What is the reasoning behind the smaller radius vice presidential TFR?

[Larry Dighera]

What is the reasoning behind the smaller radius vice presidential TFR?

Source:
-------------------------------------------------------------
AOPA ePilot Volume 5, Issue 43 October 24, 2003
-------------------------------------------------------------

PRESIDENTIAL TFR FORECAST
Be careful if you'll be flying in Texas next week. Except for a
visit to Dallas next Wednesday, October 29, and a trip to San
Antonio on Thursday, October 30, President Bush is expected to be
at his ranch in Crawford from October 29 through November 3. This
schedule is based on AOPA's best information at this time, and
could change. Most temporary flight restrictions (TFRs) for
presidential travel have been 60 nm in diameter; the vice
president gets a smaller radius. Check AOPA Online
( http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/notams.html ) for the latest on
these restrictions.

Is the VP's TFR radius smaller because the intercepter aircraft
employed in policing that TFR are faster? What prevents the
presidential TFR from being smaller?

Inquiring minds want to know the logic behind the difference in size
between the presidential and vice presidential TFRs.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> What is the reasoning behind the smaller radius vice presidential TFR?

You're asking the people who set up TFRs to *reason*?

George Patterson
You can dress a hog in a tuxedo, but he still wants to roll in the mud.

[Teacherjh]

>> What is the reasoning behind the smaller radius vice presidential TFR?

He doesn't eat as much?

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Joe Johnson]

Heheheh...he clearly eats *more*


"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> >> What is the reasoning behind the smaller radius vice presidential TFR?
>
> He doesn't eat as much?
>
> Jose
>
> --
> (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 09:26:58 -0500, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>
>
>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>> What is the reasoning behind the smaller radius vice presidential TFR?
>
>You're asking the people who set up TFRs to *reason*?

Well, I was hoping ...

Is it presumptuous of me to expect the size of the vice/presidental
TFRs to be based on intruder intercept response time? The difference
in size between the two TFRs would seem to contradict that notion.
This begs the question, upon what is the size of the TFRs based? Is
it just arbitrary, or an absurd "mine is bigger than yours" thing?

Perhaps this is a good question to pose to AOPA.

[Ron Natalie]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message ...


> Inquiring minds want to know the logic behind the difference in size
> between the presidential and vice presidential TFRs.

Protocol. Presidents get bigger perqs than VP's. If Dick Cheney
gets bumped off, the only thing that happens is W gets dumber.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 10:58:28 -0500, "Ron Natalie" >
wrote in Message-Id: >:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message ...
>
>> Inquiring minds want to know the logic behind the difference in size
>> between the presidential and vice presidential TFRs.
>
>Protocol. Presidents get bigger perqs than VP's.

The presidential TFRs are perquisites? Over 3,000 square miles of
airspace is a large perq indeed. If the TFR size is not set because
of rational criteria, it is unreasonable on face, IMNSHO.

>If Dick Cheney gets bumped off, the only thing that happens is W gets dumber.

Thanks for the chuckle, but what happens if Jr is bumped off first?
Does Cheney's TFR automatically expand?

This is important stuff. We need answers. :-)

[Kevin McCue]

Lets put this as it should be, Airspace is a volume. Presidential TFR is
about 13,000 cubic miles. (As if it has anything to do with it) Logic would
say that VP is less important so less airspace. If shrub gets it, then
Cheney is the Prez so he gets the 13K cubic miles.

--
Kevin McCue
KRYN
'47 Luscombe 8E
Rans S-17 (for sale)




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Mxsmanic]

Larry Dighera writes:

> Is the VP's TFR radius smaller because the intercepter aircraft
> employed in policing that TFR are faster? What prevents the
> presidential TFR from being smaller?

The radius is a function of the ego of the person being "protected."

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

[Mxsmanic]

Larry Dighera writes:

> Is it just arbitrary, or an absurd "mine is bigger than yours" thing?

Unfortunately, a great deal of security for public personalities is
indeed based on a "mine is bigger than yours" form of reasoning. This
is especially true for _visible_ forms of security, such as the TFRs.

Often the security isn't there to protect anyone, it's there to announce
to everyone else how important a person is.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

[Mxsmanic]

Larry Dighera writes:

> If the TFR size is not set because of rational criteria, it
> is unreasonable on face, IMNSHO.

