New Sectional and....

[kage]

The new Seattle sectional and terminal chart have the TFR's mapped. I guess
they are here to stay.

Karl
"Curator" N185KG

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"kage" > wrote in message
...
>
> The new Seattle sectional and terminal chart have the TFR's mapped. I
guess
> they are here to stay.
>

Then they'll have to change the nomenclature.

[John T]

kage wrote:
>
> The new Seattle sectional and terminal chart have the TFR's mapped. I
> guess they are here to stay.

That may be partly a result of the furor over the DC ADIZ not being mapped.
While I agree that printing the "T"FR's on the sectionals makes them a bit
less "temporary", they aren't made permanent simply by being printed.

Keep working the system to get them eliminated.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John T" > wrote in message
ws.com...
>
> That may be partly a result of the furor over the DC ADIZ not being
mapped.
> While I agree that printing the "T"FR's on the sectionals makes them a bit
> less "temporary", they aren't made permanent simply by being printed.
>
> Keep working the system to get them eliminated.
>

They wouldn't print them if they planned to eliminate them.

[Peter Duniho]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> They wouldn't print them if they planned to eliminate them.

Baloney. Temporary airspace has been charted in the past and subsequently
eliminated, and there's no reason to think that charting it today
necessarily means there's no eventual plan to eliminate the temporary
airspace charted now.

At best, charting the airspace suggests that they expect it to remain at
least another six months, and even that is being generous, since it's easy
enough to tell pilots "you know that airspace on the chart? well, no need
to worry about it anymore".

Frankly, I think it's ridiculous that it's taken so long for the TFRs to get
charted.

Pete

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> Baloney. Temporary airspace has been charted in the past and subsequently
> eliminated, and there's no reason to think that charting it today
> necessarily means there's no eventual plan to eliminate the temporary
> airspace charted now.
>

Give me some examples.

[Peter Duniho]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Give me some examples.

Airspace changes around Atlanta for the Olympics would be one.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> Airspace changes around Atlanta for the Olympics would be one.
>

Can you post a link to the chart? Is that the only example you have?

[Peter Duniho]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Can you post a link to the chart? Is that the only example you have?

I don't even need one example. Your statement is without foundation
regardless. You don't really think you could prove that "They wouldn't
print them if they planned to eliminate them", do you?

I offered one example, which is well-enough documented should you really
care to look it up yourself. That's sufficient as counter-proof.

That said, if I still remember when it's time to dig out all my old aviation
charts, I'll be happy to scan and post to the web the chart in question.

Pete

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> I don't even need one example. Your statement is without foundation
> regardless. You don't really think you could prove that "They wouldn't
> print them if they planned to eliminate them", do you?
>

What I stated was simple logic. These "temporary" restrictions have been in
place, uncharted, for years. They're being charted because they're being
made permanent.

[Peter Duniho]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Can you post a link to the chart? Is that the only example you have?

In a matter of minutes, I found two references to VFR charts published for
the Salt Lake City Olympic Games held in 2002:

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2001/01-4-199x.html
http://www.eaa72.org/news/2001/dec01news.pdf

I didn't waste my time looking for references to the Atlanta charts that
were similarly published, but they are out there if you ever decide to see
for yourself.

Do you still maintain that TFRs being published implies that there is no
plan to eliminate them?

Pete

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> Do you still maintain that TFRs being published implies that there is no
> plan to eliminate them?
>

Of course.

[Peter Duniho]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> [...]
> What I stated was simple logic. These "temporary" restrictions have been
in
> place, uncharted, for years. They're being charted because they're being
> made permanent.

It appears that your understanding of "simple logic" is flawed.

Where are the verified facts, along with the proveable conclusions? Your
so-called "simple logic" is nothing more than a personal assumption on your
part.

Here are the facts that we know:

* The TFRs have existed for nearly three years
* They have been left uncharted for nearly that whole time
* The latest chart revision includes the TFRs

For "simple logic" to conclude that the TFRs are being made permanent, you'd
have to have some proved theorem that says something like "a TFR that has
been present and left uncharted for an extraordinarily long time, and that
is then charted will be made permanent".

So far, the only source I see for such a "theorem" is your own personal
belief. There's nothing in the FARs or charting policies that would support
it. A "theorem" that is simply based on your own personal belief is not a
theorem, it's a hypothesis. A hypothesis is useless for the purpose of
proving something using "simple logic".

AOPA has been lobbying for a long time now for the airspace to be charted,
as have numerous other folks. The TFRs should always have been charted,
given the long-lasting nature of them, and the fact that they are charting
them now may well reflect nothing more than recognition of that common sense
assertion.

Regardless of why the TFRs are being charted, there's no valid way to come
to a logical conclusion that they are being made permanent. And in fact,
since there's precedent for charting TFRs, and since they could just as
easily have made them permanent and charted them that way, there's reason to
believe that for now, there's no intent to make them permanent.

