The letter states that foreign students on an F or M visa can receive flight training only from flight schools that are FAA certified under 14 CFR Part 141 or Part 142. ICE decided that independent flight instructors and Part 61 flight schools are not eligible to be certified under the Student Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) and are, therefore, not eligible to provide flight instruction to F or M visa-holding foreign students. What caused this letter to be written in the first place?

In a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report concerning a recent investigation into ICE’s SEVP program, investigators found that “ICE officials do not consistently verify certain evidence initially submitted by schools in lieu of accreditation. In addition, ICE does not maintain records to document SEVP-certified schools’ ongoing compliance.” (GAO Report 12-572, What GAO Found) So how do non-Part 141/142 flight schools get involved in all this?

According to the GAO, “ICE certifies schools as authorized to accept foreign students in academic and vocational programs.“ (GAO Report 12-572, page 2) That’s where the F visas (academic programs) and M visas (vocational programs) come into this. The GAO investigators also noted, “ICE’s policies and procedures require flight schools to have FAA Part 141 or 142 certification to be eligible for SEVP certification; however, ICE has certified schools offering flight training without such FAA certifications.” (Page 29)

But ICE created its own exception to policy, not the flight schools. GAO noted that,“…a DHS flight training working group conducted a flight study that found that many FAA Part 61 schools were providing equal if not superior instruction than Part 141 schools. Based on that finding, the DHS flight training working group recommended that ICE re-examine the program’s requirement for Part 141 or 142 certification for flight schools to enroll foreign students. Based on the DHS group’s recommendation, ICE conducted a preliminary review and certified a limited number of non-Part 141 or 142 flight schools. Specifically, ICE certified one Part 61 provider following a site visit during which SEVP officials determined that the provider was equally qualified as a Part 141 or 142 flight school.” (Page 31) According to the ICE Policy Branch, “there is no difference in quality between Part 61 providers and Part 141 or 142 flight schools.” (Page 31)

I contacted some of the various aviation associations to see if ICE had conferred with them prior to releasing their policy guidance. Jason Blair, Executive Director of the National Association of Flight Instructors, responded to my inquiry and wrote that he had heard a little rumbling about the issue, but had not been contacted by ICE concerning the policy guidance. Inquiries to other organizations resulted in similar responses.

From where I sit, ICE didn’t do its job. The GAO investigators discovered inconsistencies with the SVEP program. It appears, after reading the GAO report, that ICE came up with a policy and didn’t consider the consequences, unintended or otherwise. Who suffers? The independent flight instructor and Part 61 flight schools take the hit.

Where is the coordination with the Department of Transportation and the FAA? Is an agency within the Department of Homeland Security reaching across the bureaucratic abyss into another department’s pockets and spending the manpower and resources of another agency?

Where is the coordination with the Small Business Administration? This policy essentially denies the opportunity for businesses to conduct business with certain clients — clients that were previously approved for some. Isn’t the very definition of a small business a one-person flight training school — the independent instructor? And I can’t think of a single Part 61 flight school that wouldn’t fit the industry’s definition of a small business.

Where is the coordination within the Department of Homeland Security? The Transportation Security Administration already requires flight schools — independent flight instructors are counted as a flight school in the eyes of the TSA — to comply with 49 CFR 1552. Subpart A deals with the requirements for flight training programs with foreign students; Subpart B deals with initial and annual security awareness training. Isn’t the SEVP certification for flight training just another layer of security bureaucracy on top of what is already demanded by TSA? We need more paperwork?

In short, there needs to be an economic impact analysis. There needs to be a Paperwork Reduction Act analysis. This policy needs to be brought out into the light of day and given the scrutiny afforded by the Administrative Procedures Act. This policy should be published in the U.S. Federal Register. The public — and especially those who would be impacted by such a policy — should be given the opportunity to consider and comment upon such a policy because, as I have tried to show, this policy raises more questions than it answers.

