Busting Obama's Airspace Today

VWGhiaBob

VWGhiaBob

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
884
Display Name
Display name:
VWGhiaBob
Speaking of busting airspace and ASRS reporting, did you hear this one? Some pilot slightly infringed on the TFR in LA today for Obama. The jets were scrambled!

Bet this guy or gal has some 'splainin' to do! Yes, we must be careful around Presidential TFR's. Unless you want an F16 beside you, best to stay well clear!

Here you go...

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2013...estricted-airspace-above-obamas-la-fundraser/
 
Sounds like the pilot may have gotten away.
 
frfly172 said:
Sounds like the pilot may have gotten away.
Click to expand...

Of course it got away - it was probably a B-52. If the pilot's good, see, I mean if he's reeeally sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low... oh you oughta see it sometime. It's a sight. A big plane like a '52... varrrooom! Its jet exhaust... frying chickens in the barnyard!
 
Is THAT why the SAM site at LAX went active? I forgot where I built the darn thing until it popped out of the parking lot
 
It was probably a Chinese bomber in retaliation for our "incursion" over by Japan. In the end, same result. Much ado about absolutely nothing. :rolleyes2:
 
Why do folks keep saying something was only a "slight" bust of the airspace? It's a binary 1/0 win/lose situation -- either you stayed out, or you didn't. If you don't want to chance a bust, then give yourself a buffer around the airspace. Trying to see how close you can come without crossing the line is just downright silly.
 
Remember when we had presidents before we started electing kings? Why in the heck do we have military jets patrolling over private fundraisers? Does the DSCC pay for the Jet-A?
 
Ron Levy said:
If you don't want to chance a bust, then give yourself a buffer around the airspace. Trying to see how close you can come without crossing the line is just downright silly.
Click to expand...

Makes sense, but who said the pilot in L.A. was trying that?
 
I bet those F-15s are itching to scramble :D

I would be.
 
NoHeat said:
Makes sense, but who said the pilot in L.A. was trying that?
Click to expand...
Did you read post #1, including the italicized slightly? That's like being slightly pregnant or slightly dead, and suggests someone is trying to trivialize the bust. As long as pilots keep doing that, we're going to continue making asses of ourselves in the press and give the anti-general aviation forces the ammunition they need to lay more restrictions on us. We have to stop shooting ourselves in the feet like that.
 
Last edited:
The chaos this clown causes when he flies into LA is ridiculous, and he never hangs out with "middle class folks" he proclaims to stand for.

Out of pure coincidence a few weeks ago I happened to be listening to ATC live when Air Force 1 took off from JFK, and then again yesterday when it came into LAX, the amount of people, air lines and businesses that are inconvenienced when that goes in and out is crazy. Planes shutting down their engines on the tarmac because of the delay, pilots complaining that they are going to miss their slots, no one allowed to land or take off....They don't even do that for the Queen in England and she really is Royalty.
 
Jim Logajan said:
Of course it got away - it was probably a B-52. If the pilot's good, see, I mean if he's reeeally sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low... oh you oughta see it sometime. It's a sight. A big plane like a '52... varrrooom! Its jet exhaust... frying chickens in the barnyard!
Click to expand...

Gawd this made me laugh...thanks. What a great movie. :rofl:
 
Ron Levy said:
Did you read post #1, including the italicized slightly? That's like being slightly pregnant or slightly dead, and suggests someone is trying to trivialize the bust. .
Click to expand...

The trivialization appears to have come from one Lt. Cmdr Bill Lewis of NORAD who caused the article writer to use the word "fringe" which is colloquially synonymous with "slightly".
 
No doubt the guy busting the TFR was some fat guy snoozing and making decisions like a drunken sailor.;)
 
...just another giant f'ing waste of taxpayer money. So ridiculous.
 
Ron Levy said:
Why do folks keep saying something was only a "slight" bust of the airspace? It's a binary 1/0 win/lose situation -- either you stayed out, or you didn't. If you don't want to chance a bust, then give yourself a buffer around the airspace. Trying to see how close you can come without crossing the line is just downright silly.
Click to expand...