Pete

[Richard Russell]

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 19:15:45 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Do you still maintain that TFRs being published implies that there is no
>> plan to eliminate them?
>>
>
>Of course.
>


This doesn't qualify as undisputable truth, but it does have some
bearing on the subject. Some months ago, I attended an FAA sponsored
seminar at Willow Grove Joint Reserve Base. The speaker was a
high-ranking NACO official who was directly in charge of the charting
efforts as well as the A/FD publication. I'm sorry, I do not recall
his name. He discussed, in some length, the charting of the
Washington ADIZ and specifically noted that the fact that it was
charted did not in any way imply permanence. He did note, however,
that they probably would not have charted it if they anticipated a
change in the near future. The primary purpose for the charting was
to help pilots avoid the ADIZ.

Rich Russell

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Peter Duniho wrote:
> Do you still maintain that TFRs being published implies that there is no
> plan to eliminate them?

Personally, I don't know - but I think they should quit pussyfooting
around and either get rid of the TFRs or change them to
restricted/prohibited areas.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[G Farris]

In article t>,
says...
>
>
>"John T" > wrote in message
ws.com...
>>
>> That may be partly a result of the furor over the DC ADIZ not being
>mapped.
>> While I agree that printing the "T"FR's on the sectionals makes them a bit
>> less "temporary", they aren't made permanent simply by being printed.
>>
>> Keep working the system to get them eliminated.
>>
>
>They wouldn't print them if they planned to eliminate them.

Why not? The revision cycle for sectionals is six months - they can delete
things just as well as they can add them. Airports that close down get
eliminated from sectionals. Pilots have been clamoring for printed TFR's since
they've been popping up in the post 911 craze - the sectional seems like the
most logical place to put them.

G Faris
>
>

[G Farris]

In article >,
says...
>
>In article >, Peter Duniho wrote:
>> Do you still maintain that TFRs being published implies that there is no
>> plan to eliminate them?
>
>Personally, I don't know - but I think they should quit pussyfooting
>around and either get rid of the TFRs or change them to
>restricted/prohibited areas.
>

I disagree. as long as they remain temporary, they can easily (and quietly) be
removed. Some wounds take time to heal. 911 was a big wound to the country,
and authorities have to show they are doing something - even if it's
sometimes more show than substance. If the TFR's can be removed in time, so
much the better. I don't really know what "freedom" we will have gained by
being able to fly over a nuclear power station, but the Presidential TFR
guessing game is tiresome, and the TFR's in general present a regulatory trap
for pilots - so it would be better if they could be lifted in time. So what if
it takes another three years - better than never, don't you agree?

G Faris

[Teacherjh]

>>
I don't really know what "freedom" we will have gained by
being able to fly over a nuclear power station
<<

The freedom to fly without having to find out where the danged things are. The
freedom to take pictures of them (and of things near them) without being shot
down. The freedom do to many things that most people are not interested in
doing, which is what true freedom is all about.

Jose

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

[David Brooks]

"kage" > wrote in message
...
> The new Seattle sectional and terminal chart have the TFR's mapped. I
guess
> they are here to stay.

Putting aside the thread about whether they are really temporary or not,
what about the depiction itself? They show:
- Land areas white (i.e. no elevation information, but that's not a problem
in these cases)
- In the larger ones (where there is room for it), a thick blue dash outline
- A small notation pointing to the TFR.

Without the notation, they'd be easy to miss. Is that depiction standard for
TFRs, or did NACO just make them up? I don't see a reference in my copy of
the VFR Symbols Guide.

-- David Brooks

[kage]

I don't have the sectional here with me, in Roskilde. But I think the
altitudes are NOT depicted as well.

Karl

"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> "kage" > wrote in message
> ...
> > The new Seattle sectional and terminal chart have the TFR's mapped. I
> guess
> > they are here to stay.
>
> Putting aside the thread about whether they are really temporary or not,
> what about the depiction itself? They show:
> - Land areas white (i.e. no elevation information, but that's not a
problem
> in these cases)
> - In the larger ones (where there is room for it), a thick blue dash
outline
> - A small notation pointing to the TFR.
>
> Without the notation, they'd be easy to miss. Is that depiction standard
for
> TFRs, or did NACO just make them up? I don't see a reference in my copy of
> the VFR Symbols Guide.
>
> -- David Brooks
>
>

[David Brooks]

You are correct; the altitudes are not depicted.

-- David Brooks

"kage" > wrote in message
...
> I don't have the sectional here with me, in Roskilde. But I think the
> altitudes are NOT depicted as well.
>
> Karl
>
> "David Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "kage" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > The new Seattle sectional and terminal chart have the TFR's mapped. I
> > guess
> > > they are here to stay.
> >
> > Putting aside the thread about whether they are really temporary or not,
> > what about the depiction itself? They show:
> > - Land areas white (i.e. no elevation information, but that's not a
> problem
> > in these cases)
> > - In the larger ones (where there is room for it), a thick blue dash
> outline
> > - A small notation pointing to the TFR.
> >
> > Without the notation, they'd be easy to miss. Is that depiction standard
> for
> > TFRs, or did NACO just make them up? I don't see a reference in my copy
of
> > the VFR Symbols Guide.
> >
> > -- David Brooks
> >
> >
>
>