Why I hate Obama

you could always vacation on the gulf of mexico.

That is what we are doing. We are going to Panama City over labor day weekend for some sun and fun, beach time time and a bit of scuba diving.

I know it is not Obama, or Bush, and given the big troubles in the world this may not be something they are aware of, but something is just so, so WRONG, with these TFR's.
 
We gotta ratchet this stuff back.

But didn't it all come into play during the Bush Regime?

To be fair though...it really is more of a post 9/11 thing, not a "Bush regime" thing.
 
... The fact that planes are stopped but cars are not just shows that it is a feeble attempt at feigning additional security without actually doing anything. We all know that a U-Haul van is far more dangerous than a Piper Matrix.
And we all know that it's easier to cordon off roads than it is to cordon off air.
-harry
 
If you think creating an internal customs inspection policy for the country for domestic flights is a good one, fine. I don't. It's lunacy.
Note the tendency towards drama. This is a procedure setup for one small airport on an island for 10 days, and now we're talking about "customs inspection policy for the country". Every response about my comparison to customs has intentionally changed the meaning to something else, rather than admit "yes, that's about the same level of hassle, we do it routinely, it hardly ruins our trip".

I've chosen airports slightly farther from my destination to take advantage of cheaper gas, or less traffic, or better access to rental cars. When this happens, I don't cry about it, because I know it's my own decision. When that decision is imposed externally, we tend to get righteously indignant, though the hardship is no greater.

My point in all this is that pilots are a whiny bunch. That's fine when we're all clustered together, whining to each other about our sad lot in life. But if we're going to be able to converse intelligently with the people who actually impose these rules, we're going to have to understand how our whining sounds to them.

They might ask:
A ) how many people are impacted by this? how many pilots would have flown into that airport during that 10 day period?
B ) how much extra time does that "customs-style" stop take?
C ) are there nearby airports outside the TFR that could be used instead? how much extra time would that add?​
Note that our complaint roughly boils down to "but, but, you're not implying that I arrive at Martha's Vineyard the way a normal person would, via a ferry! Hmph! I've never been so insulted!" I'm sure the secret service is very moved by that argument.

So, yes, let's all keep complaining, but until we take-off the drama-queen tiaras we're never going to sound reasonable to those who come up with these programs.
-harry
 
I think the purpose of presidential travel should be taken into consideration. If he's campaigning or on vacation, and TFR should be adjusted downward.

These can be much less disruptive. I almost had to cancel a trip recently because of a rumored TFR. We all have to make reservations and pay much farther in advance for some of these trips now. Cancellation can be very costly and the TFR can be very disruptive to our schedule. Let's find some way to make them less intrusive, especially if it's not for official Presidential business.

Best,

Dave
 
They might ask:
A ) how many people are impacted by this? how many pilots would have flown into that airport during that 10 day period?
B ) how much extra time does that "customs-style" stop take?
C ) are there nearby airports outside the TFR that could be used instead? how much extra time would that add?​

While they might ask the above, they should ask:

1) what is the actual value of the measures?
2) are the measures appropriate to the risk?
 
I'm not going to complain. If he gets whacked and Joe dies, I will never forgive myself.

I think the purpose of presidential travel should be taken into consideration. If he's campaigning or on vacation, and TFR should be adjusted downward.

These can be much less disruptive. I almost had to cancel a trip recently because of a rumored TFR. We all have to make reservations and pay much farther in advance for some of these trips now. Cancellation can be very costly and the TFR can be very disruptive to our schedule. Let's find some way to make them less intrusive, especially if it's not for official Presidential business.

Best,

Dave
 
While they might ask the above, they should ask:
1) what is the actual value of the measures?
2) are the measures appropriate to the risk?
My guess is that their answer is "we can block off roads and maintain a security perimeter on the ground, but we can't block off air".
-harry
 
My guess is that their answer is "we can block off roads and maintain a security perimeter on the ground, but we can't block off air".
-harry

Which doesn't answer the question - but really exposes the
lack of knowledge wrt security.
 
Which doesn't answer the question - but really exposes the
lack of knowledge wrt security.

It seems to me that some appropriate questions to ask are:

1) Is there a risk presented to the President (or the national interests of the United States) by aviation in general, or GA specifically?

2) If so, what is the degree of the risk?

3) Depending on the answers to the above, what means are necessary to address that risk?