If you start eliminating security measures based on rational criteria,
about 95% of them will have to go out the window.

> Thanks for the chuckle, but what happens if Jr is bumped off first?
> Does Cheney's TFR automatically expand?

That's part of the Single Integrated TFR Calculation Plan (SITFRC), and
it is highly classified.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> Is it just arbitrary, or an absurd "mine is bigger than yours" thing?

I think it's the latter. The prez is arguably more important than the second
fiddle, so he gets a bigger TFR.

> Perhaps this is a good question to pose to AOPA.

Maybe, but *don't*, for bog's sake, pose the question to the SS. They'll start
setting up 30 mile TFRs for every politico down to dog-catchers.

George Patterson
You can dress a hog in a tuxedo, but he still wants to roll in the mud.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> Thanks for the chuckle, but what happens if Jr is bumped off first?
> Does Cheney's TFR automatically expand?

Yep. The TFR goes with the position.

George Patterson
You can dress a hog in a tuxedo, but he still wants to roll in the mud.

[John Harlow]

> Inquiring minds want to know the logic behind the difference in size
> between the presidential and vice presidential TFRs.

It is very important to keep all aircraft away from Bush. If he were to
hear one, he may run outside to look for it - and if it happened to be
raining, he could drown.

[Cub Driver]

I got two plonks out of this thread. Ron took 551 posts down the
toilet with him! Another took 220. There does seem to be a connection
between being obnoxious and being prolific. r.a.p. will be a lot
easier to read henceforth.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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

[Dan Luke]

"Cub Driver" wrote:
> I got two plonks out of this thread.

Dan Ford's gonna be awful lonesome in here pretty soon.
--
Dan
ABP (already been plonked)

[Montblack]

("Dan Luke" wrote)
> "Cub Driver" wrote:
> > I got two plonks out of this thread.
>
> Dan Ford's gonna be awful lonesome in here pretty soon.
> --
> Dan
> ABP (already been plonked)

Posting this to Dan Ford under Dan Luke because the original is off my
server. Got it from Google-Groups.

(Cub Driver wrote)
I got two plonks out of this thread. Ron took 551 posts down the
toilet with him! Another took 220. There does seem to be a connection
between being obnoxious and being prolific. r.a.p. will be a lot
easier to read henceforth.

all the best -- Dan Ford


I've already had my posts called inane today by Larry D, I do hope I'm not
also on your obnoxious list. It's been a baaaaad day :-(

--
Montblack

[Morgans]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> I got two plonks out of this thread. Ron took 551 posts down the
> toilet with him! Another took 220. There does seem to be a connection
> between being obnoxious and being prolific. r.a.p. will be a lot
> easier to read henceforth.
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford

More info, please. What were the screen names for these two. I would love
to join the plonking. <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Dan Luke]

"Montblack" wrote:
> Posting this to Dan Ford under Dan Luke because the original is off my
> server. Got it from Google-Groups.

Won't work, M. Didn't you see my sig?
--
Dan
-in the G. W. Bush Memorial plonk gulag

[Montblack]

("Dan Luke" wrote)
> Won't work, M. Didn't you see my sig?
> --
> Dan
> -in the G. W. Bush Memorial plonk gulag

I've been *plonked* twice (that I know of) can't remember by who though.

This past post was sent as a follow up to yours because yours was the only
one still visible to me.

Now all we need is for Ron to weigh in. It'll be like one of those sci-fi
situations where there is much activity just out of a person's perceptual
range. (Twilight Zone, Star Trek, etc)

I just hope *I'm* not on the other Dan's "obnoxious" list. <g>

--
Montblack
"Just the usual inanity"

[Ron Natalie]

"Montblack" > wrote in message ...

> Now all we need is for Ron to weigh in. It'll be like one of those sci-fi
> situations where there is much activity just out of a person's perceptual
> range. (Twilight Zone, Star Trek, etc)
>
Hell, if he wants to ignroe me, that's his problem. I got plenty of people
who'd rather flame me to death for my attempts at humor.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Montblack wrote:
>
> I just hope *I'm* not on the other Dan's "obnoxious" list. <g>

Actually, I hope I *am*. I find Ron's posts to be very informative, and he's
one of the most knowledgeable people about FARs on this group. If I'm in Ford's
killfile, I'm in good company.

