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

"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.

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.

"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

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.

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

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,

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.

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.

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

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?