Odd TFR

[blanche cohen]

There's a TFR today over DC for the State of the Union address.
I don't understand why when there's been a massive one in
place for the past 4 years.

[Rachel]

blanche cohen wrote:
> There's a TFR today over DC for the State of the Union address.
> I don't understand why when there's been a massive one in
> place for the past 4 years.

Well, you know, those small GA aircraft are SUCH a security risk.

[John Doe]

"blanche cohen" > wrote in message
...
> There's a TFR today over DC for the State of the Union address.
> I don't understand why when there's been a massive one in
> place for the past 4 years.

It's only for GA aircraft, because as we all know, it's the GA aircraft that
are really the threat. Cause a hijacked airline flying to Reagan couldn't
divert over to Congress.

This is what happens when the FAA just pulls stuff out of their ass.

They have to give the apperance that they're doing something to improve
security, but they can't do something that would actually cause an uproar
from the airline industry.

[Peter R.]

blanche cohen > wrote:

> There's a TFR today over DC for the State of the Union address.
> I don't understand why when there's been a massive one in
> place for the past 4 years.

My understanding is that even GA aircraft on an IFR flight plan cannot fly
into this TFR, which is obviously different than the long standing
VFR-restrictive TFR in place the past five years or so.

--
Peter

[Rachel]

John Doe wrote:
> "blanche cohen" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>There's a TFR today over DC for the State of the Union address.
>>I don't understand why when there's been a massive one in
>>place for the past 4 years.
>
>
> It's only for GA aircraft, because as we all know, it's the GA aircraft that
> are really the threat. Cause a hijacked airline flying to Reagan couldn't
> divert over to Congress.
>
> This is what happens when the FAA just pulls stuff out of their ass.
>
> They have to give the apperance that they're doing something to improve
> security, but they can't do something that would actually cause an uproar
> from the airline industry.

Unfortunately, the appearance works. I work with people (and I work for
an airline!) who think that small aircraft are threats. They were
"relieved" to see a TFR tonight.

[Michael 182]

On 01 Feb 2006 01:09:34 GMT, (blanche cohen) wrote:

>There's a TFR today over DC for the State of the Union address.
>I don't understand why when there's been a massive one in
>place for the past 4 years.

Actually, I think the TFR says a bit about the State of the Union...

[mjt_texas]

What a moron!! I would be willing to bet that a C152 filled with C4
would barely scratch the paint on a major building.

[Jim Logajan]

"mjt_texas" > wrote:
> What a moron!! I would be willing to bet that a C152 filled with C4
> would barely scratch the paint on a major building.

But it might scratch the paint on the C152.

C4 size paper isn't what security people are expecting, so that plan might
just work!

;-)

[Wiz]

Peter: It's complicated, but that's part of the problem. The Flight
Restricted Zone (FRZ) around the White House and Capitol is generally
off limits to GA, whether VFR or IFR. There is sort of an exception
for folks who have been vetted by the TSA and had a background check
including fingerprints, allowing them to fly in or out of the three GA
airports at the edges of the FRZ if they file a flight plan on the
ground by phone with the Leesburg FSS, give a unique PIN, and squawk a
discrete code givent to them. They can't just fly around in the FRZ,
though, only to/from the so-called DC-3 airports in the FRZ. I guess
the additional TFR grounds those flights.

Mark

Peter R. wrote:
> blanche cohen > wrote:
>
> > There's a TFR today over DC for the State of the Union address.
> > I don't understand why when there's been a massive one in
> > place for the past 4 years.
>
> My understanding is that even GA aircraft on an IFR flight plan cannot fly
> into this TFR, which is obviously different than the long standing
> VFR-restrictive TFR in place the past five years or so.
>
> --
> Peter

[Wiz]

Peter: It's complicated, but that's part of the problem. The Flight
Restricted Zone (FRZ) around the White House and Capitol is generally
off limits to GA, whether VFR or IFR. There is sort of an exception
for folks who have been vetted by the TSA and had a background check
including fingerprints, allowing them to fly in or out of the three GA
airports at the edges of the FRZ if they file a flight plan on the
ground by phone with the Leesburg FSS, give a unique PIN, and squawk a
discrete code given to them. They can't just fly around in the FRZ,
though, only to/from the so-called DC-3 airports in the FRZ. I guess
the additional TFR grounds those flights.

