If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
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, |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
In article . net, Mike
Z. wrote: They will just make what's 'is names thingy bigger. His wife won't mind. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Lockheed developing smaller Stand-Off Weapons | Eric Moore | Military Aviation | 1 | July 22nd 04 06:46 AM |
Are the Israelis using smaller Hellfire warheads? | Yeff | Military Aviation | 18 | April 22nd 04 10:07 PM |
Reasoning behind course reversal | Michael 182 | Instrument Flight Rules | 26 | February 27th 04 03:27 PM |
Minimum bending radius for 0.050" 6061-T6? | Bob Chilcoat | Home Built | 11 | February 5th 04 04:59 PM |
FORMATIONS, BOMB RUNS AND RADIUS OF ACTION | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 0 | August 10th 03 02:22 AM |