New Year's Eve / Day TFRs 2003 / 2004

With the issuance today of a flood of TFRs covering NYC, Las Vegas, and
Southern California, and the resulting response from AOPA's Phil Boyer, I'm
beginning to think that the approach they're taking toward these TFRs is
wrong. Here is what Boyer had to say about the NYC and LV TFRs:

"Security-related TFRs usually single out general aviation aircraft, which
have never been used in a terrorist attack," said AOPA President Phil Boyer.
"The restrictions are an additional burden for pilots to carry. AOPA
believes they should only be issued based on credible threats - not on a
political need to be seen taking strong measures."

His assertion that GA aircraft have never been used in a terrorist attack is
flawed logic. The same could have been said pre-9/11/01 about airliners.
What kind of reputation would AOPA have now, if they had complained about
every Presidential TFR issued before 9/11 using that statement? What kind of
reputation do you think they'll have if GA aircraft are ever used in an
actual attack? I think he needs to stop using that argument... while the
amount of damage that could be caused by a single engine piston powered
aircraft is likely to be small, does AOPA really think that's going to stop
a bunch of crazed, delusional people from trying?

Boyer's next statement, that the "restrictions are an additional burden for
pilots to carry" is, at least for me, wrong. I feel no extra burden having
to talk to ATC to transit a TFR area. In fact, I feel safer knowing I've got
a second pair of eyes looking over my shoulder. After all, getting a squawk
code from ATC essentially means you've got flight following. And most of the
truly temporary TFRs don't prohibit flight except for a very small area,
with the remainder of the area perfectly accessible to pilots. Having to
talk to ATC should not consitute an extra "burden" for pilots. After all,
would you like to fly in an airspace system without it?

I do think that the government is issuing most of these TFRs for no other
reason that to cover their asses. We as pilots know that they will
absolutely not prevent any sort of attack. Short of putting SAM batteries
around the entire island of Manhattan with an authorization to shoot upon
_any_ transgression into the restricted zone, you're just not going to stop
people from flying where they want. Maybe it'll ultimately come down to
that, as it seems to have around D.C. But I'll bet that the public would get
into a pretty big uproar over an accidental shoot-down of a pilot taking her
husband and kids on a sightseeing trip down the Hudson river.

--
Guy Elden Jr.

The TFRs may be so that the military rotorcraft patrols have clear space to
work in. I certainly wouldn't want to go flying where they are making
severe maneuvers.


"Guy Elden Jr." wrote in message
...
With the issuance today of a flood of TFRs covering NYC, Las Vegas, and
Southern California, and the resulting response from AOPA's Phil Boyer,
I'm
beginning to think that the approach they're taking toward these TFRs is
wrong. Here is what Boyer had to say about the NYC and LV TFRs:

"Security-related TFRs usually single out general aviation aircraft, which
have never been used in a terrorist attack," said AOPA President Phil
Boyer.
"The restrictions are an additional burden for pilots to carry. AOPA
believes they should only be issued based on credible threats - not on a
political need to be seen taking strong measures."

His assertion that GA aircraft have never been used in a terrorist attack
is
flawed logic. The same could have been said pre-9/11/01 about airliners.
What kind of reputation would AOPA have now, if they had complained about
every Presidential TFR issued before 9/11 using that statement? What kind
of
reputation do you think they'll have if GA aircraft are ever used in an
actual attack? I think he needs to stop using that argument... while the
amount of damage that could be caused by a single engine piston powered
aircraft is likely to be small, does AOPA really think that's going to
stop
a bunch of crazed, delusional people from trying?

Boyer's next statement, that the "restrictions are an additional burden
for
pilots to carry" is, at least for me, wrong. I feel no extra burden having
to talk to ATC to transit a TFR area. In fact, I feel safer knowing I've
got
a second pair of eyes looking over my shoulder. After all, getting a
squawk
code from ATC essentially means you've got flight following. And most of
the
truly temporary TFRs don't prohibit flight except for a very small area,
with the remainder of the area perfectly accessible to pilots. Having to
talk to ATC should not consitute an extra "burden" for pilots. After all,
would you like to fly in an airspace system without it?

I do think that the government is issuing most of these TFRs for no other
reason that to cover their asses. We as pilots know that they will
absolutely not prevent any sort of attack. Short of putting SAM batteries
around the entire island of Manhattan with an authorization to shoot upon
_any_ transgression into the restricted zone, you're just not going to
stop
people from flying where they want. Maybe it'll ultimately come down to
that, as it seems to have around D.C. But I'll bet that the public would
get
into a pretty big uproar over an accidental shoot-down of a pilot taking
her
husband and kids on a sightseeing trip down the Hudson river.