Wasn't it Phil Boyer's wife who several years ago successfully defended against a "slight" incursion, I think possibly based on differences between radar location and GPS location?
 
I saw them escort a cessna down...the F16 went into slow flight to drop down to cessna speed, he was told to stop on ramp and wait for local law enforcement. Poor guy had no clue.
 
Ron Levy said:
Why do folks keep saying something was only a "slight" bust of the airspace? It's a binary 1/0 win/lose situation -- either you stayed out, or you didn't. If you don't want to chance a bust, then give yourself a buffer around the airspace. Trying to see how close you can come without crossing the line is just downright silly.
Click to expand...

So, in your mind, there is no difference between someone bumping a TFR and continuing on away from the person being protected, and a direct threat where the plane is traveling above VNE on a direct collision course with the person being protected? So if you were in command of the forces protecting the person you would shoot down the guy who bumps the TFR? So, in your mind, intent means nothing? :dunno:
 
Geico266 said:
So, in your mind, there is no difference between someone bumping a TFR and continuing on away from the person being protected, and a direct threat where the plane is traveling above VNE on a direct collision course with the person being protected? So if you were in command of the forces protecting the person you would shoot down the guy who bumps the TFR? So, in your mind, intent means nothing? :dunno:
Click to expand...
You have to remember, Ron sees everything from a legal, black and white perspective. It has been a few decades since he had to think tactically.

What Ron is pointing out is that as far as the FAA is concerned, a slight sideswipe bust is going to screw you as much as heading directly inbound before they turn you around.
 
Geico266 said:
So, in your mind, there is no difference between someone bumping a TFR and continuing on away from the person being protected, and a direct threat where the plane is traveling above VNE on a direct collision course with the person being protected? So if you were in command of the forces protecting the person you would shoot down the guy who bumps the TFR? So, in your mind, intent means nothing? :dunno:
Click to expand...


The basic flaw in the entire TFR thing is quite simple........

If someone is hell bent on taking out the POTUS, then a silly TFR ain't gonna stop him..:no::nonod::rolleyes:
 
Fearless Tower said:
You have to remember, Ron sees everything from a legal, black and white perspective. It has been a few decades since he had to think tactically.
Click to expand...
I think more accurately, his motivations are not the same as those that decide what actual response should be made. He's trying to prevent future issues for the good of GA through education; not decide which incursions require response.
 
Ron Levy said:
Did you read post #1, including the italicized slightly? That's like being slightly pregnant or slightly dead, and suggests someone is trying to trivialize the bust. As long as pilots keep doing that, we're going to continue making asses of ourselves in the press and give the anti-general aviation forces the ammunition they need to lay more restrictions on us. We have to stop shooting ourselves in the feet like that.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, I think most people see this crazy overreaction for exactly what it is.

Most non-pilots don't have any idea that there's a 30nm bubble around the president everywhere he goes, and most people if they heard that would think it's nuts. What ammunition do the anti-general aviation forces get out of an event where nothing happened but the zoomies got to go to afterburner? I'd say that's more ammunition for us in the anti-government stupidity crowd. We just need to know how to use it.

So, what is the total budget for security theater up to now?
 
Ron Levy said:
Did you read post #1, including the italicized slightly? That's like being slightly pregnant or slightly dead, and suggests someone is trying to trivialize the bust. As long as pilots keep doing that, we're going to continue making asses of ourselves in the press and give the anti-general aviation forces the ammunition they need to lay more restrictions on us. We have to stop shooting ourselves in the feet like that.
Click to expand...

Sure I read the posts. Your remarks seemed to react to two things: firstly what you perceived as a trivializing "slightly" in the OP (and this is not what I referred to), and secondly your imagination regarding the intent of the pilot in the OP:
Trying to see how close you can come without crossing the line is just downright silly.
​
and it was this second remark that I commented upon. It thought it was strange because nobody suggested that the pilot in Los Angeles had that intent.
 
teejayevans said:
I saw them escort a cessna down...the F16 went into slow flight to drop down to cessna speed, he was told to stop on ramp and wait for local law enforcement. Poor guy had no clue.
Click to expand...

That would have to be a Citation, since the F16 won't put along at 90kts.
 