Mark

Peter R. wrote:
> blanche cohen > wrote:
>
> > There's a TFR today over DC for the State of the Union address.
> > I don't understand why when there's been a massive one in
> > place for the past 4 years.
>
> My understanding is that even GA aircraft on an IFR flight plan cannot fly
> into this TFR, which is obviously different than the long standing
> VFR-restrictive TFR in place the past five years or so.
>
> --
> Peter

[Dave Stadt]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> blanche cohen > wrote:
>
>> There's a TFR today over DC for the State of the Union address.
>> I don't understand why when there's been a massive one in
>> place for the past 4 years.
>
> My understanding is that even GA aircraft on an IFR flight plan cannot fly
> into this TFR, which is obviously different than the long standing
> VFR-restrictive TFR in place the past five years or so.
>
> --
> Peter

Yes, only airliners weighing hundreds of thousands of pounds are allowed to
fly within a couple miles of the capitol.

[Jay Beckman]

"Michael 182" > wrote in
message ...
> On 01 Feb 2006 01:09:34 GMT, (blanche cohen) wrote:
>
>>There's a TFR today over DC for the State of the Union address.
>>I don't understand why when there's been a massive one in
>>place for the past 4 years.
>
> Actually, I think the TFR says a bit about the State of the Union...

Amen...

Jay B

[JohnH]

> Actually, I think the TFR says a bit about the State of the Union...

Word.

[Grumman-581]

"Michael 182" wrote in message
...
> Actually, I think the TFR says a bit about the State of the Union...

Yeah, but they are so afraid of getting bad PR, they didn't follow my
suggestion and just nuke the camel ****in' Bedoins to start with...

[John Theune]

blanche cohen wrote:
> There's a TFR today over DC for the State of the Union address.
> I don't understand why when there's been a massive one in
> place for the past 4 years.
While I don't agree in the need for the ADIZ, I think in this case it's
more justified then normal. The entire leadership of our country ( Both
sides )is in one building for the sotu and it's a good idea to ratchet
up security for that event. It's only 4 hours and if it were not for
the ADIZ I don't think anyone would complain about it. While the risk
of a light plane actually doing any damage is small, let's face it, you
could load 500 pounds or so of high explosive into a 172 and that would
make a fairly big hole in the capital building. I think that preventing
that kind of attack should start way before the plane gets in the air,
but for a short amount of time closing the airspace does make sense.
The security on commercial aircraft now makes the possibility of another
911 attack remote but that level of screening and airmarshalls just does
not exist for GA. Let's not over react to reasonable measures just
because they are over shadowed by un reasonable ones.

[john smith]

> While I don't agree in the need for the ADIZ, I think in this case it's
> more justified then normal. The entire leadership of our country ( Both
> sides )is in one building for the sotu and it's a good idea to ratchet
> up security for that event.

Which doesn't mean anything since we would elect new ones within 30 days.
There is no reason for everyone to gather except for a media event
(marketing by the political parties).
The constitution says something about the president going before
congress, by that can be done electronically, the same as he/she does
when going before the American public.
The State of the Union would possibly be shorter because there would be
no delays for choreographed applause.

[Rachel]

John Theune wrote:
> blanche cohen wrote:
>
>> There's a TFR today over DC for the State of the Union address.
>> I don't understand why when there's been a massive one in
>> place for the past 4 years.
>
> While I don't agree in the need for the ADIZ, I think in this case it's
> more justified then normal. The entire leadership of our country ( Both
> sides )is in one building for the sotu and it's a good idea to ratchet
> up security for that event. It's only 4 hours and if it were not for
> the ADIZ I don't think anyone would complain about it. While the risk
> of a light plane actually doing any damage is small, let's face it, you
> could load 500 pounds or so of high explosive into a 172 and that would
> make a fairly big hole in the capital building. I think that preventing
> that kind of attack should start way before the plane gets in the air,
> but for a short amount of time closing the airspace does make sense. The
> security on commercial aircraft now makes the possibility of another 911
> attack remote but that level of screening and airmarshalls just does not
> exist for GA. Let's not over react to reasonable measures just because
> they are over shadowed by un reasonable ones.

Sure, a light plane might poke a hole in a builing. Maybe. But as
fuzzy as my memory is, I remember a couple heavy airliners doing a lot
more damage a few years ago. Yet no one is calling for airline traffic
to be disrupted into the area. Why?

