Can anyone explain what TFR's are supposed to do?

[Corky Scott]

I haven't figured out why TFR's exist. How are they supposed to
protect the President and/or whatever else?

Does the Secret Service and the FAA really think that just having a
"no flight activity" within an imaginary circle sixty miles across
will really stop a determined assailant?

Besides, light airplanes just don't have the hitting power to cause
much of a problem for anything but a "soft" target, and any soft
target would be so small as to be an immensely hard target to hit, not
to mention how difficult it would be to be at the right place and time
to actually have a shot at hitting it while it's in the open.

I mean come'on, once the president's airplane is on the ground, he's
off and rolling on a schedule that has him moving constantly. Talk
about a moving target! And then when he stops, it's often inside a
big building.

Those times he might be scheduled for an outdoor address, I can see
the Secret Service getting a bit uptight about that and not wanting
stray airplanes around at that point, but how often does that happen?

Are the airliners prevented from flying within the TFR? If not, can
someone explain why not? It wasn't a lightplane that caused the
collaps of the WTC.

Is the TFR anything but a panacea for the Secret Service? Something
they can point to as proof that they take their job seriously?

Sort of reminds me of that old joke about a guy walking down the
street who spots another guy jumping up and down and waving a bag
above his head. The first guy stops and asks whats going on. The
second guy says he's scaring elephants away.

"There aren't any elephants around here." The first guy says.

"Pretty effective isn't it?" The second guy responds.

Corky Scott

[Roger Long]

Giving the gub'mit every benefit of the doubt, although without any evidence
that anyone currently in the administration could find their ass with both
hands, I think the idea is to reduce the number of radar targets they would
need to deal with if someone did attempt an aerial attack. Our GA planes
themselves are not the threat, they would just provide cover for one.

Being realistic, it's just more mindless knee jerking to make the uniformed
public feel better.

--
Roger Long

[C J Campbell]

The TFRs are supposed to prevent an unspecified attack on the President of
the United States by unspecified persons.

While it is true that the TFRs are probably ineffective and they are
discriminatory, it is not true that general aviation airplanes pose no
threat or that their threat is less than that of ground vehicles.

A small airplane can approach a target at speeds in excess of 200 mph and
drop a bomb or detonate itself with little warning. The fact that the same
mission could be accomplished by other means, such as a truck full of
explosives, is irrelevant. It is possible that the means of attack is more
important to the attacker than the effectiveness of the attack -- the whole
"terror from the skies" thing.

Small airplanes flown by the Civil Air Patrol carried bombs and were
effective during WW II in patrolling against submarines and even managed to
sink one.

As Lee Harvey Oswald demonstrated, there is no way to protect the President
or anyone else against a determined and possibly suicidal attacker. There
will always be people who are willing to take great risks to get close to
the President, although no one has made a serious attempt since Gerald Ford.

[Ron Natalie]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message ...
> I haven't figured out why TFR's exist. How are they supposed to
> protect the President and/or whatever else?

That's the general principle.

> Does the Secret Service and the FAA really think that just having a
> "no flight activity" within an imaginary circle sixty miles across
> will really stop a determined assailant?

The FAA ain't running the circus. I suspect that the Secret Service
feels that by keeping all (or at least) most friendly traffic out of the
area, it makes it easier to spot the unfriendlies.

The TFR's used to follow the president around for certain appearances
but they were MUCH smaller than the recent oens.

> Are the airliners prevented from flying within the TFR? If not, can
> someone explain why not? It wasn't a lightplane that caused the
> collaps of the WTC.

The argument (laughable) is that air carriers have gone through a more
rigorous security procedure and aren't a problem.

[Ron Natalie]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message ...

> As Lee Harvey Oswald demonstrated, there is no way to protect the President
> or anyone else against a determined and possibly suicidal attacker. There
> will always be people who are willing to take great risks to get close to
> the President, although no one has made a serious attempt since Gerald Ford.

Excuse me? Hinkley managed to get a bullet into Ronald Reagan and turned
James Brady into a candidate for national vegetable.

