TFRs are a JOKE!

[Flylo]

TFR's are a JOKE!!


Am I wrong?

Isn't the chance of stopping an airplane capable of doing any significant damage, such as an airliner, practically zero? How are you going to prevent something that is going as slow as 200 mph from reaching it's target inside a 3 nm radius TFR ( or 15 nm for that matter) unless you've got missles trained and ready or F16's in the air on alert? What if they're going 350 or 400 mph?

If you're going to try something with a little GA airplane are you going to climb up to 10,000 ft. where everybody can see you? Of course not, you're going to hug the ground until you get to your target. And besides, I'll bet you could load a 172 with all the C4 it would carry and hit the middle of Disney World on Sunday afternoon and not kill as many people as are going to die on the highway on the way home anyhow!

Give us a freakin' break!! All these two-bit TFR's do is make everybody miserable and give the press and the control Nazis something to bitch about when a little C150 accidently busts one.

Thus endeth the rant.

 

[avbug]

Temporary Flight Restrictions are not a joke. As one who's had his life endagered more than a few times by slaphappy weekend warriors who don't check NOTAMs or feel that a TFR doesn't apply to them, I believe inadvertant penetration (of a TFR) is a big deal.

Does a flight restriction keep someone out? Of course not. But it's part of a whole. It's part of the national airspace system. As we lack force fields and giant bat-nets, we designate airspace.

Does the fact that the pca/class a airspace starts at 18,000 keep you out if you decide to buzz up there VFR? Nope. Does Class B keep people out who don't have a clearance? No. But that's not really the point, is it?

It's an airspace restriction, not an impenetrable shield.

Within my protection district, to which I am under contract, I have the biggest chemical/biological weapon storage facility in the world, a nuclear waste storage facility, a hazmat disposal site, an indian reservation, a military development and test facility, and two state parks.

Some of those places have specific flight restrictions that are applicable to them, and I have a waiver because of my operations to fly in those restricted areas.

However, those restrictions, and the importance of those facilities, didn't keep people from buzzing low over gun emplacements there last year, nor from dropping parachutists into the perimeter of the weapons facility before wisking them away in a van.

What it does mean is that at least one of those airplanes nearly got shot down. It also means that if some nimrod in a rented Cessna decides not to take the flight restriction seriously, it can result in a very detrimental effect for the rest of the flying public, and indeed the industry. So are they a joke? No, they're not.

When I was flying air attack on fires, I would occasionally intercept an airplane flying in the TFR, and escort them out, and then proceed with forwarding their information and a report for enforcement action against that pilot. It was no joke, either. Some of the closest calls I've had have been jokers busting a TFR.

By logic, when a flight restriction exists, any aircraft approaching or encroaching on that TFR who are non-participatory may be considered a threat.

Be greatful that most TFR's are as small as they are. These are hardly a big threat or problem, but failure to take them seriously certainly can be.

The security measures in place, and the NAS efforts to support them, are transitory. These things are hardly permenant (hence, "temporary" flight restrictions). But that doesn't make them any less important, or significant.

 

[ShawnC]

Avbug,

Relax a bit, I think be means the stupid Mickey Mouse types TFRs. The ones over the stadiums that even banner towers are not allowed to get waivers for. The ones that allow Part 121, and 135 traffic but not part 91.

 

[172driver]

I think the point was not whether or not we should take TFR's seriously, but whether they provide any additional security. I think they would have to be much larger than they are now to provide any protection for the reasons the original poster gave. Of course, none of us want that.

This begs the question, why should we have to put up with the inconvenience that TFR's pose. The answer, I believe, is public perception.

 

[avbug]

It's all a matter of perception, and I'm quite aware of the restrictions to which Flylo referred.

I discussed this briefly with Mr. Boyer from AOPA last night. He opined that we would have to agree to disagree on the generality of the subject, but did stipulate that the primary value of the TFR is perception.

If 30 terrorists in 30 states elect to carry out a coordinated strike using 30 light single engine airplanes, we can anticipate that collateral damage will be minimal. Perhaps virtually non-existant. In all liklihood, light airplanes will simply bounce off targets.

