New security measures - EU Directive 300/2008 - effective 1 May 2010

[4HolerPoler]

Anyone else aware of the Bureaucrats from Brussels latest security edict (EU Directive 300/2008) that becomes effective 1 May 2010?

Applicable to international arrivals and departures - I've read the entire EU Directive and there are no specifics but one of the handling companies from Luton has issued a memorandum to all operators detailing the new regulations for private or charter aircraft:

:eek: All flights over 15,000 kgs will be subject to a full screening as per the National Aviation Security Program :confused:

:sad: One in three bodies and bags will have to be hand searched

:{ One in every three persons shoes will have to be removed

Is this for real and how are the handling agents going to be able to enforce these new regulations?

[lear60fellow]

Politians have lost their sight and are no longer valid, we are full of stupid laws and this is one of them. Tell Mr. Abramovich that he has to go trough full security scan to fly in "his aircraft" which "he bought" and "he owns"....

[machone]

Perhaps time for some of the owners to talk to their elected representatives (or not) and stop this Bureaucratic ----.

[EatMyShorts!]

We all (Biz + Airliners) need to deny flying under these circumstances. All and everyone. This is the only way that politicians will listen, if it hurts financially. Everything else does not work. Will we be able to achieve that (stand united, worldwide, for one day) ? No.

[4HolerPoler]

My research shows that this handler was slightly forward in issuing this warning; the matter is still under consultation and most of the handling companies are involved. There is significant confidence that common-sense will prevail and that the individual handling companies will assume the responsibility for determining the requisite level of security based on a risk-assessment model. It's calmed me down & we should have clarity by the end of March.

[Winniebago]

It looks like the option the DfT wish to go for is option 3 in the consultation. This is very bad news. All aircraft regardless of use will have to be screened over 15 tonnes. The worse bit though is the implication that all aviation, including light aircraft, will be subject to alternative security measures. That is very vague but could imply a whole raft of measures that small operations, aerodromes, etc. will find very awkward to comply with.

Don't for one minute assume commonsense will prevail. The industry at large has a very small window indeed to shout loud and try to stop the DfT having it their way.

It has all the potential of being an absalute nightmare for 'private' business aviation in particular.

[Arkwright]

Regardless of the outcome from the DFT I expect the over-zealous security at Signature will still implement the proposals! :hmm:

[Winniebago]

This is where to look for the info - our industry has until 3rd March to submit responses:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/open/aviationsecurity/ (http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/open/aviationsecurity/)
http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/open/aviationsecurity/con-doc.pdf (http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/open/aviationsecurity/con-doc.pdf)
The scary bit is that aside from the desire for all aircraft private or public transport to be screened of Falcon, Challenger, Gulfstream size etc. (+15 tonnes) there is also the desire for 'company aircraft' of ANY weight to be fully NASP screened. How one defines what is or isn't a company aircraft we'll wait and see, but that does pretty much cover most private business aviation from light turboprops, mustangs etc. upwards.
The whole benefit of operating business aircraft 'privately' is about to dissapear in a puff of smoke. the whole business of driving to the door of the aircraft and jumping on bypassing all processing is possibly finished from 1st May. No more privacy, convieniance, anonimity, speedy departures etc.
Read and absorb carefully - it could drastically effect your operation.

[Time Traveller]

The whole benefit of operating business aircraft 'privately' is about to dissapearIn the UK - Yes.

Bye-bye entrepeneur unfriendly Britain. Hello Zug, Switzerland!

That neanderthal pleb Brown, continues to alienate the very individuals who can pull the UK out of the abyss. :D

[doubleu-anker]

Pilot's standing together?! Get a grip FFS! Never will happen and never has.

Tell you something this BS will get worse. It is all about control. In the future but hopefully not in my lifetime, breaking wind will be a reportable offence for e,g,.

The thumb screws are tightening albeit slowly and it is all of our own making.