George Patterson
You can dress a hog in a tuxedo, but he still wants to roll in the mud.

[Dan Luke]

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:
> If I'm in Ford's
> killfile, I'm in good company.

I'm thinking about starting a whole newsgroup of people who have been
plonked by Cub Driver....oh, wait a minute, no need - he's doing that
already.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:33:27 -0500, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:


>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>> Is it just arbitrary, or an absurd "mine is bigger than yours" thing?
>
>I think it's the latter. The prez is arguably more important than the second
>fiddle, so he gets a bigger TFR.

So the TSA's presidential and vice presidential airspace grabs made in
the name of security are truly based on ego and public perception not
legitimate, rational, physical and scientific grounds? Where is this
country heading? :-(

>> Perhaps this is a good question to pose to AOPA.
>
>Maybe, but *don't*, for bog's sake, pose the question to the SS. They'll start
>setting up 30 mile TFRs for every politico down to dog-catchers.

If what you assert is indeed the correct rationale behind the
differing sizes of the presidential TFRs, anything is possible I
suppose. Perhaps informing the news media of this (likely) ridiculous
misconduct of the TSA would bring their hubris to light, and provoke
an indignant reaction in the general public. We can hope.

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote:

> Larry Dighera wrote:
> >
> > Is it just arbitrary, or an absurd "mine is bigger than yours" thing?
>
> I think it's the latter. The prez is arguably more important than the
> second
> fiddle, so he gets a bigger TFR.

the reason is probably more related to the perceived publicity
"benefit" of hitting the president being more spectacular than
hitting the VP.

Note that part of the purpose of the terrorist is to make
a public statement wrt the fact that the US can be attacked
rather than trying to inflict actual damage.

--
Bob Noel

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 16:15:23 GMT, Bob Noel
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>In article >, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote:
>
>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>> >
>> > Is it just arbitrary, or an absurd "mine is bigger than yours" thing?
>>
>> I think it's the latter. The prez is arguably more important than the
>> second
>> fiddle, so he gets a bigger TFR.
>
>the reason is probably more related to the perceived publicity
>"benefit" of hitting the president being more spectacular than
>hitting the VP.
>
>Note that part of the purpose of the terrorist is to make
>a public statement wrt the fact that the US can be attacked
>rather than trying to inflict actual damage.

Do you feel that it's appropriate and constitutional for the TSA to
possess the power restrict citizens' right to the use of navigable
airspace BASED SOLELY ON PUBLIC PERCEPTION rather than sound science?
If that is truly the rationale behind the difference in size between
the presidential TFRs, that needs to be corrected pronto. I am
incredulous at the thought of such and audacious act of governmental
hubris. Tell me it ain't so. :-(


--

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

[Mxsmanic]

Larry Dighera writes:

> Where is this country heading?

Towards a police state. That's where all democracies end up.

> Perhaps informing the news media of this (likely) ridiculous
> misconduct of the TSA would bring their hubris to light, and provoke
> an indignant reaction in the general public. We can hope.

It's a lost hope. Nowadays, nobody cares about freedoms until they lose
their own.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

[Mxsmanic]

Larry Dighera writes:

> Do you feel that it's appropriate and constitutional for the TSA to
> possess the power restrict citizens' right to the use of navigable
> airspace BASED SOLELY ON PUBLIC PERCEPTION rather than sound science?

If you read the U.S. Code, you'll find that the President can declare
anywhere off limits to the general population, for any reason, and
without justification. You can even be thrown out of your own house if
the President decides that you don't belong there. These laws are
regularly used, but they have never undergone a Supreme Court test for
Constitutionality.

There are lots of other scary lots like this, too, and new ones are
being enacted all the time.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Larry Dighera
> wrote:

> >the reason is probably more related to the perceived publicity
> >"benefit" of hitting the president being more spectacular than
> >hitting the VP.
> >
> >Note that part of the purpose of the terrorist is to make
> >a public statement wrt the fact that the US can be attacked
> >rather than trying to inflict actual damage.
>
> Do you feel that it's appropriate and constitutional for the TSA to
> possess the power restrict citizens' right to the use of navigable
> airspace BASED SOLELY ON PUBLIC PERCEPTION rather than sound science?

no, that wasn't my point at all. I failed to make my point clear.

