DOCSLIB.ORG

Despite the Devastating Tragedy of the 9/11 Terrorist Attack on This

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Despite the Devastating Tragedy of the 9/11 Terrorist Attack on This General Aviation Airports Pose a Threat to National Security Nearly eleven years have elapsed since that fateful September day when Mohammed Atta commandeered American Airlines Flight 11 and crashed it into the North Tower of the World Trade Center.1 A few minutes later fellow terrorist Marwan al Shehhi steered United Airlines Flight 175 into the South Tower.2 Both Atta and Shehhi obtained pilot's licenses and received large jet flight simulator instruction at Huffman Aviation in Venice Florida. They also trained at Jones Aviation in Sarasota, Florida.3 Hani Hanjour, who piloted American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon, was rejected from a flight school in his home country before receiving pilot training in the U.S. After being turned away by the flight school in Saudi Arabia he was accepted at Arizona Aviation. From there he went on to obtain both a private and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued commercial pilot certification. Hanjour then returned to Saudi Arabia where he was denied admission to a civil aviation school. Upon returning to the U.S. Hanjour trained on a Boeing 737 simulator at the Pan Am International Flight Academy in Mesa, Arizona.4 He also trained and practiced at Air Fleet Training Systems in Teterboro, New Jersey, and Caldwell Flight Academy in Fairfield, New Jersey.5 United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed short of its presumed Washington DC target, came down in a field in Pennsylvania. This aircraft was piloted by Ziad Jarrah6 who received his private pilot training at the Florida Flight Training Center in Venice, Florida.7 In addition he trained at the Hortman Aviation,8 a training school which serves the Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware region.9 Within the space of seventy-seven minutes, terrorists transformed four commercial aircraft into weapons of mass destruction. "More than 2,600 people died at the World Trade Center; 125 died at the Pentagon; 256 died on the four planes. The death toll surpassed that at Pearl Harbor."10 Though the terrorist pilots and co-conspirators trained at U.S. general aviation flight schools and all were from foreign countries, there continue to be serious failings in the U.S. security program for monitoring general aviation aircraft and airports, especially in regards to the training of foreign pilots. Since 9/11, commercial airline passengers are subjected to heightened security checks every time they board an aircraft. By contrast general aviation pilots and passengers, including foreign flight training students, are spared this inconvenience even though "U.S. government threat assessments have discussed plans by terrorist organizations to use general aviation aircraft to conduct attacks against U.S. targets."11 U.S. Government Accounting Office Report on General Aviation Security - Key Points The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) was established in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks. It is charged with the task of ensuring national and aviation security in this country. Only scheduled commercial airline operations are required to abide by the TSA's full airport screening program. General aviation aircraft are not. According to the TSA, "General Aviation (GA)...accounts for some 77 percent of all flights in the United States. It encompasses a wide range of activities, from pilot training to flying for business and personal reasons, delivery of emergency medical services, and sightseeing. Operations range from short-distance flights in single-engine light aircraft to long-distance international flights in corporate-owned wide-bodies, and from emergency aero-medical helicopter operations to airships seen at open-air sporting 1 events. The sole characteristic that General Aviation operations have in common is that flights are not routinely scheduled; they are on-demand."12 Unfortunately the TSA is extraordinarily lax in addressing the significant dangers posed by general aviation aircraft. In fact, the TSA has neither developed nor implemented any federally mandated security measures for aircraft which weigh less than 12,500 pounds.13 In July of 2012 the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report identifying some of the weaknesses found in the remarkably few general aviation security requirements that do exist. The GAO report, titled “General Aviation Security: Weaknesses Exist in TSA's Process for Ensuring Foreign Flight Students Do Not Pose a Security Threat,” 14 was described as a public version of a document released in June of 2012, parts of which were deemed too sensitive for public disclosure: "…this report omits sensitive information regarding potential vulnerabilities we identified related to TSA's vetting process for foreign nationals seeking flight training, and associated recommendations we made. In addition, we have omitted sensitive background information on the potential damage that could be caused by different types of general aviation aircraft crashing into