![]() |
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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
What is the reason for the TFRs West of Seattle? I overflew then the
other day (above the TFR altitude) and there didn't appear to be anything interesting down there. Its really, really sad when a TFR is so old, they start putting it on the sectional. Makes it hard to continue to call it "temporary". -Robert |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
m... What is the reason for the TFRs West of Seattle? I overflew then the other day (above the TFR altitude) and there didn't appear to be anything interesting down there. Its really, really sad when a TFR is so old, they start putting it on the sectional. Makes it hard to continue to call it "temporary". Officially? The terrorist threat requires them so that those guarding the sites don't have to concern themselves with regular traffic. Rumor? The Navy has been wanting restricted areas around their installations for years, and since 9/11 has found an excuse to get them. As with all of the other TFRs, it's not like the four in the Puget Sound area actually accomplish anything. If you wanted to do harm with an airplane, the TFRs wouldn't stop you (no reasonable protected airspace would). There are four in the Seattle area. I'm not sure which one(s) you're referring to. The southern-most one "protects" the Bremerton Navy shipyard. The largest one, north of Bremerton, "protects" the Bangor submarine base. There's another one further north and just east of Port Townsend (Jefferson County Airport) "protecting" some sort of munitions depot, as I understand it. The ironic thing about that third one is that I, and nearly everyone else I know, had no idea there was any Navy property there until the TFR appeared. The only people who did know were boaters, and all they knew was that they were required to remain a certain distance from shore (100 yards, I think...there are big signs along the shoreline there). The fourth one is just north and east of Paine Field, over the Everett waterfront. That's the Navy's Everett "home port". On the bright side, six months ago they significantly reduced the size of the TFRs -- the one over the Everett home port is now so small that you might have a hard time flying through it even if you meant to -- and of course, now that they are charted, we don't have to keep hand-drawing the areas in. I agree with your thoughts regarding the incongruous name "temporary", but of course to the FAA and the TSA, "temporary" is just a name. It doesn't really mean anything, except to reference the particular part of the FARs authorizing TFRs. As far as them putting them on the sectional goes, it's my opinion that they should have been charting them from the outset, as soon as they realized the TFRs would still exist at a single chart revision. Even if they were more literally "temporary" (and truthfully, the definition of temporary does not necessarily imply a short calendar time...after all, the last Ice Age was temporary ![]() everything that is known and relevant to flight and which can be shown in a practical way. Pete |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
What is the reason for the TFRs West of Seattle?
Is it near Microsoft? "Caution - large deviations from reality can be encountered below 18,000 feet in this area". flee! Jose -- (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Robert M. Gary" wrote: Makes it hard to continue to call it "temporary". The Navy is hard at work trying to make them permanent. George Patterson In Idaho, tossing a rattlesnake into a crowded room is felony assault. In Tennessee, it's evangelism. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Yep see http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2004/03awa7.txt &
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...628bangor.html "G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message ... "Robert M. Gary" wrote: Makes it hard to continue to call it "temporary". The Navy is hard at work trying to make them permanent. George Patterson In Idaho, tossing a rattlesnake into a crowded room is felony assault. In Tennessee, it's evangelism. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() TFR really means "Terrorist Flight Restriction." Terrorists aren't allowed to fly in those areas. So, if you're a terrorist and you're thinking about flying into that airspace, you better not. It's restricted. -c "Robert M. Gary" wrote in message m... What is the reason for the TFRs West of Seattle? I overflew then the other day (above the TFR altitude) and there didn't appear to be anything interesting down there. Its really, really sad when a TFR is so old, they start putting it on the sectional. Makes it hard to continue to call it "temporary". -Robert |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Puget Sound TFRs reduced in size - charted here | David H | Owning | 3 | January 10th 04 06:01 AM |
Puget Sound TFRs reduced in size, turned into National Security Areas | C J Campbell | Piloting | 4 | January 10th 04 06:01 AM |
New Year's Eve / Day TFRs 2003 / 2004 | Guy Elden Jr. | Piloting | 10 | January 1st 04 11:55 PM |
Concorde Lands at Museum of Flight in Seattle | [email protected] | Owning | 0 | November 6th 03 12:15 AM |
Presidential TFR violations in Seattle? | C J Campbell | Piloting | 16 | August 26th 03 03:34 PM |