It's based on the terrorist's view of the importance of the
attack (btw - to ignore the enemy's perceptions is foolish).

--
Bob Noel

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 18:37:36 GMT, Bob Noel
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>In article >, Larry Dighera
> wrote:
>
>> >the reason is probably more related to the perceived publicity
>> >"benefit" of hitting the president being more spectacular than
>> >hitting the VP.
>> >
>> >Note that part of the purpose of the terrorist is to make
>> >a public statement wrt the fact that the US can be attacked
>> >rather than trying to inflict actual damage.
>>
>> Do you feel that it's appropriate and constitutional for the TSA to
>> possess the power restrict citizens' right to the use of navigable
>> airspace BASED SOLELY ON PUBLIC PERCEPTION rather than sound science?
>
>no, that wasn't my point at all. I failed to make my point clear.
>
>It's based on the terrorist's view of the importance of the
>attack (btw - to ignore the enemy's perceptions is foolish).

At least that has some credibility, but how did they arrive at the
specific sizes they did, intuitively?

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 19:33:57 +0100, Mxsmanic >
wrote in Message-Id: >:

>Larry Dighera writes:
>
>> Where is this country heading?
>
>Towards a police state. That's where all democracies end up.

It would seem so.

>> Perhaps informing the news media of this (likely) ridiculous
>> misconduct of the TSA would bring their hubris to light, and provoke
>> an indignant reaction in the general public. We can hope.
>
>It's a lost hope. Nowadays, nobody cares about freedoms until they lose
>their own.


You may be disappointed if you fail, but you are doomed if you don't
try. --Beverly Sills

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 19:35:47 +0100, Mxsmanic >
wrote in Message-Id: >:

>Larry Dighera writes:
>
>> Do you feel that it's appropriate and constitutional for the TSA to
>> possess the power restrict citizens' right to the use of navigable
>> airspace BASED SOLELY ON PUBLIC PERCEPTION rather than sound science?
>
>If you read the U.S. Code, you'll find that the President can declare
>anywhere off limits to the general population, for any reason, and
>without justification. You can even be thrown out of your own house if
>the President decides that you don't belong there. These laws are
>regularly used, but they have never undergone a Supreme Court test for
>Constitutionality.
>
>There are lots of other scary lots like this, too, and new ones are
>being enacted all the time.

So appropriateness and reasonableness are not required by law.
Terrific! :-(


--

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

[Mxsmanic]

Larry Dighera writes:

> So appropriateness and reasonableness are not required by law.

Worrying about appropriateness and reason would interfere with the War
on Terrorism (formerly the War on Drugs).

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

[Larry Dighera]

I posed the question to AOPA, and they told me to contact the
President, so below is the letter I'm about to send. I postponed
sending it, because I see the potential for the government to
_increase_ the TFR-VP to match the TFR-P, without explaining why they
were different sizes in the first place.

If anyone has any suggested modifications, please post 'um.


---------------------------------------------------------------------


Dear Mr. President:

Can you please explain the rationale behind the difference in size
between the presidential and vice presidential Temporary Flight
Restriction areas that follow both of you around the nation when
you travel by air?

If the sizes of the TFRs are based on military patrol aircraft
response time for intruder intercepts, why haven't they been
made the same size?

If the difference in size is politically based, to whom should an
airman voice his dissatisfaction at arbitrary governance of the
National Airspace System?

Best regards,
Larry Dighera


------------------------------------------------------------------------


>Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 11:52:20 -0500
>From: "Williams, Heidi" >
>Subject: RE: Question for e-Pilot
>X-Originating-IP: [208.27.40.67]
>To: '" >
>Message-id: <1140FCAD8F8E9A41B5234D738B6398B702EA3146@AOPAMAIL>
>
>Hello Larry,
>
>Your email was forwarded to those of us in the Air Traffic
Department at AOPA as we routinely work with the FAA and security
agencies.
>Unfortunately, I do not have a good answer to your question.
Often the criteria or perimeters for security decisions regarding VIP
movement are not made available to the public. I would suggest you
address your concerns in writing to the:
>
>The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20500
>
>Regards,
>
>Heidi J. Williams
>Manager
>Air Traffic, Regulatory & Certification Policy
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Larry Dighera ]
>Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 5:20 PM
>To: ePilot
>Subject: Question for e-Pilot
>
>
>Dear Sirs:
>
>Can you please explain the rationale behind the difference in
size
>between the presidential and vice presidential TFRs?
>
>If the sizes of the TFRs are based on military patrol aircraft
>response time for intruder intercepts, why aren't they the same
size?
>
>If the difference in size politically based, to whom should an
airman
>voice his dissatisfaction?
>
>Best Regards,
>Larry Dighera

