&*#% security TFR

[fgcason]

And you think there are no contingency plans in place for the possibility of disloyalty/sabotage ?

Obviously there is a contingency plan for such a situation. It's called a 70+ million year old mountain and a knucklehead that's dumb enough to fly into it.

He could have done anything and caused a lot of meyhem in a few minutes if he picked a city instead of a mountain and there probably wasn't anything at all anyone could have done about it until after the fact...after all, that's what those planes are specifically designed to do..even when someone is shooting at it at the same time.

It took them about three weeks to find where Captain Button crashed his A-10.

How big does a TFR/ADIZ have to be to stop, say, a 90mph CE150 in 3 weeks? 45000 mile radius? That's bigger than the Earth.

 

[Everskyward]

How big does a TFR/ADIZ have to be to stop, say, a 90mph CE150 in 3 weeks? 45000 mile radius? That's bigger than the Earth.

I never mentioned anything about TFRs or Cessna 150s in my post. I was responding to the person who said there are contingency measures if someone flew off with a military airplane in an unauthorized manner. Obviously they didn't work in this case.

 

[weilke]

I never mentioned anything about TFRs or Cessna 150s in my post. I was responding to the person who said there are contingency measures if someone flew off with a military airplane in an unauthorized manner. Obviously they didn't work in this case.

I was referring to contingency plans if a military aircraft was operated contrary to whatever orders it is under near a security TFR. I dont know what they are, I am pretty certain they exist.

 

[Everskyward]

I was referring to contingency plans if a military aircraft was operated contrary to whatever orders it is under near a security TFR. I dont know what they are, I am pretty certain they exist.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Palmpilot]

You are mixing two things there:

- you think its not justified because you think a TFR is ineffective to protect against a GA based attack ?

- you think its not justified because someone could use a different method ?

I have difficulty seing how the two relate to each other.

Let's try an analogy. If you're trying to secure a barn, what good does it do to lock a person-sized door while leaving the large doors standing wide open?

It's not just TFRs. We've been discussing explosive payloads too, and VIPs are not the only potential targets. In general I think there are antiterrorism measures that go overboard, and are out of proportion to the likelhood that a particular attack method will be used, and to the likelihood that the attack method will be effective. I think it's foolish and unjust to impose ineffective security means on some activities, while allowing greater security threats from other activities to remain unaddressed.

I think it represents a loss of perspective. I don't think it makes sense to sacrifice hard-won freedoms if the sacrifice is unlikely to produce the desired level of security.

It's also important to remember that it's not possible to achieve absolute security. Attempting to do so ultimately leads to tyranny, which ironically results in a total loss of security for the people.

The SS started out as a security organization. We must never forget that.

 

[weilke]

I think it's foolish and unjust to impose ineffective security means on some activities, while allowing greater security threats from other activities to remain unaddressed.

Which threat against the president is unaddressed at this point ? Do you think you can drive a truck up to an event venue, do you think you can get into a venue without bag and body screening ? Do you think you can just pull your car somewhere into the mortorcade ?

What is that big glaring oversight that you know about and the folks who are tasked with protecting the president dont ?

 

[fgcason]

Which threat against the president is unaddressed at this point ?

The whole concept of TFR's used the way they are is to make things safe. The president isn't a single point failure for the USA like some other places might be. In the meantime the president may stay safe while someone flattens a skyscraper 2000 miles away. The president wasn't in one of the WTC towers on 9-11.

Do you think you can drive a truck up to an event venue, do you think you can get into a venue without bag and body screening ? Do you think you can just pull your car somewhere into the mortorcade ?

Maybe they can't get a truck up to a fixed location event but that doesn't eliminate the treat at all.
The last time I saw a president motorcade (after 2001), it drove down the main road by where I worked at the time. Everyone knew that road was going to be used by the president since the day before because it was public knowledge - don't use this road at __:__ time because it will be closed for a few minutes as the president drives to the airport. They cleared the road about one minute before the motorcade came through by using the city police to block crossing streets. A whole line of cars in our parking lot was about 30 feet from the string of black vehicles that drove by including a couple uhaul truck size vehicles. No one checked the parking lot for anything in the vehicles and I know that because my jeep was one of those vehicles. A OKC size blast at 30ft would do a horrific amount of damage to anything on that road except for maybe a tank, and the tank would likely end up flipped over or at least disabled.
Presidential aviation TFR that day, absolutely. Car TFR even 30 feet away, not at all.

