&*#% security TFR

Did I mention that 'mass destruction' is not required ?

Yes it is. You're trying to hit the high value target, remember? Unless it's Rosie O'Donnell or someone of similar girth, you're trying to hit a small target with a missile that's likely to be somewhat less than accurate.
 
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.


:yeahthat::thumbsup:
 
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

The use of the article "you" in specific reply to one of my posts puts the lie to your pathetic attempt to cover up an egregious mistake. If you had wanted to speak to all government employees the use of "they" would have been appropriate . But since it is obvious that you do not even know the difference between "your", which is a possessive, and "you're" which is a contraction of "you are" it is little wonder I was confused, and you are without any health care or retirement. Learn to write above the 6th grade level you currently operate at, and this mistake won't happen again.
 
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.

Bingo, but the terrorists wouldn't understand that in the U.S. of A. we have a line of succession and our country would not fall apart tomorrow if our head of state were to die or be killed.
 
Bingo, but the terrorists wouldn't understand that in the U.S. of A. we have a line of succession and our country would not fall apart tomorrow if our head of state were to die or be killed.

I could comment on that.....but it would boot this to the spin zone. :D
 
I could comment on that.....but it would boot this to the spin zone. :D

Four US Presidents have been assassinated in office, and one was completely debilitated (two, if you count Reagan). The nation went on.

If anything, the terrorists are better off hitting "high value" targets. Minimizes the damage, and we Americans do get ticked off when someone starts bumping off our leaders, even if we don't like them while they're living.
 
Four US Presidents have been assassinated in office, and one was completely debilitated (two, if you count Reagan). The nation went on.

If anything, the terrorists are better off hitting "high value" targets. Minimizes the damage, and we Americans do get ticked off when someone starts bumping off our leaders, even if we don't like them while they're living.

Now that is a valid and interesting point. :yesnod:
 
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:

The clueless GA pilot that get's intercepted is most likely squawking a transponder code and altitude, cruising several thousand feet AGL at about 75% power, and making no attempt to avoid being intercepted. Turn off your transponder, fly low, enter the TFR at a point closest your intended target, and fly something faster than a Cessna 150 and see how long it takes to scramble a fighter or helicopter to get within firing parameters. The bad guys don't need to escape after an attack or did you think the 9/11 terrorists took an elevator down from the Twin towers and got away?
 
The bad guys don't need to escape after an attack or did you think the 9/11 terrorists took an elevator down from the Twin towers and got away?


Well it was an inside job. :rofl:
 
: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.

Do you believe Law Enforcement stops anyone from being a victim of violent crime? Or are they just there to take statements and chase down the bad guy long after you're a victim?

I'm cool with the President calling 911 and waiting ten minutes like everyone else. Perhaps he shouldn't **** off so many people that he needs bodyguards. :)
 
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.

Just catching up here...

So it would logically mean that the fix is to stop believing the false symbolism and rah-rah BS about these men? :)
 
The use of the article "you" in specific reply to one of my posts puts the lie to your pathetic attempt to cover up an egregious mistake. If you had wanted to speak to all government employees the use of "they" would have been appropriate . But since it is obvious that you do not even know the difference between "your", which is a possessive, and "you're" which is a contraction of "you are" it is little wonder I was confused, and you are without any health care or retirement. Learn to write above the 6th grade level you currently operate at, and this mistake won't happen again.

I'm wondering if all that education was something you paid for, or did someone else have to spring for it. I'm guessing on the latter. But thanks for sharing some of it. It is heartwarming to know I got something for my tax dollars.

-John
 
Just catching up here...

So it would logically mean that the fix is to stop believing the false symbolism and rah-rah BS about these men? :)

Well, I'm thinking what we believe has little impact on the whackos seeking to harm us. In fact they reject all Western values. You would be better off changing what they believe.........oh, and good luck with that!!!
 
Well, I'm thinking what we believe has little impact on the whackos seeking to harm us. In fact they reject all Western values. You would be better off changing what they believe.........oh, and good luck with that!!!

