PDA

View Full Version : TFR not right IMO


Bart
June 30th 03, 11:10 PM
I was getting ready to go today and noticed that there were two
new TFR's for me to avoid. One of them closed a regional airport,
and the other a few miles away to the northwest. I saw the words
"Secret Service" and figured #1 or #2 was gonna be in town.
I did a news search and found out that the reason for it was
because VP Cheney was going to a $1000/plate party fundraiser.

All told they mucked up about 60 square miles of airspace,
closed a fairly large airport (class C), and caused a mess on a
pretty big highway; All in the name of fundraising for the party.

I think this is really wrong! If they were on official biz for
the government I could understand it, but they're just stumping
for re-election and panhandling with rich people, and I don't
think they should be doing it on our dime or at the expense of
the public's right to travel.

I got to thinking that this is only going to get worse as election
season heats up, and wondered how many pilots would be losing their
tickets because they didn't check their political fundraising notams.

Agreements or disagreements out there?

Bart

Micbloo
July 1st 03, 12:49 AM
>I saw the words
>"Secret Service" and figured #1 or #2 was gonna be in town.

Happens here in NYC all the time. Bush was in town last Monday for a
fundraiser
and when he comes in everything shuts down.

Bart
July 2nd 03, 04:29 AM
What I am really surprised about is how many pussy pilots there are out there.
I mean if there's 300,000 ish AOPA members out there, then that's an important
block of votes. That's got to be one of the biggest PAC's next to AARP.
My reasoning about why our community is so tolerant of this flagrant abuse
is that we are all so used to being afraid of the FAA and what they may do
to our our pilots licenses, that we've forgotten what it REALLY means to
be a citizen of the United States.

I guess if we want to have our society digress to some lame hybrid of
a communist monarchy then we can all just do what we're doing now; nothing.

I for one am ****ed, and I don't really care who knows.

Bart

Kevin McCue wrote:
>
> Agree and Agree. While the AOPA represents "pilot" issues it is still
> part of the "money buys influence" equation.
> FYI the now "standard" ruling elite TFR consumes about 9900 Cubic NM of
> airspace! The main problem with this whole thing is it really is becoming
> the ruling/privledged elite and damn the rest. I don't argue that there
> needs to be "security" for our leaders but it is waaaay out of hand.
>
> --
> 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 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

David H
July 2nd 03, 07:27 AM
Bart wrote:

> What I am really surprised about is how many pussy pilots there are out there.
> I mean if there's 300,000 ish AOPA members out there, then that's an important
> block of votes. That's got to be one of the biggest PAC's next to AARP.
> My reasoning about why our community is so tolerant of this flagrant abuse
> is that we are all so used to being afraid of the FAA and what they may do
> to our our pilots licenses, that we've forgotten what it REALLY means to
> be a citizen of the United States.
>
> I guess if we want to have our society digress to some lame hybrid of
> a communist monarchy then we can all just do what we're doing now; nothing.
>
> I for one am ****ed, and I don't really care who knows.

Bart,

I think the root of the problem (as far as pilots go) is this:

Taken as a whole, I think it's fair to say that the pilot demographic probably
tends to be politically pretty conservative. We tend to be mostly white, male,
upper income, with a median age 40- or 50-something. Lots of ex-military and
law-enforcement veterans. Plenty of gun owners. Rugged individualists.

Generally speaking, this is a solidly Republican demographic. I would venture to
guess that pilots probably voted overwhelmingly for this president in 2000, and
the idea of voting for another political party is anathema to most.

Yet now it seems that all of aviation, and general aviation especially, is under
attack and more restricted and more threatened than it has ever been. The
administration has given us TFRs, ADIZs, and other restrictions with no end in
sight, plus an apparent unwillingness to even respond to basic questions about
when these restrictions might ever be lifted. And an unprecedented, very clear
push to privatize ATC services.

The dilemma, of course, is that the president who is presiding over this sorry
state of affairs is a Republican.