It's one thing to plug a tiny hole in a dam to stop a leak. It's quite another thing to plug the tiny hole while the rest of the dam is completely missing.

 

[Palmpilot]

Which threat against the president is unaddressed at this point ? Do you think you can drive a truck up to an event venue, do you think you can get into a venue without bag and body screening ? Do you think you can just pull your car somewhere into the mortorcade ?

What is that big glaring oversight that you know about and the folks who are tasked with protecting the president dont ?

I'm talking about terrorist threats in general, not necessarily against the President.

 

[weilke]

I'm talking about terrorist threats in general, not necessarily against the President.

Then I guess we have wandered a long way from the original (imho valid) gripe the thread was about.

What other targets have a security TFR ? Even places like Oak Ridge have only a little 1500ft P-area around the facility ( if even that much).

 

[Palmpilot]

Then I guess we have wandered a long way from the original (imho valid) gripe the thread was about.

What other targets have a security TFR ? Even places like Oak Ridge have only a little 1500ft P-area around the facility ( if even that much).

TFRs are not the only security measures that apply to GA. Personally, I don't mind the TFRs that much. I think they've done a reasonable job of minimizing their impact.

 

[wsuffa]

The SS started out as a security organization. We must never forget that.

The Secret Service? Or did you Godwin the thread?

 

[Palmpilot]

The Secret Service? Or did you Godwin the thread?

The latter!

 

[Palmpilot]

...Personally, I don't mind the TFRs that much. I think they've done a reasonable job of minimizing their impact.

Due to a thread on the AOPA board, I'm rethinking that assessment.

http://forums.aopa.org/showthread.php?t=82908

 

[Palmpilot]

Does anyone know of a case of a head of state anywhere in the world being successfully assassinated through the use of a civilian aircraft that he/she was not riding in?

 

[airbornejohnny]

Does anyone know of a case of a head of state anywhere in the world being successfully assassinated through the use of a civilian aircraft that he/she was not riding in?

Prior to 9/11 the idea was not commonly accepted that hijackers would use commandeered aircraft as cruise missiles.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Prior to 9/11 the idea was not commonly accepted that hijackers would use commandeered aircraft as cruise missiles.

9/11 somehow changed the laws of physics.

 

[airbornejohnny]

9/11 somehow changed the laws of physics.

That's not what I meant. It just was not "entertained" as a possibility. After 1993's bomb the buildings were "fortified" with large flower planters that would stop a truck, and security protocols were adjusted to scrutinize vehicles coming into the premises. Nobody really thought of hijacked aircraft as being a threat to the buildings.
All I mean to convey is that a dedicated foe will seek out and exploit whatever weakness can be found, as history has taught us.

 

[Palmpilot]

The problem comes when bureaucrats try to eliminate every imaginable security risk without regard to the probability of the imagined means of attack being used or being successful. The logical conclusion of that process is total control of the people by the government, and the result of that is that the people become completely insecure, because they can no longer be protected from the government.

 

[Velocity173]

Why don't we just not take any security measures for the President. Lets go with percentages. Odds are he'll be fine. Also lets get rid of the TSA because I can't stand waiting in line to get on a plane. Odds of a passenger doing harm to the flight by bringing a weapon on board are slim. Of course off topic, but no gun laws. I have a better chance of getting struck by lightning than being shot in a public place.

Arguments for all of this would be that, well, criminals will find a way to get around the laws/rules anyway so why bother? I just can't live with that. Should we not make any security/control effort whatsoever because it will hamper our freeedoms and criminals will get their way anyway? Everyone doesn't want to be bothered with being inconvienced today but then another 9/11 happens and then everyone questions well why didn't we do this or why didn't we do that?

