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.