--
Guy Elden Jr.

Guy Elden Jr. wrote:

Boyer's next statement, that the "restrictions are an additional burden
for pilots to carry" is, at least for me, wrong. I feel no extra burden
having to talk to ATC to transit a TFR area. In fact, I feel safer knowing
I've got a second pair of eyes looking over my shoulder. After all,
getting a squawk code from ATC essentially means you've got flight
following. And most of the truly temporary TFRs don't prohibit flight
except for a very small area, with the remainder of the area perfectly
accessible to pilots. Having to talk to ATC should not consitute an extra
"burden" for pilots. After all, would you like to fly in an airspace
system without it?

There are several problems with your posting. One of them is that ATC
cannot handle the volume of traffic should everyone be speaking to ATC and
assuming no decrease in traffic. We saw this last time in the NY area,
where the ADIZ caused extensive delays departing CDW, for example, during
fair weather days.

Another problem depends upon how you define "burden". The current NOTAM for
the NY area (or at least what I last saw) wants aircraft in class B lateral
boundries only if they're based locally. So someone based at Somerset, for
example, has to stay clear.

You're also ignoring the "entry/exit airport" nonsense down in the DC area.
But I know that you're based up in my neighborhood, so you might not be
aware of it.

I do agree that Boyer is taking a risk in using the argument he's selected.
I'd much rather he speak of the relative utility of a Cessna 152 vs. a
JumboMonster Airbus as a weapon.

Even a slight change of wording, like "were not used in the 2001/9/11
attack" would be better than what he's saying now.

I also agree with you about the "Feel Good" nature of these TFRs. However,
I disagree with you about the significance of such. I think it important
that we make as many people as possible understand that these measures are
nothing but fluff. Americans should be aware of the low opinion held of
them by their "protectors". We citizens are being treated as idiots, too
stupid to recognize that we're being handed a placebo.

Perhaps some don't mind being treated thusly, but I suspect many would find
it as offensive as I do. If nothing can be done, then tell me so. Let me
make up my mind about what I will and won't do given *real* information.

- Andrew

"Guy Elden Jr." wrote:

With the issuance today of a flood of TFRs covering NYC, Las Vegas, and
Southern California, and the resulting response from AOPA's Phil Boyer, I'm
beginning to think that the approach they're taking toward these TFRs is
wrong.

I agree that AOPA's approach is wrong. Instead of whining that the TFRs are
issued with inadequate notice, grousing that they *hope* they are based on real
threats, complaining they're "burdensome", etc., AOPA needs to take off the
frigging gloves, tell the truth, and really fight.

These TFRs do absolutely nothing to make the nation more secure. They surely
would not deter any terrorist (on 9/11 a whole raft of regs were busted - that
didn't seem to have much effect). These measures are fundamentally dishonest.
They are a lie. They hurt aviation. They are anti-American. They are
idiotic. Boyer ought to be saying so without mincing any words.

I fear that Boyer and AOPA simply have become way too cozy with the
inside-the-beltway folks they spend their time lobbying. The emperor has no
clothes, but AOPA is afraid to ruffle any feathers in the TSA. They figure if
they **** off anybody in the TSA by actually speaking the truth, then their
next fawning request for an audience might be turned down, and they would lose
their next photo opp. Personally, I wouldn't see that as any great tragedy:
AOPA constantly tells us how great it is that they have such a positive working
relationship with the security goons, yet here we are into our third year of
"temporary" flight restriction hysteria, with no end in sight. The TSA doesn't
give a rip about GA or anything AOPA says. What's to feel so good about?

I wish there were some more gutsy alternative to AOPA, some group with more of
a spine. Yeah, I do support AOPA and send them money everytime Phil crys out
for more, but if there were some group with a little more fight in them, I'd
leave the timid folks at AOPA behind in a New York TFR minute. Gladly.

His assertion that GA aircraft have never been used in a terrorist attack is
flawed logic. The same could have been said pre-9/11/01 about airliners.

If the logic is flawed, that's only because GA aircraft are no more usable in a
spectacular terrorist attack than your average family car would be. Whatever
else you might say about him, Osama isn't stupid: he looked into using GA
aircraft for attacks but concluded that they just weren't capable of inflicting
much damage. If only the "security experts" running the federal government
were as sharp.

