Bedminster Presidential TFR violated THREE times today, one forced to Land.

EvilEagle said:
The term Noble Eagle is as in Operation Noble Eagle. The jets who do the flying aren't called Noble Eagles, all though we say it's a "Noble Eagle" sortie. Go figure, it doesn't make any sense...

Anyhoo, the Secret Service talks with the country that the POTUS is visiting and passes their defensive requirements. If that country can't meet or exceed them, we typically go to provide the coverage that they can't or won't. So... yes we could be patrolling over Scotland. I've flown those types of sorties in six countries counting the US and Canada.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info.

So were there Noble Eagle sorties over the NK-SK DMZ or over Vietnam when POTUS was there recently? That seems as if it could be touchy.
 
Silvaire said:
The whole post 9/11 security thing is an example of an industry that just got completely out of hand because every politician was throwing money at it in an attempt to make it look like they were doing something. Now it's like Elvis in his final years forced to do 3 shows a night because failing to do so would put a thousand people out of work. It's a big boulder rolling down a hill, you can't stop it. Although some of the really stupid ideas did get canned such as the color coded threat level chart. I mean who in their right mind was ever gonna set that thing to green? Even on the sunniest of days.
Click to expand...
As the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York used to say, Republicans often give us what Democrats promise and vice versa.
 
In regards to perception of danger, there's something I've always wondered about. Yeah the flashy stuff on the news like terrorism, mass shootings, etc ramps up the emotional response and maybe that explains why people think it's a significant risk. However I wonder if there isn't another component to that- something that might be way down in our subconscious where we're far more concerned about the nefarious them getting us. Like somehow in our brains the bad guys killing us ranks worse than the far more likely risk that the family cat trips us on the stairs and we break our necks.
 
cowman said:
However I wonder if there isn't another component to that- something that might be way down in our subconscious where we're far more concerned about the nefarious them getting us. Like somehow in our brains the bad guys killing us ranks worse than the far more likely risk that the family cat trips us on the stairs and we break our necks.
Click to expand...

I suspect that is correct. May even be related to a fear of being the prey.
 
People seem to misunderstand the purpose of VIP TFRs. The purpose is not to shoot down the unaware or stupid. It's to declutter the airspace so USSS can actually determine if someone's a threat or not. And if they were worried about a threat, POTUS would be moved before anyone got shot down. No one's going to die just so he can make a speech or play a round unbothered by a banner.
 
Last edited:
PeterNSteinmetz said:
So it is possible that airline traffic would have been back to normal in a few weeks after it became clearer that these attacks were a one-off sort of event.
Click to expand...
Are we absolutely sure it was a one-off event? If so, would it have been if we'd made no changes to our security posture?


SkyDog58 said:
Thanks for the info.

So were there Noble Eagle sorties over the NK-SK DMZ or over Vietnam when POTUS was there recently? That seems as if it could be touchy.
Click to expand...
No problem.

I don't know the details of what was going on then. They keep that pretty close hold (who's flying when and where) when we are operating from a foreign country. Lots of fighters stationed in S. Korea; but likely not too many guys that didn't check NOTAMs out for a Sunday VFR flight on the border of N & S Korea. Pretty easy to see things coming a long way off in that airspace.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Flight 93 is what changed things. Not TSA.
Click to expand...

And Flight 93 was a result of knowledge of what was happening. That knowledge that it might not be a simple catch and release hijacking made all the difference.

Also the reinforced cockpit doors are due a large amount of credit. The fact that this wasn’t done after all of the earlier hijackings is a serious indictment on our government’s typical response to not take action until a situation becomes catastrophic. And then they overreact with all sorts of added nonsense. 9/11 would not have happened if the cockpits had been made more secure a long time ago.
 
EvilEagle said:
Are we absolutely sure it was a one-off event? If so, would it have been if we'd made no changes to our security posture? .
Click to expand...

I don’t think absolute certainty is ever possible in this type of thing.

But no credible evidence was found that any other planes were involved on that day. If true, grounding everyone didn’t actually prevent any attacks that day.