Is it possible that the guy was flying without GPS and was using old fashion pilotage to fly around the 'Bama Bubble? I think he has every right to go as direct to his destination as possible and last I heard, GPS precision is not a prerequisite for flight.

Having said that, I think flying in the LA basin without GPS these days would be silly. I also get Ron's point perfectly. They set us up to fail and we do, every time almost.

The general public has turned on GA, commercial aviation has wanted us gone for decades, military aviation finds us an obstructive nuisance and now the government sees us as threat. We don't have many friends and little by little, they will wear us down with docs screening for fat guys, TFRs and a whole host of other excuses to regulate.

See, rich guys, freely flying wherever they want in private planes, does not mesh with the new socialist zeitgeist that is sweeping the nation. Personal transportation with freedom does not fit well with environmentally aware, income equality based public transit like high speed bullet trains and light rail. We should all travel as a collective, rather than individuals. We are relics of a previous America, the new America has little use for private pilots.
 
ferrari-tech said:
The chaos this clown causes when he flies into LA is ridiculous, and he never hangs out with "middle class folks" he proclaims to stand for.

Out of pure coincidence a few weeks ago I happened to be listening to ATC live when Air Force 1 took off from JFK, and then again yesterday when it came into LAX, the amount of people, air lines and businesses that are inconvenienced when that goes in and out is crazy. Planes shutting down their engines on the tarmac because of the delay, pilots complaining that they are going to miss their slots, no one allowed to land or take off....They don't even do that for the Queen in England and she really is Royalty.
Click to expand...

It would happen with ANY president. Don't hang this one on Obama...it is not his decision to make.

Bob Gardner
 
Maybe a 5 mile no drive radius around the Presidential motorcade would help our cause.:)
 
Had a flight out and in of the outer ring yesterday - and the controllers were making everyone fly the full procedures - no visual approaches were allowed.

On the outbound from POC we got the full departure procedure - and had to fly it - despite only going to Riverside to pick up my airplane, were cleared to 5000 and needed to get there to be cleared to the ILS - and got the full procedure to the arrival airport. We asked for the visual once clear of the TFR and the controller said she 'could not approve that today.'

Coming back - the full DP out of RAL to PDZ, the full routing to intercept the VOR-A into POC and then the full approach - don't even ask for a visual. The only concession to me was a) a vector to final instead of the PT, and b) that while I was on the VOR course they did not seem to mind a leisurely vertical descent to pattern altitude . . . .
 
There will be no "getting away" with this once the ADS-B mandate rolls around in 2020, they will know *exactly* who you are. I'm convinced that positively tracking every aircraft and drone traffic avoidance are the two driving reasons for ADS-B.
 
Jim Logajan said:
The trivialization appears to have come from one Lt. Cmdr Bill Lewis of NORAD who caused the article writer to use the word "fringe" which is colloquially synonymous with "slightly".
Click to expand...
So now you're saying you're misquoting someone who put words in a NORAD spokesman's mouth? :mad2:
 
Jeff Oslick said:
Wasn't it Phil Boyer's wife who several years ago successfully defended against a "slight" incursion, I think possibly based on differences between radar location and GPS location?
Click to expand...
No. She never busted the airspace. A track-swap occurred when her 172 on a VFR 1200 code crossed paths with another plane on the same code. The track went into the airspace, and they backtracked it to her departure from FDK. Fortunately for her, she had a Mode S device on board and operational, and her airplane's discrete Mode S code was used to show what happened. The other pilot was, I believe, later identified and nailed.
 
Geico266 said:
So, in your mind, there is no difference between someone bumping a TFR and continuing on away from the person being protected, and a direct threat where the plane is traveling above VNE on a direct collision course with the person being protected? So if you were in command of the forces protecting the person you would shoot down the guy who bumps the TFR? So, in your mind, intent means nothing? :dunno:
Click to expand...
From a standpoint of FAA enforcement, there is no difference whatsoever -- penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense. The line's been drawn, and we pilots have to do whatever it takes to stay on the legal side of it. Would you argue that someone who only had five instrument approaches in the preceding six months should be excused because s/he was only "slightly" out of currency? Or someone who flies a plane three days after the annual expired should be excused because the annual was only "slightly" expired? Or a pilot who runs out of gas a mile short of the runway should be excused because s/he was only "slightly" short of fuel? :no:

As for how the military responds to incursions, that is another story entirely, and completely irrelevant to the issue of pilots not exhibiting competence at following the rules they are required to obey.
 