Boyer's next statement, that the "restrictions are an additional burden for
pilots to carry" is, at least for me, wrong. I feel no extra burden having
to talk to ATC to transit a TFR area...

I'm willing to accept the "extra burden" just as soon as all other equivalent
threats are saddled with the same burdens. When every car, truck and bicycle
within 25 NM of NYC is required to have a transponder and must contact Road
Traffic Control to get their squawk code before hitting the highways, then GA
pilots will have no reason to feel like they're being scapegoated. Until then,
the restrictions, and those who impose them on us, are just BS.

David H
Boeing Field (BFI), Seattle, WA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Visit the Pacific Northwest Flying forum:
http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/pnwflying

His assertion that GA aircraft have never been used in a terrorist attack
is
flawed logic.

I know many have forgotten or may not know of this, but a GA plane has been
used for unethical purposes.
Shortly after 9/11 a young kid thought he would make his mark on history by
slamming his plane (Cessna 152 I believe) into a building in downtown Tampa.
The plane was totally destroyed and the building only had a broken window or
something that minor.
I leave you with a ABC news web link for you to decide if Charles Bishop
was a domestic terrorist the likes of Timothy McVey.

David

Oops! Forgot to add the link.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Da...mpa020106.html

CFLav8r wrote:
His assertion that GA aircraft have never been used in a terrorist
attack is flawed logic.

I know many have forgotten or may not know of this, but a GA plane
has been used for unethical purposes.
Shortly after 9/11 a young kid thought he would make his mark on
history by slamming his plane (Cessna 152 I believe) into a building
in downtown Tampa. The plane was totally destroyed and the building
only had a broken window or something that minor.

Actually that is not surprising considering that a C-152 has a maximum
take-off weight of only 1670 pounds.
Granted, a C-152 can move twice as fast as let's say a simple SUV, thereby
having a more severe impact than the SUV. But any SUV is twice as heavy.
Now, how often did you see a building crumble when it was hit by an SUV?

In other words: GA aircraft are not a very efficient tool to carry out a
terrorist attack. Any heavy-duty pickup-truck or even better a commercial
truck or semi (even without any explosives) driven into a crowd or a
building will do much more damage.

jue

in article , CFLav8r at
wrote on 12/31/03 6:03 PM:

I know many have forgotten or may not know of this, but a GA plane has been
used for unethical purposes.
Shortly after 9/11 a young kid thought he would make his mark on history by
slamming his plane (Cessna 152 I believe) into a building in downtown Tampa.
The plane was totally destroyed and the building only had a broken window or
something that minor.
I leave you with a ABC news web link for you to decide if Charles Bishop
was a domestic terrorist the likes of Timothy McVey.

David

Everyone has also seemingly forgotten the incident in 1994, when a
single-engine plane was deliberately crashed into the White House:

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V114/N40/crash.40w.html

The plane did little damage, of course, outside of killing the pilot
instantly. But what's important about this incident is that here we have an
actual, real-life example of a GA plane being used in a "terrorist attack"
(it was actually just a suicide by a disturbed man, with little or no
political motivation), targeting the White House itself, and all of it
occuring without warnings or alerts of any kind.

In other words, we don't have to speculate about what "might happen"--it's
already happened. And nothing happened.

"CFLav8r" wrote in message
. com...
His assertion that GA aircraft have never been used in a terrorist
attack
is
flawed logic.

I know many have forgotten or may not know of this, but a GA plane has
been
used for unethical purposes.
Shortly after 9/11 a young kid thought he would make his mark on history
by
slamming his plane (Cessna 152 I believe) into a building in downtown
Tampa.
The plane was totally destroyed and the building only had a broken window
or
something that minor.
I leave you with a ABC news web link for you to decide if Charles Bishop
was a domestic terrorist the likes of Timothy McVey.


Lets not forget the incident in Milan last year.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1937976.stm

Alhtough not a terrorist attack it provides a clue as to the potential of GA
aircraft used for terrorism. If it had occurred during working hours then
the death toll probably would have been higher.

Earl G.

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 13:33:38 -0500, Andrew Gideon wrote:

We citizens are being treated as idiots, too
stupid to recognize that we're being handed a placebo.

Most citizens in fact *ARE* idiots. No matter in which country of the
world.

#m
--
harsh regulations in North Korea (read below link after reading the story):
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/04/open-mikulan.php
oooops ... sorry ... it happened in the USA, ya know: the land of the free.