Just because they reject all Western values (which I'll grant you for the sake of argument), don't think for a moment that they aren't impacted by them or that they don't understand them and the effect they have on our collective psyche! And they seem to have already done a pretty good job of changing what we believe! :sad:
 
The clueless GA pilot that get's intercepted is most likely squawking a transponder code and altitude, cruising several thousand feet AGL at about 75% power, and making no attempt to avoid being intercepted. Turn off your transponder, fly low, enter the TFR at a point closest your intended target, and fly something faster than a Cessna 150 and see how long it takes to scramble a fighter or helicopter to get within firing parameters. The bad guys don't need to escape after an attack or did you think the 9/11 terrorists took an elevator down from the Twin towers and got away?

I see you are familiar with some of the technology deployed. But obviously not all of it.
 
I see you are familiar with some of the technology deployed. But obviously not all of it.

Spent half my Air force career flying tactical fighters as a Weapons Systems and Electronic Warfare Officer. The other half was involved in planning contingency operations with respect to defeating integrated air defenses. What am I missing?
 
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
I think you would be hard-pressed to find a military person who is overpaid for what they do. I don't remember what I made back in the 80s, but I do remember figuring it up on an hourly basis for how much I worked, and it came to a good chunk under minimum wage. I don't remember what rate I was at the time I calculated that, but I went in as an E-3 and made it up to E-5 by the time I got out.
 
I think you would be hard-pressed to find a military person who is overpaid for what they do. I don't remember what I made back in the 80s, but I do remember figuring it up on an hourly basis for how much I worked, and it came to a good chunk under minimum wage. I don't remember what rate I was at the time I calculated that, but I went in as an E-3 and made it up to E-5 by the time I got out.

I guess I screwed up and did not present my thoughts clearly enough.

The target of my comments were not meant for the military at all. I did my time in the military and have nothing but the highest opinion of anyone who serves in uniform. I was aiming at the millions of bureaucrats who think showing up is a serious contribution toward serving the public. Not just Federal, but State, and especially local governments as well.

As for my military, I went in as an E-1 and came out as an E-5. I was paid base pay, pro pay, jump pay, demolitions pay, and I cleared just a hair over $500.00 per month in 1962

-John
 
Last edited:
Unless it's Rosie O'Donnell or someone of similar girth


You just had to do that didn't you?

20071025205309990002.jpg
 
Spent half my Air force career flying tactical fighters as a Weapons Systems and Electronic Warfare Officer. The other half was involved in planning contingency operations with respect to defeating integrated air defenses. What am I missing?

Risk assessment. I could suggest that the Secret Service keep a healthy supply of elephant guns, in case a rogue pachyderm were to ever threaten the President. If you had the common sense Odin gave a dessert spoon you'd reply that the odds of a wayward elephant were sufficiently small to not require the lethal hardware. I would make the same argument, that although a GA aircraft can make the papers, the odds on one doing any actual harm are actually quite small, as recent experience suggests. Thus the out-of-control security surrounding our VIPS is entirely misplaced.
 
Well, I'm thinking what we believe has little impact on the whackos seeking to harm us. In fact they reject all Western values. You would be better off changing what they believe.........oh, and good luck with that!!!

The wackos are threatening to harm the so-called VIPs. If we ignore the VIPs, or realize they're not that "I" and certainly not "V", the wackos taking them out is pretty much a non-event.

Aww bummer. Lost another one. There's more in the succession queue. Next!
 
Risk assessment. I could suggest that the Secret Service keep a healthy supply of elephant guns, in case a rogue pachyderm were to ever threaten the President. If you had the common sense Odin gave a dessert spoon you'd reply that the odds of a wayward elephant were sufficiently small to not require the lethal hardware. I would make the same argument, that although a GA aircraft can make the papers, the odds on one doing any actual harm are actually quite small, as recent experience suggests. Thus the out-of-control security surrounding our VIPS is entirely misplaced.

I agree but whether or not GA is a viable threat or the Pres deserves extraordinary security measures are other debates. My point is TFRs provide as much security against a terrorist in a light aircraft as they do against your rogue pachyderm intent on trampling a POTUS. TFRs cost the taxpayer but provide nothing except a warm fuzzy to the clueless citizen and a probable 709 ride with the FAA for the clueless GA pilot who violates one.
 