If you agree with me, please contact your national legislators. Tell them what you think of this policy guidance. Here are the links to help you find your member in the U.S. House of Representatives and your U.S. Senators.

I’m not going to belabor the user fee issue. It’s a no-brainer. If you increase the cost for flight operations by injecting a new cost per flight for turboprop and jet aircraft, then the number of flights goes down because fewer people will be able to afford the total cost. If the number of flights goes down, then fewer aviation goods and services are consumed. When consumption goes down, prices go up due to lost economies of scale and jobs are lost or go unfilled. As prices go up, even fewer flights are flown. The snake eats its tail.

User fees = bad results. Simple! Now let’s move on to the second issue.

Why should our GA Community get behind a piece of legislation that deals with the airlines and ticketed passengers? On the surface the Air Travelers’ Bill of Rights does not appear to involve general aviation. This bill deals with the administrative searches and other administrative authorities which the U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) uses to get around the search without probable cause doctrine within the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, part of the U.S. Bill of Rights. This piece of the Constitution guarantees protections against unreasonable search and seizure based upon the concept of probable cause. Dealing specifically with the use of checkpoints, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that discretionary or general crime-fighting checkpoints are not allowed (City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000).

I’m not trying to make this a legal brief. But I want to make sure that we’re all on the same flight plan. There is a legal basis for concern on the use of administrative searches at security checkpoints.

So how many of you out there have been asked by officers and inspectors of the TSA to provide for their inspection your airman and medical certificates in accordance with 14 CFR 61.3 and 49 CFR 1540.113? But how many of you who are not under a mandatory TSA security program like the Alien Flight Training Security Program or the 12-5 Security Program have been asked to present additional documents? Did you think they went too far? Did you provide them what they asked for because that’s what you thought a good American should do?

The Air Travelers’ Bill of Rights Act , known as S. 3302 in the Senate and H. 6449 in the House, is a legal Swiss Army Knife with 17 tools to legislate controls on how the TSA conducts its security checkpoint searches. Looking at this bill from desktop height, it deals with ticketed passenger security checkpoints; however, from 30,000 feet one sees that this legislation narrows the administrative authorities which have been used to skirt the probable cause doctrine of the Fourth Amendment. It is this narrowing of TSA’s administrative authority that is the benefit to general aviation.

It’s voting season. Let your members of Congress know what you think about user fees and the Air Traveler’s Bill of Rights.

Fly safe, and be secure!

Dave Hook, an expert on general aviation security, is president of Planehook Aviation Services, LLC in San Antonio, Texas.

On Wednesday, July 19, the Government Accountability Office made public its report on security threats and the Transportation Security Administration’s Alien Flight Student Program (49 CFR 1552 Subpart A). Report GAO-12-875 is the sanitized version of a report issued back in June 2012, which has information that the TSA determined to fall into the realm of sensitive security information (SSI). This report was the subject of a hearing by the U.S. House Subcommittee on Transportation Security this week. In the process of developing its report the GAO interviewed representatives of no less than six different industry associations (GAO-12-875, page 5).

Now I’ve been a member of the National Association of Flight Instructors (NAFI) for many years. I figured that it was time to drop a dime and give NAFI Executive Director Jason Blair a call. As I confirmed with Jason, the GAO never contacted NAFI. Jason told me that he and NAFI feel blindsided by the report. However, he is more concerned about solutions.

“It’s important that we work to find an appropriate remedy for any real or perceived security holes,” Jason stated. “And that in doing so we do not create a solution that would solve the problem, but hinder the flight training community’s ability to train pilots. We want a secure, safe flight training system, but are concerned about an overly restrictive solution.”

I also spoke with Doug Stewart, executive director for the Society of Aviation and Flight Educators (SAFE). It seems that Jason is not the only one who feels blindsided by this report. In speaking with Doug he told me, “GAO has come to us in other areas. I’m surprised they didn’t come to us on this.”