buildings."15 Key points raised in the report are bulleted below. Serious Flaws in TSA Program for Monitoring Students Pilots In recognition that terrorists responsible for the September 11, 2001, attacks learned to fly at U.S. flight schools, the Alien Flight Student Program (AFSP) was put in place "to help determine whether foreign students enrolling at flight schools pose a security threat."16 Unfortunately, the "TSA has not ensured that all the foreign nationals seeking flight training in the United States have been vetted through AFSP prior to beginning this training or established controls to help verify the identity of individuals seeking flight training who claim U.S. citizenship."17 The report found that, "TSA's analysis indicated that some of the 25,599 foreign nationals in the FAA airmen registry were not in the TSA AFSP database, indicating that these individuals had not applied for the AFSP or been vetted by TSA before taking flight training and receiving an FAA airmen certificate…an additional number…had not been successfully vetted…or received permission from TSA to begin flight training."18 Shockingly, since the vetting does not occur until after the foreign national may start flight training, even under the current system, "…foreign nationals with the intent to do harm, such as three of the pilots and leaders of the September 11 terrorist attacks, could have already obtained the training needed to operate an aircraft before they received any type of vetting."19 Moreover, "TSA's Program Manager for AFSP could not explain with certainty why some of the foreign nationals applying for FAA airman certificates may not have been vetted through TSA's security threat assessment process."20 Foreign Pilots May Be in the Country Illegally According to the report, the "AFSP is not designed to determine whether a foreign flight student entered the country legally; thus a foreign national can be approved for training through AFSP after entering the country illegally."21 In fact, "…according to TSA, prospective flight students may apply for AFSP before entering the United States, rendering moot the question of whether the foreign national had entered the country legally or overstayed."22 2 The report further noted instances of overstays which occur when individuals exceed their authorized period of admission and remain in the country illegally. Three of the six September 2001 hijackers were in violation of their temporary visa agreements. The TSA admits that the security threat assessment is not designed to determine if flight students are in the country legally. "TSA officials acknowledged that it is possible for a foreign national to be approved by TSA through AFSP and to complete flight training after entering the country illegally or overstaying his or her allotted time to be in the country legally."23 No TSA Security Program for Aircraft Weighing Less Than 12,500 Pounds The TSA has no mandatory security requirements for aircraft that weigh less than 12,500 pounds.24 This means that there are no federal standards in place for screening foreign and domestic students, pilots and passengers prior to boarding general aviation aircraft that fall within this weight class. Some Aircraft Weighing More Than 12,500 Pounds Exempt From TSA Not all aircraft weighing more than 12,500 pounds are required to abide by TSA security measures - an estimated 9,900 privately owned aircraft weighing greater than 12,500, some of which rival commercial aircraft in size, are exempt from TSA security requirements. Aviation industry associations claim that requiring security measures for these aircraft would "impose substantial logistical and cost burdens on the aviation industry."25 Thus, once again, loopholes designed to protect the financial interests of the far less than one percent of the population that can afford to own a private jet, continues to take precedence over national security, even though the report clearly stated that, "Analysis by the Homeland Security Institute indicates that some of these larger aircraft may be able to cause significant damage in terms of fatalities and economic costs, particularly general aviation aircraft with a maximum takeoff weight of 71,000 pounds. According to industry data, there are over 800 general aviation aircraft weighing over 71,000 pounds."26 The GAO report revealed that TSA mandated security standards pertain primarily to scheduled public and private charter aircraft with 61 or more seats or to some chartered aircraft that weigh over 100,309.3 pounds.27 Thus there are no mandated security measures whatsoever for the vast majority of aircraft and airports in the U.S. 2010 Investigation of Illegal Boston Flight School A 2010 Immigrations and U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement (ICE) investigation of a Boston area flight school exposed the consequences of the TSA's lack of security measures at general aviation airports. In this case, the then 26 year old Thiago DeJesus, a Brazilian immigrant who owned TJ Inc., a private flight training school,28 was in the country illegally. Nonetheless, he held two Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) airman certificates, one as an Airline Transport Pilot and one as a Flight Instructor.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Gardiner V. Boundary County Bd. of Com'rs Clerk's Record V. 1 Dckt
