NATO TFR AKA The Death Penalty

Threefingeredjack said:
That is correct. The decision matrix for targets ignoring the instructions of intercepting aircraft has several branches, and exactly how you are dealt with has escalating steps. But the result will be more than an interview when you land.
Click to expand...
"I love the taste of concrete in the morning..."

I personally got to see them deal with the pilot of a Mooney which busted through P-40 at low altitude prior to 9/11. When he landed at Martin State in Baltimore, a Marine helo landed next to him, and a squad of Marines piled out with M-16's. The pilot was very shortly thereafter face down on the concrete with a boot on his neck and an M-16 in his ear. I suspect that was a more memorable and perhaps more deterrent experience than the then-usual remedial training with an Aviation Safety Counselor prescribed for such busts.
 
Ron Levy said:
"I love the taste of concrete in the morning..."

I personally got to see them deal with the pilot of a Mooney which busted through P-40 at low altitude prior to 9/11. When he landed at Martin State in Baltimore, a Marine helo landed next to him, and a squad of Marines piled out with M-16's. The pilot was very shortly thereafter face down on the concrete with a boot on his neck and an M-16 in his ear. I suspect that was a more memorable and perhaps more deterrent experience than the then-usual remedial training with an Aviation Safety Counselor prescribed for such busts.
Click to expand...

:D I flew support for KSC and in the DC area. But never got to see the end result of incursions.
 
Palmpilot said:
It's not the government that I'm scared of. It's the reaction of an aviation-phobic public. A coordinated mass airspace violation will make that worse, not better, and making that worse is NOT what we want to do.
Click to expand...
Right. Remember the results of the poll I posted? The majority of people approve of the security measures. They would be more afraid of an attack by airplanes, especially a hundred of them, than of the government which has put rules in place to protect them.
 
Re: Be careful in Chicago for NATO summit

Ron Levy said:
Clearly, you aren't familiar with all the systems and procedures in place, or the many systems tests done to determine necessary reaction times and identification procedures, including a BD-5J doing simulated cruise missile profiles against the DC area.
Click to expand...

And the people who are familar with all the systems and procedures in place probably cannot discuss all aspects of them in unclassified forums, especially limitations and vulnerabilities.
 
Re: Be careful in Chicago for NATO summit

Bob Noel said:
And the people who are familar with all the systems and procedures in place probably cannot discuss all aspects of them in unclassified forums, especially limitations and vulnerabilities.
Click to expand...
Yup. But we can see the effects when people do what the Smoketown Bandits did, and after 10 years of this, no innocents have been shot down despite thousands of incursions. That's a pretty good track record for the people charged with enforcing this, regardless of what you thing about the decisions to establish these TFR's by those above them.
 
Ron Levy said:
The reason that happened in 1987 was the outcry over the shootdown of KAL 007 in 1983. The Russians were terrified of the political ramifications of a repeat episode and established better identification procedures. Once they realized what Rust's aircraft was, they determined that it was not a serious threat, and let it continue.
Click to expand...
I was standing there in front of the GUM store last year and the first thing I could think was "Hell, I could get my 310 in and out of here!":rofl:
 
BTW, after Matthias Rust, we in the strike planning shop at one of the two F-111 bases in Europe debated for a while trading our F-111's for C-172's as a means of increasing our likelihood of reaching our targets. :D
 
DouglasBader said:
The damage done is really irrelevant; it's not about killing a maximum number of people of a massive dollar value in property destroyed. It's about terror. That's why it's called terrorism.
Click to expand...

Then, by that definition, most of the terrorists are in Washington or behind the "News" desk.

Everskyward said:
Right. Remember the results of the poll I posted? The majority of people approve of the security measures. They would be more afraid of an attack by airplanes, especially a hundred of them, than of the government which has put rules in place to protect them.
Click to expand...

Q.E.D.
 
Were I within the TRSA and had a reason to conduct any of the operations banned under D, I would go to the Federal Court and demand that the FAA show cause for the uncompensated taking of public airspace that impacts my right to use that airspace...

