Legislature(2001 - 2002)
02/22/2001 01:14 PM House TRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 127-AIRCRAFT EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT REPRESENTATIVE MASEK announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 127, "An Act relating to emergency equipment to be carried on aircraft." Number 0091 REPRESENTATIVE JOHN HARRIS, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of HB 127, said he would explain the history of how this bill came about. "Our friends in Canada," who "we" deal with on a relatively regular basis, have passed a law that makes it illegal to own a handgun. The law also requires a permit to carry a rifle or shotgun through Canada. However, Alaska law that has been in place since the 1940s or possibly before statehood, requires one to carry a firearm on an aircraft if one is flying farther than 25 miles from the base. Alaska law also requires one to carry an assortment of other emergency equipment on the plane. Number 0242 REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS stated that a number of private pilots in Alaska brought to his attention that this is a problem when flying from Alaska through Canada to the Lower 48. A pilot will be in violation of Alaska's law if he or she does not have a gun and in violation of Canada's law if he or she does not go through the training course and testing that is required in order to carry a shotgun. Therefore, a "very basic fix" to this dilemma would be to take away the section of the law that says one is required to carry a pistol, revolver, shotgun, or rifle, if one is going through Canada on a cross country flight that has been filed with federal authorities, the flight service station, or the tower. REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS explained that the other part of the original legislation about which there had been some complaint was the requirement of "one small gill net." This is "somewhat difficult" to come up with, to put in an airplane, he said, and most people do not have one. REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS mentioned that both of these changes [the handgun requirement into Canada and the removal of gill net] are not a problem with troopers and others that he has talked to. These people realize that there are issues involving Alaskan and Canadian law conflicts. However, this does not take away the responsibility of a private pilot to carry a firearm in his or her airplane when flying in Alaska. It is only an exemption for a flight through Canada. REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked how many people the new law in Canada affects. REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS replied that every private pilot in the state [Alaska] who flies through Canada is affected by the new law. He does not know how many people fly back and forth [to Canada]. But, there are a "significant" number of people who do. They go to Washington [State], and to "Oshkosh for the fly- in every year." Number 0341 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN remarked that it is not illegal to bring a shotgun or rifle into Canada if one pays the fee and registers the item. REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS said that with the new Canadian law, one has to go through a two-day training course in order to bring a shotgun or rifle into Canada. So, it is more complicated than it used to be. Number 0377 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN wondered, for pilots who fly back and forth [Alaska to Canada], if HB 127 is "really creating quite a bit of exposure for pilots to fly without a weapon." He mentioned that he never flew without a weapon, but he said, "Of course, I wasn't flying to Canada." "We" did not remove the requirement for pistols when Canada banned them from coming in, although pilots were still able to bring in a revolver or shotgun. He said that if he was going to fly to Canada, he would take the training course or "jump through the hoops" because he would not fly without a weapon in a small airplane. REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS replied that this would "certainly be your prerogative." House Bill 127 allows people to fly legally in Alaska by allowing them to take the "chance" [flying without a weapon] or enabling them not to take the training course. But one is still required by Alaska law to carry a firearm on board when flying in Alaska. Number 0481 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN suggested looking at changing the requirements for having one wool blanket. When this legislation was written, he surmised, wool was probably the choice fabric for a blanket. But some survival blankets and synthetic [fabrics] now "wick" water as much as a wool blanket. He indicated concern that the law might be applied strictly, and said he might offer an amendment [that wool not be required.] REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS commented that he would not have a problem with this [wool blanket change]. "We" were only dealing with the two issues that were brought forward, he said. However, there are a number of requirements in this legislation, some of which are very outdated. This law has not been modified in fifty years. REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked Representative Harris if he has looked into speaking with the Canadian government to see if they would give any exemption for people who fly from Alaska to the Lower 48. REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS replied that Yukon Territory and British Columbia would "love" to do this, but they are under federal law, which is based out of Ottawa. At this point, they are not interested in giving exemptions. Number 0629 REPRESENTATIVE WILSON mentioned that many people in her area go up the Stikine River to enter Canada. She asked if this [new Canadian law] will affect people who go from the United States to Canada in this way. REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS replied that the law is pertinent to anyone going to Canada. He reiterated Representative Ogan's comments that a person can carry [a rifle or shotgun], if one meets the requirements for doing so, no matter what the form of transportation into Canada is. Even if someone is flying from Southeast Alaska, a short way to Canada, a person is technically required to check in with customs. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN noted that Representative Scalzi had suggested adding the words "or equivalent" after "wool blanket", which would become Amendment 1. He remarked that he was not sure if "we need two small boxes of matches." He suggested that the bill just say "matches." REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS commented that he fully supports the amendment. He added that "we" did not add items to this bill that "we could have", which is fine since firearms is the major issue of HB 127. Number 0781 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, as follows: Page 2, line 14, after "one wool blanket" insert "or equivalent". There being no objection, it was so ordered. Number 0808 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN made a motion to adopt Amendment 2, as follows: Page 2, line 5, delete "two small boxes of matches" and insert "fire starter". REPRESENTATIVE OGAN explained that there are some "high-tech" fire starters available nowadays, and the committee should modernize the statute since members are already dealing with it. REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS said he had no problem with Amendment 2. He remarked that in many federal aviation statutes, there are a number of things that are fairly outdated. Number 0839 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked if there was any objection to Amendment 2. There being no objection, Amendment 2 was adopted. Number 0871 REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH commented: [I have] flown all my life, and I've never seen a plane carry enough food for two weeks for each occupant. A pair of snowshoes in Southeast Alaska makes as much sense as having enough food [for two weeks]. If you require that [food] and snowshoes, ... I hope you are not planning to move this out today .... REPRESENTATIVE MASEK said it has been in statute since 1949. REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH stated that many people have been in violation of it [food requirement], because he has never been on an airplane where somebody has carried that much food. He said the pair of snowshoes is the only other part that he objects to in HB 127. REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS remarked that if Representative Kookesh wanted to make an amendment to eliminate that [snowshoes], it wouldn't bother him. However, especially in the winter, if someone goes down in an airplane, especially in the winter, having snowshoes would be "pretty valuable" in some areas of the state. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON indicated agreement with keeping the snowshoe requirement because in some higher, mountainous areas, there is always snow at the peaks. Number 1018 REPRESENTATIVE WILSON made a motion to move HB 127, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the attached zero fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHB 127 (TRA) moved from the House Transportation Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|