Wedding TFR

AdamZ

AdamZ

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
14,866
Location
Montgomery County PA
Display Name
Display name:
Adam Zucker
So looks like Chelsea Clinton is getting a TFR for her wedding in Rhinebeck NY. I gotta say this just irks the hell out of me. I could care less that its her or Jenna Bush a R a D or an I This is just insanity:incazzato:
 
I'd venture a guess that the TFR isn't for her, but for her dad.
 
AWACSEng said:
I'd venture a guess that the TFR isn't for her, but for her dad.
Click to expand...

I thought about that but Bill goes so many darn places with no TFR. I think it is for the paparazzi but then what about TFRs for sports stars weddings and Hollywood glitz weddings. Really where does it stop?
 
Tell me about it. I just missed the Obama TFR around NYC because of his appearance on the View. Not that I couldn't have gone around it, but it would have cost me 10 minutes in the Tiger. :) :rolleyes2:
 
Last edited:
AdamZ said:
I thought about that but Bill goes so many darn places with no TFR. I think it is for the paparazzi but then what about TFRs for sports stars weddings and Hollywood glitz weddings. Really where does it stop?
Click to expand...

Good point. I wonder who else may be in attendance? As far as the paparazzi goes, this should keep the aircraft away, but won't do much for the ones that crawl through the woods.
 
It looks to me like it's only 1.5nm in radius and 2000AGL. Not a huge deal, however silly the reason. Here's the TFR off the FAA website.
 
The BS has already started. Yesterday a camera dude almost lost his cookies while filming from the air...buttholes

Planes are being rented for the flights...only good thing!
 
Economic opportunity - when you can get 10 grand for that 'snap' of Chelsea through the bedroom window as she is being dressed, the paparazzi (true entrepreneurs) are in a feeding frenzy...
As much as I absolutely DESPISE these damnable TFR's, there is a reason for this one and at least it is reasonable size...

It is the uncompensated taking of thousands of cubic miles of airspace every time some prez goes somewhere to grub for money, that burns me up... He is being paid to work for us and instead he spends more time clogging up the public airspace while promoting the welfare of other scumbag politicians than he does on the job for for those paying his salary.... grrrr

For the PC folks, note that my anger is non denominational - I hate em all...

denny-o
 
wsuffa said:
IT's to keep the papparazi away.
Click to expand...
It's no different than when they put one up over an accident scene. We don't need a couple of idiot news helos banging together over the wedding. Why do you think they've got that midget TFR (1nm radius, 1500 AGL) over Joe Biden's house? It sure ain't for protection from any threat system I can imagine.
 
AWACSEng said:
Good point. I wonder who else may be in attendance? As far as the paparazzi goes, this should keep the aircraft away, but won't do much for the ones that crawl through the woods.
Click to expand...
The ones who crawl through the woods don't crash together and rain potentially lethal debris on those below or make noise that annoys the neighbors.
 
chucky said:
It looks to me like it's only 1.5nm in radius and 2000AGL.
Click to expand...

Which is absolutely useless for providing any protection from an airborne threat unless it's surrounded with manned and alerted antiaircraft weaponry and/or orbiting interceptors. Form over substance yet again.
 
AdamZ said:
I thought about that but Bill goes so many darn places with no TFR.
Click to expand...
Bush Jr wakes up in the morning under a TFR, and Bush Sr. goes to bed at night under a prohibited area. Dick Cheney used to have a similarly sized TFR over his weekend home when he wasn't even there.

So there's clearly precedent for ex-Presidents and current penultimate muckity-mucks to get TFRs. And, much like various UN events or things like State o' the Union addresses, sometimes when you cluster a bunch of VIPs together, they get security measures that they wouldn't have warranted alone.

All that said, I find it difficult to argue that these tiny TFRs have a security purpose, and suspect that they're more typically "privacy" TFRs. It's good to be the King (though I don't think Elvis ever got a TFR).
-harry
 
I think Bush jr is about to move yet again.. plenty of aircraft bust that TFR in dallas all the time.. Ever have to extend your left downwind for 35 at KADS?
 
Tom Veatch said:
Which is absolutely useless for providing any protection from an airborne threat unless it's surrounded with manned and alerted antiaircraft weaponry and/or orbiting interceptors. Form over substance yet again.
Click to expand...
One more time -- it's not about security, it's about safety. If they can't get close enough to take pictures, they won't go, and the airshow dies for lack of performers.
 
And it will be forever known as the butterface tfr. ;)

PS...you guys really need some cheese to go with that whine.
 
Ron Levy said:
It's no different than when they put one up over an accident scene. We don't need a couple of idiot news helos banging together over the wedding. Why do you think they've got that midget TFR (1nm radius, 1500 AGL) over Joe Biden's house? It sure ain't for protection from any threat system I can imagine.
Click to expand...

And in this case, perhaps it prevents that accident scene.
 
Hey, isn't tha near Old Rhinebeck Airdrome? What happened to that place?
 
President Obama said he's not going to the wedding because "You don't want two Presidents there," besides which he wasn't invited. He says teh Clinton's would want it to be Chelsea's day.

Imagine if you also had a moving 30nm TFR for the Prez.
 
Ron Levy said:
Opinions vary.
Click to expand...

Well, Ron, we can certainly agree on that point.

What I'm having a hard time seeing is, except for powered parachutes and weight-shift-control aircraft, what a TFR with an altitude limit of 1000AGL accomplishes in a congested area that isn't already covered by 91.119. And if it is already covered by existing regulations, declaring a TFR strikes me as grandstanding, pure and simple.

I am assuming that Miss Clinton isn't getting married out in the middle of a wheat field.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
... Why do you think they've got that midget TFR (1nm radius, 1500 AGL) over Joe Biden's house? ...
Click to expand...
Same reason they had one over Dick Cheney's house, for aesthetics and privacy. So he can sit in his back yard without being photographed from a helicopter.
-harry
 
Tom Veatch said:
... What I'm having a hard time seeing is, except for powered parachutes and weight-shift-control aircraft, what a TFR with an altitude limit of 1000AGL accomplishes in a congested area that isn't already covered by 91.119...
Click to expand...
As I read it, 91.119 applies no minimum altitude limit to helicopters, other than "conducted without hazard" to stuff on the ground, and no "undue hazard" to stuff on the ground if the engine fails. The TFR applies a minimum altitude limit of 2000AGL.
-harry
 
mantakos said:
Same reason they had one over Dick Cheney's house, for aesthetics and privacy. So he can sit in his back yard without being photographed from a helicopter.
Click to expand...
If you lived next door to one of those folks, you'd like having that TFR there, too.
 
mantakos said:
As I read it, 91.119 applies no minimum altitude limit to helicopters, other than "conducted without hazard" to stuff on the ground, and no "undue hazard" to stuff on the ground if the engine fails. The TFR applies a minimum altitude limit of 2000AGL.
-harry
Click to expand...

Thank you.

Apparently I'd misread the altitude in a previous post in this thread as 1000AGL. A 2000 foot ceiling makes much more sense with 91.119 in play. But even 2000 feet might not be much of a deterrent for someone with the right cameras.

On the helicopter front:
91.119 (d) (1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA.
eff 4/2/10
Click to expand...
The previous wording, prior to 4/2/10, seemed to clearly imply that in the absence of "routes or altitudes" it was "all's fair". This revised wording could be interpreted as being more restrictive. Wonder why it was changed unless the intent was to move toward becoming more restrictive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top