In the military we have to have bold faced/underlined EPs memorized down cold. A lot of those EPs the odds of them happening are remote. Should we just memorize the one's we believe are import and disregard the rest? We still make plans for events that if the unlikely happens, we must be ready to react. As I said before, none of these measures are perfect but it's all we have. I haven't heard anyone here offer a better solution except reducing the size of a TFR.

 

[Palmpilot]

Why don't we just not take any security measures for the President. Lets go with percentages. Odds are he'll be fine. Also lets get rid of the TSA because I can't stand waiting in line to get on a plane. Odds of a passenger doing harm to the flight by bringing a weapon on board are slim. Of course off topic, but no gun laws. I have a better chance of getting struck by lightning than being shot in a public place.

Arguments for all of this would be that, well, criminals will find a way to get around the laws/rules anyway so why bother? I just can't live with that. Should we not make any security/control effort whatsoever because it will hamper our freeedoms and criminals will get their way anyway? Everyone doesn't want to be bothered with being inconvienced today but then another 9/11 happens and then everyone questions well why didn't we do this or why didn't we do that?

In the military we have to have bold faced/underlined EPs memorized down cold. A lot of those EPs the odds of them happening are remote. Should we just memorize the one's we believe are import and disregard the rest? We still make plans for events that if the unlikely happens, we must be ready to react.

Nice straw man you have there. Did you build it yourself?

I'm not proposing eliminating all security measures. The issue I'm raising is what level of security is appropriate, and at what point does the cost to the freedom of a freedom-loving people become too great?

As for VIP TFRs, if civilians were flying military drones, then there might be a realistic possibility of assassinating an individual from the air. With something like a Cessna 172, I don't see how one could pull it off.

As I said before, none of these measures are perfect but it's all we have.

That's like saying that what we're doing now is the right thing to do because it's what we're doing.

I haven't heard anyone here offer a better solution except reducing the size of a TFR.

How remote does a possibility have to become before we admit there is no problem to be solved?

 

[Velocity173]

Not sure how refuting comments from what people have made earlier is being a "strawman." Apparently you can't understand how using hypotheticals of other situations can pertain to this topic.

My point is, to just plan for things that will most likely happen and disregard events that probably won't happen is simply lazy and irresponsible. If you have means to affect an outcome, a horrible outcome, then you do something about it. We had evidence prior to WWII that the Japanese might attack Pearl Harbor, so we took measures against that. Who'd imagine those events would happen? Who'd think some dude with RC planes would try and equip them with explosives and use them to attack the capital. I'm not advocating constantly living in fear. I'm saying think outside the box and try and plan for the next Pearl Harbor or 9/11.

Also you seem to think our security measures have no affect at all? You have no idea how many times a threat may have been deterred by having these measures in place. Not eveything is depicted in the media.

Finally, complaining for the sake of complaining does nothing. Come up with a better solution to protect the President from an air threat, I'd like to hear it???

 

[Palmpilot]

Not sure how refuting comments from what people have made earlier is being a "strawman." Apparently you can't understand how using hypotheticals of other situations can pertain to this topic.

It's always so much easier to exaggerate a person's position, and then refute the exaggerated position, than it is to debate the peron's actual position. It's analagous to setting up a man made of straw in order to prove that you can knock it down. That's much easier than knocking down a real opponent, but it proves nothing.

There is such a thing as going overboard on security measures. Agree or disagree?

 

[Velocity173]

It's always so much easier to exaggerate a person's position, and then refute the exaggerated position, than it is to debate the peron's actual position. It's analagous to setting up a man made of straw in order to prove that you can knock it down. That's much easier than knocking down a real opponent, but it proves nothing.

There is such a thing as going overboard on security measures. Agree or disagree?

Absoluting agree. As I said earlier 60 nm or even the typical 30 nm is a bit extreme. I do believe that some sort of TFR is warranted though.

Also everyone keeps bringing up the TFR and reaction times in shooting down the aircraft. This would be a last resort measure that hasn't even been implemented yet. Purpose of the TFR is to provide early warning to get the VIP (POTUS) from the venue to a safe area. Forget about shooting down an aircraft. Neutralize the problem by moving the target. What dimensionns that would entail, I don't know. But yes 30 nm would seem overly cautious..unless as said earlier with a renegade military pilot with ordnance then we have a problem.

