New Sectional and....

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...
Can you post a link to the chart? Is that the only example you have?

I don't even need one example. Your statement is without foundation
regardless. You don't really think you could prove that "They wouldn't
print them if they planned to eliminate them", do you?

I offered one example, which is well-enough documented should you really
care to look it up yourself. That's sufficient as counter-proof.

That said, if I still remember when it's time to dig out all my old aviation
charts, I'll be happy to scan and post to the web the chart in question.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

I don't even need one example. Your statement is without foundation
regardless. You don't really think you could prove that "They wouldn't
print them if they planned to eliminate them", do you?


What I stated was simple logic. These "temporary" restrictions have been in
place, uncharted, for years. They're being charted because they're being
made permanent.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...
[...]
What I stated was simple logic. These "temporary" restrictions have been
in
place, uncharted, for years. They're being charted because they're being
made permanent.

It appears that your understanding of "simple logic" is flawed.

Where are the verified facts, along with the proveable conclusions? Your
so-called "simple logic" is nothing more than a personal assumption on your
part.

Here are the facts that we know:

* The TFRs have existed for nearly three years
* They have been left uncharted for nearly that whole time
* The latest chart revision includes the TFRs

For "simple logic" to conclude that the TFRs are being made permanent, you'd
have to have some proved theorem that says something like "a TFR that has
been present and left uncharted for an extraordinarily long time, and that
is then charted will be made permanent".

So far, the only source I see for such a "theorem" is your own personal
belief. There's nothing in the FARs or charting policies that would support
it. A "theorem" that is simply based on your own personal belief is not a
theorem, it's a hypothesis. A hypothesis is useless for the purpose of
proving something using "simple logic".

AOPA has been lobbying for a long time now for the airspace to be charted,
as have numerous other folks. The TFRs should always have been charted,
given the long-lasting nature of them, and the fact that they are charting
them now may well reflect nothing more than recognition of that common sense
assertion.

Regardless of why the TFRs are being charted, there's no valid way to come
to a logical conclusion that they are being made permanent. And in fact,
since there's precedent for charting TFRs, and since they could just as
easily have made them permanent and charted them that way, there's reason to
believe that for now, there's no intent to make them permanent.

Pete