02/19/2020

Meeting Minutes for:
Strategic Planning Committee Meeting Part 2
Yuma International Airport, Conference Room
Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 04:02 PM

    Call to Order:
    CONTINUED FROM STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING PART 1

    Mr. Jones asked what happens if an applicant doesn’t pass the DBIDs screening. Lt. Col. Hortenstine said he does not know. He explained felons are not allowed access but there are exceptions due to circumstances for example a military dependent.

    Mr. Gardner said if the YCAA tells its users MCAS is forcing this on them, the argument is they have the legal right to access the airfield through the patent. Lt. Col Hortenstine explained MCAS has a responsibility to keep the airfield secure. Mr. Jones added it is possible any person being escorted could be a bad guy to which Lt. Col. Hortenstine shared the YCAA needs to show progress is being made to mitigate future threats.

    Ms. Brown asked if MCAS can open a satellite office at Yuma International Airport with specific, dedicated dates/times for YCAA airfield users to complete the process so as to not future inconvenience airfield users. Lt. Col. Hotenstine said he does not know.

    5:27 – Call to the Public
    Jerry Breen – CareFlight, General Aviation asked if our vetting/security process isn’t good enough. Lt. Col. Hortenstine said that is the problem, MCAS doesn’t have insight as to all of the parameters that are being checked out. He doesn’t know what the TSA investigator looks into. Based on his experience, TSA looks into aviation safety and threats to aviation safety. MCAS’ concern goes beyond aviation safety.

    Mr. Hager said he respects MCAS Yuma’s concern and expressed his disappointment that HQMC wants DBIDs when TSA’s (a DoD agency) required STA should be enough. Mr. Hager asked if there is a common thread of incidents leading to this request? He said the root cause is likely the FBO but feels MCAS Yuma is having a knee jerk reaction. He wants to see why this is happening, what are the associated costs and a logistical plan. He continued it would not be a good thing if General Aviation users started sending letters to their Senators about being denied access leading to a congressional inquiry into every new MCAS Commanding Officer. Lt. Col. Hortenstine said there has to be a no-cost solution. MCAS already maintains the runways and taxiways. The DBIDs solution presented comes at no cost to the applicant other than the time to complete the application and come into the office. Mr. Hager said he still has not heard justification enough to consider the request.

    Mr. Jones explained the Motor Vehicle Department offers state training to companies to produce government identification including the Real ID. Would MCAS consider training YCAA staff to complete the process? Lt. Col. Hortenstine does not think that is likely.

    Mr. Cody Naquin, General Aviation pilot and local business owner asked if the request applies to non-driving badge holders as well. Ms. Brown responded yes, the request will apply to all persons requesting access to the airfield. Mr. Naquin explained prior to the arrival of the F-35 the YCAA and its airfield users held several committee meetings resulting in the restriction of POV driving and development of the hangar driveways. This new request is another level of unnecessary restriction in the name of MCAS ‘risk’. Lt. Col. Hortenstine explained the General Aviation population’s concerns are not MCAS Yuma’s mission and MCAS cannot justify General Aviation’s right to access the federal facility/airfield. He continued MCAS Yuma is looking into pilot activated gates, while not a grand idea, it will happen eventually. He further explained MCAS Yuma has only two access points onto the base whereas there are more than 40 access points on the civilian side of the airfield.

    Mr. Robert Helfrich, General Aviation pilot shared the taxpayers pay for the maintenance to the runways/taxiways and pointed out MCAS Yuma did not protect the runway any better than the YCAA did. He is not in favor of the request citing the YCAA already has a system in place.

    Mr. Jones requested a show of hands from meeting attendees who are in favor of MCAS Yuma’s request. Mr. Guy Gale raised his hand and explained he understands the sensitivity to protect the base and the F-35.

    Mr. Rob Olmstead shared he works at Careflight and has watched the erosion of General Aviation on the airfield since the 1970s. He said that General Aviation business is deteriorating in Yuma

    Mr. Jim Kent said the public needs access to General Aviation and this request reduces its freedoms. MCAS Yuma should be protecting/defending their backside yet is imposing on civilians to defend it. He shared kids who dream of flying should be welcome but not here in Yuma because of the access restrictions. He concurred general aviation is deteriorating in Yuma and cited there are no aircraft maintenance or related businesses here because of the restrictions here. Lt. Col. Hotenstine said MCAS Yuma does not have the manpower to man the airfield but if they did, it would be an MP with a scanner to see if the DBIDS had been completed.