    UIdaho Law Digital Commons @ UIdaho Law Idaho Supreme Court Records & Briefs 6-18-2008 Gardiner v. Boundary County Bd. Of Com'rs Clerk's Record v. 1 Dckt. 35007 Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/ idaho_supreme_court_record_briefs Recommended Citation "Gardiner v. Boundary County Bd. Of Com'rs Clerk's Record v. 1 Dckt. 35007" (2008). Idaho Supreme Court Records & Briefs. 2011. https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/idaho_supreme_court_record_briefs/2011 This Court Document is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ UIdaho Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Idaho Supreme Court Records & Briefs by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ UIdaho Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO PATRICK GARDINER AND ADA ) SUPREME COURT NO. 35007 GARDINER, husband and wife ) ) PlaintiffsIRespondents, ) District Court No. CV 2006 339 vs. ) 1 BOUNDARY COUNTY BOARD ) OF COMMISSIONERS, 1 ) DefendantsIAppellants. ) CLERK'S RECORD ON APPEAL Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District of the State of ldaho, in and for the County of Boundary. HON. JAMES R. MICHAUD Senior District Judge Paul William Vogel Philip H. Robinson PO Box 1828 PO Box 1405 Sandpoint, ldaho 83864 Sandpoint, ldaho 83864 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT CLERK'S RECORD ON APPEAL I TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER OF ACTIONS PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW Filed September Ilth, 2006 ORDER GOVERNING JUDICAL REVIEW Filed September
    [Show full text]
  • 2.0 Inventory of Existing Conditions
    2014 Airport Master Plan Narrative Report 2.0 INVENTORY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.1 INTRODUCTION AND PLANNING CONTEXT 2.1.1 GENERAL The purpose of the inventory is to summarize existing conditions of all the facilities at the Priest River Municipal Airport (1S6) as well as summarize other pertinent information relating to the community and the airport background, airport role, surrounding environment and various operational and other significant characteristics. The information in this chapter describes the current status of the Priest River Municipal Airport and provides the baseline for determining future facility needs. Information was obtained through various justifiable mediums including: consultant research, review of existing documents, interviews and conversations with airport stakeholders including the airport sponsor (Bonner County), City of Priest River, airport tenants, Idaho Transportation Department - Division of Aeronautics (ITD) and other knowledgeable sources. 2.1.2 FAA NATIONAL PLAN OF INTEGRATED AIRPORT SYSTEMS (NPIAS) AND ASSET STUDY The United States has developed a national airport system. Known as the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS), this system identifies public-use airports considered by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), state aviation agencies, and local planning organizations to be in the national interest and essential for the U.S air transportation system. Per the 2013- 2017 NPIAS Report to Congress, guiding principles of the NPIAS include: The NPIAS will provide a safe, efficient and integrated system of airports; The NPIAS will ensure an airport system that is in a state of good repair, remains safe and is extensive, providing as many people as possible with convenient access to air transportation The NPIAS will support a variety of critical national objectives such as defense, emergency readiness, law enforcement, and postal delivery.
    [Show full text]
  • A Case for Always Flying the Aircraft…Even When It Won't
    AE S RONAUTIC Winter 2011 Serving Idaho’s Aviation Community for over 60 Years Vol 57, Issue 1 A Case for Always Flying the Aircraft…Even When It Won’t By: Dennis Scifres I began a Early one October morning in 2008, slow left turn eager to put in a day of deer hunting to remain up on the Middle Fork of the Salmon, within the I headed out to the Caldwell Airport canyon and felt and my trusty Cessna 185. Although I a very slight was very anxious to get airborne, it had bump in the just come out of maintenance, and I control yoke as wanted to be especially meticulous with I moved the the preflight and every checklist item. ailerons. I tried In spite of my caution, I lifted off of to increase the runway 12 by 7:15. It was just bank, but beginning to get light in the east as I nothing headed toward the Middle Fork. happened. The control yoke As I climbed out, I heard Boise went well Approach talking to an airliner, asking beyond its The cockpit shortly after landing. Photo by Dennis Scifres about any icing conditions they may normal stop without a corresponding returned to a nearly level position and have encountered. Other than light rime increase in turn. I then reversed the then began to increase bank again, icing between 14,500 and 16,500, they yoke, moving it all the way to the right, stopping at about 25 degrees, all without reported nothing else. Icing would not still with no corresponding change.
