When do politicians rate a TFR?

"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