Can anyone explain what TFR's are supposed to do?

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
. ..
|
| "Corky Scott" wrote in message
...
| I haven't figured out why TFR's exist. How are they supposed to
| protect the President and/or whatever else?
|
| That's the general principle.
|
| Does the Secret Service and the FAA really think that just having a
| "no flight activity" within an imaginary circle sixty miles across
| will really stop a determined assailant?
|
| The FAA ain't running the circus. I suspect that the Secret Service
| feels that by keeping all (or at least) most friendly traffic out of the
| area, it makes it easier to spot the unfriendlies.
|

The trouble with that theory is, what can the Secret Service do about it?
They *might* shove the President under a desk or something. But does anyone
seriously believe that the Secret Service (or anyone else) would risk the
political fallout from shooting down an innocent airplane?

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 07:14:30 -0700, "C J Campbell"
wrote:


"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
...
|
| "Corky Scott" wrote in message
...
| I haven't figured out why TFR's exist. How are they supposed to
| protect the President and/or whatever else?
|
| That's the general principle.
|
| Does the Secret Service and the FAA really think that just having a
| "no flight activity" within an imaginary circle sixty miles across
| will really stop a determined assailant?
|
| The FAA ain't running the circus. I suspect that the Secret Service
| feels that by keeping all (or at least) most friendly traffic out of the
| area, it makes it easier to spot the unfriendlies.
|

The trouble with that theory is, what can the Secret Service do about it?
They *might* shove the President under a desk or something. But does anyone
seriously believe that the Secret Service (or anyone else) would risk the
political fallout from shooting down an innocent airplane?

Actually, the presence of a TFR makes it quite "justifiable" to the
uneducated. Lacking a TFR, the airplane could be construed as
"innocent".


Jake Brodsky,
PP ASEL IA, Cessna Cardinal N30946, Based @ FME
Amateur Radio Station AB3A

It makes the American public and media feel good that something is being
done. The other benefit is that the TFR tells everyone where the
President every minute. (Oh, unless they put one up for mis information)

Corky Scott wrote:

I haven't figured out why TFR's exist. How are they supposed to
protect the President and/or whatever else?

Does the Secret Service and the FAA really think that just having a
"no flight activity" within an imaginary circle sixty miles across
will really stop a determined assailant?

Besides, light airplanes just don't have the hitting power to cause
much of a problem for anything but a "soft" target, and any soft
target would be so small as to be an immensely hard target to hit, not
to mention how difficult it would be to be at the right place and time
to actually have a shot at hitting it while it's in the open.

I mean come'on, once the president's airplane is on the ground, he's
off and rolling on a schedule that has him moving constantly. Talk
about a moving target! And then when he stops, it's often inside a
big building.

Those times he might be scheduled for an outdoor address, I can see
the Secret Service getting a bit uptight about that and not wanting
stray airplanes around at that point, but how often does that happen?

Are the airliners prevented from flying within the TFR? If not, can
someone explain why not? It wasn't a lightplane that caused the
collaps of the WTC.

Is the TFR anything but a panacea for the Secret Service? Something
they can point to as proof that they take their job seriously?

Sort of reminds me of that old joke about a guy walking down the
street who spots another guy jumping up and down and waving a bag
above his head. The first guy stops and asks whats going on. The
second guy says he's scaring elephants away.

"There aren't any elephants around here." The first guy says.

"Pretty effective isn't it?" The second guy responds.

Corky Scott

"Ross Richardson" wrote in message ...
It makes the American public and media feel good that something is being
done. The other benefit is that the TFR tells everyone where the
President every minute. (Oh, unless they put one up for mis information)

The American public doesn't know the TFR's exist.

Ron Natalie wrote:
Ross Richardson wrote:

It makes the American public and media feel good that something is being
done. The other benefit is that the TFR tells everyone where the
President every minute. (Oh, unless they put one up for mis information)

The American public doesn't know the TFR's exist.

Well, this member of the British public, who has a sister in Vancouver,
has observed much US moronitude over the last couple of years and is now
most unlikely even to bother to compare the cost of flying to SEA and
crossing the border by land with that of flying directly to YVR.

As for Chicago ... I recently bought a recording by the Chicago Symphony
Orchestra and the young violinist, Rachel Barton; but ISTR the mayor did
something unholy down at the waterfront ...

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...

I haven't figured out why TFR's exist. How are they supposed to
protect the President and/or whatever else?


Most of them have nothing to do with the President.

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...
I haven't figured out why TFR's exist. How are they supposed to
protect the President and/or whatever else?



It was explained to me as follows: those responsible for security assess
all possible threats and create plans to mitigate each one. Regardless of
our opinions, small planes are indeed a threat and the easy thing to do was
to restrict their activity within a certain distance. They are considered a
greater threat than large commercial planes (to the mobile president) for
reasons I will not go into here. GA is an easy target for restrictions
because of GA's limited political and financial clout and the extreme ease
of clearing the area of GA aircraft.

Claiming that a truck bomb or suicide bomber can be a larger threat is
besides the point. Each separate threat has a plan to deal with it. GA is
dealt with by TFRs. Other threats are dealt with in other ways.

Peter

It was explained to me as follows: those responsible for security assess
all possible threats and create plans to mitigate each one. Regardless of
our opinions, small planes are indeed a threat and the easy thing to do
was
to restrict their activity within a certain distance. They are considered
a
greater threat than large commercial planes (to the mobile president) for
reasons I will not go into here. GA is an easy target for restrictions
because of GA's limited political and financial clout and the extreme ease
of clearing the area of GA aircraft.

Claiming that a truck bomb or suicide bomber can be a larger threat is
besides the point. Each separate threat has a plan to deal with it. GA
is
dealt with by TFRs. Other threats are dealt with in other ways.


Finally a reasonable explanation without whining about how we are
specifically targeted. The ONLY way to deal with this is to vote in an
administration which doesn't **** off the entire world and incite everyone
to target us.

"John Harlow" wrote in message


The ONLY way to deal with this is to vote in
an administration which doesn't **** off the entire world and incite
everyone to target us.

Which administration would that be?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________

The ONLY way to deal with this is to vote in
an administration which doesn't **** off the entire world and incite
everyone to target us.

Which administration would that be?

http://www.lp.org/