    [Show full text]
  • Anacortes Airport Wildlife Hazard Management Plan (March 2015)
    Anacortes Airport Wildlife Hazard Management Plan Anacortes, WA Prepared for: Port of Anacortes 100 Commercial Ave Anacortes, WA 98221 Developed by: WHPacific Inc. 9755 SW Barnes Road, Ste. 300 Portland, OR 97225 March 13, 2015 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY III 3.6.2 Rodents 16 3.6.3 Insects and Other Invertebrates 16 SIGNATORIES IV 3.6.4 Grains and Seeds 17 PREFACE V 3.6.5 Trash, Debris, and Food Handouts 17 3.6.6 Animal Carcasses 17 TABLE OF REVISIONS VI 4.0 – PERMITS AND REGULATIONS 17 LIST OF ACRONYMS VII 4.1 OVERVIEW 17 1 - INTRODUCTION 1 4.2 WASHINGTON WILDLIFE REGULATIONS 17 1.1 OVERVIEW 1 4.3 FEDERAL REGULATIONS 18 1.2 PROBLEM SPECIES 2 4.3.1 FAA Regulations, Advisory Circulars, and 1.3 PURPOSE AND SCOPE 2 CertAlerts 18 2.0 – AUTHORITIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 3 4.3.2 National Environmental Policy Act 18 4.4 WILDLIFE CATEGORIES 18 2.1 WILDLIFE HAZARD WORKING GROUP (WHWG) 3 4.5 GENERAL REGULATIONS FOR WILDLIFE CONTROL 19 2.2 PERSONS RESPONSIBLE FOR PLAN 4.5.1 Birds 20 IMPLEMENTATION 4 4.6 MAMMALS 21 2.2.1 Director of Operations 4 4.6.1 Game Mammals 21 2.2.2 Airport Wildlife Manager (AWM) 4 4.6.2 Furbearers, Predatory, and Non-game 2.2.3 Airport Personnel 5 Mammals 21 2.2.4 Federal Aviation Administration 6 4.6.3 Feral Domestic Mammals 21 2.2.5 Contract Airport Wildlife Biologist 4.7 REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS 21 and/or Animal Control Specialist/Trapper 6 4.8 WILDLIFE/HABITAT ISSUES OF SPECIAL CONCERN 22 3.0 – HABITAT MANAGEMENT 7 4.8.1 Federal Threatened and Endangered Species 22 3.1 OVERVIEW 7 4.8.2 Avoiding Impacts to Threatened
    [Show full text]
  • Spring 2011 Serving Idaho’S Aviation Community for Over 60 Years Vol 57, Issue 2 the Amazing Rescue of Fango 45
    AE S RONAUTIC Spring 2011 Serving Idaho’s Aviation Community for over 60 Years Vol 57, Issue 2 The Amazing Rescue of Fango 45 By: William C. Miller, with Frederic M. Wilson and Michael P. McGrath On 8 April 1982, the following crew conversation takes place inside FANGO 43, an Idaho Air National Guard (ANG) RF-4C flying a twilight low-level radar mission over eastern Oregon: 43 PILOT: “Ground speed set at 480.” 43 Weapons Systems Officer (WSO): “Okay, turn right to two- zero-three.” 43 PILOT: “Steady two-zero-three.” 43 WSO: “Okay, come one-half left and hold that.” 43 PILOT: “Rawj.” 43 WSO: “Clear your clock. After we Idaho Air National Guard RF-4Cs. Photo courtesy of Bill Miller. hack, turn left two-zero-three and hold that ‘till we cross the target. 43 PILOT: “Mike, that’s Fred, and over there to join up? He really Ready, ready—Hack!” he’s in big trouble! We’re needs our help.” 43 PILOT: “My clock’s runnin’; I’m abandoning this low-level, and I’m SLC: “FANGO 43, squawk ident. turning to two-zero-three…okay; headin’ over that way right now; Radar contact, 105 west of Boise.” steady on!” coming to a two-two-zero heading.” 43: “Roger. He’s probably heading 43 WSO: “We’ll cross the target at toward Boise; should be around fifty-two seconds. Then climb FANGO 43 was about 20 miles east 250 knots.” straight ahead to 7,300 feet, switch of FANGO 45, and their new SLC: “Okay FANGO 43, I’ve got a to TAO, make a 45-degree-bank southwesterly heading would quickly 4300 squawk in that vicinity, left turn to one-eight-five.” put them close to FANGO 45, who bearing two-zero-zero for 21.” 43 PILOT: “Okay ….