As noted by others, hardening cockpit doors has made it much harder to execute that particular type of attack. But hardening the doors has its own downsides, for example, pilot suicide/murder becomes a bigger factor.
 
SkyDog58 said:
Also the reinforced cockpit doors are due a large amount of credit. The fact that this wasn’t done after all of the earlier hijackings is a serious indictment on our government’s typical response to not take action until a situation becomes catastrophic. And then they overreact with all sorts of added nonsense. 9/11 would not have happened if the cockpits had been made more secure a long time ago.
Click to expand...

9/11 would have happened regardless of the door. The policy was to let the hijackers take over, minimize the risk to the passengers and plane and go do what they wanted. Historically that worked out reasonably well (some notable exceptions). After 9/11 the game changed. There will never be another successful hijacking. It won't be allowed by anyone on board as they know the potential outcome.

My Grandfather flew for Eastern from 52-82 and in the early 70's (he was a 727 Capt at that point) they might has well have scheduled the weekly hijacking to Havana it happened so often. He was not a person to take a personal affront lying down but he said his first duty was to get the passengers on the ground and away from the threat and if it meant sacrificing the plane or crew that was just the cost of being the Captain. We have been operating under those rules for decades. They no longer apply.


 
Pugs said:
There will never be another successful hijacking. It won't be allowed by anyone on board as they know the potential outcome.
Click to expand...
You underestimate the power of social engineering and persuasion when you say, "Never." But it's probably accurate to say there's far less likelihood of a successful hijacking meeting a certain profile.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
All the more reason to get rid of these TFRs! Less golf being played on the taxpayer’s dime and less hot air from politicians.
Click to expand...
Connect the dots please. There's a TFR over the president whether he's playing golf or eating fried chicken. Eliminating VIP TFRs wouldn't affect the golf or the fried chicken.
 
Lindberg said:
Connect the dots please. There's a TFR over the president whether he's playing golf or eating fried chicken. Eliminating VIP TFRs wouldn't affect the golf or the fried chicken.
Click to expand...

And if we eliminated the TFRs and he felt it was too risky to go out on a golf outing because there was no TFR, then he would be playing golf less.

Of course he might decide, reasonably in my opinion, that the risk is not really that great without the TFR. If so, then the taxpayers would save money by not having to monitor the TFR with expensive military jets, and GA pilots, like many of us here, would not be inconvenienced.
 
Last edited:
PeterNSteinmetz said:
And if we eliminated the TFRs and he felt it was too risky to go out on a golf outing because there was no TFR, then he would be playing golf less.

Of course he might decide, reasonably in my opinion, that the risk is not really that great without the TFR. If so, then the taxpayers would save money by not having to monitor the TFR with expensive military jets, and GA pilots, like many of us here, would not be inconvenienced.
Click to expand...
It's entirely not up to him.
 
Pugs said:
9/11 would have happened regardless of the door. The policy was to let the hijackers take over, minimize the risk to the passengers and plane and go do what they wanted. Historically that worked out reasonably well (some notable exceptions). After 9/11 the game changed. There will never be another successful hijacking. It won't be allowed by anyone on board as they know the potential outcome.

My Grandfather flew for Eastern from 52-82 and in the early 70's (he was a 727 Capt at that point) they might has well have scheduled the weekly hijacking to Havana it happened so often. He was not a person to take a personal affront lying down but he said his first duty was to get the passengers on the ground and away from the threat and if it meant sacrificing the plane or crew that was just the cost of being the Captain. We have been operating under those rules for decades. They no longer apply.
Click to expand...

I disagree with the idea that 9/11 would have happened if the hardened doors and their protocols were already in place. Sure it's possible that a hijacker could time his attack perfectly to coincide with the door being opened for some reason or another but the chance that four aircraft could have been taken over would have been highly improbable. And it's hard to force the pilots to open the door with nothing more than a box cutter in your hand and if the hijackers threatened to start killing passengers with his box cutter, I would imagine that they wouldn't get far without passengers ganging up on them. Without a better weapon or the benefit of a rush on the cockpit, 9/11 would have been such a remote possibility as to be almost nil.
 
