TSA Required for all US airspace overflights

[cjpilot]

Flying to Victoria from anywhere in the Lower Mainland is about to get alot more arduous...

New FAA TSA waiver changes.

posted January 4, 2016 by Mark Warmington

As of Dec. 15/2015, the FAA has issued new notams; FDC 5/6289, 5/5782 and 5/5806. To the best of our interpretation, it now appears that any previous TSA waivers have been superseded with the new requirement to have a TSA waiver for each flight that transits through US airspace. Current eApis flights to and from the US have not changed, but it looks like each departure from a Canadian airport destined for another Canadian airport that happens to transit through US airspace now require the TSA approval. I have attached a review of those changes. This will impact all operators who transit anywhere near US airspace.

http://www.cbaa-acaa.ca/iCore/Communiti ... d53054ae18

[7ECA]

Is there anywhere else where one can read said article, without having to pay for a membership?

[Broken Slinky]

Wonder if Canada will follow suit and require the same of US aircraft breaching Canadian airspace?

[CpnCrunch]

Considering that all the routes from Victoria to the lower mainland go through US airspace, I doubt they're going to implement it here.

[200hr Wonder]

Heck circuits in YXX go over the US. Though controlled by Canadian controllers. What about Ft. Francis On where you have US controllers controlling a Canadian airport?

[amraam]

The NBAA has a very different conclusion on the new requirements:

https://www.nbaa.org/ops/intl/20151222- ... ements.php

Be sure to check out their links to the actual revised NOTAMS at the bottom of their article.

amraam

[wallypilot]

The way I read it, the NBAA is only addressing flights within US airspace that involves a stop. To me the notam looks like it frees up flights destined for a CBP airport within the US (many countries required a waiver for this previously...but not Canada obviously) but not for flights transiting the airpspace and with a destination outside the US.

Tell me if I am missing something....Copied from the notam text: (underlined text is what I see as the problem)

PART II. CIVIL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS THAT TRANSIT U.S. TERRITORIAL AIRSPACE A. CIVIL AIRCRAFT ARE AUTHORIZED TO TRANSIT THE TERRITORIAL AIRSPACE OF THE U.S., IF IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1) FILE AND ARE ON AN ACTIVE IFR OR DVFR FLIGHT PLAN; 2) ARE EQUIPPED WITH AN OPERATIONAL MODE C OR S TRANSPONDER AND CONTINUOUSLY SQUAWK AN ATC ASSIGNED TRANSPONDER CODE; 3) MAINTAIN TWO-WAY COMMUNICATIONS WITH ATC; 4) ARE OPERATING UNDER AN APPROVED TSA AVIATION SECURITY PROGRAM OR ARE OPERATING WITH AN FAA/TSA AIRSPACE WAIVER, IF: (A) THE AIRCRAFT IS NOT REGISTERED IN THE U.S.; OR (B) THE AIRCRAFT IS REGISTERED IN THE U.S. AND ITS MAXIMUM TAKEOFF 1512140040-PERM END PART 4 OF 9 FDC 5/6289 ZZZ PART 5 OF 9 SECURITY SPECIAL SECURITY INSTRUCTIONS FOR CIVIL GROSS WEIGHT IS GREATER THAN 100,309 POUNDS (45,500 KGS); 5) ARE IN RECEIPT OF AN FAA ROUTING AUTHORIZATION IF THE AIRCRAFT IS REGISTERED IN A U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT-DESIGNATED SPECIAL INTEREST COUNTRY OR IS OPERATING WITH THE ICAO THREE LETTER DESIGNATOR OF A COMPANY IN A COUNTRY LISTED AS A U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT-DESIGNATED SPECIAL INTEREST COUNTRY, UNLESS THE OPERATOR HOLDS VALID FAA PART 129 OPERATIONS SPECIFICATIONS. FAA ROUTING AUTHORIZATION FOR TRANSIT OF U.S. TERRITORIAL AIRSPACE BY AIRCRAFT SUBJECT TO THIS SUBPARAGRAH A.5 MAY BE GRANTED ONLY FOR IFR OPERATIONS. DVFR AND VFR FLIGHT OPERATIONS ARE PROHIBITED FOR ANY AIRCRAFT REQUIRING AN FAA ROUTING AUTHORIZATION. B. CIVIL AIRCRAFT REGISTERED IN MEXICO OR CANADA AND ENGAGED IN OPERATIONS FOR THE PURPOSES OF AIR AMBULANCE, FIRE FIGHTING, LAW ENFORCEMENT, SEARCH AND RESCUE, AND EMERGENCY EVACUATION ARE AUTHORIZED TO TRANSIT U.S. TERRITORIAL AIRSPACE WITHIN 50 NM OF THEIR RESPECTIVE BORDERS WITH THE U.S., WITH OR WITHOUT AN ACTIVE FLIGHT PLAN, PROVIDED THEY HAVE RECEIVED AND CONTINUOUSLY TRANSMIT AN ATC-ASSIGNED TRANSPONDER CODE.