 

[Palmpilot]

OK, well it sounds like we're not as far apart on the issues as it may have seemed then.

I just have a hard time figuring out how something like a civilian light aircraft can be a viable weapon for taking out an individual on the ground, but I admit I'm not an expert.

 

[Jim Logajan]

I do believe that some sort of TFR is warranted though.

VIP TFRs are never warranted. The people who are thought to be very important in western democratic governments never really are. History suggests a different view:

When FDR died in office during the largest war in modern history, did it affect the security of the U.S. in any measurable way?

When Kennedy was killed during the cold war, did it affect the security of the U.S. in any measurable way?

Except for the abruptness and terrible human loss, is there any difference to the security of the U.S. whether a president is removed from office by death or by losing a reelection?

The Secret Service should be made to perform its security functions within the confines of the rule that every citizen going about their lawful business has an equal right to public commons, and that the president is just another citizen within that commons.

Of course I know that it would easier to move a mountain than to see any of what I wrote ever become remotely close to reality.

 

[fgcason]

I'm saying think outside the box and try and plan for the next Pearl Harbor or 9/11.

How about 2500 uhauls and semi-trucks at public locations like shopping malls all across the country a saturday afternoons? You don't see anyone making event the vaguest attempt to stop that from possibly occurring do you? There is absolutely no deterrence at all.

You have no idea how many times a threat may have been deterred by having these measures in place.

And that's part of the misunderstanding problem that's causing all the discussions and arguments to start with. No one has any idea how many threats are stopped, or if there are any at all to start with. We are told they are saving us then saying the things they stop require an super ultraviolet secret security clearance to know about. We have absolutely no proof that they're doing squat other than taking their word for it and they have yet to establish their credibility even after over a decade of operation. For multiple billions of dollars of expense that they've charged us for the thriller movie, they should be able to show us at least one tiny little scene before telling us we got our money's worth.

Ok, fine, they're doing something. Now prove it with at least one actual example. If there are so many of these things they're doing every day, they should be able to unload the vehicle in a field somewhere and show at least one of them to us...but they don't.

Come up with a better solution to protect the President from an air threat, I'd like to hear it???

A 20ft thick walled steel room inside a 50ft steel reinforced concrete block buried 3 miles deep in the Earth in stable terrain. Of course someone will possibly pipe in contaminated water or food at that point...but it will stop any possible air attack short of a planet killer asteroid strike.

 

[Velocity173]

VIP TFRs are never warranted. The people who are thought to be very important in western democratic governments never really are. History suggests a different view:

When FDR died in office during the largest war in modern history, did it affect the security of the U.S. in any measurable way?

When Kennedy was killed during the cold war, did it affect the security of the U.S. in any measurable way?

Except for the abruptness and terrible human loss, is there any difference to the security of the U.S. whether a president is removed from office by death or by losing a reelection?

The Secret Service should be made to perform its security functions within the confines of the rule that every citizen going about their lawful business has an equal right to public commons, and that the president is just another citizen within that commons.

Of course I know that it would easier to move a mountain than to see any of what I wrote ever become remotely close to reality.

By your comments you suggest that the President isn't important, almost a figure head? He can easily be replaced. Well I won't go into politics but not enacting security measures for VIPs will never happen. .

Example: I flew Gen McChrystal around in Afghanistan. Everywhere he went he rolled in heavy with security. The argument would be, well a common soldier doesn't have this protection why does he? Problem is he isn't as easy to replace as a common soldier. This is why the POTUS had such a dilemma when replacing him. That person has built a foundation and only they have innate knowledge of the situation. Once again if you believe the President can easily be replaced or that his asassination would have no effect on the psyche of the American people or those who protect him, so be it. Your opinion.