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
Ron Natalie > wrote:
>The FAA ain't running the circus. I suspect that the Secret Service
>feels that by keeping all (or at least) most friendly traffic out of the
>area, it makes it easier to spot the unfriendlies.

And notice when they're serious about it the TFR is 60 miles across.
Really makes you wonder what the point of a 6 mile wide TFR is. I can
cross from the edge of that to the center in 1 minute. Then what?
It's stupid, but I'd hate to generate so much discussion about it that
they "solve" the problem by widening the TFRs.

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[John Harlow]

> As Lee Harvey Oswald demonstrated, there is no way to protect the
President
> or anyone else against a determined and possibly suicidal attacker. There
> will always be people who are willing to take great risks to get close to
> the President, although no one has made a serious attempt since Gerald
Ford.

Which president did Gerald Ford attempt to kill (besides himself, of
course)?

[Ross Richardson]

It makes the American public and media feel good that something is being
done. The other benefit is that the TFR tells everyone where the
President every minute. (Oh, unless they put one up for mis information)

Corky Scott wrote:
>
> I haven't figured out why TFR's exist. How are they supposed to
> protect the President and/or whatever else?
>
> Does the Secret Service and the FAA really think that just having a
> "no flight activity" within an imaginary circle sixty miles across
> will really stop a determined assailant?
>
> Besides, light airplanes just don't have the hitting power to cause
> much of a problem for anything but a "soft" target, and any soft
> target would be so small as to be an immensely hard target to hit, not
> to mention how difficult it would be to be at the right place and time
> to actually have a shot at hitting it while it's in the open.
>
> I mean come'on, once the president's airplane is on the ground, he's
> off and rolling on a schedule that has him moving constantly. Talk
> about a moving target! And then when he stops, it's often inside a
> big building.
>
> Those times he might be scheduled for an outdoor address, I can see
> the Secret Service getting a bit uptight about that and not wanting
> stray airplanes around at that point, but how often does that happen?
>
> Are the airliners prevented from flying within the TFR? If not, can
> someone explain why not? It wasn't a lightplane that caused the
> collaps of the WTC.
>
> Is the TFR anything but a panacea for the Secret Service? Something
> they can point to as proof that they take their job seriously?
>
> Sort of reminds me of that old joke about a guy walking down the
> street who spots another guy jumping up and down and waving a bag
> above his head. The first guy stops and asks whats going on. The
> second guy says he's scaring elephants away.
>
> "There aren't any elephants around here." The first guy says.
>
> "Pretty effective isn't it?" The second guy responds.
>
> Corky Scott

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
>
> I haven't figured out why TFR's exist. How are they supposed to
> protect the President and/or whatever else?
>

Most of them have nothing to do with the President.

[Ron Natalie]

"Ross Richardson" > wrote in message ...
> It makes the American public and media feel good that something is being
> done. The other benefit is that the TFR tells everyone where the
> President every minute. (Oh, unless they put one up for mis information)
>
The American public doesn't know the TFR's exist.

[Corky Scott]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 11:45:14 -0400, "Ron Natalie" >
wrote:

>> Are the airliners prevented from flying within the TFR? If not, can
>> someone explain why not? It wasn't a lightplane that caused the
>> collaps of the WTC.
>
>The argument (laughable) is that air carriers have gone through a more
>rigorous security procedure and aren't a problem.

So the government security forces feel that it's lightplanes that are
the problem? Let's review the terror strikes of the lightplanes over
the last few years: One sadly depressed kid flies a Cessna 152 (I
think it was a 152, perhaps it was a 172) into a building in Florida.
Results? One crumpled airplane and the building was slightly damaged.
No fire but the kid got very dead. In Italy a pilot seemingly
incapacitated, manages to crash into a highrise in his lightplane. I
think this time there may have been a fire, but again only the pilot
died. Perhaps this doesn't qualify as the pilot was supposedly ill
and unable to properly guide the airplane. The problem is, it
wandered about a good bit before it took a bead on the highrise.
Maybe a deliberate attack, maybe not.

