|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#3
October 28th 03, 03:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 09:26:58 -0500, "G.R. Patterson III"
wrote in Message-Id: : Larry Dighera wrote: What is the reasoning behind the smaller radius vice presidential TFR? You're asking the people who set up TFRs to *reason*? Well, I was hoping ... Is it presumptuous of me to expect the size of the vice/presidental TFRs to be based on intruder intercept response time? The difference in size between the two TFRs would seem to contradict that notion. This begs the question, upon what is the size of the TFRs based? Is it just arbitrary, or an absurd "mine is bigger than yours" thing? Perhaps this is a good question to pose to AOPA. 
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Lockheed developing smaller Stand-Off Weapons | Eric Moore | Military Aviation | 1 | July 22nd 04 06:46 AM |
| Are the Israelis using smaller Hellfire warheads? | Yeff | Military Aviation | 18 | April 22nd 04 10:07 PM |
| Reasoning behind course reversal | Michael 182 | Instrument Flight Rules | 26 | February 27th 04 03:27 PM |
| Minimum bending radius for 0.050" 6061-T6? | Bob Chilcoat | Home Built | 11 | February 5th 04 04:59 PM |
| FORMATIONS, BOMB RUNS AND RADIUS OF ACTION | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 0 | August 10th 03 02:22 AM |
Threaded Mode