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.

 

[tarp]

I agree with both Flylo AND Avbug!!!

TFR's are not a joke - they are a specific regulation found in our set of aviation rules provided to protect people inside the "temporary" area. It is incumbent (obligatory) upon me to read the NOTAMS and stay out of this area.

HOWEVER, the new TSA/HSA/FAA cooperative have created semi-permanent TFR's and are abusing the regulation in the name of "security". This cheapens or diminishes the effect of the TFR. There are now so many TFR's that it has numbed us to the fact that an important TFR exists. Last summer, the FAA ignored a ton of forest fire TFR violations over the Shenandoah because there were so many people violating the Camp David and Wash DC security TFR's. This is the equivalent of GM creating "daytime running lights" on their cars. Have you seen a fire truck lately? Yep, there are literally hundreds of lights flashing and blinking - why? - because people became so accustomed to lights on the highway that they simply don't "notice" the fire trucks coming at them.

So both authors are right. A TFR does nothing in the way of National Security. A bad guy will not follow the letter of the law and will find a way to deliver his terrorist message. A TFR is very important to firefighters, medical rescuers and the police on very limited and specific missions that require the TFR rule to be active. The President has his own TFR rule 91.141, but 91.137 is a very important rule.

I have to fly in and around the Washington ADIZ and near the sides of both the Washington TFR and the ever changing Camp David TFR around the already steadfast Prohibited Area (P-40)!!

As to the terrorists and the fear of terrorism and the mayhem it produces. Well let's see. An idiot steals a Bonanza, packs it full of explosives, flys to downtown DC and maybe takes out a building the size of a McDonald's Restaurant. The police and media go into a panic - how can this happen, etc, etc. People fear little planes and shut us down for a period of time. Or, we let the Secret Service and Homeland Security put all these administrative rules in that prevent people from using their airplanes. In the Washington DC area, nobody flys any more. My plane sits for days and days. Why? Too much hassle to go flying. Where I'm situated I can basically fly east and west but my North and South corridors are shut down by TFR's, ADIZ, Restricted Areas (that are now always hot). So I'm not flying. So did good people living in a "free" society win or did the terrorists? Right now, the terrorists have the advantage and my airplane has been devalued.

So flylo, you are right all these new "security" TFR's are a joke. We need to rescind them so that avbug can be safe fighting fires! Peace.

 

[DC4boy]

TFR's are not a joke! We had a 172 pop into our TFR yesterday in southwest AZ, that scared the crap out of me. If TFR's are such an incovienence to you, maybe you should slow down and assess your situations. Like it or not, they are there for a reason and a **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** good one at that.


Staring off kinda slow Avbug.

 

[Rush Limbaugh]

"A TFR does nothing in the way of National Security. A bad guy will not follow the letter of the law and will find a way to deliver his terrorist message."

Good post Tarp but that statement is absolutely not true. I personally don't care how many of the radical idiot terrorists kill themselves delivering their "message". They can deliver it all day long and I don't have a problem with it until they start killing Americans.

A TFR will not stop a terrorist from carrying out an attack but it will give some warning to those on the ground of an impending attack. That warning, while small, may be enough time time to get some people out of the frag pattern.

Would we have still lost some people at the WTC if we had a couple minutes warning that they were being targeted? Of course we would have but the real question is how many people would have been saved because I guarantee you there would have been some with even a minute of warning.

As a pilot, dealing with TFR's and actually having to read and understand the NOTAM's is a small price to pay to save one American life from a terrorist attack.

Tarp, I personally don't care that your airplane has been devalued or that you have to deal with more restrictions when you fly. The day we as a nation put more of a priority on your airplane or your flying privilege than saving lives from terrorism, the terrorists will have free reign over our country and will have won.

 

[ShawnC]

A TFR will not stop a terrorist from carrying out an attack but it will give some warning to those on the ground of an impending attack. That warning, while small, may be enough time time to get some people out of the frag pattern.

As a pilot, dealing with TFR's and actually having to read and understand the NOTAM's is a small price to pay to save one American life from a terrorist attack.