Now let's review the record of airliners hijacked and used as guided
bombs. Hmmm, three times this resulted in horrific casualties and a
fouth time the entire airliner and all it's passengers were lost in a
crash in a field. Body count? About 3,000 people.

So does the presidential TFR protect against such further attacks with
airliners? It does not, they continue to fly. Instead it protects
against lightplanes.

It doesn't seem to matter to them that ***IF***, the big IF, a
terrorist managed to procure a small airplane and pack it with
explosives, they would not be turned away by a TFR. TFR's only catch
the innocent, albeit uninformed, citizen.

Corky Scott

[Peter R.]

John Harlow ) wrote:

> > As Lee Harvey Oswald demonstrated, there is no way to protect the
> President
> > or anyone else against a determined and possibly suicidal attacker. There
> > will always be people who are willing to take great risks to get close to
> > the President, although no one has made a serious attempt since Gerald
> Ford.
>
> Which president did Gerald Ford attempt to kill (besides himself, of
> course)?

LOL! Very astute of you... :)


--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Robert Briggs]

Ron Natalie wrote:
> Ross Richardson wrote:
>
> > It makes the American public and media feel good that something is being
> > done. The other benefit is that the TFR tells everyone where the
> > President every minute. (Oh, unless they put one up for mis information)
>
> The American public doesn't know the TFR's exist.

Well, this member of the British public, who has a sister in Vancouver,
has observed much US moronitude over the last couple of years and is now
most unlikely even to bother to compare the cost of flying to SEA and
crossing the border by land with that of flying directly to YVR.

As for Chicago ... I recently bought a recording by the Chicago Symphony
Orchestra and the young violinist, Rachel Barton; but ISTR the mayor did
something unholy down at the waterfront ...

[Cub Driver]

>I haven't figured out why TFR's exist. How are they supposed to
>protect the President and/or whatever else?

Yes, that's the general idea. Of course, what they really do is
protect the career of the bureaucrat who might otherwise have made the
decision to abolish them as unnecessary and perhaps hazardous to the
president's health. (Is it really smart to draw a circle around him
wherever he goes, the way my mouse does to the cursor when I'm trying
to find it?)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

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

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> I haven't figured out why TFR's exist. How are they supposed to
> protect the President and/or whatever else?
>


It was explained to me as follows: those responsible for security assess
all possible threats and create plans to mitigate each one. Regardless of
our opinions, small planes are indeed a threat and the easy thing to do was
to restrict their activity within a certain distance. They are considered a
greater threat than large commercial planes (to the mobile president) for
reasons I will not go into here. GA is an easy target for restrictions
because of GA's limited political and financial clout and the extreme ease
of clearing the area of GA aircraft.

Claiming that a truck bomb or suicide bomber can be a larger threat is
besides the point. Each separate threat has a plan to deal with it. GA is
dealt with by TFRs. Other threats are dealt with in other ways.

Peter

[John Harlow]

> It was explained to me as follows: those responsible for security assess
> all possible threats and create plans to mitigate each one. Regardless of
> our opinions, small planes are indeed a threat and the easy thing to do
was
> to restrict their activity within a certain distance. They are considered
a
> greater threat than large commercial planes (to the mobile president) for
> reasons I will not go into here. GA is an easy target for restrictions
> because of GA's limited political and financial clout and the extreme ease
> of clearing the area of GA aircraft.
>
> Claiming that a truck bomb or suicide bomber can be a larger threat is
> besides the point. Each separate threat has a plan to deal with it. GA
is
> dealt with by TFRs. Other threats are dealt with in other ways.


Finally a reasonable explanation without whining about how we are
specifically targeted. The ONLY way to deal with this is to vote in an
administration which doesn't **** off the entire world and incite everyone
to target us.

[John T]

"John Harlow" > wrote in message

>
> The ONLY way to deal with this is to vote in
> an administration which doesn't **** off the entire world and incite
> everyone to target us.