As Three Finger Jack brought up earlier this is nothing more than people complaining because it affects their precious freedoms. Is a TFR really affecting our freedoms that much that I can't wait a day out of 365 of not flying. If a flight school can't wait a day or two of not flying because they'll possibly fold well then I'd say they were on the way to bankruptcy long before that TFR came. When it comes down to it it's all about us being willing to sacrifice a little freedom for a common good.

I'd like to bring up a couple cases of the American public who can't sacrifice a little of their freedom for a common good. In my field of helicopter EMS we had a particular cardiac hospital that we dropped patients off at. Well the public not wanting to be inconvienced by the noise of a helicopter landing maybe once a week got that pad shut down. Now we have to land at an airport miles away and off load the patient onto the ambulance. All of this affecting the care (safety) of that patient.

Here's another one. Anyone who's lived in central Georgia for an extended period of time has heard sonic booms from the boys at Warner Robbins doing post maint test flights. Even though they're busting the number at close to 50,000 ft, it's still quite loud on the ground. The thing was these flights were occurring maybe once a week. With that one boom once a week the locals had enough pull to convince the local leaders to have the F-15s fly all the way out to sea to do that particular check on the card. a complete waste of fuel and money because people didn't want to be inconvienced. Today I'm not even sure if they do any supersonic stuff over central GA. I won't even go into the complaints I've seen because of MTRs affecting the publics freedom.

What I'm getting at is if we expect the public to deal with aviation every now and then, than why can't we deal with the public affecting aviation every now and then?

Finally, to say that a TFR hasn't been effective in early warning of an airborne threat is a pure assumption. Also who knows what a C-172 packed with explosives would do. I have seen a 12 inch strip of C-4 blow the heck out of a van! Yes the dimensions are extreme, there's no denying that but AOPA is fighting that right now. All I'm saying is until then I think we can be a little more understanding of the current dimensions.

 

[denverpilot]

By your comments you suggest that the President isn't important, almost a figure head? He can easily be replaced. Well I won't go into politics but not enacting security measures for VIPs will never happen. .

Example: I flew Gen McChrystal around in Afghanistan. Everywhere he went he rolled in heavy with security. The argument would be, well a common soldier doesn't have this protection why does he? Problem is he isn't as easy to replace as a common soldier. This is why the POTUS had such a dilemma when replacing him. That person has built a foundation and only they have innate knowledge of the situation. Once again if you believe the President can easily be replaced or that his asassination would have no effect on the psyche of the American people or those who protect him, so be it. Your opinion.

Generals are trained for decades. And protecting one in a theatre of War is a completely different thing than protecting POTUS during yet-another-campaign-stop.

As far as the "psyche of the American people", they should probably get it through their thick dull little brains that the Executive Branch can't do 90% of what it promises, by law and by design. False promises win elections.

As Three Finger Jack brought up earlier this is nothing more than people complaining because it affects their precious freedoms. Is a TFR really affecting our freedoms that much that I can't wait a day out of 365 of not flying. If a flight school can't wait a day or two of not flying because they'll possibly fold well then I'd say they were on the way to bankruptcy long before that TFR came. When it comes down to it it's all about us being willing to sacrifice a little freedom for a common good.

I can live with that sentiment except for campaign stops. POTUS can arrive unannounced and unscheduled and create havok for people if he's here on the people's business.

$10,000 a plate campaign dinners, aren't the people's business. Go away.

I'd like to bring up a couple cases of the American public who can't sacrifice a little of their freedom for a common good. In my field of helicopter EMS we had a particular cardiac hospital that we dropped patients off at. Well the public not wanting to be inconvienced by the noise of a helicopter landing maybe once a week got that pad shut down. Now we have to land at an airport miles away and off load the patient onto the ambulance. All of this affecting the care (safety) of that patient.

So the left side of the bell curve convinced others to give up critical emergency transport time for their noise sensitivity?

I hope they die of a heart attack. Seriously.

Which was there first, the cardiac hospital or the idiots?

Also who knows what a C-172 packed with explosives would do.

Plenty of people do.

 

[Jim Logajan]

By your comments you suggest that the President isn't important, almost a figure head? He can easily be replaced. Well I won't go into politics but not enacting security measures for VIPs will never happen. .

