&*#% security TFR

steingar said:
One time the POTUS was in town they shut down one of our town's busiest freeways at rush hour on a Friday night for his motorcade. Tied traffic up in knots. Folks didn't like it, but no one was ready for revolt.
Click to expand...

I wonder if those same mildly inconvenienced people would have ok with that if the president was on the opposite coast at the time and they had to call someone to get authorization to back out of their driveway every single time they needed to go to the supermarket or anywhere within a 50 mile radius for, say, an entire decade straight with no end of the situation in sight.
 
Glad AirVenture is when it is. If it were a week later, people returning would be affected by the TFR I expect to see over Chicago the first weekend in August when the POTUS will be in town.
 
AggieMike88 said:
If a America votes in a different POTUS, I'm really curious if the current travelling circus antics will continue.
Click to expand...

Government, no matter what government it is, be it a war lord in Somalia, or the POTUS, or simply a department head, governments will never, ever, voluntarily relinquish power, no matter how trivial that power may be, such as filling out forms in triplicate rather than duplicate.

They will only relinquish power when they feel threatened, either with arms or a vote.

So yes, you can count on the insanity continuing, especially in our new, amazingly apathetic, feminized, politically correct society.

-John
 
The absolute best thing that could happen for the majority of us, but not the poor soul in the aircraft, is a shoot down of an innocent civilian.

That would create a firestorm of public opinion against this BS that wouldn't stop until the BS was changed to be utterly benign forever.

The cuter and younger the backseat passengers, the better.

Yeah, that's cold-hearted and evil, but it'd be the fastest most effective way to rid the Country of the idiocy of TFRs.

No President in their right mind would ever let the final trigger pull approval away from themselves personally, no other people allowed to order the shoot, ever again after the TV was a week of still shots of the dad and the cute little kids in back and interviews of friends saying he was the nicest guy in the world.

Which would put the onus of using deadly force right where it should be. On the shoulders of the idiot who thinks they're so important that another's life is worth theirs.
 
denverpilot said:
The absolute best thing that could happen for the majority of us, but not the poor soul in the aircraft, is a shoot down of an innocent civilian.

That would create a firestorm of public opinion against this BS that wouldn't stop until the BS was changed to be utterly benign forever.
Click to expand...

Civiian collateral damage hasn't stopped the 'war on drugs', a shootdown of a civilian aircraft would maybe get you a toothless congressional hearing but that would be the end of it.
 
John Baker said:
So yes, you can count on the insanity continuing, especially in our new, amazingly apathetic, feminized, politically correct society.

-John
Click to expand...


That's a huge part of our problem, and it has invaded government, media, corporations just like 1984 said it would.
 
denverpilot said:
The absolute best thing that could happen for the majority of us, but not the poor soul in the aircraft, is a shoot down of an innocent civilian.

That would create a firestorm of public opinion against this BS that wouldn't stop until the BS was changed to be utterly benign forever.

The cuter and younger the backseat passengers, the better.

Yeah, that's cold-hearted and evil, but it'd be the fastest most effective way to rid the Country of the idiocy of TFRs.

No President in their right mind would ever let the final trigger pull approval away from themselves personally, no other people allowed to order the shoot, ever again after the TV was a week of still shots of the dad and the cute little kids in back and interviews of friends saying he was the nicest guy in the world.

Which would put the onus of using deadly force right where it should be. On the shoulders of the idiot who thinks they're so important that another's life is worth theirs.
Click to expand...

Disagree very strongly.

THe first question that will be asked is "why are folks allowed to fly and put themselves in harm's way". That will be followed by more restrictions.

We are now a country of the "risk-free". This is why you always hear "out of an abundance of caution" and similar phrases. It's why we have a CPSC and NHTSA. And NTSB.

The goal is zero risk. Make no mistake about it.
 
wsuffa said:
Disagree very strongly.

THe first question that will be asked is "why are folks allowed to fly and put themselves in harm's way". That will be followed by more restrictions.

We are now a country of the "risk-free". This is why you always hear "out of an abundance of caution" and similar phrases. It's why we have a CPSC and NHTSA. And NTSB.

The goal is zero risk. Make no mistake about it.
Click to expand...

Evidenced by the OSHA ruling on the Seaworld Shamu incident where the whale dragged the trainer under and she drowned. Now OSHA says they trainers can have no physical contact with the whale, etc, etc.
 
denverpilot said:
No President in their right mind would ever let the final trigger pull approval away from themselves personally, no other people allowed to order the shoot, ever again after the TV was a week of still shots of the dad and the cute little kids in back and interviews of friends saying he was the nicest guy in the world.
Click to expand...

