A Message from CCAA President David Lerner
President's Letter - May 2009

Tie Down Lease Agreements

Dear Fellow Pilots,

To those of you subject to the newly issued lease agreement covering tie downs and shade hangars, the Board of the Clark County Aviation Association has recommended that you not sign the agreement until such time as the Department of Aviation has reviewed our concerns and CCAA has had the opportunity to have the agreement reviewed by our legal counsel.

The above is a direct result of a Board meeting this past Tuesday, which included a full discussion with Cecil Johnson, Assistant Director for General Aviation and Ben Czyzewski, Airport Manager VGT of CCAA Member and Non-Member specific concerns involving each of the airports under the Department of Aviation.

By way of example of our concerns although not the only one by any means is the indemnity clause aptly numbered as Section 8 which reads as follows:

?Tenant agrees to indemnify and hold County forever harmless from and against all liability, loss, demand judgments or other expense, including, but not limited to, defense costs, expenses, and reasonable attorney fees, imposed upon the County by reason of injuries or death of persons, including wrongful death, and damages to property cause during and because of Tenant?s use or occupancy of Airport property or the Premises or any actions or non-action of Tenant, its officers, employees, agents, guests, or other representatives, including movement of aircraft or vehicles, provided. however, that such indemnity will not apply as to any negligent act or omission solely that of County, its employees, agents or representatives.?

We urge you to follow the CCAA recommendation. Please remember that this document affects all of the General Aviation airports under the jurisdiction of the Department of Aviation.

Thank you for your support.

David Lerner, President
Clark County Aviation Association

Withdraw damaging security directive, say GA groups
By AOPA ePublishing staff

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) should withdraw a security directive impacting pilots at air carrier airports so that it can consult affected parties and find a sensible alternative, general aviation leaders said May 19.

In a joint letter to U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, AOPA President Craig Fuller and leaders of other trade associations wrote that Security Directive 8F (SD-08F) could adversely affect GA operators and limit GA pilots’ access to aircraft and certain airports. The TSA should withdraw the directive and initiate the appropriate rulemaking process for a change of that scope, they said.

“We have turned to the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the TSA, because this security directive could have a far-reaching impact on pilots,” Andy Cebula, AOPA executive vice president of government affairs, explained. “Because the TSA never consulted the people who know the most about general aviation, it developed a set of requirements that ignore the realities of general aviation flying and the need for access at airports”.

Effective June 1, SD-08F requires pilots to undergo a security threat assessment and receive a security badge to continue to have unescorted access to air carrier airports. The letter points out that the badge requirements could impose an overwhelming administrative burden on GA operations because GA flights often occur when airport staff are unavailable to act as escorts. Therefore, GA pilots would have to apply for and receive identification media from every regulated airport they may ever need to visit—not just the airport where they are based.

“Some airport operators may, in an attempt to avoid the administrative burden, choose to limit GA access to their airports, which could put the airport operator in violation of federal grant assurances that require airports receiving federal funds to be open to the public,” the letter adds.

Because the security directive is classified as “sensitive security information,” many of its requirements become unexplained mandates to pilots at their airports. The directive never underwent a public comment period, when industry experts, affected parties, and concerned citizens could have alerted the TSA of the measures’ potential consequences.

“Many of the problems with the regulatory changes in SD-08F could have been avoided had the TSA chosen to implement them using the federal rulemaking process allowing those most familiar with the intricacies of general aviation to provide their comments,” the letter says.

AOPA has urged the TSA to accept industry input since the directive was released in December 2008. In response, the TSA earlier this year postponed the SD-08F compliance deadline to June 1 and said that it would address industry concerns. Yet, as more information about the directive becomes public, concerns mount about the directive’s potential effect on GA. With the deadline approaching, AOPA urges members to call their legislators to express concern with the measures. For contact information, check the House of Representatives and Senate Web sites.

CCAA-PAC Addresses problems with Resolution SJR #3

CCAA's Pilot Advisory Committee has prepared a rebuttal letter to address misleading statements and errors of fact in Resolution SJR #3.



