Busting Obama's Airspace Today

[poadeleted20]

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.

For those unfamiliar, the keys about which FT speaks are the launch keys for the Standard and Sparrow surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) a DDG (guided missile destroyer) carries. IIRC, they are normally kept locked up in peacetime/home waters.

 

[MooneyDriver78]

What do you base your answer on?

Because I was listening to ATC here when a Cessna busted a TFR, it was escorted by F16s and the tower told the pilot to pull into parking, remain in the airplane with engine off and wait for LEOs. I assume this is SOP for all cases.

 

[Lindberg]

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.

Nope. It's well documented. Jim Lehrer spoke to agent Forrest Sorels at Love Field about whether the top would stay on given that the weather had cleared. Sorels ordered the top removed since it was sunny. The top was actually in the trunk of the limo in case it started raining. When the decision was made, Kennedy wasn't even in Dallas yet. The top was a measure for protection from weather. Whether or not it might have deflected a bullet enough to make a difference is pure speculation but the fact remains, the bubble top was not a security measure.

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.

Somehow you went from an unidentified GA aircraft in a presidential TFR today to an identified hostile on 9/11 after three planes had already been used as missiles, and you went from SAMs to interceptors.

Nevertheless, the pilots you're referring to were not airborne on a training mission. They scrambled in response to an alert from the Secret Service, but there was no time to arm their planes with missiles. Also, whether they would have rammed UAL 93 or not, they were not ordered to. They were simply told to protect DC. In fact, the 9/11 Commission determined that even though Cheney gave the order to shoot down non-responsive aircraft, that order was never passed down the chain of command:

“The NEADS commander told us he did not pass along the order because he was unaware of its ramifications. Both the mission commander and the senior weapons director indicated they did not pass the order to the fighters circling Washington and New York because they were unsure how the pilots would, or should, proceed with this guidance. In short, while leaders in Washington believed that the fighters above them had been instructed to “take out” hostile aircraft, the only orders actually conveyed to the pilots were to “ID type and tail.”

On a side note, I'm not aware of any corroboration of Sasseville and Penny's version of events that day, but their plan (which no one mentioned until 2011) was not the official "ROE."

 

[poadeleted20]

The pilots were interviewed by AW&ST, and said that was what they were going to do. Can't speak to what transpired above them. In any event, they are most definitely prepared to shoot down a civilian plane as a last resort, and President lacks the authority to tell the USSS to abandon security procedures the USSS Presidential Protection Detail considers necessary.

 

[bflynn]

Believe that if you want. Just please don't act on the idea you can get away with it.

I'm sorry, but believe what? Believe that the news article said they didn't find the airplane? Believe that pilots have been falsely accused of violating airspace in the past? I believe both because they are reported to be true by mostly reliable sources.

Try to reign in your righteousness. I have no desire to go messing with TFRs, nor to flirt with airspace boundaries. I'm not out to prove anything. All I did was note that the evidence of them not finding an airplane contradicts your claim that they know everything that moves in the air. Apparently they do not or else they would have had a track on exactly where this airplane went.

 

[kkoran]

Because I was listening to ATC here when a Cessna busted a TFR, it was escorted by F16s and the tower told the pilot to pull into parking, remain in the airplane with engine off and wait for LEOs. I assume this is SOP for all cases.

I don't think it's a safe to assume they would have law enforcement respond to known military aircraft just because that's what they did for a GA aircraft.

 

[ISaidRightTurns]

I don't think it's a safe to assume they would have law enforcement respond to known military aircraft just because that's what they did for a GA aircraft.

The FAA does not violate military pilots for TFR violations because they often do not have FAA licenses. Nor does Flight Standards get involved when a military pilot violates a clearance; the Air Traffic Organization does not police DOD towers; and Accident Investigation does not investigate DOD accidents.

That being said, these incidents are typically sent to the DOD where they are summarily round filed.

EDIT: and to build on the discussion here, I've never heard of USSS sending local LE to a base. I doubt they could get on much less to the flight line.

 

[Dr. O]

Local pilot (local, as in from a private strip about 20 miles away) in a home built violated the VP's bubble here in Michigan. We saw him fly over our field and wag the wings at us while we were grounded for the 3 hours of the TFR. Obviously he did not know there was a TFR that Saturday and we know he has no radio. VP's plane was on the ground at the local jetport where he was out stuffing bags with money. Anyway, our guy then made a big loop up towards Saginaw Bay and then dropped down low and did crop inspection on his way back out. We saw him pass by about a mile away on his return leg. ATC was apoplectic and all but hyperventilating. Amusing to listen to.
State police came by (after I had gone) asking questions. Seems nobody saw anything. And the Gov't was not able to identify the plane. So, not every plane moving can be tracked by the system. But I suspect most can. And I suspect that were it the POTUS there would have been air cover with a different outcome.

 

[poadeleted20]

The FAA does not violate military pilots for TFR violations because they often do not have FAA licenses. Nor does Flight Standards get involved when a military pilot violates a clearance; the Air Traffic Organization does not police DOD towers; and Accident Investigation does not investigate DOD accidents.