[schnitzel2k3]

Flights into CYAM from CYYZ have the same problem if you need to fly the VOR approach.

[photofly]

Assuming clauses 1 to 5 are conjunctive ("and") - it doesn't say - then clause 1 means that no VFR flights can transit US airspace regardless of other considerations.


This is a real change: it says (earlier in same NOTAM) "THE REQUIREMENTS IN THIS NOTAM SUPERSEDE
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR CIVIL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS WITHIN OR TRANSITING U.S. TERRITORIAL
AIRSPACE FORMERLY PUBLISHED IN FDC NOTAMS 3/2735, 3/2768, AND 3/3013. " - 3/2768 was the old rules about being on a (any) flight plan etc etc.

[DowneastGuy]

This would affect most flights between the Atlantic provinces and the rest of Canada.

[Skymark]

The NOTAM is very hard to read do to the poor formatting.
I called 1-800-WX-BRIEF about this. First they didn't know anything about it, but he checked further. It only applies to aircraft over 100,309 pounds. Under 100,000 aircraft can still transit as in the past (need flight plan and radio communication).

[amraam]

Wallypilot is correct, any foreign registered aircraft under 100,309 lbs which TRANSITS the USA territorial airspace requires a TSA Airspace Waiver. The TSA office does have a help desk which can be contacted during regular business hours. Foreign registered aircraft under 100,309 lbs which operate TO/FROM USA territorial airspace do not require a waiver as long as they do not belong to a special interest country.

Unfortunately the article written by the NBAA only took into account the TO/FROM NOTAM and did not take into account the TRANSIT NOTAM or the requirements for aircraft over 100,309 lbs.

amraam

[JohnnyHotRocks]

The waiver can take up to 5 business days to process. Obviously this causes an issue for last minute flights. I have been informed that this notam will probably not survive for very long....hopefully!

[Panama Jack]

Pre-2001, US airport security was inadequate and a disaster waiting to happen. Then 9/11 happened.

The TSA evolved from a knee-jerk reaction into a huge big-government beaucratic kingdom run amuck, the government-side of a lucrative Security industrial complex.

What is unfortunate is that scant little attention has been paid to identifying and taking corrective action to the root causes of terrorism and those groups who wish to do the West harm. It's and opportunity lost. Unfortunately, aviation suffers the consequences of the band-aid approach to preventing terror attacks.

[JohnnyHotRocks]

Looks like this notam will be amended by the end of the week

[Skymark]

Brief article on AvWeb:
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Bo ... 498-1.html

[7ECA]

If the boys down South don't want to play ball, TC could always up the ante and generate a similar NOTAM...

[photofly]

Canada doesn't have the balls.

[Redneck_pilot86]

I do a lot of flying in Alaska, generally low level vfr from Canadian airports doing 702 work. I have never needed to contact ATC or US customs. The area I fly in is too remote for ATC comms, but occasionally is in US MOA where they can and do watch me with airborne radar. Is this NOTAM saying I am no longer allowed to do this?

[whistlerboy02]

They are saying a plane with 5 days or less notice might not be safe to fly over the USA without landing. But the same plane with 2 hours notice can fly and land anywhere in the USA.
I hear rumours that this notams days are numbered. If not I hope that someone in Newfoundland and Labrador writes a similar notam for all N reg aircraft transiting their airspace. It would be great for fuel sales and landing fees at Goose! And we would be a lot safer wouldn't we?