>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------
>AOPA ePilot Volume 5, Issue 44 October 31, 2003
>-------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Most temporary flight restrictions (TFRs) for presidential
>travel have been 60 nm in diameter; the vice president gets
smaller
>TFRs. Check AOPA Online (
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/notams.html )
>for the latest on these restrictions.









On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:57:24 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote in Message-Id: >:

>What is the reasoning behind the smaller radius vice presidential TFR?
>
>Source:
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> AOPA ePilot Volume 5, Issue 43 October 24, 2003
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> PRESIDENTIAL TFR FORECAST
> Be careful if you'll be flying in Texas next week. Except for a
> visit to Dallas next Wednesday, October 29, and a trip to San
> Antonio on Thursday, October 30, President Bush is expected to be
> at his ranch in Crawford from October 29 through November 3. This
> schedule is based on AOPA's best information at this time, and
> could change. Most temporary flight restrictions (TFRs) for
> presidential travel have been 60 nm in diameter; the vice
> president gets a smaller radius. Check AOPA Online
> ( http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/notams.html ) for the latest on
> these restrictions.
>
>Is the VP's TFR radius smaller because the intercepter aircraft
>employed in policing that TFR are faster? What prevents the
>presidential TFR from being smaller?
>
>Inquiring minds want to know the logic behind the difference in size
>between the presidential and vice presidential TFRs.

[Mike Z.]

Aww, don't send 'em that.

They will just make what's 'is names thingy bigger.

On the other hand, they probably won't pay any more attention than they did to my letter. <grin>

Mike Z

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message ...
>
>
> I posed the question to AOPA, and they told me to contact the
> President, so below is the letter I'm about to send. I postponed
> sending it, because I see the potential for the government to
> _increase_ the TFR-VP to match the TFR-P, without explaining why they
> were different sizes in the first place.
>
> If anyone has any suggested modifications, please post 'um.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Dear Mr. President:
>
> Can you please explain the rationale behind the difference in size
> between the presidential and vice presidential Temporary Flight
> Restriction areas that follow both of you around the nation when
> you travel by air?
>
> If the sizes of the TFRs are based on military patrol aircraft
> response time for intruder intercepts, why haven't they been
> made the same size?
>
> If the difference in size is politically based, to whom should an
> airman voice his dissatisfaction at arbitrary governance of the
> National Airspace System?
>
> Best regards,
> Larry Dighera
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

[EDR]

In article et>, Mike
Z. > wrote:

> They will just make what's 'is names thingy bigger.

His wife won't mind.

[Mxsmanic]

Larry Dighera writes:

> I posed the question to AOPA, and they told me to contact the
> President, so below is the letter I'm about to send.

By postal mail, I assume? It's no longer possible to e-mail the
President directly.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

[Teacherjh]

I wouldn't send it. If you are going to address TFRs to the prez, address the
things that are important - to wit, that they don't really accomplish anything,
they hurt the economy, and they are an unnecessary restriction on the very
freedoms that make this country worth defending in the first place.

Aaah, skip that last part. Doubt he'd connect with it.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Larry Dighera]

On 07 Nov 2003 23:37:02 GMT, (Teacherjh)
wrote in Message-Id: >:

>I wouldn't send it.

After writing it, I contacted AOPA again, and asked what about the
typical size of the vice presidential TFRs. They indicated a 3 to 5
mile radius. For some reason I thought they were considerably larger.

I think it's pretty obvious why they differ in size. I doubt the
TFR-VP has military interceptors circling in it, only Jr. gets that (I
guess). Perhaps the sizes are not so arbitrary after all.

>If you are going to address TFRs to the prez, address the
>things that are important - to wit, that they don't really accomplish anything,

I'm not so sure that's true. It may not be prudent to discuss they're
effectiveness further in a public forum.

>they hurt the economy, and they are an unnecessary restriction on the very
>freedoms that make this country worth defending in the first place.
>
>Aaah, skip that last part. Doubt he'd connect with it.