[merlinxx]

Makes me feel rather glad that I'm nearly on the scrap heap (i.e. 65), I had some of the best years I guess:ugh:

Get in contact with your associations EBAA, BBGA etc.

[Empty Cruise]

Does any of you gentlemen / ladies protest when carrying out commercial ops under the NASP?

Didn't think so - so why not make it consistent? Private unscreened flights make a mockery of the screening we go through when doing commercial ops, so at least this makes the policy consistent.

IMHO, everything and everyone going airside should be screened, no matter the purpose of visit or the mass of the aircraft they fly. Anything less than 100% screening invalidtes the entire process, and Joe Public would not be pleased to know how he has to endure full body cavity searches while crew and pax of a commercial flight on an XL or CJ waltz straight through. I am sure I need not explain how this consitutes a rather big hole in a rather small cheese...

I'm not looking to pick a fight, rather am asking the question: If unscreened persons or bags are allowed airside on one part of the airport, why bother screening the rest of us?

[His dudeness]

so why not make it consistent?

Compare apples and oranges....

Private unscreened flights make a mockery of the screening we go through when doing commercial ops, so at least this makes the policy consistent.

Allright then, lets do all 'sensible' things possible today. Why not have a personal speedchecker on your cars speed indicator with a direct line to the publics prosecution office. Would cost you but undoubtely lower traffic accidents. If you find that to far stretched, then tell me why train and bus passengers re not screened after march 2004 attacks in Madrid (191 dead) and the july 2005 attacks in London with 52 dead victims and both cases hundreds of wounded.



IMHO, everything and everyone going airside should be screened, no matter the purpose of visit or the mass of the aircraft they fly. Anything less than 100% screening invalidtes the entire process, and Joe Public would not be pleased to know how he has to endure full body cavity searches while crew and pax of a commercial flight on an XL or CJ waltz straight through. I am sure I need not explain how this consitutes a rather big hole in a rather small cheese...

IMO this is BS. Nobody unscreened? Who screens the screener? Armed Policemen are airside, aren`t they? if they don´t trust us, why don´t we have an armed policeman in the cockpit plus another one to monitor him?

I'm not looking to pick a fight, rather am asking the question: If unscreened persons or bags are allowed airside on one part of the airport, why bother screening the rest of us?

How many privately owned airplanes have been hijacked and turned into bombs? How likely is it going to be?
Why am I screened by muslim folks when our main issue is muslim suicide bombers? Where do YOU want to start this and where do you want to stop it. Following your logic, we´d need a search of the airplane by police, sniffer dogs and whatnot every time the airplane comes out of mx, for example.

Politicians are taking advantage of the current fear of joe public. Why they want that, I have no idea, got to be the power phantasies that drove so many other idiots in history. BTW if you are a real pilot, you know how to bring stuff airside. Checks/search or not.

Are politicians body searched as well? The Queen? Gordon Brown? Though not.

I´d love see some common sense again.

[Empty Cruise]

His Dudeness,

I hate to spell it out - but it's not hijacking that's the threath. If I fly unscreened, I use every trip to secrete just one prohibited article in a secret hideaway airside.

The rest of the plot involves a mate working at at a support services company and another mate working on the airliner in question. I'm sorry, but I can't describe it any clearer without writing a ruddy terrorist manual :ugh:

Capish?

[Winniebago]

Today, no privately operated aircraft needs screening, which is rational and logical.

Neither the owner of an aircraft, his friends, family or customers are likely to either blow themselves up or hijack the aircraft - the owner/operator of the aircraft knows exactly who is allowed/invited on the aircraft - no strangers or unknown characters will/can board a privately owned/operated aircraft.

Consistent with today's policies, there simply is no point in screening for private ops. The aircraft size is wholly irrelevant as the risk of any person boarding the aircraft with malintent is extraordinary small.

