Israel and ESA sign cooperation agreement
January 31, 2011 at 2:41 pm | Posted in Space Law Current Events | Leave a commentby Sara M. Langston with the blog faculty
Source: Space Mart
Israel on Sunday signed an agreement with the European Space Agency for cooperation on space technology and exploration of the solarsystem, the Israeli science and technology ministry said.
“The agreement facilitates the exchange of scientists, engineers and information, the holding of joint conferences and symposiums and the promotion of communications and exchanges between research institutions and industries,” it said in a statement.
The ministry said that agreed areas of research included astrophysics, satellite engineering and monitoring environmental contamination and natural disasters. It would also cover space biology and telecommunications.
Sunday’s agreement between Israel and the 18-member European Space Agency (ESA) stressed the civilian nature of future collaboration.
“This is the first agreement of its kind between Israel and the ESA, which within its framework, achieves and promotes projects of mutual interest in the fields of research and the peaceful use of outer space,” the statement said.
Southern California Olive Farm sues public and private entities over use of its airspace
January 31, 2011 at 2:24 pm | Posted in Aviation Law Current Event | Leave a commentby Sara M. Langston with the blog faculty
Source: mydesert.com
Through a lawsuit filed in March 2009 against local balloon companies, individual balloonists, and a pest control flight operator, the farm’s owner, JCM Farming Inc., has sued virtually all low-flying air traffic out of the sky.
15 defendants were named in JCM’s lawsuit in Riverside Superior Court. Thirteen have either gone out of business, had default judgments entered against them, or agreed to JCM’s demands that they stop flying in the area. Only Magical Adventure and Palm Desert balloonists Cynthia and Steven Wilkinson and their Fantasy Balloon Flights remain as defendants.
In the Complaint JCM also filed suit against the USDA, FAA, California Department of Food and Agriculture on 5 October 2010 on grounds of: inverse condemnation, civil rights violations and requesting injunctive relief, declaratory relief. [Full story].
Library: A Round-up of Reading
January 31, 2011 at 12:48 pm | Posted in Library | 1 CommentArticles
Leonard David, Play Nice Up There! Code of Conduct for Space Sought, Space.com
Blogs
Canada’s Military Space Policy: Part 3, Towards Northern Sovereignty – Commercial Space
Is outer space big enough for the U.S. and China? – FP Passport
Lori Garver Interview on Commercial Space – Huntsville Space Professionals
New Mexico uncertainty – NewSpace Journal
WikiLeaks Spills the Beans on U.S.-German Plans to Launch High-Resolution Optical Spy Satellites? – got geoint?
Is Canadian Sovereignty at Risk by a Lack of an Indigenous Satellite Launch Capability? – SpaceRef Canada
Podcast: Should the Geospatial Community be Worried About the Federal Agency Reports on Privacy? – Directions Magazine
Budget Cuts Top Priority as 112th Congress Convenes Tomorrow – Space Policy Online
DOT enforces consumer-friendly interpretation of Montreal Convention baggage liability provisions – The NV Flyer
“Cosmic pork” and “obscene wastes of taxpayer money” – Space Politics
Soyuz Procurement That Falls Short of NASA’s Own Commercial Crew Requirements – NASA Watch
Authorizers versus appropriators – Space Politics
Do we need a Space Code of Conduct? – Songs of Space and Nuclear War
Senate pushes back on NASA HLV report – Space Politics
Human Space Exploration Framework Summary Presentation to the NASA Advisory Council – SpaceRef
More on Congress vs NASA… – RLV and Space Transport News
NASA OIG Letter to Congress on Constellation Spending – NASA Watch
Bolden interview; Nelson criticism; Supreme Court’s NASA decision – Space Politics
Resetting US-China space cooperation – Space Politics
Montreal Convention two-year limitation period not subject to tolling under local law – Montreal Convention
This Senator Has KC-X Questions – DoD Buzz
Space Security Panel – All Things Nuclear
US-China in “Strategic Dialogue” on Space – Spaceports
New Mexico v. Phillip Mocek: A Quick Reminder on ID and Photography at TSA Checkpoints – TSA Blog
Senate space subcommittee will get new ranking member – Space Politics
H.R. 405: To amend title 49, United States Code, to establish additional goals for airport master plans, and for other purposes
January 31, 2011 at 12:33 pm | Posted in Aviation Law | Leave a commentby P.J. Blount with the blog faculty
H.R. 405: To amend title 49, United States Code, to establish additional goals for airport master plans, and for other purposes was introduced on January 24, 2011 by Rep. Samuel Graves (R-MO6):
H.R.405 — ACCESS Act of 2011 (Introduced in House – IH)
HR 405 IH
112th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 405
To amend title 49, United States Code, to establish additional goals for airport master plans, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 24, 2011
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
A BILL
To amend title 49, United States Code, to establish additional goals for airport master plans, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Airport Master Plan Customer Convenience Enhancement, Security, and Sustainability Act of 2011′ or the `ACCESS Act of 2011′.
