a result of the federal government's closure of the National Airspace System. Many of you have personally told me how appreciative you were of the association springing into action, providing factual information on general aviation to the media and government. As the week progressed, the airlines were allowed to resume operations but general aviation remained grounded.
The FAA invented a new airspace classification (as if we didn't have enough already) called Enhanced Class B (ECB) and implemented temporary flight restrictions (TFRs) around the country. The worst of these turned more than 80 nuclear power plant locations into TFRs. The situation changed almost by the minute. AOPA was the only aviation organization to have a full-time staff member stationed inside FAA headquarters, interacting directly with the FAA's Air Traffic Department. She conveyed information to AOPA headquarters that provided the basis for our consistently updated Web site.
The return to flight for GA has been a long road. Most airspace restrictions have been removed, but there are still exceptions. Eighteen TFRs remain, six in the Seattle area alone. Three small airports in the Washington, D.C., area have been forced to operate under the watchful eye of the federal government and are unable to accept transient traffic, while Ronald Reagan Washington National is still closed to GA operations.
Things would appear to be back to "normal." Or are they? Since the events of last September, GA, as an industry, has come under close scrutiny not only by the FAA and the Department of Transportation's newly created Transportation Security Agency, but also by state governments. General aviation security rapidly became the political buzzword of 2002. At a Senate hearing in February, Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) called general aviation a "ticking time bomb." And during an April 16 hearing, Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-Colo.) claimed the "biggest weakness in the national transportation system is in the FBOs."
A number of states have and continue introducing legislation directed at general aviation security. Some airport associations, airport sponsors, and even state aeronautics offices are targeting GA security with a vengeance. It didn't take too long to see the barrage begin. On September 13, the California legislature introduced a joint resolution urging Congress to :direct the FAA" to implement identification requirements, fingerprinting, and background checks for individuals seeking flight training. In mid-October, the Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission (MAC), a government agency regulating airports in the state, issued an onerous edict that all GA airports open to the public would implement security measures, including 24/7 armed guards, video surveillance cameras, perimeter fencing, photo identification cards, and concrete barriers. AOPA strongly opposed these measures and presented testimony during public hearings. Ultimately, MAC reduced its requirements; however, some elements such as the photo ID card and expensive prop locks, remain in place today. MAC claims the measures are "voluntary," but if an airport doesn't comply it will be ineligible for state airport development funding.
No fewer than 12 states have introduced legislation proposing regulation of flight-training activities. The common theme in all of these bills is criminal background checks and fingerprinting. Background checks didn't prevent the events of September 11. In all of these cases, the association has argued that the responsibility to regulate aviation activities, including flight training, rests solely with the federal government. Some states like Florida and Maryland have listened, agreed, and withdrawn their legislation. Legislatures like South Dakota and Michigan have ignored the association's arguments, passed their bills, and forwarded them to the governor to sign.
That's not the end of it. This year alone, eight states introduced legislation to regulate airports while six states have made runs at regulating airspace. Federal and state governments are not the only ones placing GA in the cross hairs. A national association representing primarily air carrier airports crafted its own set of security guidelines for GA airports. The financial impact of that proposal would have tremendous effects on communities already questioning their contributions to nonairline airports. My fear is that their next cry could be for closure. As more and more proposals surface to secure GA facilities, funding for development projects will continue to dwindle. At some point, we may have the most secure GA airports in the world, but will they be safe as improvement projects suffer from lack of funding?
In each and every case, AOPA has been at the forefront of providing information and advocacy for you before these regulatory bodies. Our core of 13 regional representatives who cover the 50 states has been invaluable during this process, keeping us informed and lobbying on your behalf. AOPA will continue to represent your interests and ensure that general aviation has equal access to the nation's airports and transportation system. We may ask you to play a role, also. When the situation warrants, through e-mail alerts we will continue to ask for your immediate action in contacting state representatives to block such bills. The 385,000 members of AOPA give general aviation a loud voice, not only at the national level, but also in the states.
Related Articles