Nowhere did I say the Secret Service couldn't enact security measures.

Example: I flew Gen McChrystal around in Afghanistan. Everywhere he went he rolled in heavy with security. The argument would be, well a common soldier doesn't have this protection why does he? Problem is he isn't as easy to replace as a common soldier. This is why the POTUS had such a dilemma when replacing him. That person has built a foundation and only they have innate knowledge of the situation. Once again if you believe the President can easily be replaced or that his asassination would have no effect on the psyche of the American people or those who protect him, so be it. Your opinion.

The U.S. is not a war zone, it is not an occupied foreign land, and U.S. citizens are not enemy combatants. The relationship between a commanding officer and his troops is not the same relationship that exists between a politician and his constituency. So there is simply nothing useful in your analogy. Nothing.

I suppose in fact one could be insulted that you equate U.S. citizens with potential and real enemies.

By the way - when generals travel around the U.S., do they get VIP TFRs?

As Three Finger Jack brought up earlier this is nothing more than people complaining because it affects their precious freedoms. Is a TFR really affecting our freedoms that much that I can't wait a day out of 365 of not flying. If a flight school can't wait a day or two of not flying because they'll possibly fold well then I'd say they were on the way to bankruptcy long before that TFR came. When it comes down to it it's all about us being willing to sacrifice a little freedom for a common good.

Yes our freedoms are precious and now they are under attack by people like yourself. It sounds like because you risked your life for those freedoms you feel you now get to dismiss them.

Again - a politician's life should not be equated to the "common good". It is exasperating to see that fallacy occur in one despotic country after another, century after century.

What I'm getting at is if we expect the public to deal with aviation every now and then, than why can't we deal with the public affecting aviation every now and then?

A VIP isn't "the public". These are singular individuals that are affecting the public, in the case of TFRs they affect hundreds of individuals at a time.

 

[weilke]

Is a TFR really affecting our freedoms that much that I can't wait a day out of 365 of not flying. If a flight school can't wait a day or two of not flying because they'll possibly fold well then I'd say they were on the way to bankruptcy long before that TFR came. When it comes down to it it's all about us being willing to sacrifice a little freedom for a common good.

That may be correct for aviation businesses somewhere in flyover land, the problem is that the potus really likes northern virginia and suburban maryland for his dog+pony shows. The airports around DC are already suffering from the onerous rules that come with the SFRA, getting shut down several times per year for campaign events is more than 'a little sacrifice'.

What makes the least sense are the 'bus tour TFRs' that cover entire multi-state areas. The experience in environments like israel that have been dealing with terror a lot longer than the US, is that it takes at least an hour to stage any kind of directed attack, be it on the ground or using mortars. The best protection of a moving target like the campaign bus would be to keep the schedule and route less predictable, use of decoys (which they already do) and avoidance of 'choke points'. The security of the VIP would be exactly the same if he was driven to DCA in a unmarked Town Car and travelled in one of the coast guard or Army Gulfstreams that are typically parked at Signature there than with the current circus. Air Force One, advance troops and and road shutdowns fulfill the same function as the scepter and golden apple did back in the days. They are about projecting royal power and dazzling the peasants.

 

[Velocity173]

Forget it. If you all can't understand the fact that the President is targeted in America just like the fact a General is targeted in Afghanistan, I'm sorry. Maybe it would be different if your head was on the line and not his.

And yes since I served 20 yrs protecting our freedoms while having very little of my own maybe I have some insight in what it's like. I guess it's just a military point of view and not a civilian one.

 

[denverpilot]

Who said we don't think he's targeted?

We said:

- We don't think he's targeted by anything a 30 mile TFR could stop.

- We don't care much if he's targeted. He's quite expendable. (As are most "VIPs".) Lots of people are targeted. They do fine without TFRs.

Appreciate your service.

It's not a difference in military vs non-military thinking. It's a difference in logical valuation.

One man, "created equal", isn't worth the hassle caused when he wants to schmooze the millionaire donators.

(Who also have security details who are armed and don't need TFRs to protect their principal.)

It's Security Theater. Expensive too.