Spent half my Air force career flying tactical fighters as a Weapons Systems and Electronic Warfare Officer. The other half was involved in planning contingency operations with respect to defeating integrated air defenses. What am I missing?

You should be aware then that turning off your transponder and going nap of the earth might drop you off civilian systems, but other technology, which operates in every spectrum, is around to detect exactly that type of target. ATC radar is not the only thing monitoring the TFR airspace. That's as much as needs to be said in a public forum.
 
You should be aware then that turning off your transponder and going nap of the earth might drop you off civilian systems, but other technology, which operates in every spectrum, is around to detect exactly that type of target. ATC radar is not the only thing monitoring the TFR airspace. That's as much as needs to be said in a public forum.

BS. The technology exists but I doubt the DoD is spending the $ to deploy it for VIP TFRs. If they did, it would provide even more reason to question the millions of dollars it would take to negate a threat so marginal as a light aircraft.
 
In the real world there are people who want to do us harm.

And if we were serious about protecting the president from those people, DCA would be shut down in a heartbeat. But it's not because that would inconvenience the wrong people. That's not going to happen. So instead they put up a big show intercepting Cessna 150's and plastering it all over the news. And the public eats it up.
 
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.

What?????

How many people from that building are alive today because he chose to use an airplane instead of walking in the front door with guns? 1, 2, 5, 10?

How many people from that building are alive today because he chose to use an airplane instead of a SUV that could have started the fire right at one of the main exits (plus penetrate better)? 10, 20 30, 100?

The most successful attack using a G.A. aircraft resulted in one fatality (not counting the aircraft occupants). How does that compare with box cutters?

He did prove that the TV news and political fear mongers can hype up anything and instill fear in the general public.
 
BS. The technology exists but I doubt the DoD is spending the $ to deploy it for VIP TFRs. If they did, it would provide even more reason to question the millions of dollars it would take to negate a threat so marginal as a light aircraft.

He is correct.

And deployment is relatively easy and relatively quick. You ARE being tracked more than you might think - and a LOT more than the government will ever acknowledge.
 
What?????

How many people from that building are alive today because he chose to use an airplane instead of walking in the front door with guns? 1, 2, 5, 10?

How many people from that building are alive today because he chose to use an airplane instead of a SUV that could have started the fire right at one of the main exits (plus penetrate better)? 10, 20 30, 100?

The most successful attack using a G.A. aircraft resulted in one fatality (not counting the aircraft occupants). How does that compare with box cutters?

He did prove that the TV news and political fear mongers can hype up anything and instill fear in the general public.

Pick a terrorist objective that someone thinks might be accomplished with a small GA aircraft, and I'll find a cheaper, faster, better way to do it without any aircraft.
 
All this security theater is protecting a whole lot more than the VIP person, it is protecting what that person represents. It would be a huge psychological coup to take out our President, even better than the twin towers.

I remember how the nation reacted when Kennedy, well both of them, were taken out. It is what the target represents.

I am no big fan of ridicules security measures, I do not like Obama one bit, and I have nothing but contempt for bureaucracies, but I do not want those SOBs to take out our President or the Capitol of our country. That must never happen.

So whatever it takes to protect our Capitol and our POTUS, I'm fine with that.

I'm not fine with turning our nations security into a huge industry that is cashing in on protecting every person or dog in the nation. TSA is little more than providing nonsensical jobs to people who would otherwise be on welfare. The stupidity of building walls to keep the Mexicans out is more than that, it's insanity. Perhaps the walls are to keep us in?

Mexicans have been doing the jobs that are below our dignity for as long as I can remember. Our white unemployed would rather stand on a street corner with a cardboard "God bless" sign than clean a toilet, or be bent over in a strawberry field all day. The majority of Californians will soon be made up of Mexicans. Does that mean we are building walls to keep the majority of us out?

-John
 
What?????

How many people from that building are alive today because he chose to use an airplane instead of walking in the front door with guns? 1, 2, 5, 10?

How many people from that building are alive today because he chose to use an airplane instead of a SUV that could have started the fire right at one of the main exits (plus penetrate better)? 10, 20 30, 100?

The most successful attack using a G.A. aircraft resulted in one fatality (not counting the aircraft occupants). How does that compare with box cutters?

