License Holders Beware

wts54

Senior
Sep 16, 2002
374
0
www.usaviation.com
www2.faa.gov/avr/arm/rinah84.pdf

Jan 23 2003
You''re Grounded/Suspended: TSA Trumps FAA
TSA Takes Over Issuance/Maintenance of Certificates, in New NPRM
In the Federal Register Friday, you''ll be able to see that you can be
knocked out of the air -- just like that -- if the TSA alleges that you
pose
a ''security risk.'' Pilots will be immediately grounded; mechanics, DERs
--
everybody who holds a certificate of any kind from the FAA -- can be
immediately out of a job.
The TSA will notify you that you are considered a ''security risk.'' It
will
notify the FAA; and the FAA will immediately suspend your ticket(s),
pending
your ''appeal.''
You will then have to convince the TSA (which already declared you a
''security risk'') that you are not a ''security risk,'' without your
knowing
why they think you are such a risk. Then, when the TSA issues its final
ruling, the FAA will revoke your papers.
We wanted some confirmation on this, and called the TSA. Chris
Rhatigan, in
the press office there, said, You may have to talk to the FAA on
that.
We read her a part of the summary, which says, This final rule
expressly
makes a person ineligible to hold FAA-issued airman certificates if the
Transportation Security Administration notifies the FAA in writing that
the
person poses a security threat.
As we continued reading, and noted that the TSA was calling the shots,
she
said, Hold on a second. She returned, and said, This [determination
that
you''re a security threat] comes from an intelligence database. OK --
so,
how do we know how big a threat, or how it''s determined that one even
is
such a threat? We don''t tell people how to get on to that database,
she
said. In other words, if you''re denied your certificate, you won''t be
able
to find out why -- just that someone, somewhere, thinks you''re a
''security
risk.''
Ms Rhatigan informed us that everything would be spelled out in the
NPRM,
and that we''d have to wait until Friday, to see what was getting
published
in the Federal Register. Well, folks the law goes into effect Friday.
No
NPRM. No discussion. Decree. Tough.
Well, we have an advance copy of that law. The document''s explanation
is
merely procedural; there is no underlying reasoning explained; and the
airman is simply screwed, without recourse.
First, you''re grounded -- no questions asked. Then you can start the
''appeal'' process.
Here''s how it works: the TSA will notify the purported ''security risk''
that
he is considered a ''security risk,'' and the FAA will immediately ground
the
flier/mechanic/etc. The accused can then tell the TSA that he''s not a
''security risk;'' but, without knowing on what basis the determination
was
initially made, the accused is defending himself, blindfolded. The TSA
is
then the final arbiter of determining whether the accused (whom they
have
already declared a ''security risk,'' while possibly taking away his
means of
making a living and likely ruining his reputation) actually is a
''security
risk.''
ALPA''s Initial Reaction
John Mazor, spokesman for ALPA, the largest pilots'' union, told ANN
that his
organization is taking a close look at the NPRM. It was too early to
say
anything definitive (we had told the union of this NPRM just minutes
earlier); but he was willing to say, As described, it has some
disturbing
implications. He assured us, ALPA''s security people are interested in
studying the NPRM.
[Note: we reported earlier that this is to be an NPRM, with a comment
period. Nope. It''s just the way it is, effective Friday --ed.]
 
Aug 29, 2002
196
0
www.usaviation.com
[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 1/25/2003 9:27:24 AM Buck wrote:
[P]This is serious![BR][BR]However I am curious ( and a AA employee) why the mechanics at UAL or their union did not attempt to protect the value of the licenses during the wage cut?[/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][/P] what protection could there be on a licenses ? after all, it is not your right to hold one. and it looks like it may be harder to keep it in the future. Posters beware.
 

Buck

Veteran
Contributor
Aug 20, 2002
7,319
1,576
www.fairtax.org
This is serious!

However I am curious ( and a AA employee) why the mechanics at UAL or their union did not attempt to protect the value of the licenses during the wage cut?
 

gatemech

Senior
Aug 24, 2002
356
5
www.usaviation.com
[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/25/2003 9:27:24 AM Buck wrote:

This is serious!

However I am curious ( and a AA employee) why the mechanics at UAL or their union did not attempt to protect the value of the licenses during the wage cut?
----------------
[/blockquote]

Because The IAM is a rampers union and has no intention of protecting the mechanics. Also there were no negotiations. The cuts came from the judge.
 
