Presidential TFRs -- AUGH!

Recently, Jay Honeck posted:

Sure -- the ONE time in my life I want to fly to Superior, WI, in the
middle of absolutely no where Wisconsin, to visit the Bong Museum
(BOTH kids are at camp -- heh, heh) -- and the President of the
United States chooses TODAY to visit Duluth, MN.

Right across the bridge from Superior...

It's a no-fly zone till later tonight...

I really don't understand the presidential TFRs at all. What is the
objective? Of all the presidents that have been assassinated, as well as
all attempted assasinations, none have involved aircraft of any kind.
Indeed, if one wanted to maximize the chances of success, GA is not a very
good option. Is there any logical reason why these TFRs exist?

Neil

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 15:08:00 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

Is there any logical reason why these TFRs exist?

They exist to provide the illusion that the SS is able to actually do
something to protect the leader of the free world from harm. It's a
CYA thing, in my opinion.

Of course, the reality is, like many things governmental, largely
ineffective. Over 3,000 square miles of restricted airspace
surrounding the US President is absurd, but then so is the current
office holder...

Neil Gould wrote:

I really don't understand the presidential TFRs at all. What is the
objective?

The logic is something like:
If the only aircraft in this area are those that shouldn't be here, it's
easier for us to identify the "bad guys."

Of all the presidents that have been assassinated, as well
as all attempted assasinations, none have involved aircraft of any
kind. Indeed, if one wanted to maximize the chances of success, GA is
not a very good option. Is there any logical reason why these TFRs
exist?

Logic to rational aviation-savvy voters? No. Logic to aviation-ignorant
voters? Absolutely. Just ask a friend of yours whose only concept of
aviation is having to stand in line to empty all metal from pockets and step
through the cattle gates of the commercial airport what they think of the DC
ADIZ and the ability of VFR pilots to fly almost anywhere they want (outside
the ADIZ, that is) without talking to anybody.

Sure, those being protected by these roaming TFRs are elected officials (for
the most part) and nominally work for us (the relative few who actually
bother to vote). Contrary to what some will have you believe, though, the
occupant of the White House has no input into this process. It's the
security bureaucracy that makes this call - and they don't report to the
electorate. See the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC for a
previous example under a different political party. The security folks take
their job - protecting the *office*, not the person - very seriously.
Unfortunately, we're suffering the side-effects of their vigor.

The fact remains that there is a limit to the amount of security you can
install to protect a place or person. While the flight restricted zone and
ADIZ over Washington greatly restricts the number of planes over the city,
it's still possible for one of those planes or even an intruder to make it
downtown before any response can be mounted (see the recent brouhaha
involving the governor of Kentucky).

And that's just airborne threats. The next time you're in town, pay
attention to all the trucks that are allowed within yards of any number of
government agencies and facilities (including the Capitol, Supreme Court,
Smithsonian museums, and even the White House).

You can't protect against all threats and your job is greatly complicated
when facing somebody willing to die to achieve their goal. However, those
tasked with protecting the President have to "Do Something" to help their
cause - and the roaming TFRs are part of the answer. The cynic in me says
that they're not so much protecting against threats to their charge as much
as protecting their own butts from us in case their charge is successfully
attacked. Congress would mount an investigation and there would be public
calls for heads on pikes for "dereliction of duty."

Keep in contact with your elected officials to remind them how ridiculous
these flight restrictions are. Don't forget to mention that not one
terrorist attack has been mounted or even attempted (as far as I know) with
general aviation aircraft. Try to remind your aviation-ignorant associates
that their SUV, mini-van or even their family sedan can cause more
destruction than a typical GA airplane.

While doing all this, please remember to check for and abide by NOTAMs.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

John T wrote:

Sure, those being protected by these roaming TFRs are elected officials
(for the most part) and nominally work for us (the relative few who
actually
bother to vote). Contrary to what some will have you believe, though, the
occupant of the White House has no input into this process. It's the
security bureaucracy that makes this call - and they don't report to the
electorate. See the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC for
a
previous example under a different political party. The security folks
take their job - protecting the office, not the person - very seriously.
Unfortunately, we're suffering the side-effects of their vigor.

I don't actually know anything about how these decisions are made, but I'm
sceptical of your assertion that the person being protected has zero say in
the matter. If security were my job, and I were the absolute arbiter of
how that job were achieved, my first rule would be "no [in-person] public
appearances".

