PDA

View Full Version : Stupid National Security Trix


IJ Reilly
Jul 25, 2003, 04:00 PM
A few days ago I alluded to the arbitrary and capricious restrictions being placed on general aviation in the name of "national security." One example is the essentially free-floating 30 nm temporary flight restriction area (known as a TFR) following all of the President's movements outside of Washington (which is covered by an effectively permanent restriction of its own). The outcomes can be comically ludicrous, as in this case, but it is also quite easy to see where the promulgation of rules lacking any logic beyond political convenience can threaten lives and liberties.

PHILADELPHIA — Federal authorities Thursday detained the pilot of a small plane who mistakenly flew over President Bush's motorcade as he left a speaking venue here, officials said.

The man piloting the single-engine Cessna 172 violated a 30-mile no-fly zone around the president, while patrolling an oil pipeline at altitudes too low to be sighted on radar, according to aviation and law enforcement officials.

An F-16 fighter and two military helicopters intercepted the aircraft and escorted it to a suburban New Jersey airport about 15 miles southeast of Philadelphia, the Federal Aviation Administration said.

About 30 police officers, with their guns drawn, waited for the airplane to taxi to a stop and then ordered the man to lie down on the tarmac.

"They handcuffed him and whisked him out of here," said Karl Kleinberg, the airport's owner.

The man was released without charge after being detained for hours at a New Jersey police station.

"He was unaware that there was a temporary flight restriction in effect. There was no threat. There was no malice," said James Borasi, special agent in charge of the Secret Service's Philadelphia field office.

He identified the pilot only as an employee of Underwood Aerial Patrol of Bloomingburg, Ohio.

Backtothemac
Jul 26, 2003, 01:38 PM
My best friend is a private pilot here, and recently was given notice about the 30 nautical mile restriction. When people file flight paths that day the FAA will notify them of all flight restrictions. Thus, it was the pilots mistake.

This is a good policy, especially if it were to save the life of the President.

IJ Reilly
Jul 26, 2003, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
My best friend is a private pilot here, and recently was given notice about the 30 nautical mile restriction. When people file flight paths that day the FAA will notify them of all flight restrictions. Thus, it was the pilots mistake.

This is a good policy, especially if it were to save the life of the President.

No, not quite. Filing a flight plan is not required for VFR flight. Consequently, they are only rarely filed for VFR flight, which accounts for something like 90% of all general aviation operations. These rolling TFRs have also caused extensive groundings of aircraft based at airports unlucky to find themselves in proximity to one of the President's fund raising trips.

This is terrible policy. It is nonsensical, and it is unfair, and ineffective besides.

Backtothemac
Jul 26, 2003, 08:06 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
No, not quite. Filing a flight plan is not required for VFR flight. Consequently, they are only rarely filed for VFR flight, which accounts for something like 90% of all general aviation operations. These rolling TFRs have also caused extensive groundings of aircraft based at airports unlucky to find themselves in proximity to one of the President's fund raising trips.

This is terrible policy. It is nonsensical, and it is unfair, and ineffective besides.

You do not have to file a flight plan for VFR, or IFR, but you are an idiot if you don't. This is direct quote from my father who has been a pilot for over 40 years. And you always cancel the plan when you reach the destination. So, I don't know who gave you your stats, but their wrong.

zimv20
Jul 26, 2003, 08:12 PM
there are a lot of things/people inconvenienced whenever a top official like the president travels. having a moving restricted airspace is, imo, simply a reality.

i'd seen articles of town/cities that bush has visited where his mere presence had blown police overtime budgets for the year. personally, i think the fed should reimburse for such things (unless it's political rally -- then the party should). but needing such security is a reality.

pivo6
Jul 26, 2003, 08:33 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
No, not quite. Filing a flight plan is not required for VFR flight. Consequently, they are only rarely filed for VFR flight, which accounts for something like 90% of all general aviation operations. These rolling TFRs have also caused extensive groundings of aircraft based at airports unlucky to find themselves in proximity to one of the President's fund raising trips.

This is terrible policy. It is nonsensical, and it is unfair, and ineffective besides.