Were the airplane organizations willing to spend some of their monies and political capital on backing such suits every time the FAA seizes the public airspace for more than the couple hours necessary for the Prez to fly in and fill the plane with campaign cash, the Federal Government would begin curtailing TFR to the absolute minimum necessary, not to the maximum politically desirable as they do now, lest they lose in Federal Court and be ordered to desist (oh horrors!)


There, that should open the spin zone to traffic...
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Then, by that definition, most of the terrorists are in Washington or behind the "News" desk.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say that. Many times the public gets what the public wants. People often watch programs which confirm their own beliefs. They also put pressure on politicians to enact laws which they want. You can't deny that "the public" wanted protection provided by the government after 9/11. As individuals we may not agree with the majority but that doesn't mean people in general don't have an influence.
 
Everskyward said:
I wouldn't say that. Many times the public gets what the public wants. People often watch programs which confirm their own beliefs. They also put pressure on politicians to enact laws which they want. You can't deny that "the public" wanted protection provided by the government after 9/11. As individuals we may not agree with the majority but that doesn't mean people in general don't have an influence.
Click to expand...

I'm going to deny it.

I don't recall wanting protection from the government on 9/11 and I don't recall anyone else wanting their na-na either, I recall wanting to fund a DoD project to install Lake of America in large parts of the Middle East. I also recall an attitude of resilience and not going to let anybody change our way of life.... woopsie. I recall the public wanting to "Get those bastards" and not a sentiment of a 3 year old screaming "Protect me NaNa, Protect me!"
 
bartmc said:
I'm going to deny it.

I don't recall wanting protection from the government on 9/11 and I don't recall anyone else wanting their na-na either, I recall wanting to fund a DoD project to install Lake of America in large parts of the Middle East. I also recall an attitude of resilience and not going to let anybody change our way of life.... woopsie. I recall the public wanting to "Get those bastards" and not a sentiment of a 3 year old screaming "Protect me NaNa, Protect me!"
Click to expand...
What the heck is a "na na"?
 
Everskyward said:
What the heck is a "na na"?
Click to expand...

Nanny, Nanny State

In writing, Grandfather and Grandmother are most common, but very rare when referring to a grandparent in person. In speech, Grandpa and Grandma are sometimes used in the United States and Canada. In Britain, Ireland, United States, Australia, New Zealand and Newfoundland and Labrador, Nan, Nana, Nanna, Nada, Nanny, Gran and Granny and other variations are often used for grandmother in both writing and speech.
Click to expand...
 
Dr. O said:
Were I within the TRSA and had a reason to conduct any of the operations banned under D, I would go to the Federal Court and demand that the FAA show cause for the uncompensated taking of public airspace that impacts my right to use that airspace...
Click to expand...
Pro se, no doubt, as I doubt any attorney would represent you on such grounds. Good news is it wouldn't take much of your day before the judge tossed it on motions.
 
Ron Levy said:
Pro se, no doubt, as I doubt any attorney would represent you on such grounds. Good news is it wouldn't take much of your day before the judge tossed it on motions.
Click to expand...

This issue has been tried in court, and was not tossed on motions. Unfortunately the court ruled that the Fifth Amendment takings clause is not applicable to flight restrictions in public navigable airspace. See Air Pegasus of D.C. vs United States:

http://federal-circuits.vlex.com/vid/air-pegasus-inc-plaintiff-defendant-20542615

The ruling does cite one case, Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606, that allowed compensation when the regulation is judged unreasonable or onerous. In this case they did not find that to be the case.
 
re #97 / #98
I was not aware of that litigation, but neither does it change my opinion...

Use of the Courts (overa nd over) is how the direction of our society is altered - sometimes losing the first few leads to the best solution (The Congress - who are elected)...

How many times was Woman Suffrage litigated (and lost) until the Congress was embarrassed into overruling the High Court - which had also cited the Immunities Clause of 14 as the basis for denying relief?
How many times was Segregation litigated and lost, until the Court realizing they were about to become politically expendable, reversed course 180 degrees in Brown v. BOE and instantly trampled settled case law in [FONT=arial, geneva]Plessy v. Ferguson into the mud (quietly)... So why wasn't ATLA suing the Court for busting settled case law?