Lindberg said:
It's entirely not up to him.
Click to expand...

I realize there are protocols, etc. that are usually followed in terms of tactical decisions. But isn’t the secret service part of treasury, which is a branch of the administration? So if the President decided to eliminate these, would it not be in his power? Or is there some other statutory requirement ?
 
SkyDog58 said:
I disagree with the idea that 9/11 would have happened if the hardened doors and their protocols were already in place. Sure it's possible that a hijacker could time his attack perfectly to coincide with the door being opened for some reason or another but the chance that four aircraft could have been taken over would have been highly improbable. And it's hard to force the pilots to open the door with nothing more than a box cutter in your hand and if the hijackers threatened to start killing passengers with his box cutter, I would imagine that they wouldn't get far without passengers ganging up on them. Without a better weapon or the benefit of a rush on the cockpit, 9/11 would have been such a remote possibility as to be almost nil.
Click to expand...

You threw protocols in there this time. I agree. The door would have been opened under Pre 9/11 protocols and not after. The security of the door is immaterial if the policy is to open it.
 
Pugs said:
You threw protocols in there this time. I agree. The door would have been opened under Pre 9/11 protocols and not after. The security of the door is immaterial if the policy is to open it.
Click to expand...

Do you think they would have installed the new style doors and not developed protocols for their use? They go hand in hand.
 
Lindberg said:
People seem to misunderstand the purpose of VIP TFRs. The purpose is not to shoot down the unaware or stupid. It's to declutter the airspace so USSS can actually determine if someone's a threat or not. And if they were worried about a threat, POTUS would be moved before anyone got shot down. No one's going to die just so he can make a speech or play a round unbothered by a banner.
Click to expand...

Who cares who’s a threat to a politician? We published an order of succession for a reason.

They can’t behave well enough as humans not to have enemies willing to try it, oh well.

There’s a line out the door for the job and the perks.

The politicians won’t even properly protect kids on places they denied normal means of self-defense.

Why offer them any better? Are they better people just because they won a high school popularity contest or raised more money with their charismatic smiles and lies?

It’s an honest question and honest opinion. I don’t much care if people go after politicians, really. They get to choose how they behave and whether or not they want to do things that **** people off.

And yeah, just being a politician is one of those things. Boo hoo. Forget the motorcades and helicopters and TFRs. Give them a Prius, a gas card, a bulletproof vest if they want to wear it, and a sidearm. And all the training they want.

After that, they’re on their own as to how to deploy what they’ve got.

Don’t want the job under those terms, don’t apply.
 
SkyDog58 said:
Do you think they would have installed the new style doors and not developed protocols for their use? They go hand in hand.
Click to expand...

If the protocol was - don't open the door even if the bad guy is going to slit the FA's throat, doubt that would have been developed in advance.
 
SkyDog58 said:
I disagree with the idea that 9/11 would have happened if the hardened doors and their protocols were already in place.
Click to expand...
Can you imagine the traffic deaths that would have been prevented if States would have enacted laws preventing texting and driving back in the early 1900s. Could have saved thousands of lives.

There were protocols in place. “Do whatever the hijacker says.” That was the ROE in a pre-9/11 world.

SkyDog58 said:
Sure it's possible that a hijacker could time his attack perfectly to coincide with the door being opened for some reason or another but the chance that four aircraft could have been taken over would have been highly improbable. And it's hard to force the pilots to open the door with nothing more than a box cutter in your hand...
Click to expand...
Again, there wasn’t a need to force a door open, hardened or otherwise. If the hijacker wanted the door open, you opened the door.

FA: There’s a passenger back here that says he has a bomb and wants to go to Cuba.
Pilot: Do you see a bomb?
FA: No.
Pilot: Okay. Well, I guess we’re headed to Cuba anyhow.
FA: That passenger wants to come up front to the cockpit.
Pilot: Ok. Let him up here, I’ll talk to him.

