Maybe a 5 mile no drive radius around the Presidential motorcade would help our cause.
I will leave the obvious jokes out of this one.
While I see your point it still is not the case in the real world. I've been accused of bumping MCI "B" space and was asked to call ATC when I landed. We talked, I knew where I was at all times, I had the correct altimeter setting, and 2 WAAS GPSs to tell me where I was, but they still insisted I busted the space. If I would have clearly busted the space there would have been enforcement action, in this case it was so slight or non existent they let it pass with a verbal warning.
The radar they are using for traffic is not as accurate as a WAAS GPS, and intent is EVERYTHING when the FAA investigates alleged violations.
Nothing is as black and white as you make it out to be.
Tim, right out of the box you have the post of the day. Well done sir!
While I see your point it still is not the case in the real world....
Nothing is as black and white as you make it out to be.
B-space is not the same as a Presidential TFR or the SFRA/FRZ, the subjects of this thread, for which there are no warnings, no wrist-slaps, and no get-out-of-jail-free cards. What there is for those are certificate actions and bad publicity. Just give them a wide berth which takes into account everything from navigational errors to the inaccuracies of their radar (which is going to be the standard by which the court judges your actions, not your more accurate GPS) and don't draw unnecessary negative attention to GA.I will leave the obvious jokes out of this one.
While I see your point it still is not the case in the real world. I've been accused of bumping MCI "B" space and was asked to call ATC when I landed. We talked, I knew where I was at all times, I had the correct altimeter setting, and 2 WAAS GPSs to tell me where I was, but they still insisted I busted the space. If I would have clearly busted the space there would have been enforcement action, in this case it was so slight or non existent they let it pass with a verbal warning.
Not on this score. They acceded to a Presidential demand to remove a security precaution 50 years ago this past week, and the result was a dead President. After that, their marching orders from Congress were changed so the President cannot order them to relax security restrictions they feel necessary to make absolutely certain that doesn't happen again. You give an agency essentially unlimited authority and a single mission (don't let the President come to any harm whatsoever) , and this is the predictable result.
While I see your point it still is not the case in the real world. I've been accused of bumping MCI "B" space and was asked to call ATC when I landed. We talked, I knew where I was at all times, I had the correct altimeter setting, and 2 WAAS GPSs to tell me where I was, but they still insisted I busted the space. If I would have clearly busted the space there would have been enforcement action, in this case it was so slight or non existent they let it pass with a verbal warning.
The radar they are using for traffic is not as accurate as a WAAS GPS, and intent is EVERYTHING when the FAA investigates alleged violations.
Nothing is as black and white as you make it out to be.
Yes, I agree that Ron is dead on target.
Everything changed after 9/11. The biggest change is that there are no layers of defenses and a much more robust threat identification/determination system in place. These systems were developed and tested using a range of threat aircraft from Cessna 172's to a BD-5J Microjet simulating a cruise missile. There are lethal air defense systems in place, along with a lot of means to identify the intruder and take appropriate action -- which is why Shaeffer and Martin survived their own incompetence. It was because those systems were in place that the air defenders were able to determine who was in the plane and what their intentions were before they reached the point where they would have been splashed.
Absolute rubbish, and clearly the real threat forces believe it works or they would have pressed to test already. It might be easy to say that since nothing has happened, we can drop all that, but the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, so it goes on and will continue to go on until there is no threat.
And your lack of knowledge about constitutional law is exceeded only by your lack of knowledge about air defense operations. Adios.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...44b67e-56d2-11e3-bdbf-097ab2a3dc2b_story.html
![\__[Ô]__/](/community/data/avatars/m/12/12009.jpg?1457665956){kind=avatar}
You think he's even aware of it? Do they still have town hall type meetings were you can ask questions? Seems this might be a good thing to ask about. "Hey, we love having you visit and all, but do you realize you're shutting down most air operations for a dozen local airports because of your visit. My friends who make their living as pilots can't work today because you're in town and the small businesses at all those airports can't make any money either because of a flight restriction you're causing. Think maybe you can look into changing that so you're not hurting small businesses everywhere you go?"
You are forgetting that some of us are more equal than others.With the premise that "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL" in our founding documents.. I want to know if I can get the same security detail as the POTUS gets.......... After all......... We are ALL equal... Ain't we.
Yes, they will be met by local LEOs
They do use ATC radar, but with Presidential airspace, they also have other radar systems in use, and you can't fly your Cessna 150 low enough to beat those systems without getting a traffic ticket.
If I lived near one of those protectees, one sneaking through would not be my concern -- I'd be a lot more worried about the flaming wreckage of the intruder falling on my head.The thing that worried all of us neighbors is if one attach snuck through the defenses... We all would have been collateral damage...
Believe that if you want. Just please don't act on the idea you can get away with it.
What do you base your answer on?
Which security precaution was that? Not the bubble-top; that was only protection against the elements, and the decision to remove it was made by the Secret Service because the skies were clear.
Wrong on both counts. It removed by personal demand of JFK over the recommendations of USSS, and it would have shielded him from the shot. Might not have been bullet-proof, but it would have made an effective shot a lot more difficult. In any event, that was the trigger to removing the Presidential option to discard USSS security precautions.
Wrong again. Clearly you have no knowledge or understanding of air defense operations and the RoE in effect today. And the only reason UA 93 wasn't splashed is that it crashed before that could happen -- in fact, unarmed DC ANG F-16's up on a training mission were going to ram it before it got too close to DC (no armed aircraft were in a position to get there in time, and no SAM's were in position). That was documented in an AW&ST story shortly after the event.
Not without prior USSS coordination/approval and appropriate building search/control, and crowd screening/control. It's not a spur-of-the-moment deal. In Dallas, the USSS had specific threats and concerns about possible attempts on JFK, and opposed the relaxation of the rules which he demanded and got (and then got shot for his trouble).
As someone who was standing watch on a DDG that got underway two hours after the towers fell, I can say this: we had all the keys on station in CIC and standing by to kill, on order, anything entering US airspace that jets couldn't reach first. It was a very surreal time.