Which administration would that be?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________

[John Harlow]

> > The ONLY way to deal with this is to vote in
> > an administration which doesn't **** off the entire world and incite
> > everyone to target us.
>
> Which administration would that be?

http://www.lp.org/

[C J Campbell]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
. ..
|
| "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
|
| > As Lee Harvey Oswald demonstrated, there is no way to protect the
President
| > or anyone else against a determined and possibly suicidal attacker.
There
| > will always be people who are willing to take great risks to get close
to
| > the President, although no one has made a serious attempt since Gerald
Ford.
|
| Excuse me? Hinkley managed to get a bullet into Ronald Reagan and
turned
| James Brady into a candidate for national vegetable.
|

Can you believe it? (Well, I suppose Mr. Drescher can. -- He probably
figures I have trouble dressing myself in the morning.) I forgot about
President Reagan.

[C J Campbell]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
. ..
|
| "Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
| > I haven't figured out why TFR's exist. How are they supposed to
| > protect the President and/or whatever else?
|
| That's the general principle.
|
| > Does the Secret Service and the FAA really think that just having a
| > "no flight activity" within an imaginary circle sixty miles across
| > will really stop a determined assailant?
|
| The FAA ain't running the circus. I suspect that the Secret Service
| feels that by keeping all (or at least) most friendly traffic out of the
| area, it makes it easier to spot the unfriendlies.
|

The trouble with that theory is, what can the Secret Service do about it?
They *might* shove the President under a desk or something. But does anyone
seriously believe that the Secret Service (or anyone else) would risk the
political fallout from shooting down an innocent airplane?

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 13:49:17 GMT,
(Corky Scott) wrote in
Message-Id: >:

>I haven't figured out why TFR's exist.

It's obvious presidential TFR's are an abomination of the original
intent of TFRs, that provide the post cold-war military (reduced
significantly by the Clinton administration) with a new found purpose
at the expense of a national asset (GA) they would like to see vanish
entirely, so that they could control ALL the nation's airspace, not
just 50% of it:

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2003/n10142003_200310148.html
--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

[Judah]

The most interesting part of that article is the fact that there have been
two airliners since 9/11 that were hijacked to Cuba.

What the hell does THAT say about all of our newfound "Airport
Security"?!?!?


Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 13:49:17 GMT,
> (Corky Scott) wrote in
> Message-Id: >:
>
>>I haven't figured out why TFR's exist.
>
> It's obvious presidential TFR's are an abomination of the original
> intent of TFRs, that provide the post cold-war military (reduced
> significantly by the Clinton administration) with a new found purpose
> at the expense of a national asset (GA) they would like to see vanish
> entirely, so that they could control ALL the nation's airspace, not
> just 50% of it:
>
> http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2003/n10142003_200310148.html

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
>
> The most interesting part of that article is the fact that there have been
> two airliners since 9/11 that were hijacked to Cuba.
>

Where did those flights originate?

[Ron Natalie]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message ink.net...
>
> "Judah" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > The most interesting part of that article is the fact that there have been
> > two airliners since 9/11 that were hijacked to Cuba.
> >
>
> Where did those flights originate?
>
Cuba. I'm not aware of any flights hijacked to Cuba since 9/11, but we've had
two hijackings FROM Cuba to the US in March of this year. One was an An24
and the other a DC-3.

['Vejita' S. Cousin]

In article >,
>It was explained to me as follows: those responsible for security assess
>all possible threats and create plans to mitigate each one. Regardless of
>our opinions, small planes are indeed a threat and the easy thing to do was
>to restrict their activity within a certain distance. They are considered a
>greater threat than large commercial planes (to the mobile president) for
>reasons I will not go into here. GA is an easy target for restrictions
>because of GA's limited political and financial clout and the extreme ease
>of clearing the area of GA aircraft.

There has been one act, a terrible act, of terrorism using planes.
They were not that small. Anything and everything is a risk. But having
small planes fly within a 30nm radius is far far far less of a risk than
having the president in a open crowd with several thousand people.
It's a political not a logically policy. I can understand (even accept
that). I think myself and others would just like some honesty on this
point.