I guess the question comes down to this: at what point do pilots say enough is
enough, even if they supported this president last time around, that they cannot
in good conscience vote again for this president, given his record on aviation
issues?

Most of the pilots I know bitch about the administration's policies and agree
that they are doing serious damage to aviation, but just can't bring themselves
to consider voting for somebody else next time around. When I remind them that
the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and
expecting a different result, they just give me a dirty look. Most of these guys
could never vote against Bush, no matter what his administration does.

I will be watching AOPA carefully when they do their candidate endorsement for
the next presidential election. Given his record, I cannot imagine them
endorsing Bush again, but I bet they would take an incredible amount of heat from
the membership if they don't.

David H
Boeing Field (BFI), Seattle, WA

Martin
July 2nd 03, 09:54 AM
If the aviation community want's the administration to change the
policy, do what every other big group in the country is doing; buy the
prostitutes.. ahem I mean buy politicians, woops, ahem, I mean
dontate, donate to politicians. Yea.

Ron Natalie
July 2nd 03, 03:29 PM
"Malcolm Teas" > wrote in message om...

> 2) An ADIZ that requires clearance and a transponder code.

It doesn't require clearance, but unfortunately some ATC folk think it does.

Ron Natalie
July 2nd 03, 03:57 PM
"Greg Burkhart (MN)" > wrote in message news:NlCMa.18347$926.145@sccrnsc03...
> "Malcolm Teas" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Agreed. Welcome to the club folks. Here in the Washington DC area we
> > have:
> >
> > 1) A permanent TFR centered around National Airport.
>
> A permanent TFR? Would it still be a TFR???

They stopped calling it a TFR. It's a "Flight Restricted Zone."

Kevin McCue
July 2nd 03, 04:55 PM
Along the lines of this and a previous thread, I sent this to the White
house yesterday w/copies to my congressional critters.


President Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington D.C.

July1, 2003

Dear President Bush,

Please do not visit or send Vice President Cheney to the Tucson area during
your fund raising and campaigning junkets. The onerous flight restrictions
now (30 nm radius) imposed by your travels are in excess of 12,000 cubic
miles of airspace closed to general aviation. Not only does this deprive
law-abiding U.S. citizens of their right to travel but it could push some
struggling businesses over the edge.
Since 9/11, innuendo, false alarms and pointless flight restrictions have
decimated the general aviation industry. This industry employs more people
than the airlines but has not received any economic relief. On the contrary,
general aviation continues to be selected for additional economic damage
through an executive policy of unreasonable restrictions, impositions, and
lack of due process. The "DC 3" airports are an excellent example.
You have a right to campaign and raise funds but you must be aware that
these activities are not within the duties of you office. While conducting
these activities you are holding your rights above those of millions of
fellow citizens. I hope you will take an opportunity to review your security
arrangements soon. Until you can reduce the imposition (return to the 10 nm
radius) or realistically justify the current restrictions, please give your
fellow citizens a break and stay home.




Kevin W. McCue
Business owner and pilot

--
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 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Malcolm Teas
July 2nd 03, 07:30 PM
"Greg Burkhart \(MN\)" > wrote in message news:<NlCMa.18347$926.145@sccrnsc03>...
> "Malcolm Teas" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Agreed. Welcome to the club folks. Here in the Washington DC area we
> > have:
> >
> > 1) A permanent TFR centered around National Airport.
>
> A permanent TFR? Would it still be a TFR???

Consider "permanent TFR" a tongue-in-cheek phrase. I meant it that way.

Malcolm Teas
July 2nd 03, 07:36 PM
"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message >...
> "Greg Burkhart (MN)" > wrote in message news:NlCMa.18347$926.145@sccrnsc03...
> > "Malcolm Teas" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > Agreed. Welcome to the club folks. Here in the Washington DC area we
> > > have:
> > >
> > > 1) A permanent TFR centered around National Airport.
> >
> > A permanent TFR? Would it still be a TFR???
>
> They stopped calling it a TFR. It's a "Flight Restricted Zone."