4) What means are reasonable to address that risk, which includes evaluating, among other things: a) the risk presented; and b) the inconvenience to the public?

I'm sure that everyone has already considered these things, though. I'm sure that everyone has also attempted to objectively consider them, as well.
 
It seems to me that some appropriate questions to ask are:

1) Is there a risk presented to the President (or the national interests of the United States) by aviation in general, or GA specifically?

2) If so, what is the degree of the risk?

3) Depending on the answers to the above, what means are necessary to address that risk?

4) What means are reasonable to address that risk, which includes evaluating, among other things: a) the risk presented; and b) the inconvenience to the public?

I'm sure that everyone has already considered these things, though. I'm sure that everyone has also attempted to objectively consider them, as well.

If you are talking about the morons running the DHS, TSA, USSS, etc...

:rofl:

"Semi tanker plows into school, killing 378 children; TSA, DHS to ban motorcycles within 5miles of all schools."
That's the mentality of these jeenyusses.
 
If you are talking about the morons running the DHS, TSA, USSS, etc...

:rofl:

"Semi tanker plows into school, killing 378 children; TSA, DHS to ban motorcycles within 5miles of all schools."
That's the mentality of these jeenyusses.

Hey, I'm just saying that if we're going to fairly consider these things, I think those are some questions that allow us to take the interests of everyone into account - pilots, the Presidential Family Dog (I was going to write "First Dog," but didn't want to be mistaken as referring to Mrs. Obama :rofl:), the public at large.

Those questions are also what I'd expect the Secret Service (we really need to change that name, by the way, simply for appearance's sake) and other letter agencies to take into account.
 
Immediately following 9/11 when GA was getting the hind teat when it came airspace access I asked a "federal official" at a local pilots meeting about the need for all the targeted restrictions.

His answer:

"We don't know who you are."

:rolleyes2:
 
Isn't the President the Commander in Chief? He ought to be able to tell the SS to ease up. Harry Truman used to take walks through DC even though there had been bombings and shootings targeted at him: "Comes with the job", he said.

That's what Vice Presidents are for, I guess.
 
Isn't the President the Commander in Chief? He ought to be able to tell the SS to ease up. Harry Truman used to take walks through DC even though there had been bombings and shootings targeted at him: "Comes with the job", he said.

That's what Vice Presidents are for, I guess.

Precisely. These people are only men and women, and there are 5000 people standing in line for their jobs, 4990 of whom would do an equal or better job. There is absolutely NO reason to treat them like royalty. It is un-American to do so, and, quite frankly, embarrassing.

I had to explain this whole TFR mess to a German friend, who was incredulous. His response was: "He *is* just a man, you know." All I could do was sigh, and kick the ground. There is just no explanation for the inexplicably stupid.
 
unfortunately after JFK insisted on riding a convertible, the SS apparently no longer answers to the president.
 
unfortunately after JFK insisted on riding a convertible, the SS apparently no longer answers to the president.

Quite frankly, I've wondered about that myself. If the president isn't in charge of the Secret Service....who *is*?
 

Yeah, I just wasted 20 minutes reading all about the Secret Service, which is now part of "Homeland Security". Mark Sullivan is "the Man" at the top.

It's astounding how many different government agencies there are. Once you start peeling the onion, it never seems to end.
 
unfortunately after JFK insisted on riding a convertible, the SS apparently no longer answers to the president.

Which, in my opinion, is idiotic. Kinda like seat belt and helmet laws. Yes, they exist for my own good. Yes, I would wear them anyway. No, I don't want the government telling me I have to in order to protect me from myself.

Of course, if I were president I'd go get my 747 type rating and want to fly AF1. :)
 
Would not be underwritten by any insurance carrier. Too few hours in type. :D

"No, Mr President we can't insure you."
'Who is that friend I have at the IRS and the other at the SEC?"
"Oh, my mistake, we've got a binder all ready to go for you."

Yes, if I was, I would.
 
"No, Mr President we can't insure you."
'Who is that friend I have at the IRS and the other at the SEC?"
"Oh, my mistake, we've got a binder all ready to go for you."

Yes, if I was, I would.

If you let me ride jumpseat, I'd vote for you.
 
Of course, if I were president I'd go get my 747 type rating and want to fly AF1. :)

Ya wouldn't need it...AF1's a public aircraft, not a civil aircraft, and falls under military regs, not FAA ones!
 