As for charter ops or any ops for hire and reward, or pay per seat, rather than the 10 tonnes/20 pax and above ruling, why not tie in for simplicity's sake with the catorgarisation for fire and rescue services - i.e. aircraft size rather than weight. A close match for the current criteria would be CAT 4 RFF aircraft or above, when used for public transport purposes, should be screened, anything private of any weight doesn't and CAT 3 RFF aircraft and below don't need screening.

If anyone wanted to cause major horror, public unrest, fear and disruption, surely the easiest thing in the world is to drive a Transit van loaded with whatever one chose to use and bowing it up near any major mode of ground transport, notable public building or in the basement of a significant tower. Or severl Transit vans blown up at sevral locations at the same time.

Hijiacking a private aircraft with intent to commit suicide and cause harm to others on the ground is virtually impossible and has never actually been undertaken. Aircraft owners prefer not to welcome terrorists on board their pride and joy as a matter of course!

Any requirement to screen private aircraft will be a whollly pointless exercise and cause critical damage to a business aviation industry already struggling to survive. I have no doubt whatsoever that certain owners of aircraft who have to be subjected to any screening process will just give up on business avaition and admit defeat.

How exactly are any smaller airfields in the UK be able to comply? They won't and so will suffer considerably. If the DfT try to differentiate between small airfields and larger ones and one set of rules for some and others for lesser ports - that too will be wholly unacceptable. It's all airfields comply under exactly the same terms, or the rules stay as they are and we retain a GA industry and get on with our business with an exceptional record of control and dilligent care taken by crews and operators as to what's going on with their aircraft.

[4HolerPoler]

There is hope. Following significant lobbying in the US, in the past week the TSA has taken a big step backwards on implementing a similar program in the US.

February 5, 2010 The Transportation Security Administration is backing off a controversial plan to impose tough new security requirements on private planes and small airports. In 2008, TSA said that as security on commercial airlines got better, terrorists might see private planes as easier targets. So the agency proposed tighter security rules for general aviation — that's private air travel for business or pleasure. It's an industry worth $150 billion a year. The government would have required all passengers to be checked against terrorist watch lists. And about 300 small airports would have needed costly new security programs. But the general aviation industry sent regulators thousands of complaints. Pilots and airport operators argued that the risk from terrorism is small. Plus, they said, private pilots are already very cautious about whom they let on their planes. Now, the TSA is scrapping major portions of that proposal.

TSA general aviation manager Brian Delauter said the agency now plans to collaborate more with the industry on security. "We're going to be 10 times more successful in partnership than ... being combative back and forth to each other," Delauter said. Delauter said that his agency will substantially increase the size of the airplanes covered by a revised security plan coming out this fall. Regulators had contemplated covering aircraft that weigh only about as much as two SUVs.

Robert Benincasa is president and CEO of Dominion Aviation, an aviation services and charter operation near Richmond, Va. He praised a move by the federal government to drop a plan for tough new security regulations on general aviation. Also, the TSA will rely more on pilots to keep their flights secure. "They wanted the onus on them. So, we're going to put the responsibility on them," he said.

The change in course at TSA was welcome news to Mike Mickel, who has an aviation services and charter business at Chesterfield County Airport near Richmond, Va. Before he heard about the changes, he was worried that TSA rules would interfere with his business. Last week, onboard one of his jets, he demonstrated how a possible ban on items like baseball bats and golf clubs from airplane cabins made no sense — especially for a small plane without a separate cargo area. "This is where the bags go ... right behind the flight deck," he said, pointing to a small area accessible to anyone onboard.

As a former general aviation pilot, the TSA's Delauter understood Mickel's objections. He's also flown jets that require all baggage to be placed in the cabin. "To tell a professional golfer that you're taking to a tournament that they can't bring their golf clubs, from a business standpoint probably doesn't work." When told of the modifications TSA is now considering, Mickel said he thinks the government listened to the concerns coming from general aviation. "It appears to me that they looked at what would be encompassing these burdensome regulations and realized that they wouldn't get the benefit — there really isn't a security risk there." But Delauter says there's still a risk, even if there's no specific threat. In March, his agency will convene a new general aviation advisory panel with industry representatives — aimed at managing that risk.