    [Show full text]
  • Comprehensive Plan
    Draft Port of Anacortes Comprehensive Plan 2008 Draft The Comprehensive Plan Update was developed thanks to the time and dedicated effort of the meeting attendees and committee members listed below. Comprehensive Plan Update Commissioners Planning Team Steering Committee Steve Hopley Becky Darden Mitch Everton Pat D. Mooney Jenkins Dossen Dale Fowler Ray Niver Bob Elsner Kristi Gabrielse Keith Rubin Dale Fowler Laura Hennessy Bill Short John Hachey Bob Hyde Chris Johnson Kirk Kennedy Executive Director Julie Johnson Lindsey John Pope Bob Hyde Connie Thoman Cynthia Richardson Gary Robinson Project Manager MAKERS architecture & urban design Gerald Hansmire, partner Spencer Swain Marc Estvold, AIA Bill Turner Julie Bassuk, partner, AICP Shawna Michaud, planner Meeting Attendees Fred Abelman David DeBruler Marv Klinger Ray Robinson Chuck Ackerman Tim DeLapp Elaine Lachlan Andy Rothman Gary Adams Greg Denman Tom Lane Rey Rubalcava Sue Athmann Paul Dinnel Bill & Darith Langjahr Karen Rubalcava Robert Atterberry Mick Donahue Bev Larson Geri Rubin Pam Allen Lana Dunning Vern Lauredsen Andy Ruthman Farah Ally Gail & Mark Dupar Mike Lewis John Sanford Dave Ashbach Jay Field Randy Longerich Burt Sawade Ross O. Barnes John Firlotte Michael Magerkurth Lon Schofield Jennifer Barrett Tom Flanagan Lea Mayberry Erik Schorr Pat Barrett Carl Frantz Bill McGaw Andy Schwenk Rita Ball Rudy Gahler Michelle McKinnon Vince Sellen Jim & Mary Baumann Norma Jean & Henry Germond Denis Mezza Art Shotwell Phil & Cindy Becker Lyndon Greene Mike Millen Cynthia & Doug
    [Show full text]
  • Comprehensive Plan 2016
    ANACORTES Comprehensive Plan 2016 July, 2016 Anacortes is a unique, creative, vibrant and caring maritime community that supports cultural and economic diversity and vitality, balances sustainable growth with respect for our history, and protects our natural environment and public lands for future generations. ANACORTES 2016 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN VOL. 1 Page I-2 Acknowledgments Mayor Community Advisory Laurie Gere Committee City Council Lin Folsom Nick Rennis Ryan Walters Cynthia Richardson Brad Adams James Taylor Eric Johnson Walter Guterbock Matt Miller Vernon Lauridsen John Archibald Bruce McDougal Liz Lovelett Andy Stewart Erica Pickett Gary Christensen Adrian Fewing Wayne Huseby Planning Commission Tal Jackson Adam Farnsworth Kirk Kennedy Christina Hansen Grace Pollard Curt Oppel Consultant Team Marty Laumbattus Bob Bengford AICP, MAKERS Jeremy McNett Rachel Miller, MAKERS Christine Cleland-McGrath Julie Bassuk AICP, MAKERS Joming Lau, MAKERS Deborah Munkberg AICP, Three Square Blocks City Staff Casey Bradfield, Three Square Blocks Don Measamer, Planning, Community & Economic Greg Easton, Property Counselors Development Director Victor Salemann, TSINW Libby Grage, Planning Manager David Markley, TSINW Fred Buckenmeyer, Public Works Director Eric Shjarback, City Engineer Rob Hoxie, GIS Coordinator Gary Robinson, Parks & Recreation Director Steve Hoglund, Finance Director Richard Curtis, Fire Chief Bonnie Bowers, Police Chief ANACORTES 2016 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN VOL. 1 Page I-3 Contents: Volume 1 Goals & Policies INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………I-6
    [Show full text]
  • 2005 WPA Toys for Tots Campaign and Fly-Out