So your argument is that because there are other potential methods of inflicting greater damage, a general aviation aircraft is not a threat ?
 
So your argument is that because there are other potential methods of inflicting greater damage, a general aviation aircraft is not a threat ?

No, that GA is a threat of insufficient potential to be worth the millions spent and the lack of freedom to control it.
 
No, that GA is a threat of insufficient potential to be worth the millions spent and the lack of freedom to control it.

So a completed (if not successful) attack on the president of the country is a risk not worthy to take precautions against.
 
BS. The technology exists but I doubt the DoD is spending the $ to deploy it for VIP TFRs. If they did, it would provide even more reason to question the millions of dollars it would take to negate a threat so marginal as a light aircraft.

Depends on the VIP. Even within VIPs there's a pecking order, can't be frivolous with all that money, ya know. Only some are worth it. :)

A "standard mission package" of assets for one VIP, might be completely different for another.

Judging by the world-wide radio monitoring folks, TACAMO aircraft are usually up and in the area too, a day or so in advance of the President and often the Veep... not regularly for anyone else, and they rotate from VIP TFR to VIP TFR in different areas of the country, with multiple aircraft swapping coverage times.

Gotta have Comm...!

And once in a while someone will notice they're supplemented with traditional AWACS.

Of course, all of that takes a while to confirm... one has to merge the radio monitoring folk's info with the visual spotter folk's info, so really you only know if it was the aircraft it SAID it was, a day or so too late. By the time you know what was there, it's gone.

There's some pretty dedicated (bored?) mostly-anonymous folk that post all this stuff on the Internet in real-time. Sightings, radio chatter, etc.

But... that said, the U.S. Military is pretty good at disinformation when they want to be...

Presidents have shown up in countries no one expected to see them in before, and will again.

Not just the TACAMO folks are nearby... there's some other alphabet soup that's not public. In the end, since they love acronyms, they should just call them "BAWLOFBOTS".

(Big Airplanes With Lots of Funny Bumps on Their Sides.)

http://www.tacamo.navy.mil/ - for those interested in the official public info on TACAMO. (Never seen a military squadron that didn't do "more stuff" than their official website said they did...)

You gotta love jets that can trail VLF long wires to talk to submarines, and have *plenty* of radio toys aboard...
 
I probably shouldn't tell you this but I have invented an electronic shield that protects an individual from the danger of being hit by a meteor. While I have deployed this device at my own expense to date, it has protected the President and others successfully 100% of the time it has been activated. It is now time to ante up 1 Million (said in Mike Meyers voice) dollars or I will have to turn it off and the President will have to risk getting hit by a meteor just like you. Substitute TFR for "electronic shield" and light aircraft for meteor.
 
Suffice it to say that the security measures taken when Air Force One leaves the country are even more elaborate than those taken when he flies to LA. This is in large part because he is in much more peril outside the US. I'm not saying no measures are taken when he flies domestically, just that additional aircraft and procedures (far beyond the ones supporting domestic travel) are used to support a Presidential movement to a foreign country and these additional aircraft and procedures actually do protect him against many threats. These same assets would not normally be used during a domestic trip unless intelligence indicated there was a specific threat. And I doubt they are ever used for lesser VIPs. We just don't have the assets to support 24 hour aerial coverage of anybody for any length of time. Most of these "special assets" are overly tasked already supporting real world contingencies. If you think Big Brother has the capability some of you suggest, then I say the information warfare effort that has been expended on you has been successful. Be good or boogie man/big brother/Secret Service will get you because they are watching you 24/7!
 
So a completed (if not successful) attack on the president of the country is a risk not worthy to take precautions against.

If we were really that serious, DCA would indeed be shut down. Twas jets that hit the Twin towers, and only a jet could imperil the President. Someone already flew a Cessna into the White House. It did little damage, and cooler heads had a more common-sense reaction.

Someone gave the proper analogy. A rogue meteor could hit the President, therefore we have to have him buried at all times beneath sufficient shielding to divert a meteor. Obviously, the very slim possibility of a meteor hitting the White House obviates the need for such measures. I argue that the very slim possibility of a successful GA-based attack should be treated similarly. Compare Austin and Oklahoma City. It really is just that simple.
 
Back
Top