SEC. 2. AIRPORT MASTER PLANS.
Section 47101 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(i) Additional Goals for Airport Master Plans- In addition to the goals set forth in subsection (g)(2), the Secretary of Transportation shall encourage (including through Federal Aviation Administration advisory circulars) airport sponsors and State and local officials to consider in airport master plans the following:
`(1) Customer convenience.
`(2) Airport ground access.
`(3) Access to airport facilities.’.
S. 67: A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to permit former members of the Armed Forces who have a service-connected disability rated as total to travel on military aircraft in the same manner and to the same extent as retired members of the Armed Forces are entitled to travel on such aircraft
January 31, 2011 at 12:31 pm | Posted in Aviation Law | Leave a commentby P.J. Blount with the blog faculty
S. 67: A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to permit former members of the Armed Forces who have a service-connected disability rated as total to travel on military aircraft in the same manner and to the same extent as retired members of the Armed Forces are entitled to travel on such aircraft was introduced on January 25, 2011 by Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI).
S. 223: A bill to modernize the air traffic control system, improve the safety, reliability, and availability of transportation by air in the United States, provide modernization of the air traffic control system, reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration, and for other purposes
January 31, 2011 at 12:29 pm | Posted in Aviation Law | Leave a commentby P.J. Blount with the blog faculty
S. 223: A bill to modernize the air traffic control system, improve the safety, reliability, and availability of transportation by air in the United States, provide modernization of the air traffic control system, reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration, and for other purposes was introduced on January 27, 2011 by Sen. John Rockefeller (D-WV).
S. 189: A bill to require the Secretary of Defense, in awarding a contract for the KC-X Aerial Refueling Aircraft Program, to consider any unfair competitive advantage that an offeror may possess
January 31, 2011 at 12:26 pm | Posted in Aviation Law | Leave a commentby P.J. Blount with the blog faculty
S. 189: A bill to require the Secretary of Defense, in awarding a contract for the KC-X Aerial Refueling Aircraft Program, to consider any unfair competitive advantage that an offeror may possess was introduced on January 26, 2011 by Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS).
H.R. 386: Securing Aircraft Cockpits Against Lasers Act of 2011
January 31, 2011 at 12:15 pm | Posted in Aviation Law | Leave a commentby P.J. Blount with the blog faculty
H.R. 386: Securing Aircraft Cockpits Against Lasers Act of 2011 was introduced on January 20, 2011 by Rep. Daniel Lungren (R-CA3):
H.R.386 — Securing Aircraft Cockpits Against Lasers Act of 2011 (Introduced in House – IH)
HR 386 IH
112th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 386
To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide penalties for aiming laser pointers at airplanes, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 20, 2011
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California (for himself, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. HARPER, Ms. BORDALLO, Mr. BURGESS, Mr. SCOTT of Virginia, and Mr. GALLEGLY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
A BILL
To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide penalties for aiming laser pointers at airplanes, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Securing Aircraft Cockpits Against Lasers Act of 2011′.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST AIMING A LASER POINTER AT AN AIRCRAFT.