    Mr. Allen Orendorff, General Aviation pilot objected to the request and said he has already had the background check done. Lt. Col. Hortenstine said there is no overlap/interface between what the TSA checks for compared to what DBIDs checks for.

    David Simkins, AeroCare/Guardian Flight General Manager explained he has 35 employees that would be affected. Because of their life-saving duties, they would be required to do this off-duty posing a hardship to them and their family and a financial burden on his company.

    In response, Mr. McShane shared that Col. Suggs takes this matter very seriously. Mr. McShane provided the following comment: “First and foremost this is not about restricting access to anyone, nor is any particular population being targeted, GA or otherwise. This is more about facilitating vetted access than it is restricting any other type of access. And I will tell you that he is not asking anything of you that he does not require of every single person over there. And maybe some of this is news to you but if you weren’t aware, we can’t avoid talking about the geography of the airfield. If you are utilizing the runway, you’re on the base. If you’re on any one of the runways, you are on the base. And so we talk about regulations, you may not have, and I hate to use ‘You’ and the ‘Us’ because it’s not, it’s ‘We’. This is an effort to work through this issue, and Doc, I agree, we are trying to work through this and are looking for your help to solve this problem. The vulnerabilities associated with security concerns specific to this side is well documented in both classified and unclassified documents. And they have been even before Colonel Kukuck came over here to talk with the Board and requested that we restrict POV access. Again, nothing that we hadn’t done over on the MCAS side for year. But let’s talk about regulations, there may not be a regulation, but I will tell you at the end of the day but Col. Suggs as the Commanding Officer of MCAS Yuma has very specific regulations both by the Department of Defense, the United States Navy, and Marine Corps orders that require him to secure the installation, and it is very problematic. And what he’s trying to do is show higher Headquarters effort in trying to resolve the issue before they come down and say okay, we’ve got a BRAC action and now we have things that take place that none of us want. So that’s why we are approaching all of the concern here to help us solve this problem in an amenable way that may not be the best but it’s an effort to try to correct the current situation. You know, what happened last April was one installation, it was one instance. But it highlights a vulnerability that we can’t ignore. And we need your help with this and that’s why we’re coming to the table to say work with us on this before something more drastic is mandated and neither of us have any say in it, because we don’t want that. We would rather work this out with you together than higher headquarters saying this is what we’re doing. And I certainly sympathize with Mr. Fisher, if you do not know, we are the only Marine Corps installation in the continental United States that has this very unique partnership with Yuma County Airport Authority. In the continental United States, all together there are 26 airfield, all unique in their own aspects and we are not like any one of those other 25. And so we aren’t here to talk about the patent and we aren’t here to talk about enclosing restrictions, we’re here to seek your help to work through this problem because one way or another, because this is one option, DBIDs is one option, and I’m not convinced it’s the fix, and I can’t promise you that in eight years that the base doesn’t come with another step, just like when Yuma International switched from the CRJ 700 to the 900 and your security restrictions increased, so do ours. In time, things change. Fifty-nine years ago when the Marine Corps took over the base we weren’t flying F-35s, classified aircraft, so I’m hoping that we can come together and that smarter heads will prevail that we’ll work through this together. Otherwise I guarantee you it will be solved for us one way or another. But we have an opportunity to shape this and we don’t want to do it in a stovepipe or a vacuum. We want to do it with you, we want to team with you so that we can drive how it happens and that it’s not shoved on our lap cause we don’t like that anymore than you do. But please understand that nothing is being asked of you that isn’t already being done, and has been done, on our side for years. Access over there is very, very different than what happens over here and we can’t ignore it. Higher headquarters certainly isn’t ignoring it. So we have to have your help with this. “

    Mrs. Pam Kent, General Aviation suggested additional airfield education may be helpful.

    Mr. Jones said it appears as though General Aviation is made to be the scapegoat. The YCAA has abided by and have incorporated additional requirements on innocent populations. General Aviation is the first line of defense. There are resentments and appears there is no logical sequence. He needs more discussion and recommended options to reduce the risk to protect the base.

