New Sectional and....

The new Seattle sectional and terminal chart have the TFR's mapped. I guess
they are here to stay.

Karl
"Curator" N185KG

"kage" wrote in message
...

The new Seattle sectional and terminal chart have the TFR's mapped. I
guess
they are here to stay.


Then they'll have to change the nomenclature.

kage wrote:

The new Seattle sectional and terminal chart have the TFR's mapped. I
guess they are here to stay.

That may be partly a result of the furor over the DC ADIZ not being mapped.
While I agree that printing the "T"FR's on the sectionals makes them a bit
less "temporary", they aren't made permanent simply by being printed.

Keep working the system to get them eliminated.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://pocketgear.com/products_searc...veloperid=4415
____________________

"John T" wrote in message
ws.com...

That may be partly a result of the furor over the DC ADIZ not being
mapped.
While I agree that printing the "T"FR's on the sectionals makes them a bit
less "temporary", they aren't made permanent simply by being printed.

Keep working the system to get them eliminated.


They wouldn't print them if they planned to eliminate them.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
news
They wouldn't print them if they planned to eliminate them.

Baloney. Temporary airspace has been charted in the past and subsequently
eliminated, and there's no reason to think that charting it today
necessarily means there's no eventual plan to eliminate the temporary
airspace charted now.

At best, charting the airspace suggests that they expect it to remain at
least another six months, and even that is being generous, since it's easy
enough to tell pilots "you know that airspace on the chart? well, no need
to worry about it anymore".

Frankly, I think it's ridiculous that it's taken so long for the TFRs to get
charted.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

Baloney. Temporary airspace has been charted in the past and subsequently
eliminated, and there's no reason to think that charting it today
necessarily means there's no eventual plan to eliminate the temporary
airspace charted now.


Give me some examples.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...
Give me some examples.

Airspace changes around Atlanta for the Olympics would be one.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

Airspace changes around Atlanta for the Olympics would be one.


Can you post a link to the chart? Is that the only example you have?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...
Can you post a link to the chart? Is that the only example you have?

I don't even need one example. Your statement is without foundation
regardless. You don't really think you could prove that "They wouldn't
print them if they planned to eliminate them", do you?

I offered one example, which is well-enough documented should you really
care to look it up yourself. That's sufficient as counter-proof.

That said, if I still remember when it's time to dig out all my old aviation
charts, I'll be happy to scan and post to the web the chart in question.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

I don't even need one example. Your statement is without foundation
regardless. You don't really think you could prove that "They wouldn't
print them if they planned to eliminate them", do you?


What I stated was simple logic. These "temporary" restrictions have been in
place, uncharted, for years. They're being charted because they're being
made permanent.