I have to agree with BTTM. My father in law was a pilot and despite only being rated for VFR, he always filed a flight plan. Is it necessary? I think it is. Does it inconvenience some? Sure. When the President travels in a town, they always block off the roads, even interstate highways. I don't find this much different.

IJ Reilly
Jul 27, 2003, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
You do not have to file a flight plan for VFR, or IFR, but you are an idiot if you don't. This is direct quote from my father who has been a pilot for over 40 years. And you always cancel the plan when you reach the destination. So, I don't know who gave you your stats, but their wrong.

Flight plans are required for all IFR operations. Most general aviation pilots are either not instrument rated or instrument current, and even for rated and current instrument pilots flying an IFR certified airplane, IFR is still not a practical alternative for many operations, including the one in question. It also makes no sense to "cancel the plan when you reach the destination," because by then, by definition, you don't have a flight plan because it's closed.

I don't know what "stats" of mine you think are wrong, but assuming it's a reference to the proportion of IFR vs. VFR general aviation operations, this is a figure that comes from the weeks after 9-11, when VFR flight was prohibited and then greatly restricted.

IJ Reilly
Jul 27, 2003, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by pivo6
I have to agree with BTTM. My father in law was a pilot and despite only being rated for VFR, he always filed a flight plan. Is it necessary? I think it is. Does it inconvenience some? Sure. When the President travels in a town, they always block off the roads, even interstate highways. I don't find this much different.

There's little equivalency here. First, the street closures don't cover nearly 1,000 square miles, and prevent anyone from driving a private vehicle within that area. Can you imagine the howls of protest from drivers if they did? But that is precisely what is happening in general aviation. Second, these presidential TFRs pop up with little advance notice, creating a huge trip-and-fall hazard for all VFR pilots. Can a pilot find out about them? Sure, and most will check -- but the system is hardly foolproof. So, third, if a pilot happens to blunder into a presidential TFR, the risk of having their craft turned into chaff is unreasonably high. That's a pretty severe penalty for missing the most current information, don't you think?

This, btw, is only one example of the many nonsensical restrictions placed on general aviation after 9-11. Fact is, general aviation has been made a convenient whipping-boy for national security.

Very, very few general aviation pilots file VFR flight plans. I don't know of a single one who does it frequently, let alone for every flight.

mcrain
Jul 27, 2003, 01:18 PM
Why did the secret service not know that the president was travelling within a certain distance of a pipeline was was regularly patrolled by VFR, low-flying aircraft?

You can blame the pilot all you want, but there also has to be a little blame for the SS's failure to look a little into the future and anticipate problems like that.

Backtothemac
Jul 27, 2003, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Flight plans are required for all IFR operations. Most general aviation pilots are either not instrument rated or instrument current, and even for rated and current instrument pilots flying an IFR certified airplane, IFR is still not a practical alternative for many operations, including the one in question. It also makes no sense to "cancel the plan when you reach the destination," because by then, by definition, you don't have a flight plan because it's closed.

I don't know what "stats" of mine you think are wrong, but assuming it's a reference to the proportion of IFR vs. VFR general aviation operations, this is a figure that comes from the weeks after 9-11, when VFR flight was prohibited and then greatly restricted.

Um, yea, you have to cancel or close the flight plan when you reach the destination, and of the 10 pilots I spoke to this morning that I know, all said the same thing. You ALWAYS file a flight plan. If you do not, then how are they going to know where to look for you if things go wrong.

As said earlier, it is good sense to do this and is no different than making motorists take different routes when the Presidents limo is coming through. Would you say the same thing if it was a Dem in the White House? I think not. I personally think that this is just another shot at Bush for nothing other than common sense policy.

And sorry, but as I have said, it is not required to file a VFR flight plan, but any "good" pilot would.

Backtothemac
Jul 27, 2003, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by mcrain
Why did the secret service not know that the president was travelling within a certain distance of a pipeline was was regularly patrolled by VFR, low-flying aircraft?

You can blame the pilot all you want, but there also has to be a little blame for the SS's failure to look a little into the future and anticipate problems like that.

I will agree with that, except the FAA will notify all towers within the TFR. Oh, and Riley, sorry, but as long as you do what the F-16's say, they won't turn you into Chaff.
:D

IJ Reilly
Jul 27, 2003, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Um, yea, you have to cancel or close the flight plan when you reach the destination, and of the 10 pilots I spoke to this morning that I know, all said the same thing. You ALWAYS file a flight plan. If you do not, then how are they going to know where to look for you if things go wrong.

