Seattle TFRs

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
m...
What is the reason for the TFRs West of Seattle? I overflew then the
other day (above the TFR altitude) and there didn't appear to be
anything interesting down there. Its really, really sad when a TFR is
so old, they start putting it on the sectional. Makes it hard to
continue to call it "temporary".

Officially? The terrorist threat requires them so that those guarding the
sites don't have to concern themselves with regular traffic.

Rumor? The Navy has been wanting restricted areas around their
installations for years, and since 9/11 has found an excuse to get them.

As with all of the other TFRs, it's not like the four in the Puget Sound
area actually accomplish anything. If you wanted to do harm with an
airplane, the TFRs wouldn't stop you (no reasonable protected airspace
would).

There are four in the Seattle area. I'm not sure which one(s) you're
referring to. The southern-most one "protects" the Bremerton Navy shipyard.
The largest one, north of Bremerton, "protects" the Bangor submarine base.
There's another one further north and just east of Port Townsend (Jefferson
County Airport) "protecting" some sort of munitions depot, as I understand
it.

The ironic thing about that third one is that I, and nearly everyone else I
know, had no idea there was any Navy property there until the TFR appeared.
The only people who did know were boaters, and all they knew was that they
were required to remain a certain distance from shore (100 yards, I
think...there are big signs along the shoreline there).

The fourth one is just north and east of Paine Field, over the Everett
waterfront. That's the Navy's Everett "home port".

On the bright side, six months ago they significantly reduced the size of
the TFRs -- the one over the Everett home port is now so small that you
might have a hard time flying through it even if you meant to -- and of
course, now that they are charted, we don't have to keep hand-drawing the
areas in.

I agree with your thoughts regarding the incongruous name "temporary", but
of course to the FAA and the TSA, "temporary" is just a name. It doesn't
really mean anything, except to reference the particular part of the FARs
authorizing TFRs. As far as them putting them on the sectional goes, it's
my opinion that they should have been charting them from the outset, as soon
as they realized the TFRs would still exist at a single chart revision.
Even if they were more literally "temporary" (and truthfully, the definition
of temporary does not necessarily imply a short calendar time...after all,
the last Ice Age was temporary ), the chart should show anything and
everything that is known and relevant to flight and which can be shown in a
practical way.

Pete