Freemasons? The Illuminati? I can never keep these things straight... :rofl:

Sooooo....reading between the lines here....you're saying the president IS in charge of the SS? Just a guess here.

Which can only mean that (*gasp*)...the current occupant of the Oval Office is just as clueless as his predecessors? Say it ain't so! :rolleyes2:
 
Of course, if I were president I'd go get my 747 type rating and want to fly AF1. :)

Same here, but then I'd end up getting screwed when the previous renter brings it back late and doesn't top off the tanks.
 
Of course, if I were president I'd go get my 747 type rating and want to fly AF1. :)
We could have photo ops like this then.

ALeqM5j8e6T7OKqc9aKZUFYU3iWV5rc7Gw


http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iX-16FttPkCulMdckFjFJyOJCXlAD9HGQB9G0
 
Note the tendency towards drama. This is a procedure setup for one small airport on an island for 10 days, and now we're talking about "customs inspection policy for the country". Every response about my comparison to customs has intentionally changed the meaning to something else, rather than admit "yes, that's about the same level of hassle, we do it routinely, it hardly ruins our trip".

No. You're missing the point. Why the gateway airports?? Why for an internal flight? If I'm in the country, I've cleared those hurdles already. Moreover, I don't have to apply for a waiver for the opportunity to enter the country for customs. A waiver?

I've chosen airports slightly farther from my destination to take advantage of cheaper gas, or less traffic, or better access to rental cars. When this happens, I don't cry about it, because I know it's my own decision.

Bully for you. I've done the same. So what?

When that decision is imposed externally, we tend to get righteously indignant, though the hardship is no greater.

No, we get righteously indignant because there is no benefit, not because it is externally driven. I'm not getting cheap gas -- I'm burning more. I'm not getting less traffic -- I'm being funneled. The hardship is greater because there is no choice.

My point in all this is that pilots are a whiny bunch. That's fine when we're all clustered together, whining to each other about our sad lot in life. But if we're going to be able to converse intelligently with the people who actually impose these rules, we're going to have to understand how our whining sounds to them.

And you do understand that I'm posting this on a pilots web board?

They might ask:
A ) how many people are impacted by this? how many pilots would have flown into that airport during that 10 day period?
B ) how much extra time does that "customs-style" stop take?
C ) are there nearby airports outside the TFR that could be used instead? how much extra time would that add?​

And I would say,
A) Great question. I know MVY is popular during the summer. They average 141 operations a day, one could easily assume summer is 2x that.
B) Well, just going through customs in Bellingham WA, where we were sheparded off the plane, had to wait for the radioactivity check, and other folks ahead of us in line, took about half-an-hour. I imagine we're going to have to get our luggage screened, aircraft screened, and we need to be screened, at a place not designed for such things on an everyday basis. I'm gonna say a reasonable guess would be 30mins to an hour. Keep in mind it will take 30mins to fly to the screening airport first.
C) Well, considering this is an island, no.


Note that our complaint roughly boils down to "but, but, you're not implying that I arrive at Martha's Vineyard the way a normal person would, via a ferry! Hmph! I've never been so insulted!" I'm sure the secret service is very moved by that argument.

No, my complaint boils down to "Why in the hell the theater around an airplane when people and trucks will just roll right on and roll right off? And why are you so f'ing snippy about this??? I'm not bitching about being with the commoners. Find where I even IMPLIED that in my post. Please. I can wait. You read your own bias into it and applied it to me.

So, yes, let's all keep complaining, but until we take-off the drama-queen tiaras we're never going to sound reasonable to those who come up with these programs.
-harry

Again, posting to a pilots web board. Comprised of, yes, you have it, pilots.Not to the TSA, or DHS, or my Congressman, or the local paper. Don't know why the little comment about drama queens, or if it was directed at me. Don't want to know.

To repeat -- a simple, domestic trip for holiday is turned into a bureaucratic zoo. For what? Applying for FAA waivers. Gateway airports. Security screening. That's more than the usual flight planning. That's more than just taking a different route to avoid traffic on the way to the shore. A lot more. And for what? That is the heart of the matter. For what????
 
Try flying commercially. Now they're nuking you with xrays (backscatter) as a primary means of screening in many places. And, according to some scientists, the TSA has substantially underestimated the exposure.

