Over the past several months, as you may know, AOPA has received an increasing number of reports from our members who have been stopped and searched by agents from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

AOPA has demanded to know why pilots who’ve done nothing wrong have been surrounded by armed agents while their belongings and airplanes have been exhaustively searched.

But every response we’ve received from CBP so far has been completely unsatisfactory.

It’s become clear that this is not a battle we can win by working with federal law enforcement agencies.

Instead, we’re going to need the help of Congress. We’re going to need our allies in the U.S. House and Senate to shine a bright spotlight on these abuses and make sure they stop.

And to strengthen this effort, I’m asking you to do two things.

First, if you have been subjected to one of these searches, please provide AOPA with details of the incident. You can click here to fill out a special questionnaire on our web site, or call our AOPA Pilot Information Center at 1-800-USA-AOPA to report your experience. The more information we have about these tactics, the better able we’ll be to fight back and protect your freedom to fly from this latest attack on general aviation.

Second, please help strengthen our hand in Congress by making a special contribution to the AOPA Political Action Committee (AOPA PAC) today. AOPA PAC is the only arm of AOPA that can provide direct support to those in Congress who help lead our legislative and political battles. What’s more, the dollars we raise can be monitored online by every member of Congress and their staffs.

Your contribution today will send a loud, clear message to these elected officials that those in Congress who lead the way to stop these aggressive tactics and protect our freedom to fly will have our strong support at election time. There’s no more powerful way for you to help set the stage for victory in this crucial effort than through your AOPA PAC support today.

In past battles, AOPA PAC’s strength has had a huge impact on our success.

Pilots represent only one-quarter of one percent of the population. But AOPA PAC provides the rock-solid foundation to make sure that, when pilots speak, Congress listens. And only individual members of AOPA can give to AOPA PAC. We can’t accept support from corporations or non-members. That’s why I’m asking for your generous AOPA PAC support as we reach out to Congress to stop these intrusive search tactics against pilots like you.

You’ll be hearing more from AOPA on this issue – a lot more. We’re committed to fight as long as it takes to win this battle and protect your rights as a pilot.

More questions than answers in FAA data distribution policy
August 6, 2013 By Dan Namowitz
The FAA’s proposed policy for disseminating data digitally to the public is unclear, lacks transparency, and should be reviewed and improved by an industry stakeholder committee, AOPA said in comments on the proposal.

The policy—published in response to a 2009 open-government directive—also leaves unclear how much of the FAA’s voluminous public information would be covered by the proposal. Follow-up inquiries have not clarified the issue. However, digital charts, currently undergoing a separate distribution overhaul, would not be affected, FAA sources have told AOPA.

The policy would not apply to information published via “FAA Web sites,” but by not identifying those sites, the FAA left vague how the agency planned the future distribution of a range of information including notices to airman, the airman database, aircraft registry information, weather data, and accident statistics.

The FAA published its notice of the proposed policy May 1, explaining that it was offering the policy in response to a 2009 presidential directive for open government that instructed agencies to “make information available in open formats.”

The policy would allow the agency to provide information access “over secure and controlled connections,” and would allow the FAA to “consider cost and cost recovery in making FAA data/information available to external users,” the agency said.

AOPA responded that the policy’s apparent effect might conflict with goals of a 2002 law to improve access to government information, and would likely require the FAA to dedicate more resources to managing an expansive vendor network.

“Adding additional barriers to obtaining data does not improve access to information as mandated by the E-Government & Information Technology Act of 2002,” wrote Tom Kramer, AOPA manager of airspace and modernization, adding that “not only will the FAA continue to create this data, they now must identify, vet, and monitor all of the third party vendors who might share the information with the public.”

Aerial advertising ban under study in Austin, Texas
August 1, 2013 By Dan Namowitz
AOPA, citing the FAA’s authority to regulate the nation’s airspace, has asked officials in Austin, Texas, to reconsider plans to draft an ordinance that would restrict or prohibit aerial advertising activity, such as banner-towing flights

In a July 22 letter to City Manager Marc A. Ott, AOPA urged that officials of the Texas capital city “recognize the FAA’s authority and obligation to regulate navigable airspace as Congress intended.” Local attempts to ban aerial advertising directly contradict that authority, which is conferred on the agency “in the interest of the safety and efficiency of the public,” wrote Melissa McCaffrey, AOPA senior government analyst for air traffic services

On June 27, the Austin City Council approved a resolution “directing the City Manager to determine if any legal barriers that would prevent the City from enacting an ordinance restricting or prohibiting aerial advertising and, if no such barriers exist, to draft such an ordinance for consideration by the City Council by August 29, 2013.”

The Texas capital city’s effort to restrict airspace activity is under consideration shortly after a Pennsylvania aviation business was successful in its court bid to dismiss a fine levied under a similar ordinance

The Austin resolution states that the city has “developed a reputation as a world-wide venue for music and other events” and that aerial advertising would be “disruptive” to events and residents.

It notes that a U.S. Court of Appeals upheld a Hawaii ordinance against challenges.

AOPA, however, pointed out that the case addressed Constitutional free speech arguments, not the “sovereignty and use of airspace” provisions of statutes that vest authority to regulate aerial activity in the FAA.

The timeline of Austin’s move to study creating an aerial advertising ban overlaps a case in which a district judge in Pennsylvania acted July 17 to dismiss a $1,000 fine levied in April against a flight school and FBO by Radnor Township for allegedly violating a local banner-towing ordinance. The flight school hired an attorney to contest the summons, because “this affects everybody in aviation, not just us,” a company owner told AOPA.

AOPA supported Valley Aviation’s challenge with a letter to local officials.

The association has also pointed in such cases that local ordinances are unrealistic because pilots would not be able to familiarize themselves with the rules for every city and town that a flight may pass over—one of the reasons why sole authority to regulate airspace rests with the FAA, McCaffrey said.

Las Vegas airspace changes lack accommodation for GA
New Class B design effective Aug. 22
July 24, 2013 By AOPA ePublishing staff
FAA graphic not for navigation.
FAA graphic not for navigation.
While making a few minor changes to the originally proposed design, the FAA largely ignored the concerns of AOPA and pilots who use the Las Vegas airspace, raising the Class B ceiling to 10,000 feet throughout without adding transition routes that would increase efficiency and safety. The FAA did indicate it will examine the creation of transition routes, but only after final implementation of the new Class B design Aug. 22.

The final design will force aircraft unable to climb above 10,000 feet to make long, fuel-wasting circumnavigations in cases where a Class B clearance is not provided; the typically high density altitudes mean many general aviation aircraft will be unable to make the climb.

AOPA urged the FAA to reconsider raising the ceiling, noting there was no clear justification for adding this burden to GA operations. The final design retains a hodgepodge of different floors, further complicating VFR navigation in particular.

While AOPA voiced appreciation for the creation of VFR waypoints to ease navigation around the Class B airspace, the FAA stopped well short of implementing the full scope of changes requested through formal comments from AOPA and pilots who operate in the area.