Aug 29, 2002
196
0
www.usaviation.com
[A href="http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2003/pdf/03-1681.pdf"]http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2003/pdf/03-1681.pdf[/A][BR][BR]good reading
 

mwa

Advanced
Aug 20, 2002
190
8
I have always feared the federalization of these screeners. Another step into totalitarianism - there is no due process with Gov't bureacracy. First they take away your livelihood , then leave you with no means to defend yourself - what a perfect scenario - they will get an admission one way or the other. Remember, Rome began as a republic and deteriorated into a bureacracy before it fell.
 

Buck

Veteran
Contributor
Aug 20, 2002
7,319
1,576
www.fairtax.org
[EM]what protection could there be on a licenses ? [BR][BR][/EM]The License is a negotiated item. There is no reason to have to renegotiate it again. If there is going to be concessions, then take them from the base pay of those involved.
 

geeman10

Newbie
Dec 1, 2002
8
0
THE (IAM) HAS NEVER BEEN FOR THE (RAMP) THE (IAM) IS FOR THEM SELFS,,,,P.S. HAVE'NT YOU NOTICED LATELY
 

kcabpilot

Senior
Aug 22, 2002
271
0
The TSA "monster" is out of the cage.

A few quotes from the new legislation:

"For example, pilots could...as the events of September 11 demonstrated, crash aircraft into buildings"

This of course ignores the fact that none of the perpetrators of the September 11 terrorist attacks had pilot's licenses.

"...it is appropriate to provide expressly by rule that an individual determined by the TSA to be a security threat is ineligible for airman certification."

Just what exactly "security threat" is or how it is determined is expressly vauge. Furthermore, the person can continue to freely be a threat, he can visit or live here and hold a job if he wishes. He just can't have a pilot's or mechanic's license so obviously he will be totally unable to fulfill his desire to carry out terrorist activities. We can all sleep cozy at night.

"The FAA finds that notice and comment are unnecessary, impracticable, and contrary to the public interest."

In other words - just shut up.

Now my big question is, while all this is going on, is it still okay for United to persue it's plan to outsource all maintenance, having unlicensed and foriegn persons do the work on their aircraft?

Why?
 

Bob Owens

Veteran
Sep 9, 2002
14,274
6,112
Its funny how the people that support Bush somehow blame the Unions for what Bush does. Why didnt the Unions do anything to stop this? Could be that the Republicans did not allow comment. From the document"This final rule is being adopted without prior notice and prior public comment."

I think that the next revision will give the accused to right to prove thier innocence. At present you can " respond in writing to this notification and provide any information the individual believes the TSA should consider". The new revision may allow us a little more in the way of "due process". They will tie stones to the accused and throw them in the lake, if they sink and drown then they will be declared innocent and not a threat. Isnt Justice under Bush great?
 

ual727fo

Member
Aug 22, 2002
16
0
All of the terrorist pilots on 9-11 had U.S. pilot licenses.Commercial with intrument and multi engine ratings. Trained in the U.S. as most of you know.
 

Boomer

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
1,139
70
Bob Owens,

The ATSA was passed during the Democratic controlled Senate prior to the GOP sweep during the last mid-term elections.

When was the last piece of legislation passed that protected workers' rights?

Which party controlled each House of Congress and whom occupied the White House when the NPRM for FAR 66 was proposed?

Clinton and the Democratic party controlled the Executive Branch of government and held at least one house of Congress during at least 10 of the last twelve years.

The blind allegiance of labor to the Democratic Party has as much to do with our current predicament as does "Big Business."

The Teamsters have realized this by periodically breaking with the AFL-CIO.

Recently the Carpenters Union "left"(no pun intended) that organization because the AFL-CIO no longer represented the views of the majority of their members.

Growing numbers of A&P Mechanics are voting to join AMFA which is not affilliated with the AFL-CIO.

Changing demographics are presenting new opportunities, while the definition of insanity remains the same: repeatedly doing the same thing while expecting a different result.

The Republicans may not want us; but if they want to stay in power, they will need Labor votes.

The Democrats may say they share Labors' concerns; but, they label our Union Brothers & Sisters as that percentage of the US population unworthy of tax relief.

The AFL-CIO purportedly represents us; but, they spend more time and energy organizing and campaigning for immigration relaxation than addressing the concerns of Union Brothers & Sisters in the Aviation Industry.

Tip O'Neil was correct when he observed that all politics are local; more and more members of labor are seeing the same thing.