Now to the GAO’s credit, they did seek information from 10 flight schools. But that approach seems to short-circuit the methodology of seeking the larger point of view of associations with many members, as they did with the half dozen other organizations.

When a solution is forged to mitigate the threat of foreign terrorists learning to fly in our own backyard — even before it’s being forged — I sincerely hope that both NAFI and SAFE are consulted from the very beginning on any security solution. They represent many of us who grow the bananas.

Fly safe, and be secure!

Dave Hook, an expert on general aviation security, is president of Planehook Aviation Services, LLC in San Antonio, Texas.

People who read this article also read articles on airparks, airshow, airshows, avgas, aviation fuel, aviation news, aircraft owner, avionics, buy a plane, FAA, fly-in, flying, general aviation, learn to fly, pilots, Light-Sport Aircraft, LSA, and Sport Pilot.

I want to share two comments from my reviewer that go further into TSA authority and assistance. The first comment pertains to the authority of the TSA to conduct airport inspections. The second deals with a useful resource that’s been around a while, but is still worthy of mention.

The regulatory authority for a TSA inspection of an airport is based upon 49 CFR 1542. Specifically, inspection authority is found in 49 CFR 1542.5. But what you really need to know is 49 CFR 1542.1, which describes when the regulation applies.

The airport security regulation applies to airports that serve U.S. and foreign commercial air service as described in 49 CFR 1544 and 1546. This regulation also applies to airports that receive Security Directives (remember 08G?) and Information Circulars. There is a small gotcha in all of this. If an airport doesn’t have a security program that’s approved by the TSA, but serves an aircraft operator that has a security program under 49 CFR 1544 or serves a foreign air carrier under 49 CFR 1546, the airport operator must allow the TSA to enter and be on the airport to inspect the aircraft operator.

So here it is in a nutshell: If you are on a public or private general aviation airport and no one on the airport operates as an air carrier or a commercial operator with a security program under 49 CFR 1544 or 1546, then the TSA has no regulatory authority to conduct an inspection of the airport.

The second point that my reviewer made is that there is a resource made available by the TSA which may be useful to you. Back in 2004 the TSA published the Security Guidelines for General Aviation Airports, Information Publication A-001. Despite being over 8 years old, the document still provides practical guidelines for improving security.

Improving security at your airport, in your hangar, and with your aircraft has little to do with inspectors, government agencies and blogging authors. Improving security in our general aviation community has everything to do with each of us who takes good ideas and makes them happen.

Fly safe, and be secure!

Dave Hook, an expert on general aviation security, is president of Planehook Aviation Services, LLC in San Antonio, Texas.

People who read this article also read articles on airparks, airshow, airshows, avgas, aviation fuel, aviation news, aircraft owner, avionics, buy a plane, FAA, fly-in, flying, general aviation, learn to fly, pilots, Light-Sport Aircraft, LSA, and Sport Pilot.

I had the pleasure of enjoying my pulled-pork sandwich and iced tea with some local aviators that call the airport home. The opportunity to sit outside, talk about airplanes, and swap flying stories was a like a breath of fresh air. It sure beats reading intelligence reports and legislative proposals!

While my lunch buddies and I took turns swapping stories, one told me that a pair of officials from the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) had been walking around and asking questions at the airport recently. According to my picnic tablemate, the single biggest question posed by the agents was why airplanes didn’t have propeller locks installed when they were parked behind locked hangar doors. I was more concerned about why the two were there in the first place and that my lunch buddy somehow felt compelled to answer their questions.

TSA has administrative authority to conduct security searches and oversee security programs. That means if it isn’t in a regulation, they can’t compel you to comply, produce documents, or answer questions. What does this mean to general aviators?

