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

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 19:33:57 +0100, Mxsmanic
wrote in Message-Id: :

Larry Dighera writes:

Where is this country heading?

Towards a police state. That's where all democracies end up.

It would seem so.

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.


You may be disappointed if you fail, but you are doomed if you don't
try. --Beverly Sills

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 19:35:47 +0100, Mxsmanic
wrote in Message-Id: :

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.

So appropriateness and reasonableness are not required by law.
Terrific! :-(


--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

Larry Dighera writes:

So appropriateness and reasonableness are not required by law.

Worrying about appropriateness and reason would interfere with the War
on Terrorism (formerly the War on Drugs).

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

I posed the question to AOPA, and they told me to contact the
President, so below is the letter I'm about to send. I postponed
sending it, because I see the potential for the government to
_increase_ the TFR-VP to match the TFR-P, without explaining why they
were different sizes in the first place.

If anyone has any suggested modifications, please post 'um.


---------------------------------------------------------------------


Dear Mr. President:

Can you please explain the rationale behind the difference in size
between the presidential and vice presidential Temporary Flight
Restriction areas that follow both of you around the nation when
you travel by air?

If the sizes of the TFRs are based on military patrol aircraft
response time for intruder intercepts, why haven't they been
made the same size?

If the difference in size is politically based, to whom should an
airman voice his dissatisfaction at arbitrary governance of the
National Airspace System?

Best regards,
Larry Dighera


------------------------------------------------------------------------


Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 11:52:20 -0500
From: "Williams, Heidi"
Subject: Question for e-Pilot
X-Originating-IP: [208.27.40.67]
To: '"
Message-id: 1140FCAD8F8E9A41B5234D738B6398B702EA3146@AOPAMAIL

Hello Larry,

Your email was forwarded to those of us in the Air Traffic
Department at AOPA as we routinely work with the FAA and security
agencies.
Unfortunately, I do not have a good answer to your question.
Often the criteria or perimeters for security decisions regarding VIP
movement are not made available to the public. I would suggest you
address your concerns in writing to the:

The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20500

Regards,

Heidi J. Williams
Manager
Air Traffic, Regulatory & Certification Policy


-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Dighera ]
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 5:20 PM
To: ePilot
Subject: Question for e-Pilot


Dear Sirs:

Can you please explain the rationale behind the difference in
size
between the presidential and vice presidential TFRs?

If the sizes of the TFRs are based on military patrol aircraft
response time for intruder intercepts, why aren't they the same
size?

If the difference in size politically based, to whom should an
airman
voice his dissatisfaction?

Best Regards,
Larry Dighera



-------------------------------------------------------------
AOPA ePilot Volume 5, Issue 44 October 31, 2003
-------------------------------------------------------------

Most temporary flight restrictions (TFRs) for presidential
travel have been 60 nm in diameter; the vice president gets
smaller
TFRs. Check AOPA Online (
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/notams.html )
for the latest on these restrictions.









On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:57:24 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote in Message-Id: :

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

Source:
-------------------------------------------------------------
AOPA ePilot Volume 5, Issue 43 October 24, 2003
-------------------------------------------------------------

PRESIDENTIAL TFR FORECAST
Be careful if you'll be flying in Texas next week. Except for a
visit to Dallas next Wednesday, October 29, and a trip to San
Antonio on Thursday, October 30, President Bush is expected to be
at his ranch in Crawford from October 29 through November 3. This
schedule is based on AOPA's best information at this time, and
could change. Most temporary flight restrictions (TFRs) for
presidential travel have been 60 nm in diameter; the vice
president gets a smaller radius. Check AOPA Online
( http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/notams.html ) for the latest on
these restrictions.

Is the VP's TFR radius smaller because the intercepter aircraft
employed in policing that TFR are faster? What prevents the
presidential TFR from being smaller?

Inquiring minds want to know the logic behind the difference in size
between the presidential and vice presidential TFRs.

Aww, don't send 'em that.

They will just make what's 'is names thingy bigger.

On the other hand, they probably won't pay any more attention than they did to my letter. grin

Mike Z

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message ...


I posed the question to AOPA, and they told me to contact the
President, so below is the letter I'm about to send. I postponed
sending it, because I see the potential for the government to
_increase_ the TFR-VP to match the TFR-P, without explaining why they
were different sizes in the first place.

If anyone has any suggested modifications, please post 'um.


---------------------------------------------------------------------


Dear Mr. President:

Can you please explain the rationale behind the difference in size
between the presidential and vice presidential Temporary Flight
Restriction areas that follow both of you around the nation when
you travel by air?

If the sizes of the TFRs are based on military patrol aircraft
response time for intruder intercepts, why haven't they been
made the same size?

If the difference in size is politically based, to whom should an
airman voice his dissatisfaction at arbitrary governance of the
National Airspace System?

Best regards,
Larry Dighera


------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article . net, Mike
Z. wrote:

They will just make what's 'is names thingy bigger.

His wife won't mind.

Larry Dighera writes:

I posed the question to AOPA, and they told me to contact the
President, so below is the letter I'm about to send.

By postal mail, I assume? It's no longer possible to e-mail the
President directly.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

I wouldn't send it. If you are going to address TFRs to the prez, address the
things that are important - to wit, that they don't really accomplish anything,
they hurt the economy, and they are an unnecessary restriction on the very
freedoms that make this country worth defending in the first place.

Aaah, skip that last part. Doubt he'd connect with it.

Jose

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

On 07 Nov 2003 23:37:02 GMT, (Teacherjh)
wrote in Message-Id: :

I wouldn't send it.

After writing it, I contacted AOPA again, and asked what about the
typical size of the vice presidential TFRs. They indicated a 3 to 5
mile radius. For some reason I thought they were considerably larger.

I think it's pretty obvious why they differ in size. I doubt the
TFR-VP has military interceptors circling in it, only Jr. gets that (I
guess). Perhaps the sizes are not so arbitrary after all.

If you are going to address TFRs to the prez, address the
things that are important - to wit, that they don't really accomplish anything,

I'm not so sure that's true. It may not be prudent to discuss they're
effectiveness further in a public forum.

they hurt the economy, and they are an unnecessary restriction on the very
freedoms that make this country worth defending in the first place.

Aaah, skip that last part. Doubt he'd connect with it.