I wonder how it will be marked on the new sectional in August? I'm
wondering if it'll be the blue hached edge of a Restricted area. But,
that's probably too honest a portrayal.

I also think it's weird how the western edge of the flight restricted
zone has a funny angle in it. That's from the isogonic line that it
was originally drawn with reference to. Of course the isogonic's
moved since that chart came out. It shows the general cluelessness
going on.

Malcolm Teas
July 2nd 03, 07:39 PM
"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message >...
> "Malcolm Teas" > wrote in message om...
>
> > 2) An ADIZ that requires clearance and a transponder code.
>
> It doesn't require clearance, but unfortunately some ATC folk think it does.

And, you never know which kind you're dealing with. Personally, with
the penalties involved, I want to hear something similar to, "cleared
into the ADIZ" and get that on tape. Maybe this is a student's
caution. But, I believe that the caution is appropriate in this case.

David H
July 2nd 03, 08:28 PM
Michael wrote:

> Bart > wrote
> > I mean if there's 300,000 ish AOPA members out there, then that's an important
> > block of votes.
>
> No it's not. It's a tiny, insignificant block of votes.
>
> > That's got to be one of the biggest PAC's next to AARP.
>
> It's not even on the same order of magnitude as AARP. I believe AARP
> is at least 100 times bigger than AOPA.

True, but AOPA sits astride a unique demographic: I'd guess that pilots gnerally
vote overwhelmingly Republican. To the extent that they might be willing to
withold their votes from this president (or - gasp! - even vote for someone else),
they could potentially move a lot more votes than a group whose voting record is
much more evenly divided across the political spectrum.

I agree that in raw numbers, the "pilot vote" doesn't look like it's very big. But
since the vast majority of pilots probably voted for Dubya last time, AOPA could
potentially have an impact that's much greater than the raw numbers suggest.

For example: You **** off the National Education Association (mostly Democratic
voters) and this president doesn't stand to lose much - not too many NEA members
voted for Bush last time. But **** off 400,000 AOPA members - who (I suspect) DID
vote for Bush in droves last time - and there might be a real price to pay in the
next election. At least that's what I like to think.

Those who were paying attention will recall that the last presidential election was
- ahem - CLOSE. I think the next one will be too. Every vote counts
(well...except in Florida, of course ;)

David H
Boeing Field (BFI), Seattle, WA

Margy Natalie
July 2nd 03, 08:52 PM
I'm sure there are quite a few republicans in the 2.7 million members of the NEA (I
work with quite a few of them). I'm a member of AOPA and a member of NEA, hmmmm, who
would I have voted for? Don't judge a person's voting habits solely on the groups they
belong to.

Margy

David H wrote:

> Michael wrote:
>
> > Bart > wrote
> > > I mean if there's 300,000 ish AOPA members out there, then that's an important
> > > block of votes.
> >
> > No it's not. It's a tiny, insignificant block of votes.
> >
> > > That's got to be one of the biggest PAC's next to AARP.
> >
> > It's not even on the same order of magnitude as AARP. I believe AARP
> > is at least 100 times bigger than AOPA.
>
> True, but AOPA sits astride a unique demographic: I'd guess that pilots gnerally
> vote overwhelmingly Republican. To the extent that they might be willing to
> withold their votes from this president (or - gasp! - even vote for someone else),
> they could potentially move a lot more votes than a group whose voting record is
> much more evenly divided across the political spectrum.
>
> I agree that in raw numbers, the "pilot vote" doesn't look like it's very big. But
> since the vast majority of pilots probably voted for Dubya last time, AOPA could
> potentially have an impact that's much greater than the raw numbers suggest.
>
> For example: You **** off the National Education Association (mostly Democratic
> voters) and this president doesn't stand to lose much - not too many NEA members
> voted for Bush last time. But **** off 400,000 AOPA members - who (I suspect) DID
> vote for Bush in droves last time - and there might be a real price to pay in the
> next election. At least that's what I like to think.
>
> Those who were paying attention will recall that the last presidential election was
> - ahem - CLOSE. I think the next one will be too. Every vote counts
> (well...except in Florida, of course ;)
>
> David H
> Boeing Field (BFI), Seattle, WA