Fearless Tower said:
You have to remember, Ron sees everything from a legal, black and white perspective. It has been a few decades since he had to think tactically.
Click to expand...
That statement is both inaccurate and unfair. And in terms of tactics, what I recommend is to give yourself a bit of buffer around airspace you're not supposed to be in, just like we planned to stay a bit more than the book effective range away from SA-6 sites.

What Ron is pointing out is that as far as the FAA is concerned, a slight sideswipe bust is going to screw you as much as heading directly inbound before they turn you around.
Click to expand...
Now that statement is accurate.
 
Lindberg said:
On the contrary, I think most people see this crazy overreaction for exactly what it is.

Most non-pilots don't have any idea that there's a 30nm bubble around the president everywhere he goes, and most people if they heard that would think it's nuts. What ammunition do the anti-general aviation forces get out of an event where nothing happened but the zoomies got to go to afterburner? I'd say that's more ammunition for us in the anti-government stupidity crowd. We just need to know how to use it.

So, what is the total budget for security theater up to now?
Click to expand...
I don't know, and in this context, I don't care. As long as we keep busing TFR's (even "slightly"), we do ourselves a serious disservice by creating bad publicity for GA and "proving" to the anti-GA forces that we can't be trusted to operate safely, giving them grounds to lay even more restrictions on us. We continue to be our own worst enemy in this regard, and complaining about "security theater" or lack of justification for TFR's is pointless whining which will accomplish absolutely nothing that will help us.
 
I just think these giant TFRs are just a giant stick in the eye for us mere mortal, non-government types, regardless of president.

Wait for Obama to fly in to Appleton, WI in the last week of July to make a speech, and to make a point about who's is bigger.
 
Ron Levy said:
So now you're saying you're misquoting someone who put words in a NORAD spokesman's mouth? :mad2:
Click to expand...

Consider only their own description and their actual actions, since that bypasses the whole vocabulary discussion:
A small aircraft “clipped the edge” of the temporary flight restrictions instituted in the skies above Los Angeles during President Barack Obama’s visit Tuesday, NORAD confirmed.
...
Before the fighter jets reached the small aircraft, it had already departed restricted airspace and was allowed to continue on, he said.
​
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2013...strictions-over-la-during-presidential-visit/

As an aside, the article does reveal an operational security hole that delayed the intercept:
When the violation occurred, there were two F-16s in the vicinity that were in the midst of a mid-air refueling, he said.
​
 
comanchepilot said:
Had a flight out and in of the outer ring yesterday - and the controllers were making everyone fly the full procedures - no visual approaches were allowed.

On the outbound from POC we got the full departure procedure - and had to fly it - despite only going to Riverside to pick up my airplane, were cleared to 5000 and needed to get there to be cleared to the ILS - and got the full procedure to the arrival airport. We asked for the visual once clear of the TFR and the controller said she 'could not approve that today.'

Coming back - the full DP out of RAL to PDZ, the full routing to intercept the VOR-A into POC and then the full approach - don't even ask for a visual. The only concession to me was a) a vector to final instead of the PT, and b) that while I was on the VOR course they did not seem to mind a leisurely vertical descent to pattern altitude . . . .
Click to expand...


I was listening on ATC live in my car and I'm pretty sure I heard that whole thing :yes::yes:

There was another pilot on there getting admonished by ATC for not following instructions about the same time, I think he was repositioning from SMO to VNY, he told control he had a class B clearance etc and they had a bit of a stern talk with him :nono:. Interesting stuff. I am going to go back and find the archive and listen again
 
On the subject of Prez TFR's, if Mr Obama visited Canada or the Bahamas for example, is he given the same 10/30 nm ring as he is here?

If not, I would LOVE to fly into one of these airports (Canada would be most convienent) while he is visiting just to prove how silly these TFR's are (not that we don't already have a strong case as it is)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top