One thing I notice about lawyers is that they are 100% sure as they snap off an answer because like good students they have been taught to worship "Settled Case Law"... But settled case law does not stay settled, else Indentured Servitude, Poor Houses, and on, and on would still be with us today and into perpetuity...
Anyway, to end this: As long as we stand and quietly take the FAA/HSA/Alphabest abridgement of our right to use the Public Airspace, nothing will change and there will be increasing restrictions of the right to fly (except for airlines who have a lobby)... Until we start saying not only No but Hell No, nothing is going to change - the Snail Darter has more protection than we citizens who fly...

[/FONT][FONT=arial, geneva]I could go on, but I won't (no applause now)

did you know that there are 187 separate federal agencies under Homeland Security?
[/FONT]
 
Ron Levy said:
The reason that happened in 1987 was the outcry over the shootdown of KAL 007 in 1983. The Russians were terrified of the political ramifications of a repeat episode and established better identification procedures. Once they realized what Rust's aircraft was, they determined that it was not a serious threat, and let it continue.
Click to expand...

Very interesting. Thanks for that info.
 
Everskyward said:
I wouldn't say that. Many times the public gets what the public wants. People often watch programs which confirm their own beliefs. They also put pressure on politicians to enact laws which they want. You can't deny that "the public" wanted protection provided by the government after 9/11. As individuals we may not agree with the majority but that doesn't mean people in general don't have an influence.
Click to expand...

So you're saying we're stuck in a swirling black hole of stupidity? Hopefully we don't orbit the event horizon...:lol:
 
DouglasBader said:
You want to see the end of general aviation as we know it? Get six or seven light airplanes around the country and conduct a coordinated attack on a public event or building. Most likely very little damage will be done, but the resulting restrictions that will take place will do severe damage to the industry. See how it affects rentals, charters, ambulance flights, instruction, aerobatics, and a host of other things.
Click to expand...

While I basically agree with you, don't forget abou this guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Austin_suicide_attack

Not much changed after his attack, while labeld "non terroristic", it was in essence what everyone thinks they have to worry about from small aircraft. Delibrerate crashing into a building, 1 death, ~15 injured, fire etc.
 
david.h said:
While I basically agree with you, don't forget abou this guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Austin_suicide_attack

Not much changed after his attack, while labeld "non terroristic", it was in essence what everyone thinks they have to worry about from small aircraft. Delibrerate crashing into a building, 1 death, ~15 injured, fire etc.
Click to expand...

Sad as it was, there are probably a number of people that are alive today because he chose to use his airplane and not a more effective weapon.

But, the fear mongers will never point that out.
 
david.h said:
While I basically agree with you, don't forget abou this guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Austin_suicide_attack

Not much changed after his attack, while labeld "non terroristic", it was in essence what everyone thinks they have to worry about from small aircraft. Delibrerate crashing into a building, 1 death, ~15 injured, fire etc.
Click to expand...


:idea:You know, I think I may have a way to counter it even and have fun doing it! There are test ranges and fire training bases with building shells and structures, you rig 6 condemned GA rigged with RC planes to stage an attack and video the results. End with a DC 3 full fuel and gross with TNT.:yesnod:
 
"The public" isn't even conscious of light aircraft beyond what they're spoon-fed by the media. And as someone else points out, the lifespan of a light aircraft story in the modern media is about 6 hours. All of our worry that they think we're "dangerous" comes from this... if you walk up to a person on the street and ask them what they think of light aircraft, their FIRST response is... "uhhhhh..." nothing. Their SECOND response is... "Oh yeah, the news said their dangerous."
 
Ron Levy said:
The two guys who drove a Cessna 150 right through the middle of the FRZ seven years ago -- after taking off from Smoketown, PA.
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2005/050511adiz.html
They were not shot down, but they did end up in handcuffs upon landing at Frederick (FDK).
Click to expand...