    Mr. Hager again requested an assessment of incidents/common threads to find a solution leading to procedures to put into place. He also explained the need for a customer service push to comply with the request such as a satellite location at YCAA with scheduled dates/times for airfield users. There are also vendors and transient airfield users to consider. Ms. Brown interjected the process will be applicable to all airfield users, no one will be ‘grandfathered’ and she wants to investigate DHS how MCAS can use the Security Threat Assessment already in place.

    Mr. Jones said this does not sound like a partnership nor discussion, that it is being forced. Mr. Jones said that he finds it difficult to make a determination to abide by the request when the feeling he gets is that it’s ‘My way or the highway’. If that’s the way it has to be, then tell us that’s it, there is no negotiation, there is no discussion, we either do this or we go away, or is there room for alternative options or means to achieve the goal through discussion and collaboration to have a better system that better secures. Having people go through a system where their cards and their entry and exit is not registered as part of the system to me doesn’t seem very secure. It’s a band-aid. Mr. Hager said that we still don’t know what the specific are between the TSA and the DBIDs, what specifically needs to be done.

    Mr. Gardner responded by saying that he is persuaded by Mr. McShane’s presentation that we are presented with a problem that needs a solution that we can partner on and that its well within our interest to take that approach to find a solution. He said he is not ready to be persuaded that that is the solution. He believes we should engage with the community and either present evidence that convince them that its inevitable in their interest or whatever. He believes we have moved too fast and left our supporters behind that we will need in the long run. If we’re going to do this we need to convince the GA community it’s the best thing to do, or something like this is the thing to do in our local and national interest and I think we’ve gone beyond the level we should have started with to get to where MCAS would like us to be. We have to come up with a solution that they like and we like. Mr. Jones said that he doesn’t not feel like we are at that point yet and praised Ms. Brown and her staff for bringing up every point and scenario to consider. He’s getting two sides of things, from Mr. McShane that we need to work on a solution rather than impose what may be somewhat of a knee-jerk reaction and impose on MCAS’ best supporters.

    Mr. McShane said from that day in April 2019, when all of us were standing in front of the CO trying to explain what possibly lead to facilitating that specific incident. It wasn’t difficult to start peeling back the layers and finding out that there are issues. And so from that very day in April Col. Suggs’ guidance was to work together and fix the problem to mitigate risk. I don’t think any one of us think that there’s a one hundred percent solution to prevent some person determined to do harm to any portion of the airport to prevent that. But we all, including the GA population, have a responsibility to do our due diligence to mitigate the risk and that’s what we’re asking for. So what Col. Suggs has continued to say is that every opportunity when this topic comes up is to show progress, what are you doing? So he’s relying on us and Ms. Brown has been the base of it. Ms. Brown without a doubt has done a very good job of trying to fend this off as much as she possibly can. At some points it’s been a little bit frustrating, but the concern is what have we done today that could have possibly prevented that incident in April. And from the COs perspective and his vision, probably not a whole lot. And so that’s what we need to fix the issue, and we’re not there yet Sir. There’s no line drawn in the sand. He’s looking for progress and that’s what we’ve been working for literally since April.

    Mr. Jones shared he would like to know the difference between information gathered between the two TSA and DBIDs systems and if there are capabilities for the two systems to be compatible. He doesn’t think we are quite there yet, this meeting has been helpful, he’s learned a lot but he still has questions that we’re not going to answer today. He foresees having another get together.