As said earlier, it is good sense to do this and is no different than making motorists take different routes when the Presidents limo is coming through. Would you say the same thing if it was a Dem in the White House? I think not. I personally think that this is just another shot at Bush for nothing other than common sense policy.

And sorry, but as I have said, it is not required to file a VFR flight plan, but any "good" pilot would.

1. Pilots very rarely file VFR flight plans. This is a fact, and if you need to have this fact verified, I'd suggest you have a look at the NTSB accident database (it's online). You'd have to search long and hard to find a single reportable accident or incident involving a VFR operation where a VFR flight plan had been filed. That's because they very rarely are.

2. It is very different then "taking a different route," for reasons I have already pointed out (and many others reasons I've yet to mention).

3. Sorry, you are not in any position to judge what "good" pilot would or would not do.

IJ Reilly
Jul 27, 2003, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Oh, and Riley, sorry, but as long as you do what the F-16's say, they won't turn you into Chaff.
:D

Really? And how do you know what they are telling you to do?

Backtothemac
Jul 27, 2003, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
1. Pilots very rarely file VFR flight plans. This is a fact, and if you need to have this fact verified, I'd suggest you have a look at the NTSB accident database (it's online). You'd have to search long and hard to find a single reportable accident or incident involving a VFR operation where a VFR flight plan had been filed. That's because they very rarely are.

2. It is very different then "taking a different route," for reasons I have already pointed out (and many others reasons I've yet to mention).

3. Sorry, you are not in any position to judge what "good" pilot would or would not do.

Um, actually I am. See, my father has been a pilot for over 40 years. I had my pilots license at the age of 14. I have not been current since 92 though. Good pilots file flight plans. As I have said before ignorant ones do not. If the ones in the NTSB database have no flight plan filed, then they are stupid. As for filing a VFR flight plan, the tower where I live requires it on all flights over 100NM. So, I know that may be different where you are, and if you are running touch and goes for fun during the day, then no, you don't file a flight plan, but if you are going any distance, then yes, you file a flight plan.

zimv20
Jul 27, 2003, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Really? And how do you know what they are telling you to do?

radio, hand signals and "body" language, i would think.

Backtothemac
Jul 27, 2003, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Really? And how do you know what they are telling you to do?

It is the little thing called a radio. ;):D :)

IJ Reilly
Jul 27, 2003, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
It is the little thing called a radio. ;):D :)

First, that "little thing called a radio" isn't required equipment for flying in most of the United States, and second, assuming the airplane in question is so equipped, on which of the 760 available channels can you expect to talk to the nice man in the F-16?

IJ Reilly
Jul 27, 2003, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Um, actually I am. See, my father has been a pilot for over 40 years. I had my pilots license at the age of 14. I have not been current since 92 though. Good pilots file flight plans. As I have said before ignorant ones do not. If the ones in the NTSB database have no flight plan filed, then they are stupid. As for filing a VFR flight plan, the tower where I live requires it on all flights over 100NM. So, I know that may be different where you are, and if you are running touch and goes for fun during the day, then no, you don't file a flight plan, but if you are going any distance, then yes, you file a flight plan.

I don't know anyone who files a VFR flight plan. Zero, zilch, nada. If I took a poll at my airport about this question, I'm sure I'd hear belly laughs all around, especially if I added your assertion that pilots who don't file one are "stupid." In fact, I'd probably have to duck a few times. And what airport requires one? Be specific here, because I'd like to check it out.

Backtothemac
Jul 27, 2003, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
First, that "little thing called a radio" isn't required equipment for flying in most of the United States, and second, assuming the airplane in question is so equipped, on which of the 760 available channels can you expect to talk to the nice man in the F-16?

Ok, first no VFR flight plans, no no radio. WTF. How do you talk to the tower for clearence? Yell out the window? You HAVE to have a radio in a plane. There is no way around that.

I would say that I would switch to the universal distress channel of 121.5MHZ. That is probably where the man in the F-16 would be. But that is just me.

