When do politicians rate a TFR?

....stuff clipped..

IMO a 30NM TFR is more than excessive.

Well, IMO, I think the 30 NM TFR is a joke. If someone REALLY wanted to do
damage to a building/person/event, 30 miles isn't going to keep a jet
traveling at 6.5 miles per minute at bay for long. Now, my
C172...ok...they've got 15 minutes to shoot me down before my plane bounces
off the wall and kills no one but me

It amazes me that most of the terror deterrents seem to be in the area of
aviation. It's like we can't come up with any possible ideas of how a
terrorist could screw with us if it hasn't happened to us already. I know
there are some "big" things, like nuke plant security, etc. But what about
the gas truck driving beside my house?

We can't cover all our bases, so I guess they just cover the popular ones.

But I digress.....I went flying this weekend (that should cover the avaition
requirement to post in this forum ).

jf

"Jeff" jfranks1971 minus writes:

Well, IMO, I think the 30 NM TFR is a joke. If someone REALLY wanted to do
damage to a building/person/event, 30 miles isn't going to keep a jet
traveling at 6.5 miles per minute at bay for long. Now, my
C172...ok...they've got 15 minutes to shoot me down before my plane bounces
off the wall and kills no one but me

There are plenty of missiles that can fly that distance in 30 seconds or so,
and they don't need to be fired from an aircraft. Currently there is no
really effective defense against missile attacks for aircraft, which is a
constant source of stress for a lot of people. Apparently they believe that
if they don't talk about it, it won't happen.

It amazes me that most of the terror deterrents seem to be in the area of
aviation.

It sounds like people are making the classic mistake of protecting against
risks they know and think they understand, while ignoring risks they don't
know or don't understand. So they worry about the potential threat from a
slow moving unarmed Cessna rather than the threat from a ground-based,
shoulder-mounted missile launcher.

We can't cover all our bases, so I guess they just cover the popular ones.

Yup. See above.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

"Jeff" jfranks1971 minus writes:

Well, IMO, I think the 30 NM TFR is a joke. If someone REALLY wanted
to do damage to a building/person/event, 30 miles isn't going to keep
a jet traveling at 6.5 miles per minute at bay for long. Now, my
C172...ok...they've got 15 minutes to shoot me down before my plane
bounces off the wall and kills no one but me

There are plenty of missiles that can fly that distance in 30 seconds
or so, and they don't need to be fired from an aircraft. Currently
there is no really effective defense against missile attacks for
aircraft, which is a constant source of stress for a lot of people.
Apparently they believe that if they don't talk about it, it won't
happen.


Yes, there is, so you're wrong yet again


Bertie

Jeff jfranks1971 minus wrote:
...stuff clipped..

IMO a 30NM TFR is more than excessive.

Well, IMO, I think the 30 NM TFR is a joke. If someone REALLY wanted to do
damage to a building/person/event, 30 miles isn't going to keep a jet
traveling at 6.5 miles per minute at bay for long. Now, my
C172...ok...they've got 15 minutes to shoot me down before my plane bounces
off the wall and kills no one but me

It amazes me that most of the terror deterrents seem to be in the area of
aviation. It's like we can't come up with any possible ideas of how a
terrorist could screw with us if it hasn't happened to us already. I know
there are some "big" things, like nuke plant security, etc. But what about
the gas truck driving beside my house?

We can't cover all our bases, so I guess they just cover the popular ones.

But I digress.....I went flying this weekend (that should cover the avaition
requirement to post in this forum ).

An M252 81mm mortar is 56 inches long, weighes about 90 pounds, has a
maximum range of 3 1/2 miles and can fire 33 rounds in a minute.

How much damage do you think you could do to a VIP event in the space of
a couple of minutes?

No airplane required.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"Jeff" jfranks1971 minus wrote in message
...
...stuff clipped..

IMO a 30NM TFR is more than excessive.

Well, IMO, I think the 30 NM TFR is a joke. If someone REALLY wanted to
do damage to a building/person/event, 30 miles isn't going to keep a jet
traveling at 6.5 miles per minute at bay for long. Now, my
C172...ok...they've got 15 minutes to shoot me down before my plane
bounces off the wall and kills no one but me

It amazes me that most of the terror deterrents seem to be in the area of
aviation. It's like we can't come up with any possible ideas of how a
terrorist could screw with us if it hasn't happened to us already. I know
there are some "big" things, like nuke plant security, etc. But what
about the gas truck driving beside my house?

We can't cover all our bases, so I guess they just cover the popular ones.

Actually, from the public's perspective, they just cover the ones that
impact a select few "filthy rich" people (AKA pilots). This has two benefits
to the security folks:

1) It shows that they are doing something. Never mind that the threat they
are doing something about isn't likely to be the real threat.

2) Since 99% of the population isn't adversely impacted by TFR's, the TFR's
are a great way to *do something* without making many voters mad.

KB


But I digress.....I went flying this weekend (that should cover the
avaition requirement to post in this forum ).

jf

Jeff wrote:
Now, my
C172...ok...they've got 15 minutes to shoot me down before my plane bounces
off the wall and kills no one but me

Remember the kid who flew the 172 into a building in Florida, just after
9/11.

Besides killing himself, I think he messed up somebody's desk.

On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 07:39:58 -0400, B A R R Y
wrote in :

Jeff wrote:
Now, my
C172...ok...they've got 15 minutes to shoot me down before my plane bounces
off the wall and kills no one but me

Remember the kid who flew the 172 into a building in Florida, just after
9/11.

Besides killing himself, I think he messed up somebody's desk.



http://www.generalaviationnews.com/e...index&-nothing
For the groups trying to defend general aviation from more
stringent regulations, these and similar actions can be explained
to some degree by citing that the typical general aviation
airplane cannot carry a load large enough to be a danger. But a
Cessna Citation — that's a different story. With a useful load of
more than 7,000 pounds, that size airplane can't be explained away
so easily. ...