    At 6:23, Ms. Brown offered clarification on behalf of the April 2019 situation, we he said, we were standing before the CO, that is the staff over at the Marine Corps Air Station, the YCAA Airport’s staff was not in front of the CO. However I do want to say that there have been changes implemented since that situation, not necessarily in the DIBDs, so fending off is because of this system vetting but we’ve most definitely have made and created changes and the Board has been made very aware since that situation. Now to the dismay in which the words necessity and convenience have been placed out there, that’s where some of the frustration is had but I would say that overall that the operational functionality of the teams on the airfield on this side have significantly changed including with the FBO. So that is something that is extremely different than this vetting process overall. That situation triggered additional questions and highlighted that higher headquarters portion of who is operating on that side. We have made other operational changes to the way we operate business with our tenant users as well as our team. So that situation is still underway and we are currently still having discussion and that does affect the operational side of the house for our staff today as far as ramp movement restrictions, non-use of perimeter road and how that situation unraveled. There has been a lot of recurrent training, a lot of disciplinary action taken, things that have been improved. But that’s not addressing what this is and that’s why you guys are staffing us to do additional work for. There are two different situations but most definitely hand in hand as far as what goes on further and what Colonel Suggs is looking at. It is challenging, and things don’t happen overnight and I do delay things because I have to treat and make changes as we go. I had to make Million Air change some of their operating procedures and there were some access points, we did have to go through that and now they’re asking who’s all getting access to the airfield, and that’s their question. Who is accessing the airfield overall. And that’s the way the Colonel sees it, regardless of property ownership. I have people ask me about what happened in April but that’s not why we are here today. And for the pilot activated gates, that’s a whole other topic and situation we’ve been bringing up.

    Mr. Hager agreed that we should work together as a team to find out more information about how the two systems can achieve the desired goal. There will likely be cost to the YCAA that needs to be investigated and he just isn’t there yet to make a decision at this time. Mr. Jones said he would like more investigation done about the possibility of having a DBIDS satellite office at YCAA.

    At 6:30, Jenny Torres asked about a motion to adjourn.

    Mrs. Pam Kent said she understands TSA is not obligated to let MCAS in on how they do things and asked if anyone has asked. Lt. Col. Hortenstine explained even if the two systems were nearly identical, they would not be exact, MCAS cannot see inside of that data and would not know what was being missed. Mr. Hager said even if the information were identical, MCAS does not have our authorization to look at it which is something that could be worked on.

    Mr. Jones said the committee is not ready to make a recommendation to the Board and asked MCAS and YCAA staff to work together to address questions raised and reschedule a committee meeting for additional consideration. If there are no other options, then just take it to Board and let them decide.

    ADJOURNMENT
    There being no further business before the Board the meeting adjourned at 6:35PM.




    // Approved //
    Russell Jones
    Secretary Yuma County Airport Authority; Strategic Planning Committee Chairman


    Other Board Minutes

    Group IconTue Mar 12, 2024 -- March Board
    Group IconTue Feb 13, 2024 -- February Board
    Person IconThu Feb 8, 2024 -- Finance Committee Meeting Minutes
    Group IconTue Jan 9, 2024 -- January Board
    Group IconTue Jan 9, 2024 -- Annual Board Meeting 2024
    Group IconTue Dec 12, 2023 -- December Board
    Group IconTue Nov 14, 2023 -- November Board
    Person IconMon Oct 30, 2023 -- Strategic Planning Committee
    Person IconTue Oct 24, 2023 -- Executive Committee
    Group IconTue Oct 10, 2023 -- October Board
    Person IconMon Sep 18, 2023 -- Elections and Personnel Committee
    Group IconTue Sep 12, 2023 -- September Board
    Group IconMon Aug 28, 2023 -- Special Board
    Person IconThu Aug 17, 2023 -- Finance Committee
    Group IconTue Aug 8, 2023 -- August Board
    Person IconTue Aug 1, 2023 -- Elections and Personnel Committee
    Group IconTue Jun 13, 2023 -- June Board
    Person IconWed Jun 7, 2023 -- Strategic Planning Committee
    Group IconTue May 9, 2023 -- May Board
    Person IconFri May 5, 2023 -- Finance Committee
    Group IconTue Apr 11, 2023 -- April Board
    Person IconWed Apr 5, 2023 -- Strategic Planning Committee
    Group IconTue Mar 14, 2023 -- March Board
    Group IconTue Feb 14, 2023 -- February Board
    Person IconWed Feb 8, 2023 -- Finance Committee
    Person IconFri Jan 27, 2023 -- Finance Committee
    Person IconThu Jan 19, 2023 -- Strategic Planning Committee
    Group IconTue Jan 10, 2023 -- January Board
    Group IconTue Jan 10, 2023 -- Annual Board Meeting 2023
    Group IconTue Dec 13, 2022 -- December Board