Little 'ol lady helped across the sky by two F-16's

[AirDX]

TFRs are just as stupid as gun free zones. They don't slow the bad guys down at all and just screw the good guys over.

The only sensible comment in this entire thread.

[davidsinn]

TFRs are just as stupid as gun free zones. They don't slow the bad guys down at all and just screw the good guys over.

The only sensible comment in this entire thread.

The thing that gets me is the aviation community not only tolerates but in some cases defends governmental action that if done to the regular populace would cause riots.

[RADIOMAN015]

TFRs are just as stupid as gun free zones. They don't slow the bad guys down at all and just screw the good guys over.

The only sensible comment in this entire thread.

As the folks up in Maine wh

The thing that gets me is the aviation community not only tolerates but in some cases defends governmental action that if done to the regular populace would cause riots.

Ask the folks up in Maine, every time President George Bush Senior went up to his summer home in Kennebunk.   Not only was the airspace affected, but also the water space in the bay as well as vehicle routes in and around the town.  Eventually, though, I think the TFR got reduced to an acceptable level to the locals.  Apparently there was one small airport with basically recreational/private pilots that always had to be closed.

Remember that's TFR's also used for other things besides security.   For security you do need to address the "exceptions" and if you don't have an exclusion zone, you have no way to ID the exception until it is too late.   Also that's the reason why sometimes those security TFR's are larger than the other types.   

One thing I could never understand is why they never had US Army helicopter gunships stationed within an inner perimeter security zone.  Those F16's/F15's could cause a lot of collateral damage when compared with the AH64 Apache precision firing system.   
RM
   

[N Harmon]

TFRs are just as stupid as gun free zones. They don't slow the bad guys down at all and just screw the good guys over.

Non-concur. There are non-security justifications for TFRs, namely involving SAR/DR operations. And the major problem with gun free zones is they invite violence by decreasing the potential that victims are armed. TFRs do not.

If someone can not be bothered with checking for TFRs, then they shouldn't be flying. Simple as that. Sorry, but this isn't your dad's 1960's airspace environment.

One thing I could never understand is why they never had US Army helicopter gunships stationed within an inner perimeter security zone.  Those F16's/F15's could cause a lot of collateral damage when compared with the AH64 Apache precision firing system.

I suspect the reason they use fighter aircraft is that they can intercept just about anything, whereas the AH64 is speed limited.

That said, the USCG already patrols the Washington DC ADIZ with helicopters. They even carry electronic message boards for situations like this. I see no reason why they, or the army, couldn't do the same around VIP security zones.

[N Harmon]

The thing that gets me is the aviation community not only tolerates but in some cases defends governmental action that if done to the regular populace would cause riots.

I don't understand what this means.

[davidsinn]

The thing that gets me is the aviation community not only tolerates but in some cases defends governmental action that if done to the regular populace would cause riots.

I don't understand what this means.

If large swaths of the country on busy highways were periodically closed off at random with smaller zones inside that could get you killed for violating them, the people would riot. Yet that's what the FAA is doing with these VIP TFR and ADIZ. They're jacking up some of the busiest airspace in the country for the illusion of safety. It's one thing to throw a TFR up for an emergency or for safety(rocket launches and weapons ranges come to mind) I have no problem with that. But to do it for a person is just plain un-American, that whole, all men are created equal thing... And before anybody gets their panties in a twist about me not liking Obama, that's true, I don't. However, I said the same things about Bush 43 whenever he came to the area and screwed everything up around the city I worked in at the time.

[Майор Хаткевич]

The thing that gets me is the aviation community not only tolerates but in some cases defends governmental action that if done to the regular populace would cause riots.

I don't understand what this means.

Maybe because if it's ONE knucklehead, then they get intercepted/shot down/punished, and everyone gets to fly another day. BUT if everyone was flying, and the bad guys weren't stopped because no one knew they were there, you can bet NO ONE would be flying the next day, or probably week.