    Washington Pilots Association IN THIS ISSUE: Here Comes 2006 . 2 WASAR Report . 3 Airports . 5 WPA Chapters . 6 Classifieds . 7 Crossword Puzzle . 7 ings Events Calendar . 8 ServingW Washington Pilots Since 1960 December 2005 - January 2006 2005 WPA Toys for Tots Campaign and Fly-Out Colleen Turner, Vice President, Greater Seattle chapter During the holiday season, the Greater Seattle, Green River, Paine Field and Harvey Field chapters of the WPA are joining forces to support the U.S. Marine Corps Re- serve Toys for Tots program while promoting the benefits of general aviation. This is the thirteenth consecutive year that WPA has participated in this program. By the time you read this article, WPA members will have placed Toys for Tots collection barrels at various businesses located on airports throughout Puget Sound. Over the next few weeks, please drop a new, unwrapped toy or game into one of the collection barrels and help You can participate in this year’s Toys for Tots pro- many less fortunate children in the greater Puget Sound gram by: area wake up to a brighter and happier Holiday. • Bringing a new unwrapped toy or game to your local Through its Toys for Tots program, the U.S. Marine airport and placing it in a Toys for Tots collection barrel Corps Reserve has been collecting and distributing toys • Volunteering to fly with a Marine to collect toys on to needy children nationwide since 1947. The primary Saturday, December 17 objectives of the Toys for Tots programs are to help • Joining us for the Holiday toy unloading and gather- needy youngsters experience the joy of Christmas and to ing party at Galvin Flying Services (located on the east deliver, through a shiny new toy, a message of hope that side of Boeing Field) on Saturday, December 17 from will motivate them to grow into responsible, productive, Toy collection barrels are ready to receive your donations at airports 11:00am – 2:00pm patriotic citizens and community leaders.
    [Show full text]
  • CPA 18-00495) Attachment C5
    Dickey Pit (CPA 18-00495) Attachment C5 4 2 1 3 5 6 Dickey Pit (CPA 18-00495) Attachment C6 ADMINISTRATIVE MaNUAL AirportsWashington and Compatible State WashingtonWashingtonWashingtonWashingtonAirportsWashington and Compatible State StateState StateLandState Use LandWashingtonWashingtonAirportsWashingtonWashington Use and CompatibleGuidebook StateLandState State State Use AirportsAirportsAirportsAirportsAirports and and and and andCompatible Compatible GuidebookCompatible Compatible Compatible Land Land Land Land Land Use Use Use Use Use AirportsAirportsAirports and and andGuidebook Compatible Compatible Compatible Land Land Land Use Use Use M 3074.00 GuidebookGuidebookGuidebookGuidebook GuidebookGuidebookGuidebookGuidebook January 2011 Aviation Division Draft January 4, 2011 DraftDraft DraftJanuaryDraft January January January4, 2011 4, 2011 4, 4, 2011 2011 DraftDraft January January 4, 2011 4, 2011 DraftDraft JanuaryDraft January January 4, 2011 4, 20114, 2011 Dickey Pit (CPA 18-00495) Attachment C6 An Overview of Airport Land Use Compatibility Planning Chapter 1 Airports and Surrounding Land Uses Evergreen Field What is compatibility? 1959 Most people are familiar with the negatives associated with being located near an airport, particularly such things as noise, vibration, odors, and accident risks. Fewer people understand the effect that adjacent land uses can have on airport activities. Development around an airport can have direct adverse consequences to airport safety, efficiency, operation, and economic viability. Tall buildings, towers, power lines, and even tall trees can be hazardous obstructions for landing and departing aircraft. In addition, development near an airport may reduce property available for aviation operations and safety areas. Indirectly, incompatible development can lead to demands for limitations on the airport activity. Ultimately, incompatible development around public use airports 1996 may result in loss of the facility.