Backtothemac
Jul 27, 2003, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
I don't know anyone who files a VFR flight plan. Zero, zilch, nada. If I took a poll at my airport about this question, I'm sure I'd hear belly laughs all around, especially if I added your assertion that pilots who don't file one are "stupid." In fact, I'd probably have to duck a few times. And what airport requires one? Be specific here, because I'd like to check it out.


Well, let me correct myself. Bama Air requires all of its pilots to file a VFR plan if the flight is over 100NM away from the tower.

IJ Reilly
Jul 27, 2003, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
radio, hand signals and "body" language, i would think.

Yes, the signals are standardized (eg, wing rocking). Private pilots have been urged to learn the interdiction procedures, and I now carry a reference card with me whenever I fly -- but, by definition, an incident of this kind will happen without notice and unfold very quickly, and I also suspect would be quite scary. If it ever happens to me, I hope I have the presence of mind to do the right thing in a timely fashion. My life, and those of the souls on board, will be at stake.

Attempting (probably in vein at this point) to keep this thread on topic, my point was that the presidential TFRs are overreaching, arbitrary, and harmful to many real people. What's worse, they are only one of many similar impositions.

Backtothemac
Jul 27, 2003, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Yes, the signals are standardized (eg, wing rocking). Private pilots have been urged to learn the interdiction procedures, and I now carry a reference card with me whenever I fly -- but, by definition, an incident of this kind will happen without notice and unfold very quickly, and I also suspect would be quite scary. If it ever happens to me, I hope I have the presence of mind to do the right thing in a timely fashion. My life, and those of the souls on board, will be at stake.

Attempting (probably in vein at this point) to keep this thread on topic, my point was that the presidential TFRs are overreaching, arbitrary, and harmful to many real people. What's worse, they are only one of many similar impositions.

Given 9/11 how can you say that. The TFR is large enough to keep all traffic out of the area, then that is what it is supposed to do. We have people that fly everyday, that do not file a flight plan, should but don't. Good pilots do because it just makes sense to do so. As for the restrictions on the TFR, it is to protect the President. This will carry over to other administrations. It is a bad idea, and overreaching because it hasn't saved a President's life yet. If some wacko decided to try to take out the President by ramming a Cesnna up his ass, and an F-16 took them out, then I bet it would have been a good idea.

zimv20
Jul 27, 2003, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly

my point was that the presidential TFRs are overreaching, arbitrary, and harmful to many real people. What's worse, they are only one of many similar impositions.

it is a pain in the ass. same as when a president travels i-94 from downtown chicago to o'hare airport -- they shut it down. (and we often don't know until all the arterial streets are gridlocked)

but, i don't see a way around it, save the president staying put in D.C. and i don't think that's healthy for democracy.

Backtothemac
Jul 27, 2003, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
it is a pain in the ass. same as when a president travels i-94 from downtown chicago to o'hare airport -- they shut it down. (and we often don't know until all the arterial streets are gridlocked)

but, i don't see a way around it, save the president staying put in D.C. and i don't think that's healthy for democracy.

I agree with you 100%. It is a pain in the ass, but it is necessary. The first time they did not do it, he would get killed, and then the CIA would have to take the heat again, along with the SS, and the FBI.


Better safe than sorry.

IJ Reilly
Jul 27, 2003, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Ok, first no VFR flight plans, no no radio. WTF. How do you talk to the tower for clearence? Yell out the window? You HAVE to have a radio in a plane. There is no way around that.

I would say that I would switch to the universal distress channel of 121.5MHZ. That is probably where the man in the F-16 would be. But that is just me.

Well of course you can't fly into Class B, C or D airspace (short of a radio failure or prior arrangement, in which case you'd want to brush up on your light gun signals), but that's only a tiny fraction of the airspace in the US. Quite a few of the airplanes based at my airport are antiques -- they have no electrical systems at all, let alone radios. Most of these guys will carry a hand-held when they fly, but good luck actually understanding what they're saying.

Yes, I'd go to 121.5 (which I also try to routinely monitor on the second COM), and hope for the best -- because, from what I understand, most military aircraft are not equipped to work the civil frequencies. For a life-or-death situation, this just isn't good enough, and I think it's only a matter of time before some hapless private pilot gets blasted from the sky, because these TFR violations are occurring with predictable frequency.