"In the hours after the incident, AOPA President Phil Boyer and members of the AOPA media relations staff focused on correcting the many factual errors and misconceptions appearing in news reports."

Miss that guy.
 
bartmc said:
I'm going to deny it.

I don't recall wanting protection from the government on 9/11 and I don't recall anyone else wanting their na-na either, I recall wanting to fund a DoD project to install Lake of America in large parts of the Middle East. I also recall an attitude of resilience and not going to let anybody change our way of life.... woopsie. I recall the public wanting to "Get those bastards" and not a sentiment of a 3 year old screaming "Protect me NaNa, Protect me!"
Click to expand...
There were many people who wouldn't get on an airplane at all after 9/11. That's why the airlines had to furlough so many people. We had a few come to work for us. I can remember some being uneasy about us not having cockpit doors. It took a while for the "security" to get the public's confidence back.
 
Everskyward said:
There were many people who wouldn't get on an airplane at all after 9/11. That's why the airlines had to furlough so many people. We had a few come to work for us. I can remember some being uneasy about us not having cockpit doors. It took a while for the "security" to get the public's confidence back.
Click to expand...

I haven't met any of these people in the past 10.5 years. Well, I know plenty of people who won't get on an airplane, but 9/11 has nothing to do with it. Except for a few who won't fly the airlines due to the TSA nonsense.
 
bartmc said:
I haven't met any of these people in the past 10.5 years. Well, I know plenty of people who won't get on an airplane, but 9/11 has nothing to do with it. Except for a few who won't fly the airlines due to the TSA nonsense.
Click to expand...
I remember flying on the airlines after 9/11 and the flights were pretty empty. I also remember the people who could afford it going to charter, fractional and ownership because they were nervous about flying on the airlines. I had this sentiment expressed to me a number of times.

Why do you think the airlines cut so many flights and employees at that time? If you think it's because of the TSA then why are more people flying on the airlines today?
 
Battling a TFR, 100 planes fly on a course that would take them to the center. 5 miles from from the edge, they all 180 and head for home. Meet up about 20 miles further out, head straight in, squaking and talking. Not necessarily close, just a line of aircraft on a Sunday flight; three minutes apart.
.
What gets me is this attitude that these people are indispensable. While I might not want Joe Biden to be president, or the next in line after him, or the Secretary of Ed (Ed maybe, but not the Secretary), I don't think it would be a catastrophic event. The government would still run, the military would still function, and people would still be doing stuff.
.
TFRs just inconvenience all the wrong people. They should go along with bans on driving, air transports, and shipping. Shut it ALL down, just to be fair.
 
Everskyward said:
I remember flying on the airlines after 9/11 and the flights were pretty empty. I also remember the people who could afford it going to charter, fractional and ownership because they were nervous about flying on the airlines. I had this sentiment expressed to me a number of times.

Why do you think the airlines cut so many flights and employees at that time? If you think it's because of the TSA then why are more people flying on the airlines today?
Click to expand...

A knee jerk reaction to an isolated incident, worries about future instability and the repercussions of guaranteed legislation and restrictions coming down the pipe, passengers uncertainty of what to expect at the airport given the governments guaranteed overreaction. No way I would have set foot in an airport to board a commercial airliner the first few months post 9/11 and the fear of being killed by a terrorist didn't have anything to do with it. IIRC the gummint had a hair trigger and plenty of innocent folks got caught up in it. Most of my airline travel has been post 2001, I took a few vacations on the airlines in the few years leading up to 9/11. I honestly never met a person who was scared to travel on the airlines due to 9/11.

As to why more people travel now, I believe the culture of air travel has changed, it's more "mainstream" now for anybody to hop on a Spirit flight, get packed in like sardines. There may be a few who wouldn't fly if the TSA went away and security was handled privately but this thread is about TFRs and I venture a guess than 99% of the non-pilot flying public has no idea what a TFR is and certainly aren't suddenly flocking to airline counters to buy tickets because of them.