I had the same thought of a shootdown of the innocent being good in the long run. In all fairness it would be..but that involves everyone playing fair.
The problem is that the news media who would be getting that information to the public is our primary enemy and are hellbent on the destruction of GA to start with. They will alter any facts and flat out lie to get the ratings. Drop the wreckage in a city especially if a missile misses the plane and hits an elementary school and they will have a field day with it for months. They'll be pushing for our certificate numbers to be tattooed on our forearms and the construction of gas chambers within two weeks...
Never depend on the enemy to defend you in a shooting war.
 
fgcason said:
I had the same thought of a shootdown of the innocent being good in the long run.
Click to expand...

What everyone here seems to miss is that an innocent trespasser has no chance of being attacked. Unless the pilot completely ignores the intercepting aircraft and refuses to alter course nothing more than an interview is the most likely result.

Basically the arguments here can be reduced to this:

WAAAAAAA I can't fly here because the big mean gummint guys are out to ruin my fun.

In the real world there are people who want to do us harm. If some bad actor were to effect an attack these boards would be full of the same crybabies yelling that all the tax dollars they spend can't protect them. You can't have it both ways.
 
Threefingeredjack said:
What everyone here seems to miss is that an innocent trespasser has no chance of being attacked. Unless the pilot completely ignores the intercepting aircraft and refuses to alter course nothing more than an interview is the most likely result.

Basically the arguments here can be reduced to this:

WAAAAAAA I can't fly here because the big mean gummint guys are out to ruin my fun.

In the real world there are people who want to do us harm. If some bad actor were to effect an attack these boards would be full of the same crybabies yelling that all the tax dollars they spend can't protect them. You can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...

I think the arguments here can be summed up as "Why does this government feel it needs to destroy freedom in order to 'save' it"

It's about applying common sense to the process instead of mindless overprotectionism. Same thing applies to the TSA who thinks it needs to feel up 80 year old grannies and molest 5 year old kids in order to "protect" us. At least TSA is giving lip service to moving toward risk-based screening (pre-check) while the folks mindlessly enclosing airports like HEF 1/2 mile inside a no-fly zone are not.

Perhaps you subscribe to the "administrative convenience" argument; some of us believe that our government should evaluate these things with common-sense instead of mindlessly harming everyone.
 
wsuffa said:
I think the arguments here can be summed up as "Why does this government feel it needs to destroy freedom in order to 'save' it"

It's about applying common sense to the process instead of mindless overprotectionism. Same thing applies to the TSA who thinks it needs to feel up 80 year old grannies and molest 5 year old kids in order to "protect" us. At least TSA is giving lip service to moving toward risk-based screening (pre-check) while the folks mindlessly enclosing airports like HEF 1/2 mile inside a no-fly zone are not.

Perhaps you subscribe to the "administrative convenience" argument; some of us believe that our government should evaluate these things with common-sense instead of mindlessly harming everyone.
Click to expand...

I'm not even going to attempt to defend the TSA's insanity. But please share your "common sense" solution for delineating a secure airspace around a high value target that is easily transmitted, described and understandable to the flying public.
 
Threefingeredjack said:
I'm not even going to attempt to defend the TSA's insanity. But please share your "common sense" solution for delineating a secure airspace around a high value target that is easily transmitted, described and understandable to the flying public.
Click to expand...

You don't have to. We have a line of succession for a reason. President dies, the V.P. becomes President, life goes on.
 
EppyGA said:
You don't have to. We have a line of succession for a reason. President dies, the V.P. becomes President, life goes on.
Click to expand...

:D By that logic we can save a lot of money by eliminating all law enforcement. If you are a victim, so be it, there are plenty of other people who can take your place. Elegant.
 
Threefingeredjack said:
I'm not even going to attempt to defend the TSA's insanity. But please share your "common sense" solution for delineating a secure airspace around a high value target that is easily transmitted, described and understandable to the flying public.
Click to expand...

So, the words "Except for aircraft operating within a 1 mile radius from the runway ends of Manassas airport that are arriving or departing from the FLUKY gate on an SFRA flight plan or are under an IFR flight plan" would not be "easily transmitted, described, or understandable to the flying public"?

Remember that HEF is already in Class D airspace under Class B airspace in the SFRA. The above exemption is easily understood and transmitted to folks operating into/out of HEF. Far more easily applied and understood than one of the pop-up TFRs in another part of the country.
 
wsuffa said:
So, the words "Except for aircraft operating within a 1 mile radius from the runway ends of Manassas airport that are arriving or departing from the FLUKY gate on an SFRA flight plan or are under an IFR flight plan" would not be "easily transmitted, described, or understandable to the flying public"?