Ugg
Jul 27, 2003, 02:49 PM
The guy was flying a routine route, following a pipeline, the need for him to file a flight plan would be minimal as his route would be proscribed by the route of the pipeline. Any "good" SS agent would quickly realize this and have let him go immediately. What a waste of taxpayer money. The SS should have been more explicit in their no-fly instructions and made sure that every small airport in the vicinity was aware of the no-fly area. They messed up in a big way.

Backtothemac
Jul 27, 2003, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Well of course you can't fly into Class B, C or D airspace (short of a radio failure or prior arrangement, in which case you'd want to brush up on your light gun signals), but that's only a tiny fraction of the airspace in the US. Quite a few of the airplanes based at my airport are antiques -- they have no electrical systems at all, let alone radios. Most of these guys will carry a hand-held when they fly, but good luck actually understanding what they're saying.

Yes, I'd go to 121.5 (which I also try to routinely monitor on the second COM), and hope for the best -- because, from what I understand, most military aircraft are not equipped to work the civil frequencies. For a life-or-death situation, this just isn't good enough, and I think it's only a matter of time before some hapless private pilot gets blasted from the sky, because these TFR violations are occurring with predictable frequency.

Rest assured that all military aircraft can opperate on the 121.5MHZ. It is demanded for fighter aircraft. Older planes can use hand helds, you are right about that, and the fact that you can't hear them, but any plane that has been made in the last 50 years is going to have a radio.

Backtothemac
Jul 27, 2003, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by Ugg
The guy was flying a routine route, following a pipeline, the need for him to file a flight plan would be minimal as his route would be proscribed by the route of the pipeline. Any "good" SS agent would quickly realize this and have let him go immediately. What a waste of taxpayer money. The SS should have been more explicit in their no-fly instructions and made sure that every small airport in the vicinity was aware of the no-fly area. They messed up in a big way.

Well, two ways to look at it, your way, which you are 100% right if that is how it happened, or the other way which is his tower did not notify him of the TFR at take off, which they should have done.

IJ Reilly
Jul 27, 2003, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
I agree with you 100%. It is a pain in the ass, but it is necessary. The first time they did not do it, he would get killed, and then the CIA would have to take the heat again, along with the SS, and the FBI.


Better safe than sorry.

Nobody talks about shutting down 1,000 square miles of ground when the president visits an area, but they think nothing of shutting down 1,000 square miles of sky. This disparity is simply because many more people drive then fly. Also, most people are already prepared to think of general aviation as dangerous, even though nobody has yet used a general aviation aircraft for terrorism, but they sure have used plenty of cars and trucks.

It's all about goring somebody else's ox.

IJ Reilly
Jul 27, 2003, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Rest assured that all military aircraft can opperate on the 121.5MHZ. It is demanded for fighter aircraft. Older planes can use hand helds, you are right about that, and the fact that you can't hear them, but any plane that has been made in the last 50 years is going to have a radio.

I am not resting assured. I never rest assured about anything when I fly. As for radios, the point being that you simply cannot count on an airplane having one because they are not required outside of controlled airspace.

The AOPA (Airplane Owners and Pilots Association) is working with the administration to get the presidential TFRs scaled back to the previous 10 nm, because this situation is causing real pain for people who make their livings in and around general aviation.

IJ Reilly
Jul 27, 2003, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Well, two ways to look at it, your way, which you are 100% right if that is how it happened, or the other way which is his tower did not notify him of the TFR at take off, which they should have done.

No, a tower will almost never notify you of a TFR. Unless they are directly affected by it, they probably won't even be aware of it. In fact even if you are being worked by ATC in the air, they may not inform you of a TFR. A flight service center may tell you as part of a weather briefing, but generally only if you ask. This is a very, very complex system, with a great many regional variation in procedure and capabilities, and plenty of opportunities for dropping a stitch. If you fly, it's something you think about. A lot.

macfan
Jul 27, 2003, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Nobody talks about shutting down 1,000 square miles of ground when the president visits an area, but they think nothing of shutting down 1,000 square miles of sky. This disparity is simply because many more people drive then fly. Also, most people are already prepared to think of general aviation as dangerous, even though nobody has yet used a general aviation aircraft for terrorism, but they sure have used plenty of cars and trucks.