There are only a limited number of administrative activities that the TSA is currently able to perform away from commercial service airports (Part 139/1542) and commercial air service aircraft and their operators (Part 1544 for US aircraft and Part 1546 for foreign aircraft). Most of the applicable regulations are found in 49 CFR Subchapter C Civil Aviation Security. If your flying operations cannot be characterized as being that of a scheduled air carrier, then the catch-all that scarfs up the rest of aviation is 49 CFR 1550.1. By regulation the TSA can:

• Demand to make any inspections or tests, including copying of records, to determine compliance with applicable security programs and procedures under [Subchapter C] and 49 CFR 1520. (49 CFR 1550.3) Author’s note: Unless you have access to Special Security Information, or SSI, the reference to Part 1520 does not apply.
• Inspect an airman certificate, medical certificate, authorization or license issued by the FAA. (49 CFR 1540.113)
• Ask the FAA administrator to revoke an airman’s certificate, rating, or authorization if the TSA determines that the airman poses a security threat. (49 CFR 1540.115)
• If you load or unload passengers, crewmembers, or someone else in a sterile area (typically the aircraft parking area at or near the airport terminals where the airliners load and unload passengers), then you must conduct a search of the aircraft before departure and screen passengers, crewmembers, and their carry-on items in accordance with TSA approved procedures. (49 CFR 1550.5)
• If you operate an aircraft with a maximum gross takeoff weight greater than 12,500 pounds and are not operating in a sterile area, then just like the previous bullet item, you have to search the aircraft before departure and screen the passengers, crewmembers, and their carry-on items. (49 CFR 1550.7) Author’s note: Compliance is required only when the TSA notifies operators by NOTAM, letter, or other communication that they must implement security procedures.
• If you operate a flight school, then there are two security provisions that apply to you. Author’s note: flight instructors not associated with a flight school are considered a flight school by themselves:

1. You must abide by the security regulations regarding flight training for aliens and other designated individuals based upon the requirements of the four different categories of training. (49 CFR 1552 Subpart A)
2. You must also ensure that all flight instructors and other employees who have regular contact with your students receive, complete, and document initial and annual flight school security awareness training. (49 CFR 1552 Subpart B)

• If you load or unload passengers or crewmembers within a sterile area, then you must participate in the Secure Flight Program and compare passenger information against the TSA’s Watch List. (49 CFR 1560)
• If you fly in and around the Washington, D.C Metropolitan Area, then there are two more TSA administrative security programs that may apply to you:

1. If you fly to and from the Maryland Three Airports, then there are enhanced security procedures which you must follow. These airports are College Park Airport (CGS), Potomac Airfield (VKX), and Washington Executive/Hyde Field (W32). (49 CFR 1562 Subpart A)
2. If you fly in and out of the Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, then there are even more enhanced security procedures that you must follow. (49 CFR 1562 Subpart B)

There are additional regulations for 14 CFR 119 certificated operators. There are also additional regulations that apply to those flying larger, airliner-sized aircraft. While these operations are not the focus of this article, I want you to know that there are more regulations that can go beyond what I have written.

If you fly into or operate from a commercial service airport, then you already know about Security Directive 1542-08G and perhaps even have your own airport security badge. You’ve also probably had to complete security training for your airport in order to receive that badge. So there may be additional security requirements and restrictions that apply to you that were spawned by the TSA, but are enforced by the airport.

Remember those two TSA agents that my lunch buddy mentioned at the beginning? If they were acting in their official capacity as TSA officers or inspectors, they had to be accomplishing at least one of those regulated activities that I listed. Frankly, I don’t see where a question concerning propeller locks and locked hangar doors logically comes from any of those. But wait! There’s more.

If a child were to come up and ask how an airplane flies, most would take that question as an innocent interest in flying. We’d probably answer as best we could, send the child on their way, and get back to what we were doing. Even if the child were to come up and ask why we lock the hangar door, even then, with a question that deals with the physical security of our aircraft, we’d probably give a nice answer and get back to what we were doing. No harm. No foul.