>Claiming that a truck bomb or suicide bomber can be a larger threat is
>besides the point. Each separate threat has a plan to deal with it. GA is
>dealt with by TFRs. Other threats are dealt with in other ways.

I understand the theory...

[Judah]

Ahh, I misread it then. I thought they said that two airliners were
hijacked TO Cuba originating in the US...


Nonetheless, it still demonstrates the point... No matter what the TSA
and FAA do, they will not be able to completely prevent terrorists from
trying another 9/11 type stunt if the terrorists are determined to do
it...

The TFRs, the bag X-Rays, the fancy TSA patches, it's all just a big
hoax...



"Ron Natalie" > wrote in
m:

>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Judah" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > The most interesting part of that article is the fact that there
>> > have been two airliners since 9/11 that were hijacked to Cuba.
>> >
>>
>> Where did those flights originate?
>>
> Cuba. I'm not aware of any flights hijacked to Cuba since 9/11, but
> we've had two hijackings FROM Cuba to the US in March of this year.
> One was an An24 and the other a DC-3.
>
>

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
>
> The TFRs, the bag X-Rays, the fancy TSA patches, it's all just a big
> hoax...
>


I don't think it's so much of a hoax as it is, unfortunately, the best they
have to offer.

Definitely not a comforting thought.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Judah wrote:
>
> Nonetheless, it still demonstrates the point...

Not hardly! Last time I looked, neither the TSA nor the FAA had any say at all
in what goes on with Cuban aircraft.

George Patterson
To a pilot, altitude is like money - it is possible that having too much
could prove embarassing, but having too little is always fatal.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Cuba.
>

What's the point?

[Ron Natalie]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message nk.net...
>
> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> m...
> >
> > Cuba.
> >
>
> What's the point?
>
What's what point?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> What's what point?
>

Of hijacking an airplane departing Cuba to go to Cuba.

[Ron Natalie]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message ink.net...
>
> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >
> > What's what point?
> >
>
> Of hijacking an airplane departing Cuba to go to Cuba.
>
They were hijacking to the US. The original poster got the direction
backwards. Gets here faster than stealing boats.

[Judah]

That was exactly my point. If some terrorist wants to hijack a flight from
Cuba to deliver some terrorist act to Miami, there isn't much the FAA is
going to be able to do about it.

Or, to use a more realistic example, if some terrorist decides to hijack a
plane out of Toronto and fly it into Niagra Falls, it's just plain out of
the FAA and TSA's hands. And their new "security measures" will provide
absolutely no assistance.



"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in
:

>
>
> Judah wrote:
>>
>> Nonetheless, it still demonstrates the point...
>
> Not hardly! Last time I looked, neither the TSA nor the FAA had any say
> at all in what goes on with Cuban aircraft.
>
> George Patterson
> To a pilot, altitude is like money - it is possible that having
> too much could prove embarassing, but having too little is always
> fatal.
>

[Jake Brodsky]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 07:14:30 -0700, "C J Campbell"
> wrote:

>
>"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
. ..
>|
>| "Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
>| > I haven't figured out why TFR's exist. How are they supposed to
>| > protect the President and/or whatever else?
>|
>| That's the general principle.
>|
>| > Does the Secret Service and the FAA really think that just having a
>| > "no flight activity" within an imaginary circle sixty miles across
>| > will really stop a determined assailant?
>|
>| The FAA ain't running the circus. I suspect that the Secret Service
>| feels that by keeping all (or at least) most friendly traffic out of the
>| area, it makes it easier to spot the unfriendlies.
>|
>
>The trouble with that theory is, what can the Secret Service do about it?
>They *might* shove the President under a desk or something. But does anyone
>seriously believe that the Secret Service (or anyone else) would risk the
>political fallout from shooting down an innocent airplane?

Actually, the presence of a TFR makes it quite "justifiable" to the
uneducated. Lacking a TFR, the airplane could be construed as
"innocent".


Jake Brodsky,
PP ASEL IA, Cessna Cardinal N30946, Based @ FME
Amateur Radio Station AB3A