It's all about goring somebody else's ox.

No, it's not because more people drive than fly. It's because you don't have to shut down 1,000 square miles of ground to protect a single road, but you might have to shut down 1,000 square miles of sky because an airplane goes faster than a car and doesn't have to stick to roads.

No one had used a commercial aircraft to knock down a building before September 11. People would have made the same argument you did regarding higher security measures at airports or on cockpit doors etc.

Backtothemac
Jul 27, 2003, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by macfan
No, it's not because more people drive than fly. It's because you don't have to shut down 1,000 square miles of ground to protect a single road, but you might have to shut down 1,000 square miles of sky because an airplane goes faster than a car and doesn't have to stick to roads.

No one had used a commercial aircraft to knock down a building before September 11. People would have made the same argument you did regarding higher security measures at airports or on cockpit doors etc.

Exactly. that is the point that I was trying to make from jump. 30nm is not really that large of an airspace. Look at Eglin AFB restricted area, and then compare the two.

IJ Reilly
Jul 27, 2003, 06:18 PM
Originally posted by macfan
No, it's not because more people drive than fly. It's because you don't have to shut down 1,000 square miles of ground to protect a single road, but you might have to shut down 1,000 square miles of sky because an airplane goes faster than a car and doesn't have to stick to roads.

No one had used a commercial aircraft to knock down a building before September 11. People would have made the same argument you did regarding higher security measures at airports or on cockpit doors etc.

I'll buy this argument when I see similar restrictions placed on the rental of Ryder trucks, a proven terror weapon.

The problem with using scare tactics to restrict general aviation is that too many people are misinformed, and prepared to believe whatever myths and rumors they hear about the risks.

IJ Reilly
Jul 27, 2003, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Exactly. that is the point that I was trying to make from jump. 30nm is not really that large of an airspace. Look at Eglin AFB restricted area, and then compare the two.

On the President's last visit to Florida, 20 airports were shut down. So tell the people who make their livings in flight instruction or selling fuel, or who just needed to come or go from any of those 20 airports for business or personal reasons, that 30 nm "isn't that large."

Backtothemac
Jul 27, 2003, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
On the President's last visit to Florida, 20 airports were shut down. So tell the people who make their livings in flight instruction or selling fuel, or who just needed to come or go from any of those 20 airports for business or personal reasons, that 30 nm "isn't that large."

For one day, not even the full day. 20 airports out of how many in the state? Seriously, it is a pain, but it is necessary.

macfan
Jul 27, 2003, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
I'll buy this argument when I see similar restrictions placed on the rental of Ryder trucks, a proven terror weapon.

The problem with using scare tactics to restrict general aviation is that too many people are misinformed, and prepared to believe whatever myths and rumors they hear about the risks.

If Ryder trucks could fly...

zimv20
Jul 27, 2003, 08:15 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
it's only a matter of time before some hapless private pilot gets blasted from the sky, because these TFR violations are occurring with predictable frequency.

not the exact situation, but i'm thinking of that small plane that was shot down over south (or central?) america a few years ago, under the mistaken assumption it was ferrying drugs.

Backtothemac
Jul 27, 2003, 08:22 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
not the exact situation, but i'm thinking of that small plane that was shot down over south (or central?) america a few years ago, under the mistaken assumption it was ferrying drugs.

Well, that was a little different. The DEA, and CIA both told the officials there that the plane was not ferrying drugs, and they still shot it down. But that was not our military, and not our airspace. ;)

zimv20
Jul 27, 2003, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Well, that was a little different. The DEA, and CIA both told the officials there that the plane was not ferrying drugs, and they still shot it down. But that was not our military, and not our airspace. ;)

was it the columbians who shot it down?

IJ Reilly
Jul 28, 2003, 01:00 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
For one day, not even the full day. 20 airports out of how many in the state? Seriously, it is a pain, but it is necessary.

Apparently this has already happened twice in Florida. Recently, 70 airports were closed in Texas. Any urban area visited by the President now will have its entire general aviation system effectively shut down for the duration. This is neither necessary, useful, or fair. But, I guess so long as it's somebody else's pain, it's entirely bearable.