But when an adult comes up and asks the same questions, we tend to pay closer attention. It’s not that the questions are any more or less innocent; it’s that the person asking the question may have a greater capacity to impact what we do. The result is heightened suspicion. And should the person asking the questions open up a wallet and show a badge and credentials of some sort, many would feel that they are now under suspicion of doing something wrong. But if the question is posed as a request for assistance, almost all would voluntarily answer questions.

If there’s one thing that our general aviation community is known for, it’s hospitality. We lend cars to those we’ve just met so they can make a quick run into town for a bite of lunch while we refuel their airplane. There are many more forms of airport and aviator hospitality that we afford to both fellow aviators and folks who don’t know a thing about airports, airplanes, or flying. But should innocent questions take a turn towards subjects that seem inappropriate, we can remain courteous and polite and not answer. Furthermore, we can even ask why the person is asking that question in the first place. If their purpose is legitimate, then they will likely give a good reason.

So should someone from the TSA drop by and pay you a visit, any authority they have is limited to what the regulations permit. If they ask a question or ask to see something that goes beyond or is outside of their regulated administrative authority, then you have a choice. You decide.

Fly safe, and be secure!

Dave Hook, an expert on general aviation security, is president of Planehook Aviation Services, LLC in San Antonio, Texas.

People who read this article also read articles on airparks, airshow, airshows, avgas, aviation fuel, aviation news, aircraft owner, avionics, buy a plane, FAA, fly-in, flying, general aviation, learn to fly, pilots, Light-Sport Aircraft, LSA, and Sport Pilot.

Knowing a legitimate username and password pair is the basis for a soft attack against information systems. That is, a means of breaking into a computer system using someone else’s legitimate credentials. Continuing to use default log-in codes can set up the security or administrative staff to be unfairly accused of information theft.

If you, your company, or your airport makes use of CCTV systems for safety or security, make sure that the default log-in information is not still being used. You can check to see if the username and password are the defaults by going to the manufacturer’s operating manual.

Even if they are not, ask yourself if the person who installed the system is still with — and bonded by — the same company. If they are not and they established the username and password that is currently being used, it’s probably a good idea to change the password.

I’ve heard some security system installers suggest to airport managers that they shouldn’t change the log-in information, even when the manufacturer’s operating manual recommends that they do so shortly after installation and testing. The common reason given is so that vendors can quickly gain system access in the event that they need to make a system repair.

My question is simply this, “Did you buy the security equipment for the security of your airport and its assets or for the convenience of access for the security equipment vendor?”

If you can view your CCTV cameras remotely from a hand-held or other device, your system is likely vulnerable to a default credential attack. Caveat emptor!

Fly safe and be secure!

Dave Hook, an expert on general aviation security, is president of Planehook Aviation Services, LLC in San Antonio, Texas.

People who read this article also read articles on airparks, airshow, airshows, avgas, aviation fuel, aviation news, aircraft owner, avionics, buy a plane, FAA, fly-in, flying, general aviation, learn to fly, pilots, Light-Sport Aircraft, LSA, and Sport Pilot.

Security by Design, a part of the Association of Chief Police Officers and headquartered in London, England, created a practical toolkit for improving security. The toolkit deals with residential areas, but with a little imagination the concepts it presents can easily be applied to airports and airport businesses.

Click here to go to the toolkit. Note: You will need an Adobe Flash Player to make the toolkit work properly.

By clicking on the various scenarios and the red or green icons, you see both good and bad examples of applied security concepts.

Here are five scenarios that I think are especially applicable to airports and airport businesses:

1. Scenario 6: Climbing Aids
2. Scenario 8: Landscape Planning
3. Scenario 9: Street Lighting
4. Scenario 10: Front Door
5. Scenario 14: Dwelling Security Lighting

“If you’ve seen one airport, you’ve seen one airport.” This maxim hints at the many differences that exist between one airport and another, even if they appear to be quite similar at first glance. Toolkits like the one by Security by Design show good and bad examples of desired security effects and leave it up to the viewer to determine how to apply security concepts effectively to their own circumstances.