[Dave Stadt]

"John Theune" > wrote in message
news:dy1Ef.17365$K17.121@trnddc03...
> blanche cohen wrote:
>> There's a TFR today over DC for the State of the Union address.
>> I don't understand why when there's been a massive one in
>> place for the past 4 years.
> While I don't agree in the need for the ADIZ, I think in this case it's
> more justified then normal. The entire leadership of our country ( Both
> sides )is in one building for the sotu and it's a good idea to ratchet up
> security for that event. It's only 4 hours and if it were not for the
> ADIZ I don't think anyone would complain about it. While the risk of a
> light plane actually doing any damage is small, let's face it, you could
> load 500 pounds or so of high explosive into a 172 and that would make a
> fairly big hole in the capital building. I think that preventing that
> kind of attack should start way before the plane gets in the air, but for
> a short amount of time closing the airspace does make sense. The security
> on commercial aircraft now makes the possibility of another 911 attack
> remote but that level of screening and airmarshalls just does not exist
> for GA. Let's not over react to reasonable measures just because they are
> over shadowed by un reasonable ones.

Airline security.....you must be living in a dream world. There is no such
thing as airline security. Lotsa window dressing but no real security.

[John Theune]

Rachel wrote:
> John Theune wrote:
>
>> blanche cohen wrote:
>>
>>> There's a TFR today over DC for the State of the Union address.
>>> I don't understand why when there's been a massive one in
>>> place for the past 4 years.
>>
>>
>> While I don't agree in the need for the ADIZ, I think in this case
>> it's more justified then normal. The entire leadership of our country
>> ( Both sides )is in one building for the sotu and it's a good idea to
>> ratchet up security for that event. It's only 4 hours and if it were
>> not for the ADIZ I don't think anyone would complain about it. While
>> the risk of a light plane actually doing any damage is small, let's
>> face it, you could load 500 pounds or so of high explosive into a 172
>> and that would make a fairly big hole in the capital building. I
>> think that preventing that kind of attack should start way before the
>> plane gets in the air, but for a short amount of time closing the
>> airspace does make sense. The security on commercial aircraft now
>> makes the possibility of another 911 attack remote but that level of
>> screening and airmarshalls just does not exist for GA. Let's not over
>> react to reasonable measures just because they are over shadowed by un
>> reasonable ones.
>
>
> Sure, a light plane might poke a hole in a builing. Maybe. But as
> fuzzy as my memory is, I remember a couple heavy airliners doing a lot
> more damage a few years ago. Yet no one is calling for airline traffic
> to be disrupted into the area. Why?
Rachel;
Did you read my post? Let's face it, you can turn a 172 into a cruise
missile like device. It's not very likely and the solution to that
problem should not be to close the airspace all the time, but for a
special occasion like the SOTU where all the leadership of both parties
are in a single building, then it does make sense to try to make it as
secure as possible. GA is never going to convince the rest of the world
that we are being unfairly picked on unless we show that we can live
with reasonable restrictions and I don't think closing the airspace
around DC for 4 HOURs is unreasonable.

[John Theune]

john smith wrote:
>>While I don't agree in the need for the ADIZ, I think in this case it's
>>more justified then normal. The entire leadership of our country ( Both
>>sides )is in one building for the sotu and it's a good idea to ratchet
>>up security for that event.
>
>
> Which doesn't mean anything since we would elect new ones within 30 days.
> There is no reason for everyone to gather except for a media event
> (marketing by the political parties).
> The constitution says something about the president going before
> congress, by that can be done electronically, the same as he/she does
> when going before the American public.
> The State of the Union would possibly be shorter because there would be
> no delays for choreographed applause.
and given the worst case scenario of all the likely candidates dying in
one attack, just where will you find the new leaders?

[Dave Stadt]

"John Theune" > wrote in message
news:pE3Ef.16060$oo1.9910@trnddc02...
> john smith wrote:
>>>While I don't agree in the need for the ADIZ, I think in this case it's
>>>more justified then normal. The entire leadership of our country ( Both
>>>sides )is in one building for the sotu and it's a good idea to ratchet up
>>>security for that event.
>>
>>
>> Which doesn't mean anything since we would elect new ones within 30 days.
>> There is no reason for everyone to gather except for a media event
>> (marketing by the political parties).
>> The constitution says something about the president going before
>> congress, by that can be done electronically, the same as he/she does
>> when going before the American public.
>> The State of the Union would possibly be shorter because there would be
>> no delays for choreographed applause.
> and given the worst case scenario of all the likely candidates dying in
> one attack, just where will you find the new leaders?

