Odd TFR

John Theune wrote:
Rachel wrote:

John Theune wrote:

blanche cohen wrote:

There's a TFR today over DC for the State of the Union address.
I don't understand why when there's been a massive one in
place for the past 4 years.



While I don't agree in the need for the ADIZ, I think in this case
it's more justified then normal. The entire leadership of our
country ( Both sides )is in one building for the sotu and it's a good
idea to ratchet up security for that event. It's only 4 hours and if
it were not for the ADIZ I don't think anyone would complain about
it. While the risk of a light plane actually doing any damage is
small, let's face it, you could load 500 pounds or so of high
explosive into a 172 and that would make a fairly big hole in the
capital building. I think that preventing that kind of attack should
start way before the plane gets in the air, but for a short amount of
time closing the airspace does make sense. The security on commercial
aircraft now makes the possibility of another 911 attack remote but
that level of screening and airmarshalls just does not exist for GA.
Let's not over react to reasonable measures just because they are
over shadowed by un reasonable ones.



Sure, a light plane might poke a hole in a builing. Maybe. But as
fuzzy as my memory is, I remember a couple heavy airliners doing a lot
more damage a few years ago. Yet no one is calling for airline
traffic to be disrupted into the area. Why?

Rachel;
Did you read my post? Let's face it, you can turn a 172 into a cruise
missile like device. It's not very likely and the solution to that
problem should not be to close the airspace all the time, but for a
special occasion like the SOTU where all the leadership of both parties
are in a single building, then it does make sense to try to make it as
secure as possible. GA is never going to convince the rest of the world
that we are being unfairly picked on unless we show that we can live
with reasonable restrictions and I don't think closing the airspace
around DC for 4 HOURs is unreasonable.

I did read your post. I still believe that GA is being singled out.
Why is airline traffic allowed to continue when small aircraft are not?
It's been demonstrated that large aircraft, on IFR flight plans, are a
risk.