I’m a big believer in keeping things simple. I also believe that small changes can have big impacts. So as you go through the toolkit and click on the icons, think about how small changes can have a big impact on the protection of your airport, the FBO, your hangar, and so on. Could a garbage truck replace a dumpster so it’s too far from a fence or wall for someone to climb on top of and jump to the other side? Could shrubs and hedges be trimmed so as not to provide a hiding place for criminals? This toolkit should get you thinking.

Fly safe and be secure!

Dave Hook, an expert on general aviation security, is president of Planehook Aviation Services, LLC in San Antonio, Texas.

People who read this article also read articles on airparks, airshow, airshows, avgas, aviation fuel, aviation news, aircraft owner, avionics, buy a plane, FAA, fly-in, flying, general aviation, learn to fly, pilots, Light-Sport Aircraft, LSA, and Sport Pilot.

We are still way below the needed 25,000 respondents on the petition. When I last checked the site we were up to less than 5,700. That’s more than when we started, but not even close to what we need. Remember, those who register their disapproval of aviation user fees do NOT have to be general aviators. They can be family members, friends, acquaintances, and so on. We have until May 16.

Again, thanks to all who have stood up to be counted on this important issue.

Fly safe and be secure!

Dear Mr. President,

On behalf of those listed in the attachment and myself, I respectfully request that you remove from the current budget proposal the user fees for access to the skies of America. The attachment contains the names of fellow Americans who were unable to log in and be counted electronically using the WhiteHouse.gov petition web page concerning the aviation user fees due to problems with the website. This letter is a means to redress the shortcomings of the website and let their voices be heard.

General aviation is the cornerstone of air commerce. Few attain the title Pilot-in-Command by any other means than general aviation. Our flight instructors produce the majority of pilots which eventually fly the airliners that people rely upon for rapid transportation. Our pilots fly the rescue helicopters which transport the critically injured for timely medical treatment. Our many aviator volunteers give of their time and substance by flying in support of charitable activities; we built a bridge across the sky to resupply and rebuild an earthquake-torn Haiti and paid for it ourselves. These are but a few of the many ways that general aviation gives back to America’s communities and the world.

The proposed user fee will have far reaching negative consequences, many of which, we are sure, are unintended. The existing tax on aviation fuel already recovers costs for the use of the U.S. National Airspace System in a fair and equitable manner.

Please remove from your budget proposal the aviation user fees.

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.

Very respectfully,

David C. Hook

Dave Hook, an expert on general aviation security, is president of Planehook Aviation Services, LLC in San Antonio, Texas.

People who read this article also read articles on airparks, airshow, airshows, avgas, aviation fuel, aviation news, aircraft owner, avionics, buy a plane, FAA, fly-in, flying, general aviation, learn to fly, pilots, Light-Sport Aircraft, LSA, and Sport Pilot.

Perhaps there are many of you who couldn’t register and voice your disagreement with the proposed aviation user fee. Perhaps there aren’t many. I don’t know. But I’ve never been afraid of work, so I propose to gather your information and send it on.

For those who tried but were unable to raise their voice against user fees using the White House website, please send me the following information — the same requested by the White House website: First name, last name, email address, and ZIP code. Send your information to Planehook@hotmail.com with “User Fee Response” in the subject line. I will accept your information until 5 p.m. CDT on May 11.

I will draft a cover letter with an attachment containing your registration information. After I send the consolidated response to President Obama I will erase your personal information from my files.

Fly safe and be secure!

Dave Hook, an expert on general aviation security, is president of Planehook Aviation Services, LLC in San Antonio, Texas.

People who read this article also read articles on airparks, airshow, airshows, avgas, aviation fuel, aviation news, aircraft owner, avionics, buy a plane, FAA, fly-in, flying, general aviation, learn to fly, pilots, Light-Sport Aircraft, LSA, and Sport Pilot.