TFR not right IMO

I was getting ready to go today and noticed that there were two
new TFR's for me to avoid. One of them closed a regional airport,
and the other a few miles away to the northwest. I saw the words
"Secret Service" and figured #1 or #2 was gonna be in town.
I did a news search and found out that the reason for it was
because VP Cheney was going to a $1000/plate party fundraiser.

All told they mucked up about 60 square miles of airspace,
closed a fairly large airport (class C), and caused a mess on a
pretty big highway; All in the name of fundraising for the party.

I think this is really wrong! If they were on official biz for
the government I could understand it, but they're just stumping
for re-election and panhandling with rich people, and I don't
think they should be doing it on our dime or at the expense of
the public's right to travel.

I got to thinking that this is only going to get worse as election
season heats up, and wondered how many pilots would be losing their
tickets because they didn't check their political fundraising notams.

Agreements or disagreements out there?

Bart

I saw the words
"Secret Service" and figured #1 or #2 was gonna be in town.

Happens here in NYC all the time. Bush was in town last Monday for a
fundraiser
and when he comes in everything shuts down.

What I am really surprised about is how many pussy pilots there are out there.
I mean if there's 300,000 ish AOPA members out there, then that's an important
block of votes. That's got to be one of the biggest PAC's next to AARP.
My reasoning about why our community is so tolerant of this flagrant abuse
is that we are all so used to being afraid of the FAA and what they may do
to our our pilots licenses, that we've forgotten what it REALLY means to
be a citizen of the United States.

I guess if we want to have our society digress to some lame hybrid of
a communist monarchy then we can all just do what we're doing now; nothing.

I for one am ****ed, and I don't really care who knows.

Bart

Kevin McCue wrote:

Agree and Agree. While the AOPA represents "pilot" issues it is still
part of the "money buys influence" equation.
FYI the now "standard" ruling elite TFR consumes about 9900 Cubic NM of
airspace! The main problem with this whole thing is it really is becoming
the ruling/privledged elite and damn the rest. I don't argue that there
needs to be "security" for our leaders but it is waaaay out of hand.

--
Kevin McCue
KRYN
'47 Luscombe 8E
Rans S-17 (for sale)

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Bart wrote:

What I am really surprised about is how many pussy pilots there are out there.
I mean if there's 300,000 ish AOPA members out there, then that's an important
block of votes. That's got to be one of the biggest PAC's next to AARP.
My reasoning about why our community is so tolerant of this flagrant abuse
is that we are all so used to being afraid of the FAA and what they may do
to our our pilots licenses, that we've forgotten what it REALLY means to
be a citizen of the United States.

I guess if we want to have our society digress to some lame hybrid of
a communist monarchy then we can all just do what we're doing now; nothing.

I for one am ****ed, and I don't really care who knows.

Bart,

I think the root of the problem (as far as pilots go) is this:

Taken as a whole, I think it's fair to say that the pilot demographic probably
tends to be politically pretty conservative. We tend to be mostly white, male,
upper income, with a median age 40- or 50-something. Lots of ex-military and
law-enforcement veterans. Plenty of gun owners. Rugged individualists.

Generally speaking, this is a solidly Republican demographic. I would venture to
guess that pilots probably voted overwhelmingly for this president in 2000, and
the idea of voting for another political party is anathema to most.

Yet now it seems that all of aviation, and general aviation especially, is under
attack and more restricted and more threatened than it has ever been. The
administration has given us TFRs, ADIZs, and other restrictions with no end in
sight, plus an apparent unwillingness to even respond to basic questions about
when these restrictions might ever be lifted. And an unprecedented, very clear
push to privatize ATC services.

The dilemma, of course, is that the president who is presiding over this sorry
state of affairs is a Republican.

I guess the question comes down to this: at what point do pilots say enough is
enough, even if they supported this president last time around, that they cannot
in good conscience vote again for this president, given his record on aviation
issues?