Oh, and they just reissued the DC-area NOTAMS according to the email I got tonight.

Our government - harassing travelers and preventing free travel. :incazzato: :rolleyes:
 
Why I hate Stupidity

Try flying commercially. Now they're nuking you with xrays (backscatter) as a primary means of screening in many places. And, according to some scientists, the TSA has substantially underestimated the exposure.

Oh, and they just reissued the DC-area NOTAMS according to the email I got tonight.

Our government - harassing travelers and preventing free travel. :incazzato: :rolleyes:

Nothing new here, they started this sh*t long before 9/11. Not the NOTAMS mind you, but preventing free travel. Heck 9/11 just gave them a convenient excuse to be more dictatorial. The ONLY Senator to vote against the "Patriot Act" (twice!!) was Russ Feingold (D) of Wisconsin. He did it shortly after 9/11 (and many thought it would be his political suicide) and when it came up for renewal.

I was disappointed (but not surprised) when the Democratic party, pants pi**ing terrified of being labeled "soft on terror" by the Republicans (who bleat that at the drop of a hat - 9/11), renewed that pile of dung.

The funny thing is that the whole thing is horse-puckey. You aren't any safer with the TSA and I'm living proof. I go through KATW (small airport) for a flight to a conference, and I'll get wanded every single time because I have 22 screws and 3 plates setting off the detectors. I go through KORD or KMSP (or any large airport) security while it's slow, and I'll get wanded. However, if I go through while it's busy, I won't. There's your bloody illusion of safety.

This isn't about Obama, it's the whole damnable system. Try changing it and "you love terrists!" and people "want there america back!" Mind you they didn't give a f*ck for 7 years after 9/11 while people like me were like "whoa, we're torturing people? WTF? WE HANGED PEOPLE FOR THAT SH*T AFTER WWII!" "WTF!?! You mean I have to protest in a 'Free Speech Zone'??!!" "What do you mean we can't try people for terrorism in American Courts? We've done it at least 4 times before. Do you remember, or do you have memory loss?"

All of the illogical statements made: "Obama is a seekrit mooslin commie fascist kenyan socialist usurper out to destroy America. Oh, and he can't really be president because he isn't an American." "ACORN stole the election!" "Keep government out of my medicare!" "Terror babies!" "DEATH PANELS!!!"

You know what's really funny though? The same people that harp about Socialism don't know the the Pledge of Allegiance (which they all bleat about non-stop) was written by a damnable Socialist named Francis Bellamy. Not only that, but he had a cousin (Edward) who was a, *gasp* Communist UTOPIAN! We'll leave out the fact that the only countries that typically indoctrinate children with forced loyalty oaths are dictatorships.

The sad thing is, that most of the damnable electorate (including the "Tea Party") are too damn lazy to verify facts before jumping to conclusions. They'll believe anything a talking head bleats out. Not only that, most can't remember what was said 3 days ago much less 3 months or 3 years ago.

Tangent to prove limited memory: I saw the interview with the AOPA head, and he was bleating about 100LL needing an extension because a viable replacement doesn't exist. I understand that this is an important issue, but talking to my friend (whom has been flying almost as long as I have been alive) this isn't a new issue. The GA community has stuck it's head in the sand (by and large) for years, basically since lead was removed from automotive fuel. Nobody wanted to acknowledge it, but everyone "knew" lead would have to come out of avgas too. Well now the rent's come due and everyone is like "Oh we have to work with (fill_in_the_blank, multiple sources like fuel makers, engine makers, the GA community, the EPA, et al) and it's going to be a slow process. We'll have to ensure we take the proper time with this."

Now don't get me wrong, this is an extremely important, and technologically sensitive, issue that will require months (years, maybe a decade or more?) of testing. This is not a trivial matter, but it's one that was ignored (by and large) by the community for decades. We might face some nasty price hikes, and whom can we blame? I can't be sure myself, because I'm just joining up. However it looks like part of the tipping point wasn't just the EPA, but also the fact that there's only one lead maker left. Were there two would the GA community be fighting to keep 100LL a little longer before looking for a different gas? Probably. Now everyone's your brother till the rent comes due. The lack of a secondary supplier of lead is probably the true main driver behind accepting that a change is necessary. Who do we blame if the lead supplies disappear because the maker goes bankrupt, and 100LL is no longer able to be made?
 
Back
Top