IJ Reilly
Jul 28, 2003, 01:07 AM
Originally posted by macfan
If Ryder trucks could fly...

They don't need to fly. They're plenty useful as terrorist tools with all four wheels on the ground. Clearly, they need to be subject to heavy use restrictions. Cars, too. And guns, too. Especially guns.

So, are we safe yet?

pseudobrit
Jul 28, 2003, 01:16 AM
Box cutters. Don't forget boxcutters. And fingernail clippers and, oh, hell, let's take care of those chicken finger pistols that kindergarteners tote while we're at it too. Deadly weapons all.

IJ Reilly
Aug 13, 2003, 06:05 PM
Waking up this old thread for an update, President Bush will be on a fund raising tour in California so it looks like my airport and probably dozens if not hundreds of others up and down the state will be shut down at some time over the next few days. To make matters worse, at this late date we still don't know precisely where or when these huge TFRs will appear, making planning around them impossible. The arrogance of this administration is astounding is just so many ways.

FAA TO ESTABLISH LARGE TFRs OVER SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
AOPA is sending this message to advise you that President Bush is scheduled to visit your area tomorrow and Friday. His visit will be accompanied by large presidential movement temporary flight restrictions (TFRs) that will close some airports and restrict your flying. Presidential TFRs are typically 60 nm in diameter, impacting the airspace above some 3,000 square miles of land.

However, the federal government seems to be dragging its feet on issuing the notams. AOPA will post the notams establishing the TFRs ( http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/notams.html ) as soon as possible after they become available.

Despite the fact that the press has known for weeks that Bush will visit the Los Angeles basin and Central California over the next two days, the federal government is unwilling or unable to provide timely notice of the pending TFRs, which would allow general aviation pilots to modify their flight plans and avoid the large areas of restricted airspace that follow the president.

"Southern California is one of the most active general aviation pilot communities in the country and the anticipated proliferation of 30-nm-radius TFRs will have a huge impact, yet the notice is STILL undergoing review by the FAA at 5 p.m. in Washington, D.C. The agency has refused to release any details as to where--or even when--the airspace restrictions might go into effect," said AOPA President Phil Boyer.

"This is ridiculous. AOPA has been pressing federal officials for weeks to provide better advance notification of presidential movement TFRs, but the problem is getting worse, not better. It's bad enough that the TFRs are unreasonably large. The government has a responsibility to at least give pilots a reasonable advance warning," Boyer said.

"I urge you to write to President Bush and tell him about the impact his visit has on you and your flying. Please send a copy to AOPA. Realistically, we know the president won't see these letters, but if enough of them hit the White House staff, they may very well realize they have a political problem on their hands."

Backtothemac
Aug 13, 2003, 07:28 PM
IJ, it doesn't take a slide ruler to figure out why they don't anounce weeks in advance what the TFR's will be. The last thing we need is some wacko with an SA-18 trying to take down Air Force One because he knows what the President's flight path will be.

Do you really think the rule would be different if there was anyone else in office?

The safety of the President overrides your privledge to fly.

Desertrat
Aug 13, 2003, 07:48 PM
I don't see how it's any more arrogant than Clinton's famous haircut at LAX. :D

And it's the Secret Service's idea, anyway. The President has little to say about how security is to be handled. It's possible that Bush, as a former pilot, knows about TFRs and such, but I doubt this really crosses his mind.

But like I say, persuade the Secret Service to go back to the 10-mile circle. Oh: Good luck. And, it would be the same were Hilary to become Prez. Or Gore. Or Joe Poop the Ragman...

'Rat

Pinto
Aug 13, 2003, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
radio, hand signals and "body" language, i would think.

What's the stall speed of a F-16? Can it actually fly slowly enough to stay along side a Cessna?

Sorry if I'm being dumb here, but I don't know much about planes.

(not that thats stopped me making comments before).

IJ Reilly
Aug 13, 2003, 09:25 PM
Originally posted by Desertrat
I don't see how it's any more arrogant than Clinton's famous haircut at LAX.