Just about anywhere and everywhere. Wannabe politicians are as rare as
dirt. We have at least 7 hats in the ring for governor.

[Montblack]

("Dave Stadt" wrote)
> Just about anywhere and everywhere. Wannabe politicians are as rare as
> dirt. We have at least 7 hats in the ring for governor.


This guy has been interviewed on radio, TV, in newspapers ...now he's going
to jail.

http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/s13379.html
You can't make this stuff up.

http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S13863.html?cat=1
Oops. Off to jail son. Bad Impaler. Bad.

http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/s13470.html
However, his witchy wife has a strong case, IMHO. $$$$$


Montblack
Great, another grappler in the Governor's mansion.

[Grumman-581]

"John Theune" > wrote in message
news:EC3Ef.16059$oo1.2926@trnddc02...
>GA is never going to convince the rest of the world
> that we are being unfairly picked on unless we show
> that we can live with reasonable restrictions and I
> don't think closing the airspace around DC for 4
> HOURs is unreasonable.

GA is going to learn the same thing that gun owners have learned over the
years... Compromise never ends and once you've given up part of your right,
it's next to impossible to get it back... The anti-GA people won't be happy
until they have gotten all of us out of the sky... Every concession that we
make are just getting us closer to this condition...

[Grumman-581]

"John Theune" > wrote in message
news:pE3Ef.16060$oo1.9910@trnddc02...
> and given the worst case scenario of all the likely candidates dying in
> one attack, just where will you find the new leaders?

From the various states, their governors, legislatures, etc... The country
would go on...

[Blanche]

John Theune > wrote:
>blanche cohen wrote:
>> There's a TFR today over DC for the State of the Union address.
>> I don't understand why when there's been a massive one in
>> place for the past 4 years.

>not exist for GA. Let's not over react to reasonable measures just
>because they are over shadowed by un reasonable ones.

John -- I wasn't overreacting, I was trying to understand the
the difference between this short-term TFR and the ADIX/FRZ in general.

[Grumman-581]

"Martin Hotze" wrote in message ...
> And how do you know that they are screwing camels?

Are you saying that you have some sort of firsthand knowledge that they
prefer sheep?

[Dave Stadt]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
> "John Theune" > wrote in message
> news:pE3Ef.16060$oo1.9910@trnddc02...
>> and given the worst case scenario of all the likely candidates dying in
>> one attack, just where will you find the new leaders?
>
> From the various states, their governors, legislatures, etc... The country
> would go on...


Certain politicians do not attend the State of The Union Message for the
very reason that if something were to happen there would still be small but
functioning government.

[Rachel]

John Theune wrote:
> Rachel wrote:
>
>> John Theune wrote:
>>
>>> blanche cohen wrote:
>>>
>>>> There's a TFR today over DC for the State of the Union address.
>>>> I don't understand why when there's been a massive one in
>>>> place for the past 4 years.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> While I don't agree in the need for the ADIZ, I think in this case
>>> it's more justified then normal. The entire leadership of our
>>> country ( Both sides )is in one building for the sotu and it's a good
>>> idea to ratchet up security for that event. It's only 4 hours and if
>>> it were not for the ADIZ I don't think anyone would complain about
>>> it. While the risk of a light plane actually doing any damage is
>>> small, let's face it, you could load 500 pounds or so of high
>>> explosive into a 172 and that would make a fairly big hole in the
>>> capital building. I think that preventing that kind of attack should
>>> start way before the plane gets in the air, but for a short amount of
>>> time closing the airspace does make sense. The security on commercial
>>> aircraft now makes the possibility of another 911 attack remote but
>>> that level of screening and airmarshalls just does not exist for GA.
>>> Let's not over react to reasonable measures just because they are
>>> over shadowed by un reasonable ones.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sure, a light plane might poke a hole in a builing. Maybe. But as
>> fuzzy as my memory is, I remember a couple heavy airliners doing a lot
>> more damage a few years ago. Yet no one is calling for airline
>> traffic to be disrupted into the area. Why?
>
> Rachel;
> Did you read my post? Let's face it, you can turn a 172 into a cruise
> missile like device. It's not very likely and the solution to that
> problem should not be to close the airspace all the time, but for a
> special occasion like the SOTU where all the leadership of both parties
> are in a single building, then it does make sense to try to make it as
> secure as possible. GA is never going to convince the rest of the world
> that we are being unfairly picked on unless we show that we can live
> with reasonable restrictions and I don't think closing the airspace
> around DC for 4 HOURs is unreasonable.