Most of the pilots I know bitch about the administration's policies and agree
that they are doing serious damage to aviation, but just can't bring themselves
to consider voting for somebody else next time around. When I remind them that
the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and
expecting a different result, they just give me a dirty look. Most of these guys
could never vote against Bush, no matter what his administration does.

I will be watching AOPA carefully when they do their candidate endorsement for
the next presidential election. Given his record, I cannot imagine them
endorsing Bush again, but I bet they would take an incredible amount of heat from
the membership if they don't.

David H
Boeing Field (BFI), Seattle, WA

If the aviation community want's the administration to change the
policy, do what every other big group in the country is doing; buy the
prostitutes.. ahem I mean buy politicians, woops, ahem, I mean
dontate, donate to politicians. Yea.

"Malcolm Teas" wrote in message om...

2) An ADIZ that requires clearance and a transponder code.

It doesn't require clearance, but unfortunately some ATC folk think it does.

"Greg Burkhart (MN)" wrote in message news:NlCMa.18347$926.145@sccrnsc03...
"Malcolm Teas" wrote in message
om...
Agreed. Welcome to the club folks. Here in the Washington DC area we
have:

1) A permanent TFR centered around National Airport.

A permanent TFR? Would it still be a TFR???

They stopped calling it a TFR. It's a "Flight Restricted Zone."

Along the lines of this and a previous thread, I sent this to the White
house yesterday w/copies to my congressional critters.


President Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington D.C.

July1, 2003

Dear President Bush,

Please do not visit or send Vice President Cheney to the Tucson area during
your fund raising and campaigning junkets. The onerous flight restrictions
now (30 nm radius) imposed by your travels are in excess of 12,000 cubic
miles of airspace closed to general aviation. Not only does this deprive
law-abiding U.S. citizens of their right to travel but it could push some
struggling businesses over the edge.
Since 9/11, innuendo, false alarms and pointless flight restrictions have
decimated the general aviation industry. This industry employs more people
than the airlines but has not received any economic relief. On the contrary,
general aviation continues to be selected for additional economic damage
through an executive policy of unreasonable restrictions, impositions, and
lack of due process. The "DC 3" airports are an excellent example.
You have a right to campaign and raise funds but you must be aware that
these activities are not within the duties of you office. While conducting
these activities you are holding your rights above those of millions of
fellow citizens. I hope you will take an opportunity to review your security
arrangements soon. Until you can reduce the imposition (return to the 10 nm
radius) or realistically justify the current restrictions, please give your
fellow citizens a break and stay home.




Kevin W. McCue
Business owner and pilot

--
Kevin McCue
KRYN
'47 Luscombe 8E
Rans S-17 (for sale)




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

"Greg Burkhart \(MN\)" wrote in message news:NlCMa.18347$926.145@sccrnsc03...
"Malcolm Teas" wrote in message
om...
Agreed. Welcome to the club folks. Here in the Washington DC area we
have:

1) A permanent TFR centered around National Airport.

A permanent TFR? Would it still be a TFR???

Consider "permanent TFR" a tongue-in-cheek phrase. I meant it that way.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message om...
"Greg Burkhart (MN)" wrote in message news:NlCMa.18347$926.145@sccrnsc03...
"Malcolm Teas" wrote in message
om...
Agreed. Welcome to the club folks. Here in the Washington DC area we
have:

1) A permanent TFR centered around National Airport.

A permanent TFR? Would it still be a TFR???

They stopped calling it a TFR. It's a "Flight Restricted Zone."

I wonder how it will be marked on the new sectional in August? I'm
wondering if it'll be the blue hached edge of a Restricted area. But,
that's probably too honest a portrayal.

I also think it's weird how the western edge of the flight restricted
zone has a funny angle in it. That's from the isogonic line that it
was originally drawn with reference to. Of course the isogonic's
moved since that chart came out. It shows the general cluelessness
going on.