Tom S.
July 2nd 03, 09:18 PM
"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> Bart > wrote
> > I mean if there's 300,000 ish AOPA members out there, then that's an
important
> > block of votes.
>
> No it's not. It's a tiny, insignificant block of votes.
>
> > That's got to be one of the biggest PAC's next to AARP.
>
> It's not even on the same order of magnitude as AARP. I believe AARP
> is at least 100 times bigger than AOPA.
>
AOPA = 300,000
AARP = 3.7 million (all dedicated to looting the public trough), or 10.2
times bigger.
NRA = 4.1 million (who knows what they're up to)

Tom
--
For my de-spammed address, send me an email.

Andrew Gideon
July 2nd 03, 10:06 PM
Malcolm Teas wrote:

> Consider "permanent TFR" a tongue-in-cheek phrase. I meant it that way.

I consider it one more example of the abuse of the public (and of truth)
being committed by the current administration. I've been noticing this for
some time, but I've finally started to log these (although I've no idea
why).

For example, calling the people in Iraq fighting our military "terrorists"
instead of "guerrillas", despite the fact that it is our *military* being
attacked. This was just yesterday, and was the final straw which pushed me
over into starting my collection.

But there've been all these analyses of the two tax cuts which showed them
primarily helping the wealthy combined with the administration's claims
that it is good for "all those who pay taxes". Of course, this doesn't
include the 8 million mostly low-income taxpayers cited in a study by the
Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.

This came up in early June, and I think it's what started me thinking about
a collection.

- Andrew

Bart
July 2nd 03, 11:22 PM
Kevin, you are tha man!
Nice Job,
Bart

Kevin McCue wrote:
>
> Along the lines of this and a previous thread, I sent this to the White
> house yesterday w/copies to my congressional critters.
>
> President Bush
> 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
> Washington D.C.
>
> July1, 2003
>
> Dear President Bush,
>
> Please do not visit or send Vice President Cheney to the Tucson area during
> your fund raising and campaigning junkets. The onerous flight restrictions
> now (30 nm radius) imposed by your travels are in excess of 12,000 cubic
> miles of airspace closed to general aviation. Not only does this deprive
> law-abiding U.S. citizens of their right to travel but it could push some
> struggling businesses over the edge.
> Since 9/11, innuendo, false alarms and pointless flight restrictions have
> decimated the general aviation industry. This industry employs more people
> than the airlines but has not received any economic relief. On the contrary,
> general aviation continues to be selected for additional economic damage
> through an executive policy of unreasonable restrictions, impositions, and
> lack of due process. The "DC 3" airports are an excellent example.
> You have a right to campaign and raise funds but you must be aware that
> these activities are not within the duties of you office. While conducting
> these activities you are holding your rights above those of millions of
> fellow citizens. I hope you will take an opportunity to review your security
> arrangements soon. Until you can reduce the imposition (return to the 10 nm
> radius) or realistically justify the current restrictions, please give your
> fellow citizens a break and stay home.
>
> Kevin W. McCue
> Business owner and pilot
>
> --
> 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 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

toadmonkey
July 3rd 03, 12:33 AM
On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 08:55:23 -0700, "Kevin McCue" > wrote:

>Along the lines of this and a previous thread, I sent this to the White
>house yesterday w/copies to my congressional critters.
>
>
>President Bush
>1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
>Washington D.C.
>
>July1, 2003
>
>Dear President Bush,
-snip-
>Kevin W. McCue
>Business owner and pilot
>
Right on Kevin!
TM

--
Toadmonkey: "Now now. Brain popping and world crashing may be hazardous to ones perception of reality.
Very dangerous business that can lead to madness or something worse for some, truth."


