Would they let him fly or would the TFR's keep him grounded?

--
Roger Long

Well .. since the Presidential TFR follows him .. he'd always be right in
the center of it and unable to fly.


"Roger Long" m> wrote in
message ...
> Would they let him fly or would the TFR's keep him grounded?
>
> --
> Roger Long
>
>

I percieve a new Zen koan here.

"Roger Tracy" > wrote in message
...
> Well .. since the Presidential TFR follows him .. he'd always be right in
> the center of it and unable to fly.
>
>
> "Roger Long" m> wrote
in
> message ...
> > Would they let him fly or would the TFR's keep him grounded?
> >
> > --
> > Roger Long
> >
> >
>
>

"Roger Long" m> wrote in
message ...
| Would they let him fly or would the TFR's keep him grounded?
|

I doubt very much the Secret Service would allow him to fly himself.

Recently, C J Campbell > posted:

> "Roger Long" m>
> wrote in message ...
>> Would they let him fly or would the TFR's keep him grounded?
>>
>
> I doubt very much the Secret Service would allow him to fly himself.
>
That would wreak havoc on his currency. Perhaps that will give him cause
for pause? 8-)

Who here would give up flying for 4 years to be president?

Neil (putting hand down sharply)

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
.net...
> That would wreak havoc on his currency. Perhaps that will give him cause
> for pause? 8-)
>
> Who here would give up flying for 4 years to be president?

Who here would put up with any of the crap required in order to get into the
White House just to be President?

One problem (among many) in politics is that the most qualified people for
the job are usually the least interested in it. The people who succeed do
so for all the wrong reasons, in all the wrong ways, regardless of political
party.

I doubt anyone who's gotten as far in the Presidential race as Kerry has
would think twice about giving up flying for a term (or two) in the White
House. It's a no-brainer for someone like that, just as it's a no-brainer
for most of us to stick to flying.

Pete

"Roger Long" m> wrote in
message ...
| Would they let him fly or would the TFR's keep him grounded?

Aside from whether the Secret Service would let him fly, the TFRs are
usually worded in such a way as to allow the President and various other
individuals to fly. The President frequently takes off from the White House
lawn, which is prohibited airspace, even more restrictive than a TFR.

The TFRs allow movement by law enforcement and military aircraft. Arguably
the Commander in Chief and head law enforcement official of the United
States has permission to fly through any TFR.

In a previous article, "Roger Long" m> said:
>Would they let him fly or would the TFR's keep him grounded?

Who would bust him if he violated his own TFR?

More importantly, what would they call the flight? "Civil One"?


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"Towards thee I roll, thou all-destroying but unconquering ******; to the
last I grapple with thee; from hell's heart I killfile thee; for hate's
sake I spit my last post at thee! All your base are belong to us!"

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
| In a previous article, "Roger Long"
m> said:
| >Would they let him fly or would the TFR's keep him grounded?
|
| Who would bust him if he violated his own TFR?
|
| More importantly, what would they call the flight? "Civil One"?

It might not be technically proper, but they probably would call it "Air
Force One" out of habit.

That points up the reason the Secret Service would not let him fly. Besides
being an unnecessary risk, the call sign "Air Force One" was adopted after a
near miss involving the Presidential airplane. Before that they used
ordinary call signs. The idea behind "Air Force One" was to encourage
controllers to be more careful. Putting a President up in an civil general
aviation aircraft would expose him to all kinds of dangers the Secret
Service would find unacceptable. The airplane would be more vulnerable to
ground fire, it is more susceptible to mid-air collisions, low level
maneuvering would be regarded as dangerous, etc. Imagine trying to cram the
Secret Service detail, "the football," and everything else that goes with
President aboard a typical GA plane. It is tough enough if the President
just wants to go fishing for an afternoon.

The President's political opponents would "Tilt," too. "How can he risk the
fate of the free world so irresponsibly?"

No, once you become President, you can forget about doing a lot of things
that most people take for granted. You are almost as much a prisoner as the
Emperor of China was in the Forbidden City.

In article >,
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

> In a previous article, "Roger Long"
> m> said:
> >Would they let him fly or would the TFR's keep him grounded?
>
> Who would bust him if he violated his own TFR?
>
> More importantly, what would they call the flight? "Civil One"?


"Executive One."

> More importantly, what would they call the flight? "Civil One"?

"Kerry Ferry"

On 2004-01-28 12:00:48 -0800, Tom Fleischman
> said:

> I have a notion that if we can get that beady-eyed moron out of the
> White House....

Warren Christopher hasn't been in the White House in quite some time now.

--
Larry Fransson
Seattle, WA

"Tom Fleischman" > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
| I have a notion that if we can get that beady-eyed moron out of the
| White House a lot of the paranoid nonsense that we as pilots have had
| to endure over the past three years will go with him.
|

If there were some evidence to support that notion, I would agree. However,
there is none and in fact there is some evidence that it would get worse.