SkyDog58 said:
Without a better weapon or the benefit of a rush on the cockpit, 9/11 would have been such a remote possibility as to be almost nil.
Click to expand...
If William McKinley had been on the ball and mandated the IRCDs installed on all US airlines, 9/11 would have been such a remote possibility as to be almost nil.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
All the more reason to get rid of these TFRs! Less golf being played on the taxpayer’s dime and less hot air from politicians.
Click to expand...


wut? I'm sure we can throw a few more in there for the fun of it...

i-3QqqqdW-L.jpg
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
I realize there are protocols, etc. that are usually followed in terms of tactical decisions. But isn’t the secret service part of treasury, which is a branch of the administration? So if the President decided to eliminate these, would it not be in his power? Or is there some other statutory requirement ?
Click to expand...

Point of pedantry: The Secret Service got transferred to Homeland Security about 15 years ago.
 
denverpilot said:
Who cares who’s a threat to a politician? We published an order of succession for a reason.
...
Don’t want the job under those terms, don’t apply.
Click to expand...

Hear hear! They are a bunch of people who think of themselves as being of so much more importance that the average citizen that we should all pay and be inconvenienced so they can feel safe.
 
ateamer said:
Sure it is. He can issue an executive order prohibiting VIP TFRs.
Click to expand...
Maybe, maybe not. Congress has directed the USSS to protect the President and he cannot decline. Does that also prevent him from dictating that the protection is reduced?
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
Hear hear! They are a bunch of people who think of themselves as being of so much more importance that the average citizen that we should all pay and be inconvenienced so they can feel safe.
Click to expand...
Don't be absurd. We're not talking about yokel mayors or even random congressmen. The President is a symbol of our nation. He's also the elected leader of the whole country. He doesn't "think of himself" as being more important than the average citizen. From a national security perspective, he indisputably is. How many foreign security services, criminal enterprises, terrorist organizations, or random whackos would give a crap if the average citizen lives or dies?
 
Lindberg said:
Maybe, maybe not. Congress has directed the USSS to protect the President and he cannot decline. Does that also prevent him from dictating that the protection is reduced?
Click to expand...
Recent presidents have done so many executive orders that I'm not sure what they can do or not anymore. It's not party specific, so let's not pick on which one is worse.
 
Lindberg said:
From a national security perspective, he indisputably is.
Click to expand...
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree there. I think that if we have a government of laws, and not men, it doesn't really matter much who is the President. It really shouldn't be that important to the average citizen. And I don't think the President is a "symbol of our nation" who needs extraordinary protection from all conceivable airborne attacks. He is supposed to just be the executive doing the work of the citizens, not "our Leader". In terms of national security, we have an order of succession.

I understand though that the politicians themselves and those who work to protect them and those in the military think this is all terribly important to everyone's safety and security. I just disagree on that, but debating the facts of that really does veer off into politics badly.

And I also agree entirely with @denverpilot, there are plenty of people who want the job. Eliminate the TFRS and the other expensive perks. If people don't like that, don't apply for the job.
 
Last edited:
It occurs to me that it should in principle be possible to figure out how much it is actually worth to protect TFRs and then decide whether the expense of the protection (F-16s, inconvenience to other pilots and flights, etc.) is worth it. Not that such a rational process seems to ever be undertaken by the FAA and/or secret service -- they are more in the mode of "have to protect at any cost".

First compute how much it costs if the politician in question is successfully attacked. This could be in terms of likely property damage, expenses to bring in new people and bring them up to speed, lost opportunity costs, etc.

Then determine how likely a successful attack is and how much of that risk is actually mitigated by having the TFR. Multiple the cost by the likely risk mitigated.

Then compare to the cost of putting up and patrolling the TFR.

I seriously doubt this would work out in favor of the TFRs, even for the POTUS, given the very low likelihood of an airborne attack being successfully completed and the TFRs likely having little to no effect on that risk. But I could be persuaded by an actual set of numbers and a study.

I very much doubt such a calculation has been made. When similar calculations are done for the TSA, the cost is something like 100X greater than it should be relative to the possible benefit. Nonetheless, we have had the TSA for 18 years now.
 
Last edited:
I’m tellin’ ya man. A Prius, a vest, and a sidearm of choice and they’re as protected as any of us are. Welcome to being equals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top