Since you chose that example, way more -- literally thousands of square miles more arrogant. I can certainly remember the huge fuss that was made over that stupid haircut, where a relative handful of people were delayed for a short time. Now people seem to be willing to excuse the imposition of rolling blackouts on thousands of miles of airspace virtually without prior notice simply so the president can become the biggest political fundraiser in history. Don't tell me the White House doesn't have any control over this -- they have absolute control over it. They simply fail to care.

IJ Reilly
Aug 13, 2003, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
IJ, it doesn't take a slide ruler to figure out why they don't anounce weeks in advance what the TFR's will be. The last thing we need is some wacko with an SA-18 trying to take down Air Force One because he knows what the President's flight path will be.

Do you really think the rule would be different if there was anyone else in office?

The safety of the President overrides your privledge to fly.

We're not talking about weeks. The president's visit to California was known weeks ago, but the TFRs as of this hour still have not been announced. How do you plan a flight around that, my friend?

And yes, the rules could be different under this or any other president. That president would simply have to care. This president has been asked, repeatedly, to care about the lives and livelihoods he has put in jeopardy, but he refuses to do so.

The president is a man, not a king. His safety is not so singularly important that the rights of the rest of the nation's citizens can be suspended arbitrarily. Keep in mind also, these are not state trips, they are political fundraisers. A great many people will be denied the right to do things that are required or desired for their lives, for no other reason then so that the president can collect more dough for his reelection campaign.

Backtothemac
Aug 13, 2003, 11:24 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
We're not talking about weeks. The president's visit to California was known weeks ago, but the TFRs as of this hour still have not been announced. How do you plan a flight around that, my friend?

And yes, the rules could be different under this or any other president. That president would simply have to care. This president has been asked, repeatedly, to care about the lives and livelihoods he has put in jeopardy, but he refuses to do so.

The president is a man, not a king. His safety is not so singularly important that the rights of the rest of the nation's citizens can be suspended arbitrarily. Keep in mind also, these are not state trips, they are political fundraisers. A great many people will be denied the right to do things that are required or desired for their lives, for no other reason then so that the president can collect more dough for his reelection campaign.

Dude, please understand. Bush doesn't make this policy. The secret service does. The President HAS to follow the orders of the Secret Service. I understand the hassle. Happened here about 9 months ago when he came to Birmingham. It was 1 day for about 4 hours. Not the end of the earth, and as I said, worth it to keep a wacko from setting up camp in the flight path.

Backtothemac
Aug 13, 2003, 11:25 PM
Originally posted by Pinto
What's the stall speed of a F-16? Can it actually fly slowly enough to stay along side a Cessna?

Sorry if I'm being dumb here, but I don't know much about planes.

(not that thats stopped me making comments before).

Actually classified, but I would guess about 120 knots.

IJ Reilly
Aug 14, 2003, 01:15 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Dude, please understand. Bush doesn't make this policy. The secret service does. The President HAS to follow the orders of the Secret Service. I understand the hassle. Happened here about 9 months ago when he came to Birmingham. It was 1 day for about 4 hours. Not the end of the earth, and as I said, worth it to keep a wacko from setting up camp in the flight path.

It's not the Secret Service making these rules, it's the FAA at the behest of the White House. The presidential TFRs haven't always been this immense, in fact they just recently grew to the huge size we're seeing now. I've been following this situation closely since 9-11 and AOPA has been imploring the president in response to this and many other arbitrary rules thrown our way to please and pretty please not treat general aviation as dispensable form of transportation -- but so far it hasn't had much if any impact. So now we've got three days of a rolling 30nm blackout on tap here as the president moves around the state from fundraiser to fundraiser, and it's only going to get worse next year.

So what am I supposed to do if I hear the president might be coming to our state -- simply forget about planning any use of my airplane for business or pleasure? How can I plan a trip around these TFRs if they aren't even announced the night before they're going to take effect? Should I plan on parking the Cessna for most of 2004?

Nobody gets to "set up camp" in any flight paths. A ten or even five mile TFR is plenty to deal with any perceived or real threats from general aviation aircraft. I don't know a single pilot who isn't prepared to be cooperative on national security issues, but I also don't know a single pilot who doesn't think these TFRs are excessive and unfair, and a perpetuation of the myth that those little airplanes are "dangerous."