Two Department of Homeland Security regulations aimed at securing small airports from inside terrorist threats have caused a stir among private pilots who will be forced to submit to heightened checks security measures in order to maintain unescorted access to their planes.
The first regulation, Security Directive 8F, went effect on June 1. It requires local airports to add an amendment to their current security programs, mandating that anyone with unescorted access consent to a criminal background check. The requirement extends to pilots who own or rent hangars, visiting pilots who are unescorted, and employees of pilots, such as mechanics or maintenance help.
“It’s an effort to control airports against insider threat, so we’re enhancing security,” said Dwayne Baird, a spokesman for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA).
Under the directive, commercial-based airports, such as the Santa Maria Public Airport, will be required to collect and verify identifying documentation for people with unescorted access. Airports then must forward that information to the TSA, which will assess potential security threats against the consolidated federal watch list, as well as run a right-to-work immigration check. Local airports would be required to store the data.
Some pilots, however, believe the directive flies over the line and smothers civil liberties.
Kevin Page, a pilot who rents a hangar at the Santa Maria Public Airport, said pilots are a tight, self-policing community. Any strange activity, he argues, would be called out by the pilots themselves. He said public airports are there for the benefit of the public and shouldn’t be subjected to extensive security measures when there are already security measures in place.
“It is a tremendous service to the community, and to lock it up and to treat pilots as if they are suspects without probable cause is severely wrong, and I believe it goes against the spirit of the Constitution, at best,” he said.
Pilot Grace McGuire said pilots have already provided much of the information requested under a new badge requirement, so carrying that redundant information around on a badge that can be lost can actually enhance a terrorist threat.
“An aviator’s identity is valuable,” McGuire said. “And we’re just going to hand over all of this information? Can you imagine if it got into the wrong hands?”
Chris Hastert, general manager of the Santa Maria Airport, said the airport is a pubic agency—“and we take people’s privacy seriously.”
SD-8F is considered security sensitive and so doesn’t have to go through a process open to public scrutiny under authority granted to the TSA. When the Sun asked for access to the text of the security directive, Baird said it’s unavailable because of its security-sensitive nature.
The second security measure affecting airports is the Large Aircraft Security Program. In short, all corporate or private aircraft operations flying planes with a takeoff weight of more than 12,500 pounds would have to adopt a new program based on stricter standards. It also calls for other security measures, such as contracting with TSA-approved providers to verify that passengers aren’t on the No Fly or Selectee portions of the federal government’s terrorist watch list.
Baird said the program affects charter and other operations that are vulnerable to bringing “highly undesirable people or materials” into the United States rather quickly. TSA is still in the process of writing the program and is continuing to take comments.
Several pilot organizations have vocally opposed the program, saying the requirements would create an undue burden on general aviation. A statement from the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association said the proposed program would treat general aviation aircraft like commercial aircraft.
“General aviation pilots, unlike operators of aircraft for hire, know who is getting on their airplane, and it is unrealistic and impractical to impose the same passenger manifest requirements as on commercial operators. This rule goes too far and in doing so infringes on civil liberties,” the statement reads.
The association also opposes TSA’s weight threshold of 12,500 pounds, because the group asserts the administration failed to demonstrate that aircraft of that weight pose a threat warranting increased security requirements. The organization also objected to forcing aircraft operators to pay a TSA-approved provider to conduct regulatory oversight and compliance checks.
Many pilots and pilot groups have noted that both regulations can financially cripple general aviation because they represent costly changes—necessary for pilots to comply with the security directives, which are unfunded mandates.
Santa Maria Airport’s Hastert said the security programs may require a little more from the pilots and corporations, but said they wouldn’t be a challenge for the Santa Maria Airport because it already has the fencing and access control required. He admitted, however, that the rules would make business travel a little more difficult.
The airport already badges people at the airline area and the directive simply extends that process to the private hangars, he pointed out.
“That was part of what made it not too difficult for us—we were already badging people in the airline area,” Hastert said.
The biggest challenge for the Santa Maria Airport was upgrading the badging computer. The actual improvements cost the airport about $10,000.
Some private pilots at the Santa Maria Airport said they would refuse to sign consent forms for the criminal background check. Hastert said anyone who doesn’t pursue the badge that way would have to be escorted to and from their hangars and would have to establish an agreement on escort scheduling. And there may be security fees for after-hours escort.
Contact Arts Editor Shelly Cone at scone @santamariasun.com.
This article appears in Jun 11-18, 2009.