That's BS and you know it. How much warning would a 3nm, 3000ft TFR give the folks at Disney, or Chicago? What evacuate if it even looks like they are going to violate it? The only aircraft that poses a real threat are jet aircraft, those are often exempt from those TFR since they operate in Part 121 and 135. But even a C172 can violate that TFR in a matter of minutes and hit it's target.

Frankly the TFRs are becoming less temporary in nature, and not being based on any credible threats anymore. Frankly a majority of these National Security TFRs need to be eliminated are a joke, and need to be removed unless there is a specific and credible threat.

 

[ShawnC]

I should add that these feel good TFR seem to be doing the opposite to me. They think that these TFRs prove that GA is dangerous, and should be restricted more.

 

[Rush Limbaugh]

Well Mr. C, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. You can also think of it in terms of awareness. How aware are you when you are somewhere where airplanes are flying over you all the time. Do you pay attention to each one? When the only airplanes that are flying near you a busting a TFR, you'll pay more attention to it and watch to see what it does.

I know you just want everything to be just like it was before 9/11 but it won't be again for a long time. At least we don't have someone in the oval office that will fight these losers instead of Algore who would have run and hid behind a rock and then told us how we need to be sensitive to the needs of ragheads.

 

[tarp]

Oh Rush,

All I have to do is quote Ben Franklin:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

What more can I say - these words are about as precious as you can find. I want to live in a free society. I don't CARE about terrorists - I can't live in fear - if I worry about dying I will still die just as sure as if I didn't worry.

People on this planet make far too much out of their puny little existence. We're all going to die - could be a car wreck, a train wreck, a terroist act, a war between nations, a natural disaster or in my sleep. If we acted like the terrorists don't matter, then they don't. Very simple, a person comes into my town and wants to instill terror by dying for a cause - FINE. The terrorist dies with the act of suicide - he's dead! I may die too. So what - I was a free man until I left this world. What would you rather have a life living under complete fear and stringent rules or death?

"Give me liberty or give me death"!

Can you not see that the words that America (land of the free) were born with are the very words we need to live by today!

 

[avbug]

Tarp,

I think perhaps you're confusing rights with privileges. By implementing a TFR we are NOT giving up essential liberties. We are not giving up rights. We are not even sacrificing privileges.

To suggest we are doing so in concert with quotations by the founding fathers is misleading.

Flying is a privilege. Not a right.

 

[ShawnC]

It may start with a privilege, but government has it's way of expanding, and coming near out right bans of your privilege.

Look at the various smoking bans.

 

[XGmaninGA]

How many privileges do you want to give up?

Let's start with driving. Those pesky Interstates go everywhere. They could be used by terrorists to deliver truck bombs. Let's institute mandatory police checkpoints, searches, and internal passports. That should stop them.

And the list just goes on from there. Does this sound like a country in which you want to live?

We have to stop the slippery slope somewhere. I guarantee there will be those in government who will jump at the opportunity to increase their power and control over the population. We cannot turn this country into a police state. It will hand the terrorists their greatest victory.

So I ask again, how many PRIVILEGES are you willing to give up? Be careful what you wish for.

 

[ShawnC]

We have to stop the slippery slope somewhere. I guarantee there will be those in government who will jump at the opportunity to increase their power and control over the population.

Exactly, I hate to quote the Matrix here but it fits.

What do people with power want? More power.

And Rush, it's the democrats that are some of the biggest advocates of restricting GA. Representative Rengal (sp?) of NY proposed a prohibited area over lower Manhattan banning all aircraft. Then again, this is the same guy that proposed reinstating the draft.

I am a Republican, but I am against big government, my mother came here for the freedoms, and opportunity that she just couldn't get in her home country, why would I idly sit by as groups attempt to remove that from us.

So I ask how many more privileges are you willing to give up in the name of security? Driving faster than 15mph is more dangerous than anything else, why don't we ban that. That way you can see the car and jump out of the way.

 

[avbug]

Do you feel that your liberties have been curtailed because you can't fly over disney land now? Should we just blot out a star on the flag for effect? Are you hurting? Can't fly ove the superbowl...that is a killer.