[flyingfemme]

Any requirement to screen private aircraft will be a whollly pointless exercise
Unless the aircraft is going foreign there is no requirement to tell anybody who is on board - just the head count. I don't give the name, address, passport details of my passengers to anyone before I go flying. Why should I? Do I tell somebody who will be sitting in my car? Or my 12 tonne bus?

The people have lost the plot - egged on by a government who scent the possibility of never having to give up control. Wake up and smell the soma.

[ivor toolbox]

from the dft web-pages

Unfortunately, half day consultation events to discuss our options on 10th, 12th and 19th February (Manchester, Glasgow and Bristol) have been cancelled because of low response. However, a new consultation event in central London on 26th February will be held at:
Department for Transport
Meeting Room Brunel/Whittle
5th Floor, Southside
105Victoria Street
London SW1E 6DT
If you wish to attend, please respond to the ‘reply to consultation’ email box at the bottom of this page to reserve a place.

Only got yourselves to blame if there's no responses peeps

ttfn

[411A]

. Now, the TSA is scrapping major portions of that proposal.

Yup, the NBAA turned the screws...and the government listened/complied.
What a surprise.

I wish our Euroland associates equal success.

[AA717driver]

Hopefully that twit in Austin won't give the TSA the ammunition it needs to expand its jobs program to a GA airport near you...

TC

[controlx]

Ppruners - just a reminder that the UK DfT consultation window on EC 300/2008 closes on 3rd March.

If you want to state your concerns, objections, proposals etc. you have to do so THIS WEEK.

Be very wary of the possibility of diluted, random security measures being imposed on all sectors of aviation below 15 tonnes - some that private aviation will find impractical, burdensome, indeed some UK GA airports will find it near impossible to comply

[Romaro]

Seen elsewhere today:

If you delve into the detail of the new European standards for airfield security which have to be adopted by May 1st by the UK Department for Transport (Regulation EC 300/2008), the following issues arise for the smaller aerodrome which could be one massive nightmare for UK GA.

Off another forum today:

New proposed airfield security controls of relevance to minor UK airfields and aerodromes:

The UK DfT’s adoption of Regulation (EC) 300 No. 300/2008 would dictate that some of the following measures have to be put in place at any UK aerodrome, regardless of size/status, licensed, unlicensed private or otherwise:

• All airfield boundaries between landside and airside shall be clearly identifiable/demarcated

• All landside/airside boundaries shall have a physical obstruction which denies a person unauthorised access – i.e. all airfields should have a fence on all boundaries

• Airside access can only be authorised to persons with a legitimate reason to be there

• To gain access airside, a person must carry an authorisation which upon request can be presented for control

• A person (or vehicle) cannot gain airside access without a control measure being adopted

• Regardless of where parked on an airfield, an aircraft must be protected from unauthorised access including being locked and/or monitored at all times such that unauthorised access to the aircraft is immediately detected. Only aircraft within locked, monitored hangars can remain unlocked/individually unmonitored.

• Only persons with an operational need shall be able to unlock the doors

• Electronic means should be adopted to immediately detect unauthorised access of an aircraft

• New format crew passes need to be issued to and held by all pilots/crew without exception entering any security restricted area hereon – i.e. any established airfield with a current restricted airside zone (Security Restricted Area) anywhere in Europe. If an inappropriate pass is held (old format or indeed no pass), pilots must be escorted at all times within a security restricted area).

There are of course hundreds of airfields/aerodromes in the UK that could not begin to comply with the above requirements without huge expenditure on boundary monitoring/control and other access control measures. Indeed there are unlicensed aerodromes with not insignificant runways into which aircraft over 15 tonnes could gain access today, which have no means whatsoever of being able to adequately screen such aircraft, all of which hereon need to be fully screened regardless of purpose of flight – North Weald and Dunsfold come to mind.

All a bit of a nightmare.