Remember that HEF is already in Class D airspace under Class B airspace in the SFRA. The above exemption is easily understood and transmitted to folks operating into/out of HEF. Far more easily applied and understood than one of the pop-up TFRs in another part of the country.
Click to expand...

That would be a logical and effective enunciation of an exception. Unfortunately logic and effectiveness is in short supply at times when competing agencies get involved. I could bore you all to death with examples of infighting and turf battles at the expense of logical rational policy within DHS. It was the prime reason I took an early out and am now living off your tax dollars as a worthless non-contributing member of the welfare state. :D
 
Threefingeredjack said:
Basically the arguments here can be reduced to this:

WAAAAAAA I can't fly here because the big mean gummint guys are out to ruin my fun.
Click to expand...

TFRs affect the ability of many to earn a living. Today in San Antonio, every flight school operation in a 32 nm radius of the city has to cease operations for most of the day. If you're a CFI here, that's revenue you're not getting (as if they get enough revenue as it is). Glider flights are outright banned. What realistic threat does a glider pose?

Threefingeredjack said:
In the real world there are people who want to do us harm. If some bad actor were to effect an attack these boards would be full of the same crybabies yelling that all the tax dollars they spend can't protect them. You can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...

There certainly are people who would do us harm, Unfortunately, TFRs don't protect us from any of them. Just like hanging a sign on a bank entrance prohibiting carrying a concealed weapon on the premises, a criminal is not going to abide by the sign or a NOTAM. I don't mind tax dollars spent on effective security; I do mind tax dollars spent on security "theater." If you depend on police to protect you, I would submit that police for the most part arrive on the scene after the crime has already been committed. They may eventually catch the perp, but they didn't do much to prevent the crime. TFR interceptions do much the same thing. They run down the clueless GA pilot who busts a TFR but they wouldn't have done anything to prevent a determined pilot from purposely violating a TFR and doing whatever. I say the "whatever" doesn't justify the ineffective method put in place to prevent it.
 
I think what concerns me more than any other thing is that we are still in the infant stages of the building of a "secure America".

All this started just a few years ago, what lies ahead for the citizens of this country? What can we expect our lives to be like? Do we have even the slightest control over where we are obviously heading?

With The Patriot Act now the law of the land, how long will we be able to, or want to, risk trying to control, or even slow down, this race toward the ultimate secure and safe America?

How deep will this line in the sand between government and "civilians" become?

-John
 
Last edited:
Witmo said:
TFR interceptions do much the same thing. They run down the clueless GA pilot who busts a TFR but they wouldn't have done anything to prevent a determined pilot from purposely violating a TFR and doing whatever.
Click to expand...

I'm confused, help me out. You say they are effective in intercepting clueless GA pilots, but would be ineffective in intercepting purposeful entries into a TFR. Please explain how this works. If every transgressor is intercepted, identified and evaluated, how do the bad guys escape? Magic beans? Invisible powder? Please share your profound knowledge. :dunno:
 
Threefingeredjack said:
That would be a logical and effective enunciation of an exception. Unfortunately logic and effectiveness is in short supply at times when competing agencies get involved. I could bore you all to death with examples of infighting and turf battles at the expense of logical rational policy within DHS. It was the prime reason I took an early out and am now living off your tax dollars as a worthless non-contributing member of the welfare state. :D
Click to expand...

And that gets to the crux of my point. The agencies argue and the public loses.

BTW, this is nothing new... I had some personal involvement in an interagency p*$&ing match (3 agencies involved, including FAA) back in the '80s. At least over time those agencies started to work better together. I don't see that here.
 
wsuffa said:
And that gets to the crux of my point. The agencies argue and the public loses.

BTW, this is nothing new... I had some personal involvement in an interagency p*$&ing match (3 agencies involved, including FAA) back in the '80s. At least over time those agencies started to work better together. I don't see that here.
Click to expand...

:idea: And the solution there is, IMHO, decisive leadership stripped of all political baggage......but then we all know that story. :dunno:
 
Threefingeredjack said:
It was the prime reason I took an early out and am now living off your tax dollars as a worthless non-contributing member of the welfare state. :D
Click to expand...


Let me try to understand this. We provide you with a secure job, that pays considerably more than what we as civilians earn. You get long vacations, bonuses, next to free health care for life, and you get to retire from all that at a reasonably early age. Us civilians provide you with all of that, yet few of us come even remotely close to any of that.

What was it again that we get in return?