Perhaps there was an immediate need for some temporary security measures immediately post 911 until we sorted it all out and figured out what happened. that ship sailed 10 years ago yet we're still stuck with the hangover.
 
bartmc said:
Perhaps there was an immediate need for some temporary security measures immediately post 911 until we sorted it all out and figured out what happened. that ship sailed 10 years ago yet we're still stuck with the hangover.
Click to expand...
I'm not commenting on whether there was or was not a need for the security measures. I just think people have a pretty short memory about how nervous the public was about the whole set of events at that time and how receptive they were to anything that looked like security.
 
silver-eagle said:
TFRs just inconvenience all the wrong people. They should go along with bans on driving, air transports, and shipping. Shut it ALL down, just to be fair.
Click to expand...

If one were serious about protecting the president and congress and stuff, then DCA would be shut down - or at least, large aircraft would be banned. 9/11 style aircraft pass about 1.2 miles from the White House every couple minutes all day long. That is about 20 seconds.

Of course, an airline pilot would never go off the edge and have to be restrained by passengers. Or subscibe to some fringe political beliefs. So, I guess, no worries about there ever being a rogue pilot.
 
Knowing the current crowd of geniuses, they'll kill a teenager poking holes inthe sky, completely unaware of the TFR, and thump their chests, while reminding us all that, No DHS policies were violated, and the pilot who killed the kid was not injured.
 
Everskyward said:
I'm not commenting on whether there was or was not a need for the security measures. I just think people have a pretty short memory about how nervous the public was about the whole set of events at that time and how receptive they were to anything that looked like security.
Click to expand...

I recall "****ed off" being the sentiment more than nervous, granted I was in my first senior year at Mississippi State at the time and NYC might as well have been on another planet to the folks there.
 
Jim Logajan said:
This issue has been tried in court, and was not tossed on motions. Unfortunately the court ruled that the Fifth Amendment takings clause is not applicable to flight restrictions in public navigable airspace. See Air Pegasus of D.C. vs United States:

http://federal-circuits.vlex.com/vid/air-pegasus-inc-plaintiff-defendant-20542615

The ruling does cite one case, Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606, that allowed compensation when the regulation is judged unreasonable or onerous. In this case they did not find that to be the case.
Click to expand...
Thus, the next case will be tossed on motion citing the Air Pegasus case.
 
denverpilot said:
"In the hours after the incident, AOPA President Phil Boyer and members of the AOPA media relations staff focused on correcting the many factual errors and misconceptions appearing in news reports."

Miss that guy.
Click to expand...
Yeah. I loved what he said in an aside to the AOPA film crew covering him giving an interview/briefing to the media in a video for AOPA members: "You guys don't pay me enough to defend idiots like this."
 
bartmc said:
I'm going to deny it.

I don't recall wanting protection from the government on 9/11 and I don't recall anyone else wanting their na-na either, I recall wanting to fund a DoD project to install Lake of America in large parts of the Middle East. I also recall an attitude of resilience and not going to let anybody change our way of life.... woopsie. I recall the public wanting to "Get those bastards" and not a sentiment of a 3 year old screaming "Protect me NaNa, Protect me!"
Click to expand...

Me neither. I was offshore when it happened. It was surreal in that I walked out of my cabin on a boat with 150 guys on it and it was like a ghost ship. I found everybody in the TV lounge staring at the screen with one tower smoking. The first thing that popped into my head was the B25 but this was clear and a million. They showed a replay and crap, that was a high speed airliner, then the second hit. Then this young black tender with Abdul Mohamed something on his hard hat says "Hah, they got what they deserve" and a couple guys looked over still dazed not quite sure what they heard, Rednecks though all of them black or white. I drug him out of there so fast.....

Told him "look, either you gotta STFU with that or I have to get a helicopter to get you out of here while you're still alive; which is it?" There was no one on that boat looking for government protection.
 
bartmc said:
I recall "****ed off" being the sentiment more than nervous, granted I was in my first senior year at Mississippi State at the time and NYC might as well have been on another planet to the folks there.
Click to expand...
Mississippi was probably not high on the list of what people thought of as potential targets. Montana too.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top