Please remove all bits of spam from addy before replying....


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

G.R. Patterson III
July 3rd 03, 02:41 AM
Bart wrote:
>
> I mean if there's 300,000 ish AOPA members out there, then that's an important
> block of votes. That's got to be one of the biggest PAC's next to AARP.

AOPA is barely big enough to get on a Congresscritter's radar. NRA has over
ten times as many members, for example.

George Patterson
The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist is afraid that he's correct.
James Branch Cavel

G.R. Patterson III
July 3rd 03, 02:46 AM
"Tom S." wrote:
>
> NRA = 4.1 million (who knows what they're up to)

Right now, we are primarily concerned with trying to keep the "assault
weapons" ban from being renewed by Congress and criticizing the president
for promising to sign the bill if it passes. Pilots aren't the only people
feeling betrayed by Bush.

George Patterson
The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist is afraid that he's correct.
James Branch Cavel

David H
July 3rd 03, 06:26 AM
No judgement intended Margy, just looking at things in aggregate. While there surely are
Republicans in the NEA and Democrats in the AOPA, I think they probably represent a
minority of those organizations. If the Democratic candidate alienated the NEA, they
would have something to worry about, since the NEA typically is counted on by the
Democrats to be part of their solid base. Same for AOPA and the Republicans.

Margy Natalie wrote:

> I'm sure there are quite a few republicans in the 2.7 million members of the NEA (I
> work with quite a few of them). I'm a member of AOPA and a member of NEA, hmmmm, who
> would I have voted for? Don't judge a person's voting habits solely on the groups they
> belong to.
>
> Margy
>
> David H wrote:
>
> > Michael wrote:
> >
> > > Bart > wrote
> > > > I mean if there's 300,000 ish AOPA members out there, then that's an important
> > > > block of votes.
> > >
> > > No it's not. It's a tiny, insignificant block of votes.
> > >
> > > > That's got to be one of the biggest PAC's next to AARP.
> > >
> > > It's not even on the same order of magnitude as AARP. I believe AARP
> > > is at least 100 times bigger than AOPA.
> >
> > True, but AOPA sits astride a unique demographic: I'd guess that pilots gnerally
> > vote overwhelmingly Republican. To the extent that they might be willing to
> > withold their votes from this president (or - gasp! - even vote for someone else),
> > they could potentially move a lot more votes than a group whose voting record is
> > much more evenly divided across the political spectrum.
> >
> > I agree that in raw numbers, the "pilot vote" doesn't look like it's very big. But
> > since the vast majority of pilots probably voted for Dubya last time, AOPA could
> > potentially have an impact that's much greater than the raw numbers suggest.
> >
> > For example: You **** off the National Education Association (mostly Democratic
> > voters) and this president doesn't stand to lose much - not too many NEA members
> > voted for Bush last time. But **** off 400,000 AOPA members - who (I suspect) DID
> > vote for Bush in droves last time - and there might be a real price to pay in the
> > next election. At least that's what I like to think.
> >
> > Those who were paying attention will recall that the last presidential election was
> > - ahem - CLOSE. I think the next one will be too. Every vote counts
> > (well...except in Florida, of course ;)
> >
> > David H
> > Boeing Field (BFI), Seattle, WA

Flyer22A
July 6th 03, 12:41 AM
Out of that 300,000 pilots, probably only about 50,000 vote, and that group
votes all over the place. Thus this is a meaningless group of voters and
ignored by all political parties.


"Bart" > wrote in message
...
> What I am really surprised about is how many pussy pilots there are out
there.
> I mean if there's 300,000 ish AOPA members out there, then that's an
important
> block of votes. That's got to be one of the biggest PAC's next to AARP.
> My reasoning about why our community is so tolerant of this flagrant abuse
> is that we are all so used to being afraid of the FAA and what they may do
> to our our pilots licenses, that we've forgotten what it REALLY means to
> be a citizen of the United States.

[deleted ...]

