First the PA Air Force, now the PA Navy

[NJMedic 96]

Port Authority 'Moose Boats' grounded, in need of repairs - airport perimeters left unpatrolled

The Port Authority spent nearly $1 million in Homeland Security money on two high-tech boats that are docked after a mind-boggling series of breakdowns and mishaps.

The 37-foot aluminum jet catamarans were supposed to patrol 9 miles of shoreline surrounding Kennedy and LaGuardia airports and assist in rescues.

The so-called "Moose Boats" have been out of service, or just plain unused, for most of the last three years, sources told the Daily News.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/07/25/2010-07-25_you_call_this_a_patrol_boat_broken_moose_boats_left_broken_or_stuck_in_drydock.html#ixzz0uoeCe9PQ

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/07/25/2010-07-25_you_call_this_a_patrol_boat_broken_moose_boats_left_broken_or_stuck_in_drydock.html#ixzz0uoe572wX

[newsbuff 286]

Man, if I was a PA Cop, during the summer I would be on those thing's all day instead of sitting in a car.

[NJMedic 96]

Man, if I was a PA Cop, during the summer I would be on those thing's all day instead of sitting in a car.

Press release from Moose Boats, apparently the US Park Police, NY Field Office has one too.

PANYNJ Police: http://mooseboats.com/pdf/PANYNJ_delivery_press_release.pdf

US Park Police: http://mooseboats.com/pdf/US-Park-Police-Final.pdf

[Remember585 815]

What kills me, is how these vessels are designed for security / counter-terrorism operations, and The Daily News publishes how they aren't in service.

Let's just give away every deficiency in our security there is!

[nycemt728 49]

Correct, USPP-NYFO does have one, out in Jamaica Bay. Difference is theirs is out on the water all the time, doing security sweeps, special events, recovery and search and rescue. Never even seen or heard of the PA boats doing anything of like.

[ny10570 745]

Anyone who's spent any time fishing in Jamaica Bay knows what is and isn't patrolling out there. The Daily News isn't exactly blowing the lid on some big secret.

[Truck4 48]

No worries, the Port Authority (along with many other entities) will just call for NYC resources and save money.

[x635 4,066]

They are violating FAA regulations.

[helicopper 1,050]

They are violating FAA regulations.

They who and which regulations?

[ctt447 5]

The Port Authority Police at JFK and LGA had one boat each to respond in the event of a plane accident in the surrounding waterways of the airports prior to the "Moose Boats." Those boats did not carry the needed life safety equipment to handle the current passenger capacity of the largest planes using JFK and LGA. FAR Part 139 states, certified airports are required to include in their airport emergency plan, to the extent practicable, provisions for the rescue of aircraft accident victims from significant bodies of water or marsh lands which are situated adjacent to the airports and lie beneath the approach and departure flight paths of air carriers. The "Moose Boats" were replacing existing boats that had reached the end of their life as well.

[SRS131EMTFF 471]

They are violating FAA regulations.

How so. Read and interpret this and then tell me by specifically not having these boating in the water they are in violation of any part of any FAA regulation.

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/draft_150_5210_13c.pdf

http://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_safety/part139_cert/

Edited July 27, 2010 by bvfdjc316

[ctt447 5]

How so. Read and interpret this and then tell me by specifically not having these boating in the water they are in violation of any part of any FAA regulation.

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/draft_150_5210_13c.pdf

http://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_safety/part139_cert/

FAR Part 139 states, certified airports are required to include in their airport emergency plan, to the extent practicable, provisions for the rescue of aircraft accident victims from significant bodies of water or marsh lands which are situated adjacent to the airports and lie beneath the approach and departure flight paths of air carriers.

As they already had owned boats that carried life preservers for the largest planes that landed at the airports from about 15 to 20 years ago, they had set a precedent by having the capability.

[SRS131EMTFF 471]

FAR Part 139 states, certified airports are required to include in their airport emergency plan, to the extent practicable, provisions for the rescue of aircraft accident victims from significant bodies of water or marsh lands which are situated adjacent to the airports and lie beneath the approach and departure flight paths of air carriers.

As they already had owned boats that carried life preservers for the largest planes that landed at the airports from about 15 to 20 years ago, they had set a precedent by having the capability.

Yes, while I agree with what you say, has that capability been eliminated and not diminished? I agree that if these boats with all of the life rafts are the only thing that keep the airports in compliance with Part 139 then the airports are no longer in compliance. However, what if they are not the only thing?

What I am saying is how do we know that capability has not been shifted to say an agreement with surrounding marine vessels that they will assist during a water rescue situation similar to the impromptu situation that occurred in the Hudson or something similar.

All I am saying is that we do not know if they are complying with the regulation in some other way than some magic bullet boat.

[v85 212]

I'm no lawyer, but in my reading it seems like they are in compliance.

It says "Certified airports are required to include in their airport emergency plan, to the extent practicable, provisions for the rescue of ...victims from significant bodies of water or marsh lands...adjacend to the airports and lie beneath the approach and departure flight paths..."

I would imagine that the plan would say something to the effect of "In the event of an accident with victims in the water, the NYPD, FDNY, and USCG, etc. will be immediatley notified and will respond with X number of vessels capable of handiling Y number of patients."

The regulation only requires, to the extent practicable provisions for rescue. It does not require that the airport authority be the one that actually operates the rescue assets.

[calhobs 110]

Now same question for Westchester County Airport, who would supply boats there? DEP? Or is the resivior not considered significant body of water, and also does the Long Island Sound fall under the airports plan.

[nycemt728 49]

Agreed,two things stand out. "To extent practiable"...that's a lawyers field day. All PA has to say is a single handed response on their end is not practicable. Second, as folks have pointed out, no one expects a single agency response (although home agency may want to), so it's perfectly acceptable for them to be in compliance by saying our plan is to respond with all our units and activate mutual aid to cover the rest so long as they are specific in their plan..thats seems to be what the law is aiming at. I must agree with the news though, poor management has turned excellent assets into a complete waste!