I wouldn't want to be President. Flying or no flying.

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
.net...
> Recently, C J Campbell > posted:
>
> > "Roger Long" m>
> > wrote in message ...
> >> Would they let him fly or would the TFR's keep him grounded?
> >>
> >
> > I doubt very much the Secret Service would allow him to fly himself.
> >
> That would wreak havoc on his currency. Perhaps that will give him cause
> for pause? 8-)
>
> Who here would give up flying for 4 years to be president?
>
> Neil (putting hand down sharply)
>
>

Tom Fleischman wrote:
>
> I have a notion that if we can get that beady-eyed moron out of the
> White House a lot of the paranoid nonsense that we as pilots have had
> to endure over the past three years will go with him.

I don't think so. The mail I get from the Democratic party pretty much states
that they don't think Bush has restricted us enough. They propose that "stricter
security measures" are necessary.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

>Well .. since the Presidential TFR follows him .. he'd always be right in
>the center of it and unable to fly.

I have a wonderful image of the president desperately trying to outrun
his or her TFR.

But of course it's not true. Bush took the controls on the famous
(infamous, if you prefer) day that he flew out to the aircraft
carrier. Any plane that the Secret Service could be persuaded was
safe, and that a president was qualified to fly, could be piloted by
him or her till the fuel got low.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

>It might not be technically proper, but they probably would call it "Air
>Force One" out of habit.

White House One has a nice ring to it.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

>Imagine trying to cram the
>Secret Service detail, "the football," and everything else that goes with
>President aboard a typical GA plane.

How did they manage when Bush flew out to Lincoln? There was no Secret
Service detail in the S-3B.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

>No, once you become President, you can forget about doing a lot of things
>that most people take for granted.

Ford went skiing at Vail. Arguably that's more dangerous than flying.
I've met three paraplegics in my life, and two of them were injured at
Aspen, one on Ajax and the other in a swimming pool.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

I highly recommend Forte Agent as a newsreader. It handles newsgroup
messages far better than any "included" newsreader such as those
bundled with Internet Explorer, Outlook, Netscape, or Opera--all of
which I have tried.

Download the software at www.forteinc.com/agent/download.php

The program includes the latest version of Agent as well as its
freeware version, called Free Agent. This enables you to get the feel
of the software without paying up front.

However, where Agent really shines is in its ability to filter out
objectional subjects or posters: Control+K and you're done! It was to
get that functionality that I upgraded to the paid version a year ago,
and I have never regretted it. The cost to register the software (and
thereby to unlock the full-featured version on your computer) is $29.

(A major revison is in the works. However, if you register the current
version, the upgrade will be free.)



all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >Imagine trying to cram the
> >Secret Service detail, "the football," and everything else that goes with
> >President aboard a typical GA plane.
>
> How did they manage when Bush flew out to Lincoln? There was no Secret
> Service detail in the S-3B.
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford

I recall there was one in the plane and a few more in the other plane in the
flight of two.
--
Jim in NC

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 15:00:48 -0500 Tom Fleischman > wrote:

> I have a notion that if we can get that beady-eyed moron out of the
> White House a lot of the paranoid nonsense that we as pilots have had
> to endure over the past three years will go with him.


Yes, agreed. Get the "beady-eyed moron" out. And get this country
back to the great country it was before he and his paranoid pals
took over. Open up the airspace again!


R. Hubbell

>
>
> In article >, Roger Tracy
> > wrote:
>
> > Well .. since the Presidential TFR follows him .. he'd always be right in
> > the center of it and unable to fly.
> >
> >
> > "Roger Long" m> wrote in
> > message ...
> > > Would they let him fly or would the TFR's keep him grounded?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Roger Long
> > >
> > >
> >
> >

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 17:54:51 -0500 Cub Driver > wrote:

>
> I highly recommend Forte Agent as a newsreader. It handles newsgroup
> messages far better than any "included" newsreader such as those
> bundled with Internet Explorer, Outlook, Netscape, or Opera--all of
> which I have tried.
>
> Download the software at www.forteinc.com/agent/download.php
>
> The program includes the latest version of Agent as well as its
> freeware version, called Free Agent. This enables you to get the feel
> of the software without paying up front.
>
> However, where Agent really shines is in its ability to filter out
> objectional subjects or posters: Control+K and you're done! It was to
> get that functionality that I upgraded to the paid version a year ago,
> and I have never regretted it. The cost to register the software (and
> thereby to unlock the full-featured version on your computer) is $29.
>
> (A major revison is in the works. However, if you register the current
> version, the upgrade will be free.)


When are they going to come out with a version that stops people
from posting spam/advertisements on news groups?