-John
 
John Baker said:
Let me try to understand this. We provide you with a secure job, that pays considerably more than what we as civilians earn. You get long vacations, bonuses, next to free health care for life, and you get to retire from all that at a reasonably early age. Us civilians provide you with all of that, yet few of us come even remotely close to any of that.

What was it again that we get in return?

-John
Click to expand...

You got 26 years of dedicated service. You got a pilot who would launch into any weather, day or night, and put his life on the line for total strangers. What have you done?
 
John Baker said:
Let me try to understand this. We provide you with a secure job, that pays considerably more than what we as civilians earn. You get long vacations, bonuses, next to free health care for life, and you get to retire from all that at a reasonably early age. Us civilians provide you with all of that, yet few of us come even remotely close to any of that.

What was it again that we get in return?

-John
Click to expand...

I was going to write a long and spirited note about why you were wrong. But I avoid making political posts, and such a note would invariably result in going Spin Zone.

I will simply say this: my dad spent a career working for & serving this country. He made far, far less money than he could have in the private sector. He lost hearing in one ear (nerve damage) as a result of his military service in WWII.

What "we" got was - literally - a transformation of how an important part of the military operated. To "our" favor.
 
Threefingeredjack said:
You got 26 years of dedicated service. You got a pilot who would launch into any weather, day or night, and put his life on the line for total strangers. What have you done?
Click to expand...

Worked my ass off for over fifty years with no vacations, or free medical care, nor free retirement, to support you.

Please understand, my comments were aimed at the millions of overpaid government employees who attend their jobs every day, rather than doing any meaningful or necessary work.

In no way did I mean to infer that our military, even the Coast Guard, was an unnecessary weight on the taxpayers shoulders.

I have put my life on the line for total strangers while in the military. I never thought of it that way though, I thought it was more like doing my job, the one I volunteered for.

I have saved several lives as a civilian, one at the risk of my own. I never got paid, no accolades, just a thank you from one of the people I saved. That was more than enough.

The other one, a big fat guy who was choking to death in a restaurant, never said squat. But then he was pretty shook up about what had just happened to him, so I didn't kick him.

Thank you for your service though.

-John
 
wsuffa said:
I was going to write a long and spirited note about why you were wrong. But I avoid making political posts, and such a note would invariably result in going Spin Zone.

I will simply say this: my dad spent a career working for & serving this country. He made far, far less money than he could have in the private sector. He lost hearing in one ear (nerve damage) as a result of his military service in WWII.

What "we" got was - literally - a transformation of how an important part of the military operated. To "our" favor.
Click to expand...

Your dad worked in government at a time when government employees were known as public servants. Your right, they received fair pay, but not any more than the average American worker, unlike today.

Again, I agree, we need a strong and dedicated military. In theory, that is not a wast of taxpayer dollars. How the Pentagon and Congress p*s*es it away, usually is.

-John
 
John Baker said:
Please understand, my comments were aimed at the millions of overpaid government employees who attend their jobs every day, rather than doing any meaningful or necessary work.

-John
Click to expand...

No. Your comments were directed specifically at me:

"Let me try to understand this. We provide you with a secure job, that pays considerably more than what we as civilians earn. You get long vacations, bonuses, next to free health care for life, and you get to retire from all that at a reasonably early age. Us civilians provide you with all of that, yet few of us come even remotely close to any of that.

What was it again that we get in return?"

If you are unwilling to stand by your words, then don't post them. Don't try to weasel out of them by assigning a broader audience when they most obviously were directed at me personally. Yeah, I didn't do 30, I left after 26. I would wager every dime I have that if I had left after 10 and went to work in the civilian sector I would have made significantly more over the years. You doubtless do not have the courage nor the grace to admit the truth and apologize, so just do not direct any further communication to me.
 
I think Threefingeredjack got to the nexus of it when he talked about strong apolitical leadership. Some of the finest commanders for which I worked cut through BS all the time and we loved it. But most commanders weren't the stand up and take the heat type. To say Secret Service trumps POTUS is BS. If the commander of all armed forces wanted things changed, he/she could effectuate that, but it's like overruling the chief financial officer in a company: if it ever comes back to bite anyone, that person/agency will sound a long cord of reminder and it will replay longer than any Stallone rerun. Kennedy did things SS advised against; Reagan did; they didn't like Bush jogging, etc, but some accommodations were made. TFRs have evolved a bit to allow us to pass through the outer ring. What I most dislike is how they can suddenly pop up while we're already enroute if on a trip and how the FAA web site for them says to check with someone else for updates; that FAA's information cannot be relied upon. I should be able to check that web site, prove I did by copying with a time/date stamp or logging in and it should be a safe harbor for a reasonable time. Best, Dave
 
Threefingeredjack said:
I'm not even going to attempt to defend the TSA's insanity. But please share your "common sense" solution for delineating a secure airspace around a high value target that is easily transmitted, described and understandable to the flying public.
Click to expand...