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon wrote:

I don't actually know anything about how these decisions are made,
but I'm sceptical of your assertion that the person being protected
has zero say in the matter. If security were my job, and I were the
absolute arbiter of how that job were achieved, my first rule would
be "no [in-person] public appearances".

Remember my point about not being able to create a perfect security
blanket...

Public appearances is a point of discussion - both between the politicians
and the security folks as well as among the security folks themselves. How
do you protect a public personality when they insist on and must be in
public appearances for their job? The protected person may have some input
into where and when they go, but the security of the appearance is something
they rarely (and probably should not) concern themselves with.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:XIZIc.81886$Oq2.81393@attbi_s52...
Sure -- the ONE time in my life I want to fly to Superior, WI, in the middle
of absolutely no where Wisconsin, to visit the Bong Museum

Y'know, not being a big WW-II buff, I read "Bong Museum" and I got to
wondering if it was a good idea for an activist trying to save his
airport to publically admit a fascination with drug paraphernalia...

....then I found http://www.bongheritagecenter.org and any doubts about
Jay's judgement were erased.

Otto

John T wrote:
bother to vote). Contrary to what some will have you believe, though, the
occupant of the White House has no input into this process. It's the
security bureaucracy that makes this call - and they don't report to the
electorate. See the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC for a
previous example under a different political party. The security folks take
their job - protecting the *office*, not the person - very seriously.
Unfortunately, we're suffering the side-effects of their vigor.

I think the President *could* do something. He could go to the head of
the Secret Service and say "lift the ADIZ and reduce the number of TFRs or
you're fired". If that he resists, he fires him, and goes to the next in
the command chain. At some point, the Secret Service "management" would
do it. But that would assume the President had balls.

--- Jay



--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

Am I to assume you perform open-heart surgery on yourself instead of
consulting a specialist?

The primary job of the Secret Service is to protect the President and other
officials. And they are pretty well world-renowned for their expertise.
Quite reasonably, the President generally defers to their judgment.

But since 9/11, far too many of us have lined up like sheep behind various
security "experts", forgetting that security experts don't make any money
unless they continually come up with new threats, along with the associated
responses.

But, just like walking safely down the street at midnight, preventing
terrorism first requires an application of common sense. And frequently,
that's all that needs to be applied.

We all like to talk about ADIZ's and TFR's, but they are only the tip of a
very large iceberg. What we need is for all of us to contact our elected
leaders and demand a rational re-evaluation of the security measures now in
place with the primary purpose of eliminating as many of them as possible.
When people have to wait 6 hours in an airport security line in order to
make a 30 minute flight because a rat ran through the terminal, something is
very wrong.

It's time to make some realistic threat assessments and put some realistic
security measures and equipment in place!

And don't even get me started on guns in the cockpit...


"Jay Masino" wrote in message
...
John T wrote:
bother to vote). Contrary to what some will have you believe, though,
the
occupant of the White House has no input into this process. It's the
security bureaucracy that makes this call - and they don't report to the
electorate. See the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC
for a
previous example under a different political party. The security folks
take
their job - protecting the *office*, not the person - very seriously.
Unfortunately, we're suffering the side-effects of their vigor.

I think the President *could* do something. He could go to the head of
the Secret Service and say "lift the ADIZ and reduce the number of TFRs or
you're fired". If that he resists, he fires him, and goes to the next in
the command chain. At some point, the Secret Service "management" would
do it. But that would assume the President had balls.

--- Jay



--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 15:08:00 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

Is there any logical reason why these TFRs exist?

They exist to provide the illusion that the SS is able to actually do
something to protect the leader of the free world from harm. It's a
CYA thing, in my opinion.

Of course, the reality is, like many things governmental, largely
ineffective. Over 3,000 square miles of restricted airspace
surrounding the US President is absurd, but then so is the current
office holder...

Didn't Hitler also have the SS?

The Congressional staffers prefer to excercise playing basketball...
The Congresscritters themselves prefer softball...
The Senators prefer handball...
The President plays golf...

All of which says the higher you get in politics, the smaller your balls are.

{;-)


Jim (stopped at the county level) Weir






(Jay Masino)
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

But that would assume the President had balls.
-
---- Jay

Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com