22nd Legislature(2001-2002)
Committee Minutes
Basis
Navigation
- Bills
- Committees
- Session
- Session Laws
- Tools
- Archive
-
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION
Feb 22, 2001
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.