The United States spent nearly 100 years after the invention of the airplane with no airspace restrictions around any high value targets. In that time, the number of high value targets that have been killed by aircraft equals exactly zero.

Fact of the matter is there is no need whatsoever to secure high value targets from light aircraft. The very few intentional crashes have eloquently demonstrated the inability of light aircraft to become weapons of mass destruction. What is truly infuriating is the idiocy like what is in that quote is directed at that the segment of the population that is the most patriotic and responsible. Makes me sick.

Moreover, what is exactly so "high value" about the President? Will he cure cancer? I might. Doesn't that make me more valuable? The person holding the office isn't valuable at all, the office is. The denizens of Washington DC are no more valuable (and many would argue far less so) than those of Duluth, St. Louis, Toledo, or a hundred other cities of the United States. Yet unelected bureaucrats within our government capriciously waste our tax dollars restricting our freedom to deliver a security benefit who's existence can be generously described as questionable.
 
steingar said:
The United States spent nearly 100 years after the invention of the airplane with no airspace restrictions around any high value targets. In that time, the number of high value targets that have been killed by aircraft equals exactly zero.
Click to expand...

That is not exactly true. There have been P-areas in DC for many years, and there have been restrictions around certain other facilities. IIRC, there was also a small restriction around the President as he traveled. And I believe that there were much broader restrictions in WWII.

I think it would be more appropriate to point out that for those 100-ish years there have not been airspace restrictions anywhere near the magnitude that we have today. Saying there were "none" is simply inaccurate.
 
steingar said:
Moreover, what is exactly so "high value" about the President? Will he cure cancer? I might. Doesn't that make me more valuable? The person holding the office isn't valuable at all, the office is.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Terrorism is all about symbolism. Which is why the heads of state are targets. As delusional as the fanatics are they realize open combat with US forces is less than satisfactory.

I totally agree that the current system is fraught with problems. The difficulty that the FAA seems to have in getting the word out and being consistent with updates is frustrating at best. It's going to take a concerted political effort to alter the current policy, and that will have to be backed by consistent effective data supporting the truth.
 
steingar said:
Fact of the matter is there is no need whatsoever to secure high value targets from light aircraft. The very few intentional crashes have eloquently demonstrated the inability of light aircraft to become weapons of mass destruction.
Click to expand...

You dont need mass destruction, the protection here is for a point target.

The idea that a light aircraft are not a threat has been laid to rest with the guy who flew into the IRS building in Austin. All he had was a cherokee 235, there is a lot more damage you could do with a Mu2.
 
Threefingeredjack said:
No. Your comments were directed specifically at me:

"Let me try to understand this. We provide you with a secure job, that pays considerably more than what we as civilians earn. You get long vacations, bonuses, next to free health care for life, and you get to retire from all that at a reasonably early age. Us civilians provide you with all of that, yet few of us come even remotely close to any of that.

What was it again that we get in return?"

If you are unwilling to stand by your words, then don't post them. Don't try to weasel out of them by assigning a broader audience when they most obviously were directed at me personally. Yeah, I didn't do 30, I left after 26. I would wager every dime I have that if I had left after 10 and went to work in the civilian sector I would have made significantly more over the years. You doubtless do not have the courage nor the grace to admit the truth and apologize, so just do not direct any further communication to me.
Click to expand...

Your right, I singled you out personally.

I was just trying to be nice, which for me, is a really hard thing to do.

I could give a rats patooty less about any other government employees ripping off the taxpayer, it is only you personally, that I targeted.

You are the only government employee that spent a career doing little or nothing. Nobody else did it, just Threefingeredjack. Your the only one, your special.

Just like the kid with his hand in the cookie jar claiming he didn't do it, there you are.

Nope, it was all about Threefingeredjack, just you.

Yup, you busted me. Happy now? :rofl:

-John
 
weilke said:
You dont need mass destruction, the protection here is for a point target.

The idea that a light aircraft are not a threat has been laid to rest with the guy who flew into the IRS building in Austin. All he had was a cherokee 235, there is a lot more damage you could do with a Mu2.
Click to expand...

The guy in Austin killed himself and two others. Not what I'd call mass destruction. Started a nice fire, I'll give you that. Timmy McVeigh did more with a rented truck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top