You can't drive onto a military installation with impunity, either. Perhaps that's a serious curtailment of your freedoms, too? After all, those are your tax dollars, right?

Can't carry your concealed weapon in the post office now, or a church. There's a serious loss of freedom. Put the flag away, those rights are disappearing fast.

Give me a break. Perhaps you think that a TFR over a fire or a natural disaster is a big threat to your freedoms, too. It isn't. We're not talking the wholesale parcelling of airspace off to the NSA here...we're talking about very small restrictions that are in fact, temporary.

If a small parcel of airspace over disney world is the biggest thing to gripe your goat, then you have a marvellous life. How hard did you fight to keep the restrictions that were slapped over the grand canyon from happening, or to have a say in how the airspace in the Rocky Mountain National Park was dealt with? Much, much bigger issues in terms of airspace...might I suggest that if you didn't lift a finger to change those, then what right or reason do you have to question a few tiny dots on the map over public gathers and secure sites?

One big TFR sits in the middle of my protection district, over a large chemical/biological weapons storage facility. You may feel the flight restriction over that site is hampering your freedoms, but I surely don't. I was amazed for years and years that there was no restriction there before...only a little note on the map suggesting that pilots are requested to remain xxx' above it. Now that was ludicruous.

Did you disagree with what happened on 9/11 with our airspace system? With so much uncertainty over what was going on, little choice existed but to shut everything down until we knew exactly what was happening and how far that threat extended. On that night, I was requested to take a flight for a company that does a lot of organ transports. A heart became available, but was too far for road transport, and it was critical. I wasn't able to go get that heart. The man went on TV that evening, cried in front of the cameras, along with his family. You might imagine how I felt. Then he died, and the heart we could have retrieved went to waste.

One small event in an ocean of many. Few if anyone would dare suggest that the measures taken on that day were too much. They were absolutely necessary. Despite the crashing of the economy, the lasting damage that ensued, and even the personal tragedies like the man with the bad heart. Nobody questioned such a sweeping act. Yet today, we have tiny, miniscule restrictions that have little impact on our daily lives, hamper us in the most minute way, and we scream bloody murder, our freedoms are being sapped away.

Why is that?

 

[ShawnC]

Avbug,

I have said it before, temporary TFR's based on specific and credible threats are perfectly fine. Your fire TFRs are the same way, they are there until the fire is out, once it's out the NOTAM canceled.

But our major problem is with the feel good TFRs, that target only aircraft operating under Part 91, with a number that establish a no fly zone, that prohibits are Part 91 flight. Remember the stadium TFR, no body had a problem with it, until they pulled all the banner tower waivers because of code orange. Then the sports teams seeing an opportunity to finally eliminate the banner towers pressured members of congress to prohibit all waivers to banner towers for safety reasons.

Now look at Chicago, Mayor Daily used a TFR, that he had to whine at the FAA to get, as the reason that Meigs field had to be destroyed. It's plain to see that the TFRs are being abused as a way for some anti-aviation types to get what they want.

If pilots and AOPA don't fight them, more and more will be imposed until you can't fly anywhere without filing an IFR flight plan.

 

[Flylo]

Looks like it's time to weigh back in.

First, I apologize for not making my original posting more specific. No one, that I'm aware of, has any valid reason to object to true TFRs such as those that cover fires or emergencys. And, of course, military operations or political functions, which would be high priority targets for terrorists, certainly qualify for TFR protection. I don't know anyone who objects to giving the Washington DC area a little extra padding, although it does seem that the concerns of individuals and organizations who have legally operated in or near the DC area for years have been almost totally ingnored in favor of: no profiling, political correctness. And no one should be too upset if George W. and the Secret Service don't want every Tom, Dick and Harry flying over Camp David or Crawford, TX, while he's having a get-together or just relaxing a little. But, although I don't know this for sure, I strongly suspect that these areas have been beefed up militarily so that a violation in one of these particular TFRs carries the very real possibility of getting your butt shot out of the air before you can reach a critical target. If this is the way it has to be, then let's rename these areas, because they are not really TFRs any longer, they are PFRs (Permanent Flight Restrictions).