That being said, these incidents are typically sent to the DOD where they are summarily round filed.

Having been on the military side of that, I can assure you those reports are not "round filed". The military takes a very dim view of aviators who do not comply with the rules (including the FAA's), and if you get caught like that, the pain ain't worth the gain.

 

[mikea]

That would have to be a Citation, since the F16 won't put along at 90kts.

They've gotten them down to slow enough to circle around the flib, besides, they have black helicopters. Remember the Smoketown Two.

I'm waiting for the first time the GA pilot totally panics and augers in - proving the threat.

 

[Velocity173]

Yeah military flight violations of CFRs are not "round filed" and the FAA/NTSB can be involved in the accident/incident investigating of a DOD aircraft especially if an FAA function was involved. Our regs specifically listed the FAA as one of several reporting sources for a military flight violation. Punitive action will be at the discretion of the commander overseeing the board.

Also, I'd say at least 90% of the guys I flew with in the Army had FAA pilot's certificates. It's common practice at Ft Rucker that once you get your instrument checkride done to go out in town and get your commercial rotorcraft instrument ticket.

 

[mikea]

[/B]

It will start changing rapidly when they start getting voted out of office.

Vote who? It's been two POTUS's.

There is no pressure whatsoever to let up on the security theater.

Everytime the authorities let a huge risk get through they get to claim they need more authority.

Vis:

• The FBI and the CIA had files on Lee Oswald.
• The 9/11 terrorists were known.
• The Russians warned the US to watch the Boston bombers.

 

[TMetzinger]

Vote who? It's been two POTUS's.

There is no pressure whatsoever to let up on the security theater.

Everytime the authorities let a huge risk get through they get to claim they need more authority.

Vis:

• The FBI and the CIA had files on Lee Oswald.
• The 9/11 terrorists were known.
• The Russians warned the US to watch the Boston bombers.

Congress. They're the ones who gave the stick to the USSS. They can exert considerable pressure if they want to. However, they asked the Executive branch to justify the SFRA/FRZ once and as far as I know they got nowhere and didn't push back.

But Congress really is the only hope for sanity on some of this.

 

[mikea]

Maybe a 5 mile no drive radius around the Presidential motorcade would help our cause.

There is one. They close the freeways for the motorcade(s).

 

[kkoran]

The FAA does not violate military pilots for TFR violations because they often do not have FAA licenses. Nor does Flight Standards get involved when a military pilot violates a clearance; the Air Traffic Organization does not police DOD towers; and Accident Investigation does not investigate DOD accidents.

That being said, these incidents are typically sent to the DOD where they are summarily round filed.

EDIT: and to build on the discussion here, I've never heard of USSS sending local LE to a base. I doubt they could get on much less to the flight line.

I never said anything about the FAA taking action against the pilots.

They did identify two aircraft that violated the TFR over LA...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...44b67e-56d2-11e3-bdbf-097ab2a3dc2b_story.html

Think they were met by law enforcement when ther landed? Think the pilots are going to be grounded for 60/90/180 days like a civilian pilot would?

I have experience dealing with military deviations when I was in the Air Force. The FAA notifies the appropriate service representative who contacts the unit. What happens after that is up to the commander. Assuming the incursion was simply a mistake, I don't see a commander taking any significant punitive action. Maybe the pilots will have to brief the incident at the next safety meeting.

 

[jnmeade]

What size buffer zone should one employ around a TFR? 1 nm? 3 nm? 5 nm? 20 nm? I assume this requires some knowledge of the ATC radar and other location equipment capability?

Can anyone comment on actual incidents on UAS busting a TFR? (I know what the NOTAM says - I'm asking about actual, documented incidents and how they were handled.) One has the feeling that at some stage model airplanes and UAS have busted TFRs but I've not heard of any actions taken - anyone have any info with references?

One reason I ask about that is busting junior with his model airplane is likely to make the local news as something at affects an ordinary citizen (not a pilot who "ought to know better") and making the local news may inform more of the public of what is happening. As others have said, I doubt if many understand about the TFRs in more than the most casual way.

 

[N801BH]

.....the public of what is happening. As others have said, I doubt if many understand about the TFRs in more than the most casual way.

Agree... 99% of the population probably have NO idea what a airspace grab a TFR really is.....

Not that the sheeple would rise up in protest if they did...

 

[steingar]

In any event, they are most definitely prepared to shoot down a civilian plane as a last resort, and President lacks the authority to tell the USSS to abandon security procedures the USSS Presidential Protection Detail considers necessary.

Baloney. The SS is part of the Executive Branch, of which the POTUS is the head. Again, if there is legislation allowing the SS to dictate to their boss it is an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers. Congress does indeed write the laws, but the Executive branch operates on the President's authority. Separation of powers, wisely built into the Constitution. Sorry some folks think they're wiser than the framers, and a real pity some are in government. Been working just fine for a couple centuries now.