[Eclipse]

If large swaths of the country on busy highways were periodically closed off at random with smaller zones inside that could get you killed for violating them, the people would riot.

This has been happening for years all over the country.  POTUS generally gets a closed highway, point-to-point, wherever he goes in the US.

[N Harmon]

If large swaths of the country on busy highways were periodically closed off at random with smaller zones inside that could get you killed for violating them, the people would riot.

But that happens every time the President comes to town. Highways get closed off to traffic, local roads too. And you can bet trying to bust through one of those roadblocks will get you killed.

And the extent of the closings corresponds to the threat. If the President is traveling south bound, then the north bound lane will still be closed because it is easy enough to cross over the median.

The sky, unlike the ground, is one big connected area, topologically speaking. To get the same amount of protection you have to go for distance.

It sucks, but what is the alternative?

[davidsinn]

It sucks, but what is the alternative?

Prevent him from traveling except for state business comes to mind real quick. He's there to do a job for a set period of time. Not to use his bully pulpit to play politics on the people's dime(not singling out the current one because I know they've been guilty of it for decades if not longer.)

If large swaths of the country on busy highways were periodically closed off at random with smaller zones inside that could get you killed for violating them, the people would riot.

This has been happening for years all over the country.  POTUS generally gets a closed highway, point-to-point, wherever he goes in the US.

I know it has. Doesn't make it right though. If the threat is really that high then don't be there. All the TFRs and ADIZs in the world didn't stop one guy from planting a Cessna in the oval office in the 90's or another one on Red Square in the 80's.

[N Harmon]

Prevent him from traveling except for state business comes to mind real quick.

Who gets to define "state business"?

[davidsinn]

Prevent him from traveling except for state business comes to mind real quick.

Who gets to define "state business"?

I think we can all agree that a birthday party, vacation or political fund-raiser do not meet the definition. Surveying a disaster area or meeting heads of state for example, would meet the definition.

It all comes down to the 10th amendment and the commerce clause. The feds closing the airspace for a VIP is not interstate commerce. Regulating the airspace over the many states is not a constitutionally appointed power and thus should be reserved to the states per the 10th.

[Eclipse]

^ Which sounds great over coffee, and doesn't change the fact that this lady was oblivious to some basics requirements for flying an airplane, especially over my house.

[davidsinn]

^ Which sounds great over coffee, and doesn't change the fact that this lady was oblivious to some basics requirements for flying an airplane, especially over my house.

Looks to me like she took off and landed safely. That's the basic requirements right there. Everything else is just bureaucracy.

[a2capt]

If someone is that clueless and dingbatty about why an F-16 is on her side, in this day and age ..  It's time to hang it up.

[JeffDG]

Prevent him from traveling except for state business comes to mind real quick.

Who gets to define "state business"?

The Chief of State.

[davidsinn]

Prevent him from traveling except for state business comes to mind real quick.

Who gets to define "state business"?

The Chief of State.

Circular logic. The congress should define it being the duly elected representatives of the people and the constitutional check on the executive.

[JeffDG]

Prevent him from traveling except for state business comes to mind real quick.

Who gets to define "state business"?

The Chief of State.

Circular logic. The congress should define it being the duly elected representatives of the people and the constitutional check on the executive.

Is the Chief of State not the duly elected representative of the people?  For that matter, which member of Congress or Senate is elected by all the people.  They represent their districts and/or states, while the President and Vice President are elected nationally.

[davidsinn]

Is the Chief of State not the duly elected representative of the people? while the President and Vice President are elected nationally.


No and no. The president is elected by the electoral college while the VP is elected by no one under the current system. The popular vote is just a suggestion on who the president will be. In fact winning the popular vote does not even mean you'll be the president. See Bush v. Gore, 2000. Besides you're missing the point of the checks and balances. The Chief of State should not be the one to decide on conditions that limit the Chief of State. That's self serving.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Electoral College gives States the choice, not the people. Ignore the national totals and judge state by state.