R. Hubbell


>
>
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email:
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Probably, but it does raise the question why the CIC requires a civilian
security detail when totally sorrounded by several thousand of his military
who have taken an oath to protect and serve, and to die following orders if
necessary - including those authorized to arm and launch tactical nukes - A
civilian is likely to be more loyal that that?
denny

"Morgans" > wrote in > I recall there was one in
the plane and a few more in the other plane in the
> flight of two.

"Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message
...
> Probably, but it does raise the question why the CIC requires a civilian
> security detail when totally sorrounded by several thousand of his
military
> who have taken an oath to protect and serve, and to die following orders
if
> necessary - including those authorized to arm and launch tactical nukes -
A
> civilian is likely to be more loyal that that?
> denny
>
> "Morgans" > wrote in > I recall there was one in
> the plane and a few more in the other plane in the
> > flight of two.
>
>

You've got to understand that the SS considers it somewhat more than just
thier job to protect the POTUS it is bordering on religion. I'm surprised
that they let the FLOTUS be alone with him.

> I don't think so. The mail I get from the Democratic party pretty much
states
> that they don't think Bush has restricted us enough. They propose that
"stricter
> security measures" are necessary.

Hey, we're on the same mailing list!

I agree -- it appears from these mailings that the Democratic party would
pretty much padlock our airport.

Of course, this would make way for more "affordable" housing -- something we
desperately need... Who needs those playgrounds for the rich, anyway?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Martin Hotze wrote:

> "R.Hubbell" > wrote:
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>
>>When are they going to come out with a version that stops people
>>from posting spam/advertisements on news groups?
>
>
>
> mabye the day when people stop stealing other people's domain?

I'm not stealing anything. I'm merely using their server as a
repository for spam.

In article <XCeSb.51762$U%5.285665@attbi_s03>, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

> Of course, this would make way for more "affordable" housing -- something
> we
> desperately need... Who needs those playgrounds for the rich, anyway?

but first the environmental hazards would have to be treated...

--
Bob Noel

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> Of course, this would make way for more "affordable" housing -- something we
> desperately need...

Actually, the trend here is towards more strip malls. The local governments have
come to the belated conclusion that the cost of enlarging the school system to
handle the kids in those new houses is greater than the taxes on them. Moreover,
parking lots need to be flat.

George Patterson
Love, n.: A form of temporary insanity afflicting the young. It is curable
either by marriage or by removal of the afflicted from the circumstances
under which he incurred the condition. It is sometimes fatal, but more
often to the physician than to the patient.

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
> ...
> | In a previous article, "Roger Long"
> m> said:
> | >Would they let him fly or would the TFR's keep him grounded?
> |
> | Who would bust him if he violated his own TFR?
> |
> | More importantly, what would they call the flight? "Civil One"?
>
> It might not be technically proper, but they probably would call it "Air
> Force One" out of habit.
>

C'mon CJ, I would expect a world famous flight instructor like yourself would
know this one, as I'm pretty sure it's in the AIM.

AF- "Air Force One"
USMC (from the White House Lawn)- "Marine One"
Navy "Navy One"
Army (has this one ever been used?)- "Army One"
and
Civil- "Executive One" (has a sitting president EVER flown in a civilian
aircraft since this nomeclature has been used?)

In a previous article, "Mike O'Malley" > said:
>Civil- "Executive One" (has a sitting president EVER flown in a civilian
>aircraft since this nomeclature has been used?)

I remember Nixon going on a commercial flight once. The Secret Service
had kittens.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
I think it's a beautiful day to go to the zoo and feed the ducks.
To the lions.
-- Brian Kantor

Nothing I can find on the DNC web site. Are there any links on that literature
you're getting?

Dave Reinhart


"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:

> I don't think so. The mail I get from the Democratic party pretty much states
> that they don't think Bush has restricted us enough. They propose that "stricter
> security measures" are necessary.
>
> George Patterson
> Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
> "Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:25:21 +0100 Martin Hotze > wrote:

> "R.Hubbell" > wrote:
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> > When are they going to come out with a version that stops people
> > from posting spam/advertisements on news groups?
>
>
> mabye the day when people stop stealing other people's domain?
> or when hell freezes over. whatever comes first.


What are you talking about? Or are you unsure? :)


R. Hubbell


>
> #m
> --
> http://www.MoveOn.org/ - - - - - http://www.bushin30seconds.org/
>
> http://www.khilafah.com/home/category.php?DocumentID=9007&TagID=2

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 21:54:03 GMT Newps > wrote:

>
>
> Martin Hotze wrote:
>
> > "R.Hubbell" > wrote:
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> >
> >>When are they going to come out with a version that stops people
> >>from posting spam/advertisements on news groups?
> >
> >
> >
> > mabye the day when people stop stealing other people's domain?
>
> I'm not stealing anything. I'm merely using their server as a
> repository for spam.
>


Another one. Are you guys in cahoots?