I did read your post. I still believe that GA is being singled out.
Why is airline traffic allowed to continue when small aircraft are not?
It's been demonstrated that large aircraft, on IFR flight plans, are a
risk.

[Darrell S]

Rachel wrote:
> blanche cohen wrote:
>> There's a TFR today over DC for the State of the Union address.
>> I don't understand why when there's been a massive one in
>> place for the past 4 years.
>
> Well, you know, those small GA aircraft are SUCH a security risk.

How about big, jet powered, GA aircraft?

--

Darrell R. Schmidt
B-58 Hustler History: http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/
-

[Rachel]

Darrell S wrote:
> Rachel wrote:
>
>>blanche cohen wrote:
>>
>>>There's a TFR today over DC for the State of the Union address.
>>>I don't understand why when there's been a massive one in
>>>place for the past 4 years.
>>
>>Well, you know, those small GA aircraft are SUCH a security risk.
>
>
> How about big, jet powered, GA aircraft?

It was sarcasm.

Personally, I think it's funny that a 737 under operated under part 91
is banned, but allowed under 121. Just strange.

[Roy Smith]

Dave Stadt > wrote:
> Certain politicians do not attend the State of The Union Message for the
> very reason that if something were to happen there would still be small but
> functioning government.

I once interviewed for a job in the financial world that had the same
deal. Every employee was required to work from home one day a week,
to ensure that there would be something left of the company should the
office be attacked.

It is also very common for companies to forbid more than N officers
(or X% of any department) to fly on the same airline flight.

[john smith]

> and given the worst case scenario of all the likely candidates dying in
> one attack, just where will you find the new leaders?

What makes you think there is a shortage of wannabe politicians?

[Ron Lee]

John Theune > wrote:

>and given the worst case scenario of all the likely candidates dying in
>one attack, just where will you find the new leaders?

John, I could do much better than many of the congressmen/senators.
And I would be ethical.

Ron Lee

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John Theune" > wrote in message
news:EC3Ef.16059$oo1.2926@trnddc02...
>
> Let's face it, you can turn a 172 into a cruise
> missile like device. It's not very likely and the solution to that
> problem should not be to close the airspace all the time, but for a
> special occasion like the SOTU where all the leadership of both parties
> are in a single building, then it does make sense to try to make it as
> secure as possible. GA is never going to convince the rest of the world
> that we are being unfairly picked on unless we show that we can live with
> reasonable restrictions and I don't think closing the airspace around DC
> for 4 HOURs is unreasonable.
>

And just how do these TFRs make the airspace as secure as possible?

[John Theune]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "John Theune" > wrote in message
> news:EC3Ef.16059$oo1.2926@trnddc02...
>
>>Let's face it, you can turn a 172 into a cruise
>>missile like device. It's not very likely and the solution to that
>>problem should not be to close the airspace all the time, but for a
>>special occasion like the SOTU where all the leadership of both parties
>>are in a single building, then it does make sense to try to make it as
>>secure as possible. GA is never going to convince the rest of the world
>>that we are being unfairly picked on unless we show that we can live with
>>reasonable restrictions and I don't think closing the airspace around DC
>>for 4 HOURs is unreasonable.
>>
>
>
> And just how do these TFRs make the airspace as secure as possible?
>
>
Simple, if you in the TFR then you are a threat and can be dealt with.
How they choose to deal with the threat is another story. The current
ADIZ is not at all secure, since anyone can call and file a ADIZ flight
plan. The current method has all of the problems and none of the gains
for controlling airspace. Except it make the general population feel
better.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John Theune" > wrote in message
news:eCmEf.90824$M94.10477@trnddc01...
>
>Simple, if you in the TFR then you are a threat and can be dealt with. How
> they choose to deal with the threat is another story.
>

How are they dealt with?