Neil Gould wrote:

I really don't understand the presidential TFRs at all. What is the
objective?

The logic is something like:
If the only aircraft in this area are those that shouldn't be here, it's
easier for us to identify the "bad guys."

Of all the presidents that have been assassinated, as well
as all attempted assasinations, none have involved aircraft of any
kind. Indeed, if one wanted to maximize the chances of success, GA is
not a very good option. Is there any logical reason why these TFRs
exist?

Logic to rational aviation-savvy voters? No. Logic to aviation-ignorant
voters? Absolutely. Just ask a friend of yours whose only concept of
aviation is having to stand in line to empty all metal from pockets and step
through the cattle gates of the commercial airport what they think of the DC
ADIZ and the ability of VFR pilots to fly almost anywhere they want (outside
the ADIZ, that is) without talking to anybody.

Sure, those being protected by these roaming TFRs are elected officials (for
the most part) and nominally work for us (the relative few who actually
bother to vote). Contrary to what some will have you believe, though, the
occupant of the White House has no input into this process. It's the
security bureaucracy that makes this call - and they don't report to the
electorate. See the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC for a
previous example under a different political party. The security folks take
their job - protecting the *office*, not the person - very seriously.
Unfortunately, we're suffering the side-effects of their vigor.

The fact remains that there is a limit to the amount of security you can
install to protect a place or person. While the flight restricted zone and
ADIZ over Washington greatly restricts the number of planes over the city,
it's still possible for one of those planes or even an intruder to make it
downtown before any response can be mounted (see the recent brouhaha
involving the governor of Kentucky).

And that's just airborne threats. The next time you're in town, pay
attention to all the trucks that are allowed within yards of any number of
government agencies and facilities (including the Capitol, Supreme Court,
Smithsonian museums, and even the White House).

You can't protect against all threats and your job is greatly complicated
when facing somebody willing to die to achieve their goal. However, those
tasked with protecting the President have to "Do Something" to help their
cause - and the roaming TFRs are part of the answer. The cynic in me says
that they're not so much protecting against threats to their charge as much
as protecting their own butts from us in case their charge is successfully
attacked. Congress would mount an investigation and there would be public
calls for heads on pikes for "dereliction of duty."

Keep in contact with your elected officials to remind them how ridiculous
these flight restrictions are. Don't forget to mention that not one
terrorist attack has been mounted or even attempted (as far as I know) with
general aviation aircraft. Try to remind your aviation-ignorant associates
that their SUV, mini-van or even their family sedan can cause more
destruction than a typical GA airplane.

While doing all this, please remember to check for and abide by NOTAMs.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________