Pilot runs out of fuel waiting for security clearance

In article , Sydney Hoeltzli
wrote:

Class B and other restricted airspace (and the TCAs which preceded
them) were developed on very rational grounds, using objective
criteria: air traffic volume.

in addition, before 9/11flying thru Class B airspace often was not
much of a problem (with a few exception, like BOS TRACON controllers
not being particularly acommodating)


*Is* a stadium TFR an 'unreasonable restriction on somebody's
freedom'? Depends. If you ask the pilots here, they will say 'Sure!
It's terrible!

The stadium TFRs are objectionable in my view not because they
are unreasonable per se,

A question for you: do you actually think that stadium TFRs
are effective?

--
Bob Noel

Bob Noel wrote:
In article , Sydney Hoeltzli
wrote:
The stadium TFRs are objectionable in my view not because they
are unreasonable per se,

A question for you: do you actually think that stadium TFRs
are effective?

No, of course not. Like other TFRs, they inconvenience law-
abiding folks without posing any effective deterrant to someone
bent upon destruction.

However, I would have to agree that unlike the DC gulag, they
don't pose a particularly onorous burden or restriction upon GA
pilots...PROVIDED information about where the durn things are
and when the TFR is in effect were properly disseminated, instead
of placing the burden of determining this upon the pilot. "You
must follow the rules or you will be punished" "OK, what are the
rules?" "I can't tell you that, you must determine them for
yourself" Aack!

Cheers,
Sydney

"Tom Fleischman" wrote in message
rthlink.net...
In article , Rosspilot
wrote:

I would go so far as to say that he personally may not be aware of
any of these restrictions at all.

That's why I think 300,000 letters sent to the White House bitching
about it
might make an impression. He might actually direct the Secret Service
to back
off on it a little . . .

You don't really think that bozo would actually read those 300,000
letters himself do you? Or even be told about them by his staff if they
were to arrive there? I'd be suprised if he was able to read at all.

Tom and Ross:

That moron made it through Yale and Harvard business school (the fact that
he got in off his surname notwithstanding). He's not as dumb as he appears
to be, nor are his detractors as smart as they believe they are.

-Jonathan

It was all the cocaine he did afterward that rotted his brains...


"Jonathan Birge" wrote in
:

Tom and Ross:

That moron made it through Yale and Harvard business school (the fact
that he got in off his surname notwithstanding). He's not as dumb as he
appears to be, nor are his detractors as smart as they believe they
are.

-Jonathan

"Rosspilot" wrote in message
...
I'd be suprised if he was able to read at all.

His record of flying a jet fighter is ample proof that he can read - and
perform...

his record is that he has the attention span of a gnat.

I'll give you that. So what does it say about the state of the polical left
today that a man with an obvious learning disability and the attention span
of your average second-grader is more popular than a man who was a Rhodes
scholar?

"Jonathan Birge" wrote in message
...
I'll give you that. So what does it say about the state of the polical
left
today that a man with an obvious learning disability and the attention
span
of your average second-grader is more popular than a man who was a Rhodes
scholar?

IMHO, it says as much about the voting public as it says about the
politicians involved.

Sydney Hoeltzli wrote in message ...
Captain Wubba wrote:

Sydney, it's simply reality.

Wubba, despite my tender concern for inducing pac player's
migraines (duly reported on his medical application, no doubt *g*)
I decided I had to answer this.

Many things are and have been "reality", which are not morally,
ethically, or rationally defensible.

Do you truly find it persuasive that one should not argue
against something which falls into one or more of these
indefensible categories, simply because it is current "reality"? snip good stuff

Sydney, an excellent post. You dids left out nothin' ;-) No
sarcasm, no emotionalism; all things considered a very well reasoned
perspective. Although I also like certain elements of Captain Wubba's
position, I must agree especially with your assertion that the
existence of TFR's are not "rationally" disseminated. Thank you, my
migraine has gone away.

Cheers,

pacplyer