Christopher Campbell[_1_]
December 7th 06, 05:57 PM
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 19:29:25 -0800, Bart wrote
(in article >):

> What I am really surprised about is how many pussy pilots there are out
there.
> I mean if there's 300,000 ish AOPA members out there, then that's an
important
> block of votes. That's got to be one of the biggest PAC's next to AARP.

Not really. It is tiny in terms of PACs. AARP has nearly 30 million members.
The National Education Association has 3 million members. So does the
National Rifle Association. And these are the small ones. Most of the other
big PACs and associations number their members in the many millions, too.

AOPA is a drop in the ocean.

Jim Macklin
December 7th 06, 06:18 PM
AOPA members do not vote in a block. Most have other issues
that take a higher personal priority. For instance, a solid
pro-gun voter will not vote for an anti-gun candidate no
matter how well the AOPA rates that candidate.

The AOPA is effective because of a quality staff and an
active media and lobby effort. But there are more cars and
trucks in a smallish town and than in the whole nation.
Pilots are independent voters, and airspace and pilots are a
national [Federal issue] and airports are more local with
Federal over-sight. Daley is still mayor in Chicago.


"Christopher Campbell" >
wrote in message
e.com...
| On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 19:29:25 -0800, Bart wrote
| (in article >):
|
| > What I am really surprised about is how many pussy
pilots there are out
| there.
| > I mean if there's 300,000 ish AOPA members out there,
then that's an
| important
| > block of votes. That's got to be one of the biggest
PAC's next to AARP.
|
| Not really. It is tiny in terms of PACs. AARP has nearly
30 million members.
| The National Education Association has 3 million members.
So does the
| National Rifle Association. And these are the small ones.
Most of the other
| big PACs and associations number their members in the many
millions, too.
|
| AOPA is a drop in the ocean.
|

Christopher Campbell[_1_]
December 7th 06, 06:19 PM
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:10:28 -0800, Bart wrote
(in article >):

> I think this is really wrong! If they were on official biz for
> the government I could understand it, but they're just stumping
> for re-election and panhandling with rich people, and I don't
> think they should be doing it on our dime or at the expense of
> the public's right to travel.
>

Some of the stupidest reasoning that I have ever heard, which is going some
for Usenet. Look, you can argue about whether the security measures are
effective or necessary. But to suggest that they should in place only when
they are on "official biz" is utterly ridiculous. Terrorists and assassins
work 'round the clock. They do not only strike when Presidents and Vice
Presidents are on "official biz."

No doubt if your favorite politician was assassinated while visiting his Aunt
Mathilda in Hoople, North Dakota, you would be outraged if he normally had a
security detail but, because he was not on the job, the detail was back in
DC.

So, you want them to have security, only when they are on official business,
and then only if it is not a personal inconvenience to you? Limitations on
your right to travel are the tip of the iceberg. Your freedom to speak is
also limited. I remember when President Carter visited the Olympic Hotel in
Seattle. Several staff members were given a few weeks off, without pay,
because they had said things critical of Carter. Every guest had to undergo a
background check. Anyone who had ever said anything even remotely threatening
had his reservations canceled. People who had lived in the hotel for years
were evicted because the President clears out not only the floor he is
staying on, but also the floors above and below it.

Presidents who go to ball games have entire sections of seating cleared out
for security purposes. It does not matter if you have had season tickets for
50 years; you're out.

Presidential motorcades close out whole networks of streets and highways,
because the exact route of the motorcade is a secret. If you were counting on
that route to get to your job on time, or even the hospital, tough luck. It
has been that way for more than 40 years. You once wrote a threatening letter
and your office overlooks a potential route? You get to stay home for the
day, without pay. And maybe your boss will fire you because you did not show
up to work.

And then there is the cost of all this security, the money for which is taken
from you every year at gunpoint. But hey, if all you are worried about is
TFRs, no prob, Bro. Just remember you sound a little like a 3 pack a day
smoker worrying about getting cancer from the MSG in a Chinese restaurant.

Google