You can read the full text of CCAA-Pac's letter by clicking the following link:   Rebuttal letter from CCAA-PAC

Letter from CCAA President David Lerner to Commissioner Collins

You can read the full text of David Lerner's letter to Commisioner Collins by clicking the following link:
Letter from D. Lerner to T. Collins

TSA enacts security interrogations at GA airports under new "Playbook" program

One of the primary goals of the Centennial Airport Business Association (CABA) is to provide real time alerts and urgent communications to our membership and the local aviation community we serve. With that in mind please read the following important communication below:

It has come to our attention that as of December 20, 2008 the Transportation Security Association (TSA) has started to conduct security interrogations at general aviation airports using a newly implemented program called "Playbook". Unannounced, the TSA set up a table at the entrances of FBOs at the Bedford, MA and Nashville, TN airports early in the morning to conduct security interrogations of the FBO, aircraft, pilots and passengers. As FBO employees reported for work, TSA agents checked credentials, frisked employees, and searched the FBO premises and aircraft. Similarly, pilots and departing passengers were also frisked and pilot's required to open their aircraft to security inspections. We have also learned that the TSA will not only be checking transient general aviation at FBOs, but that they also intend to conduct these security interrogations at private hangars and flight operations.

The National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) was told by TSA attorneys that the "Playbook" security interrogations were beyond the authority of the TSA Regional Offices. When the NBAA asked for a copy of the "Playbook," TSA officials declined. NBAA has learned that further TSA interrogations under the "Playbook" program are scheduled to be conducted at Dallas, TX Part 139 airports soon. It should be noted that even though at this point only Part 139 airports have been targeted, operators should expect the TSA to include reliever airports like Centennial and Rocky Mountain Metro under the "Playbook" program.

These new TSA tactics seem to be stemming from the Large Aircraft Security Program (LASP). As we have reported in previous email alerts, the TSA has a Notice of Proposed Rule Making(NPRM) out for comment on the LASP. Understanding this and the new information at hand, it is even more clearly imperative that we all take the time to write our comments and post them to the NPRM. We are waiting to see if the NBAA will open a link for comment on the new "Playbook" program. In the meantime, please use the link below for comment on the NPRM. We have also provided a link to the NBAA's dedicated LASP NPRM page. Additionally CABA, the Centennial Airport Pilot's Lunch, and the NBAA are working to put together a town meeting on February 10th, 2009 to discuss the LASP NPRM and the additional new issues at hand. Please stay tuned to CABA's website or become a member for the latest information on that meeting.

It seems the TSA is actively trying to get its arms around and strangle general aviation. It's up to us as operators, businesses, and aviation professionals to make sure that our industry remains viable, safe, and secure from these looming threats.

Another Walker Piece of Misinformation
By: Bill Tisdale

Randy Walker has stated that "Jean will not close and is compatible with the new IVP Airport".
Randy Walker is not a pilot.

The current uses at Jean are; Glider "ride for hire" Business, two different Parachute Jump Business operations, their landing zone is within the IVP airport boundary, the Soaring Club which has been at Jean for 20 years, flight school training operations from LAS, VGT, HND and 61B airports and the aerobatic box west of the airport. Yes, Maverick, Sundance and others use Jean (0L7) for their training.

The current airspace design under the IVP study puts the Jean airport within the Class D surface area. That means that there can be no operations at Jean without first contacting a control tower 4 miles away. The FAF for landing to the south at IVP will be approximately at the Jean I-15 exit ramp, right over the casino and the Rwy 20R/02L downwind. Estimated altitude at the FAF would be 1500ft AGL and descending. The traffic patterns at Jean are 800-1000 ft AGL. I'm not sure I would want to be on a left downwind to 02L with a heavy on approach to IVP only 500ft or less above me and behind me.

I am sure the new tower at IVP, 4 miles away, would not want to be controlling an airfield within their Class D surface area that they cannot see. An airport that has two runways and at times as many as 6 or seven aircraft in the traffic pattern at the same time or within 2 miles and entering the pattern.

The current airspace designs also include either Class C airspace or Class B expansion. Both airspace expansions would kill all soaring operations within the Ivanpah Valley south of Las Vegas. IAW 91.215 gliders with or without transponders are not authorized within Class C or Class B airspace, and they are not authorized to operate above the airspace and below 10,000ft MSL.