Second: With the above caveats, I stand by my original premise: TFRs are a JOKE.
None of the pap about political perception or saving one life or giving up a little freedom for added security holds up under the clear light of reason. I remain totaly unconvinced.

Let's take the matter of saving lives, as ShawnC said, there is no way you are going to stop someone in the limited area of these "permanent", feel good, TFRs and you most likely wouldn't be able to stop them in a 200 nm TFR without an active military presence. Rush says you may save 1 life with a minutes notice. Well, what would have happened at the World Trade Centers with a minutes' notice or 10 minutes for that matter? I think more people would have died. Panic would have taken over, all exits would have been jammed shut with bodies and people would have been trampled by the hundreds, maybe thousands. Thanks to the emergency services that took over, after the fact, many more people were able to escape. I think advance notice would have the same effect at any large gathering such as a football game. Groups of people tend to panic before reality sets in, once something like that has taken place, people, for the most part, behave very admirably and with great courage.

Which brings me to the "perception" of safety. Avbug, If all these TFRs are just to present the "perception" of security, let's give the people of the United States a little credit. Most of them have enough sense to know and understand what's going on. Just tell 'em the F#%@# TRUTH!! Every single poster admitted the TFRs won't stop an attacker. Let the public have the truth. They're able to handle it. Nothing short of an airliner is going to take out anything significant and don't you think we've virtually eliminated the airliner as a terrorist wepon. Never say never, but let's face it, the odds against a group of morons commiting suicide in a "ship of the line" are pretty remote with all the new safeguards and if they do get one, the TFRs are meaningless anyway. We take our chances on the highways every day. Surely the odds against getting killed are better living next to a power station or a wepons facility than they are on the Interstates. Case in point, not to far from my home we have one of the chemical/biological storage facilities that Avbug referred to, I've driven past it a hundred times. I can get my car (or 18 wheeler) within a few hundred feet of some of the bunkers. Nobody is worried one little bit about my car or truck but we've got a TFR that won't let me fly within 5 nm flying in something that only weighs or can haul a fraction of the car or truck. You could rain 172s on those bunkers all day long and not disturb that stuff. Which reminds me, why do you need a TFR over an Indian reservation? Nobodys' got a TFR over my reservation!! More political correctness BS.

And that brings us to Tarp, with whom I couldn't agree more. If you don't think there are plenty of people in the Government of this county who would like for us to cower in our bedrooms all day long (except when we go to work, so we can pay taxes and make things for them to enjoy) waiting for the next tragedy to strike, so they can then exert more power and influence over us, you are sadly mistaken. Pilots are by nature, freedom lovers. I think it's hard for them to imagine sometimes, how given the opportunity, some people would conspire to dominate their lives in the name of protecting the public. Flying may be a privilege but it'a a privilege voted on by the democratically elected representatives of the PEOPLE of this country and every time someone tries to take a little piece of that privilege away from you for no good reason, you'd better get on your hind legs and scream bloody murder!!

Them's my thoughts.

 

[VNugget]

I'm gonna leave the rest of the argument alone, but just take exception to your claim that more people in the WTC would have died due to panic/trampling if they had gotten advance warning. I think that is completely unfounded. Why wouldn't people be more panicked if part of the building just blew up, rather than if they got warning to evacuate?

I'm gonna have to side with Rush that even though feelgood 5nm TFRs can do nothing to stop a plane, people can be warned in those precious minutes.

 

[SkyGuyEd]

My personal experience with the Anaheim TFR over Disneyland has been very negative. While VFR, appraoch is allowed to vector you through the TFR, though you can't fly through it without a vector. There are no 'cleared through the TFR' clearances either, leaving it somewhat ambigious as to whether or not you can go through it.

It also compounds traffic problems, as VFR airplanes are now squeezed in above 3000' and below the shelf of the LAX bravo airpace above. All of this is now necessary despite any kind of threat to Mickey.

I just go IFR normally to avoid this mess, but that only works with a rating, leaving students and privates to fend for themselves.