But that isn't really the point, is it? It's psychological...hence the designation terrorist. It's all perception. It's not the actual damage that can be done. Let's face it...in many countries more people die of starvation at any one time than we lost in the WTC and Pentagon strikes combined. It's not about numbers or dollars, it's about the ultimate effect.

We aren't simply attempting to prevent damage. We're attempting to curb terror. There is a big difference.

We cannot gaurd every little airport. We cannot stop every moving van, or put up massive impenetrable barriers to stop all air, road, rail, or water traffic. Nor should we attempt to do so. What we can do is refuse to let the small guerilla efforts do what they're designed to do...cause terror.

Public perception is a very big part of the equation. We don't only need to be safe, but to convince the public that we're safe. I can be the nicest guy in the world, but if mary jane's parents don't think so, what's the use? It's perception. Honoring and supporting those minor "inconveniences" is a duty and a protection to your flying privileges. Take them very seriously; they are no frivolous matter.

A terrorist strike using light airplanes would do little actual damage. But the fall out in terms of restrictions, stoppage of flights, closures of airports grounding of airplanes, harsh limiting of airmen privileges, and restrictions to air commerce and subsequent ground commerce, would be staggering. Accordingly, it's not just about stopping a few muslim male arabs between the ages of eighteen and twenty six...it's about assauging the fears of millions of US citizens. If a simple effort such as the establishment of a few temporary restrictions serves that end, then we all benifit.

 

[ShawnC]

The problem is that the government is run by many people that don't understand aviation, and will aggressively push for these TFRs. At the same time the pilots groups need to push for the opposite. Eventually we will find a nice middle ground.

I think that the TFRs should become more temporary in nature based on specific threats. I think the government needs a graphical TFR distribution system (a description based upon VOR radials and DMEs isn't enough for the weekend warrior pilot). I think pilots should start making it a habit to call for a briefing, less than 2 before their flight.

And I think that we need to kill every dam terrorists that we can and roast them in pig fat.

Edit: Forgot that dam was censored.

 

[Cardinal]

www.duats.com now offers a link to graphical TFRs.

 

[avbug]

The problem is that not all the TFR's are included.

Jeppesen came up with software and a soloution to this, which the Administrator gladly accepted. However, the concept was boycotted and prevented by the powers that be by asserting the concept that nobody will have access to this material until every AFSS is provided with it, first. As the AFSS computer system is still in need up modernization, that's been the holdup in what would have been a very rapid, timely delivery of TFR information.

It's been over a year now, and it's still not on line. Considering that some TFR's are anounced only a few hours before taking effect, and that the information isn't always available for equal disemination, the problem isn't nearly the TFR's, as the availability of the information.

As Mr. Boyer pointed out, when he was approached by the FAA, he was told at one point of the former TFR's surrounding nuclear power stations. He said fine, just give me the coordinates and we'll disseminate that information for everybody. Can't do that, he was told. The coordinates are classified. Therein lies the true problem. Bureaucracy hinders common sense.

 

[qwerty]

"When I was flying air attack on fires, I would occasionally intercept an airplane flying in the TFR, and escort them out, and then proceed with forwarding their information and a report for enforcement action against that pilot. "

just in case anyone missed that

 

[ShawnC]

The problem is that not all the TFR's are included.

As Mr. Boyer pointed out, when he was approached by the FAA, he was told at one point of the former TFR's surrounding nuclear power stations. He said fine, just give me the coordinates and we'll disseminate that information for everybody. Can't do that, he was told. The coordinates are classified. Therein lies the true problem. Bureaucracy hinders common sense.

That's exactly the attitude that I have a problem with. I was talking to a news person about the Shuttle launches, and she wondered why they weren't kept secret, and when they went up, they went up. I explained to her about the activation of the restricted areas, and the 30mile TFR. And she asked, why can't they just have ATC, just vector us around it. I tried to explain the idea that not all traffic talks to ATC. She just wouldn't get that though her thick skull, eventually I justed nodded and moved away to talk to someone else.

The fact is that we need to make sure that people like that stay out of the decision making process in aviation. People need to realize that most of the information that is classified actually isn't and can be easily compiled on the internet.