(a) Offense- Chapter 2 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`Sec. 39A. Aiming a laser pointer at an aircraft
`(a) Whoever knowingly aims the beam of a laser pointer at an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, or at the flight path of such an aircraft, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
`(b) As used in this section, the term `laser pointer’ means any device designed or used to amplify electromagnetic radiation by stimulated emission that emits a beam designed to be used by the operator as a pointer or highlighter to indicate, mark, or identify a specific position, place, item, or object.
`(c) This section does not prohibit aiming a beam of a laser pointer at an aircraft, or the flight path of such an aircraft, by–
`(1) an authorized individual in the conduct of research and development or flight test operations conducted by an aircraft manufacturer, the Federal Aviation Administration, or any other person authorized by the Federal Aviation Administration to conduct such research and development or flight test operations;
`(2) members or elements of the Department of Defense or Department of Homeland Security acting in an official capacity for the purpose of research, development, operations, testing or training; or
`(3) by an individual using a laser emergency signaling device to send an emergency distress signal.
`(d) The Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of Transportation, may provide by regulation, after public notice and comment, such additional exceptions to this section, as may be necessary and appropriate. The Attorney General shall provide written notification of any proposed regulations under this section to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House and Senate, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in the House, and the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation in the Senate not less than 90 days before such regulations become final.’.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 2 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 39 the following new item:
`39A. Aiming a laser pointer at an aircraft.’.
SEC. 3. COMPLIANCE WITH PAYGO.
The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall be determined by reference to the latest statement titled `Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation’ for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the House of Representatives, provided that such statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.
NASA v. Nelson
January 31, 2011 at 12:09 pm | Posted in Space Law | Leave a commentby P.J. Blount with the blog faculty
The Supreme Court of the United States issued its opinion in the NASA v. Nelson on January 19, 2011. The case rules that background checks of NASA employees and contractors are legal.
H.R. 320: To designate a Distinguished Flying Cross National Memorial at the March Field Air Museum in Riverside, California.
January 31, 2011 at 12:02 pm | Posted in Aviation Law, Uncategorized | Leave a commentby P.J. Blount with the blog faculty
H.R. 320: To designate a Distinguished Flying Cross National Memorial at the March Field Air Museum in Riverside, California was introduced on January 19, 2011 by Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA44):
H.R.320 — Distinguished Flying Cross National Memorial Act (Introduced in House – IH)
HR 320 IH
112th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 320
To designate a Distinguished Flying Cross National Memorial at the March Field Air Museum in Riverside, California.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 19, 2011
Mr. CALVERT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources
A BILL
To designate a Distinguished Flying Cross National Memorial at the March Field Air Museum in Riverside, California.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Distinguished Flying Cross National Memorial Act’.
SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF DISTINGUISHED FLYING CROSS NATIONAL MEMORIAL IN RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA.
(a) Findings- Congress finds the following:
(1) The most reliable statistics regarding the number of members of the Armed Forces who have been awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross indicate that 126,318 members of the Armed Forces received the medal during World War II, approximately 21,000 members received the medal during the Korean conflict, and 21,647 members received the medal during the Vietnam War. Since the end of the Vietnam War, more than 203 Armed Forces members have received the medal in times of conflict.
(2) The National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, Missouri, burned down in 1973, and thus many more recipients of the Distinguished Flying Cross may be undocumented. Currently, the Department of Defense continues to locate and identify members of the Armed Forces who have received the medal and are undocumented.
(3) The United States currently lacks a national memorial dedicated to the bravery and sacrifice of those members of the Armed Forces who have distinguished themselves by heroic deeds performed in aerial flight.
(4) An appropriate memorial to current and former members of the Armed Forces is under construction at March Field Air Museum in Riverside, California.
(5) This memorial will honor all those members of the Armed Forces who have distinguished themselves in aerial flight, whether documentation of such members who earned the Distinguished Flying Cross exists or not.
(b) Designation- The memorial to members of the Armed Forces who have been awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross, located at March Field Air Museum in Riverside, California, is hereby designated as the Distinguished Flying Cross National Memorial.
(c) Effect of Designation- The national memorial designated by this section is not a unit of the National Park System, and the designation of the national memorial shall not be construed to require or permit Federal funds to be expended for any purpose related to the national memorial.
Blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.
Res Communis 