    [Show full text]
  • Repealing Ordinance 2676
    • • ORDINANCE NO. 26'f S AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO LAND USE; REPEALING ORDINANCE 2676; NEW INTERIM ZONING FOR PORT-OWNED PROPERTY AT THE ANACORTES AIRPORT; AND PROVIDING FOR ADDITIONAL LAND USE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND PLANNING POLICIES FOR PORT PROPERTY NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANACORTES DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 1. SECTION 1. RECITALS AND FINDINGS. 1.1 In 2001 the Port of Anacortes ("Port") sought and secured a Superior Court ruling clarifying the separate responsibilities and jurisdiction of the Port and the City of Anacortes ("City") as to the Anacortes Airport ("Airport"). Order Granting and Denying Motion for Summary Judgment on Preemption ("Preemption Order"); and 1.2 This Preemption Order stated that "The City may not be able to stop or regulate airplane or airport operations, safety design features, or noise emissions. However, the City can use its police powers, particularly its land use controls, to anticipate, abate, mitigate and otherwise respond to the effects of having an airport in its jurisdiction;" and 1.3 This Preemption Order went on to state that "City's authority would include berms, buffers, nuisance abatement structures on the site, and control of incompatible uses on and off the site. The preemption doctrine does not affect a local government's ability to enforce reasonable permitting and mitigation requirements;" and 1.4 The Preemption Order makes it clear that while the City "is preempted from considering the necessity, or the number or the existence" of facilities
    [Show full text]
  • US Customs and Border Protection Guide for Private Flyers
    U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION GUIDE FOR PRIVATE FLYERS TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction 2. The Terrorism and Narcotics Smuggling Threats 3. Scope and Definitions 4. Inward Flights A. Prior to Arrival • Providing Notification to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) • Hours of Service • What to Report • Short Flights B. Airports • Designated Airports • International Airports • Landing Rights Airports • "User-Fee" Airports • Other Airports C. Special Reporting Requirements • Southern Border, Pacific, Gulf of Mexico, and Atlantic Coastlines • Flights to and From the U.S. Virgin Islands • Air Taxis and Charters • Entry and Clearance-Cuba • Exemption from Special Landing Requirements • In Case of Emergency • Changing Destination en Route D. Upon Arrival • Travel Document Requirements for Persons Arriving in the U.S. • Plant and Animal Quarantines of the Department of Agriculture • U.S. Health and Human Services – Center for Disease Control • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • Documentation and Examination on Arrival E. Declarations, Penalties, and Other Fees • User Fees and Decals • Report of Currency and Other Monetary Instruments • Personal Exemptions • Penalties for Violations F. Importation of an Aircraft • Importing a Private Aircraft 5. Outward Flights • Advance Notice of Arrival in Canada and Mexico • Exporting Private Aircraft 1 Updated March 2008 6. Other Requirements for Commercial Operators • Advance Passenger Information System (APIS) • Automated Manifest Systems (AMS) • Permits • International Carrier Bonds • Commercial Aircraft "User-Fee" Requirements Appendix I. List of Airports Where CBP Service is Normally Available II. Frequently used forms III. Frequently used Web sites INTRODUCTION The CBP Guide for Private Flyers is your guide; it’s written for private and corporate pilots, whether you’re on a business or pleasure flight, whether you’re going to or arriving from foreign countries.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Airports Where CBP Inspection Services Are Normally Available
    List of Airports where CBP Inspection Services are Normally Available United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regulations governing landing requirements and procedures for private aircraft arriving in to the United States are listed in Title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 122 – Air Commerce Regulations. As defined by regulation, CBP has the authority to limit the locations where private aircraft entering the U.S. from a foreign area may land. As such, private aircraft must land at the airport designated in their APIS transmission unless instructed otherwise by CBP or changes to the airport designation are required for aircraft and/or airspace safety as directed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) flight services. In general, the first landing of a private aircraft entering the United States from a foreign area will be: . at a designated international airport (see §122.13); . at a landing rights airport if permission to land has been granted (see §122.14); or . at a designated user fee airport if permission to land has been granted (see §122.15). In all cases, permission to land – except in the case of emergency or forced landings – will be denied if the pilot of a private aircraft arriving from a foreign port or place fails to submit an electronic manifest and notice of arrival (APIS manifest) pursuant to §122.22. Below is a list of airports where CBP Inspection Services are normally available for non-precleared private aircraft arrivals. Direct coordination with the CBP airport of arrival is critical. CBP airport operations across the country have different operational hours and different operational requirements (e.g., Telephonic Notification Requirements, International Garbage Handling, Landing Rights, Overflight Exemptions, Permission to Land, etc.).
    [Show full text]