R. Hubbell

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 22:22:29 GMT "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote:

>
>
> Tom Fleischman wrote:
> >
> > I have a notion that if we can get that beady-eyed moron out of the
> > White House a lot of the paranoid nonsense that we as pilots have had
> > to endure over the past three years will go with him.
>
> I don't think so. The mail I get from the Democratic party pretty much states
> that they don't think Bush has restricted us enough. They propose that "stricter
> security measures" are necessary.


Wait a minute. Are you saying you believe a politician (political party) during
an election year? :)


R. Hubbell

>
> George Patterson
> Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
> "Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

The Queen flew BA a year or two ago.

I believe she took over the first class cabin. The paying passengers
had to board and be seated (and presumably the ramp taken away) before
she boarded the aircraft.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

David Reinhart wrote:
>
> Nothing I can find on the DNC web site. Are there any links on that literature
> you're getting?

None that I know of. The mail that I particularly remember was in the form of those
"surveys" that are thinly disguised contribution requests. When a question about
security allows you to select "we need more" and "no opinion" but doesn't allow
you to say that we've gone too far in that regard, you get a pretty good idea of
what the author thinks is necessary. Phrases like "do you agree" that further
restrictions are needed are also pretty good clues.

George Patterson
Love, n.: A form of temporary insanity afflicting the young. It is curable
either by marriage or by removal of the afflicted from the circumstances
under which he incurred the condition. It is sometimes fatal, but more
often to the physician than to the patient.

Martin Hotze wrote:


>
> it is stealing:
> stealing their identity

Baloney.


> stealing their ressources (bandwidth, cpu time, disk space)

Well sometimes you'rethe windshield, sometimes you're the bug.


> but you are also stealing somebody else's domain

They still own their domain, I merely pulled that name out of my ass.


... so you don't care either.

Nope.

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 10:06:15 +0100 Martin Hotze > wrote:

> "R.Hubbell" > wrote:
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> > > "R.Hubbell" > wrote:
>
> > > mabye the day when people stop stealing other people's domain?
> > > or when hell freezes over. whatever comes first.
> >
> >
> > What are you talking about? Or are you unsure? :)
>
>
> *hmmm* let's see. is "EXAMPLE.COM" _*your*_ domain? Does it belong to you or do
> you have any rights to use it?
>
> yes? then I'll apologize immediately.
> no? so why are you still using it?


Are you ready for this? Instead of telling you I will let you enlighten yourself.
I see you're a proponent of moveon.org so you are on your way to full enlightment already.


Do this:

1. http://example.com


Now do you understand? Surprised at how right you thought you were? :)


R. Hubbell
>
> > R. Hubbell
>
> #m
> --
> http://www.MoveOn.org/ - - - - - http://www.bushin30seconds.org/
>
> http://www.khilafah.com/home/category.php?DocumentID=9007&TagID=2

In addition to the DNC Web site I also checked out the sites for Kerry, Dean, and
Edwards (all I had time for). None of them specifically mention GA as a security
problem. The all point to maritime cargo security as an issue and a couple to air
cargo.

Edwards has a specific proposal for a "Homeland Intelligence Agency". Just typing that
makes me shudder. He's got a long list of judicial, congressional and ombudsman-style
oversight items that go along with it, but it still scares me.

Dave Reinhart


"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:

> David Reinhart wrote:
> >
> > Nothing I can find on the DNC web site. Are there any links on that literature
> > you're getting?
>
> None that I know of. The mail that I particularly remember was in the form of those
> "surveys" that are thinly disguised contribution requests. When a question about
> security allows you to select "we need more" and "no opinion" but doesn't allow
> you to say that we've gone too far in that regard, you get a pretty good idea of
> what the author thinks is necessary. Phrases like "do you agree" that further
> restrictions are needed are also pretty good clues.
>
> George Patterson
> Love, n.: A form of temporary insanity afflicting the young. It is curable
> either by marriage or by removal of the afflicted from the circumstances
> under which he incurred the condition. It is sometimes fatal, but more
> often to the physician than to the patient.

Getting him out might make those of us in the rest of the world breathe a
bit easier. Only problem is that we still have to get rid of his poodle,
"President" Blair !

John

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Tom Fleischman wrote:
> >
> > I have a notion that if we can get that beady-eyed moron out of the
> > White House a lot of the paranoid nonsense that we as pilots have had
> > to endure over the past three years will go with him.
>
> I don't think so. The mail I get from the Democratic party pretty much
states
> that they don't think Bush has restricted us enough. They propose that
"stricter
> security measures" are necessary.
>
> George Patterson
> Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually
said is
> "Hummmmm... That's interesting...."