A Stupid Idea That Could Hurt Aviation

  • Thread starter Thread starter KennyFlys
  • Start date Start date
K

KennyFlys

Guest
I've lost track of much of the junk that happens around a large city since I left the Atlanta area. But, I still read Boortz from time to time and he occasionally adds things that are relevant to his life as a private pilot.

Today, he added this little gem of a piece. I'll post the text of his piece as he hits on something the article referenced will never touch.

Let's get this stupid idea stopped before it picks up any more steam. What stupid idea? Well ... read this story. Someone thinks it might be a good idea to build a new football stadium for the Atlanta Falcons on the site of the now-closed Doraville General Motors Assembly Plant. If you live in Atlanta you might know that this assembly plant is very close to Georgia's 2nd busiest airport, Dekalb-Peachtree (PDK). When I'm landing on runway 20L I'm looking right down on the roof of this assembly plant out my left window --- and I'm not all that high either. Let's call it around 400 to 500 feet.

Are the pilots and businesses that use PDK aware of what's being discussed here? They're talking about building a stadium and various mixed-use developments right in the approach path to PDK's busiest runway. You know what happens next, don't you? Well ... the FAA should step in and prohibit a project like this right off the bat ... but you can't count on that ... so what happens next is that people start screaming for the closure of PDK. After all, you can't have all of this people flying around in their airplanes over a crowded stadium, can you? Golly! They might be terrorists or something? At the very least you will have pressure to close PDK ... or at least the runways that have approach or departure paths over the stadium.

The pilots, staff and business of PDK had better get busy killing this idea right about now. There are many good locations for a new stadium in the Atlanta area ... this isn't one of them.

OK .. now you wealth envy folks can start screaming. After all, anyone with an airplane is rich, right? You don't want to hear that the average value of a privately owned piston aircraft is less than the cost of a bass rig, do you. No. Didn't think so.
Click to expand...
Doraville, GA General Motors Plant

I've added a map link showing the GM plant. Scroll south-southwest toward the airport. On the map, it looks a lot further away. Having flown traffic watch and paralleled I-285 when crossing the centerlines for the 20's, I can assure you it's definitely close.

This barely popped up. There is a group in Atlanta who want to see PDK closed. Such would have a huge impact on Atlanta considering it's the tenth busiest GA airport in the country, exceeding some 270,000 operations per year. I wonder how many other projects are being considered across the country that are a threat to GA?
 
SkyHog said:
Finally, Boortz says something well thought out and intelligent enough for me to get behind! Give him my kudos!
Click to expand...
Well he did forget all about the stadium TFR in his rant.

BTW why is he ragging on Bass players. My bass only cost me a few hundred bucks and my amp was a few hundred more. Hardly the cost of a plane. Why even a good Sadowsky 5-string bass is only about $3000, Fender P-bass and J-Basses run at around the $2000 for US made instruments. ;)
 
Last edited:
KennyFlys said:
If you notice, he took it a step beyond TFRs.
Click to expand...
Actually I did notice and he ignored the TFRs.

FDC 3/1862 FDC PART 1 OF 2 SPECIAL NOTICE. THIS NOTICE MODIFIES FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS PREVIOUSLY ISSUED IN FDC NOTAM 2/0199 TO COMPLY WITH STATUTORY MANDATES DETAILED IN SECTION 352 OF PUBLIC LAW 108-7. EFFECTIVE 0303061100 UTC (0600 LOCAL 03/06/03) UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE. PURSUANT TO 14 CFR SECTION 99.7, SPECIAL SECURITY INSTRUCTIONS, COMMENCING ONE HOUR BEFORE THE SCHEDULED TIME OF THE EVENT UNTIL ONE HOUR AFTER THE END OF THE EVENT, ALL AIRCRAFT AND PARACHUTE OPERATIONS ARE PROHIBITED AT AND BELOW 3,000 FEET AGL WITHIN A THREE NAUTICAL MILE RADIUS OF ANY STADIUM HAVING A SEATING CAPACITY OF 30,000 OR MORE PEOPLE IN WHICH A MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL, NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, NCAA DIVISION ONE FOOTBALL, OR MAJOR MOTOR SPEEDWAY EVENT IS OCCURING. ALL PREVIOUSLY ISSUED WAIVERS TO FDC NOTAM 2/0199 ARE RESCINDED. THOSE WHO MEET ANY OF THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA MAY REAPPLY FOR A WAIVER TO THESE RESTRICTIONS: (A) FOR OPERATIONAL PURPOSES OF AN EVENT, STADIUM, OR OTHER VENUE, INCLUDING (IN THE CASE OF A SPORTING EVENT) THE TRANSPORT OF EQUIPMENT OR PARTS, TEAM MEMBERS, OFFICIALS OF THE GOVERNING BODY, THE IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBERS AND GUESTS OF SUCH TEAMS, AND OFFICIALS TO AND FROM THE EVENT, STADIUM, OR OTHER VENUE, END PART 1 OF 2 FDC 3/1862 FDC PART 2 OF 2 SPECIAL NOTICE. (B) FOR BROADCAST COVERAGE FOR ANY BROADCAST RIGHTS HOLDER, (C) FOR SAFETY AND SECURITY PURPOSES OF THE EVENT, STADIUM, OR OTHER VENUE. THIS RESTRICTION DOES NOT APPLY TO; (A) THOSE AIRCRAFT AUTHORIZED BY ATC FOR OPERATIONAL OR SAFETY PURPOSES INCLUDING AIRCRAFT ARRIVING OR DEPARTING FROM AN AIRPORT USING STANDARD AIR TRAFFIC PROCEDURES; (B) DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, LAW ENFORCEMENT, OR AEROMEDICAL FLIGHT OPERATIONS THAT ARE IN CONTACT WITH ATC. STADIUM SITE LOCATIONS AND INFORMATION REGARDING WAIVER APPLICATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 352 OF PUBLIC LAW 108-7 CAN BE OBTAINED FROM THE FAA WEBSITE AT HTTP://WWW.FAA.GOV/ATS/ATA/WAIVER OR BY CALLING 571-227-1322. PART 2 OF 2
Click to expand...

So all the panicky statements such as:
Boortz said:
After all, you can't have all of this people flying around in their airplanes over a crowded stadium, can you? Golly! They might be terrorists or something? At the very least you will have pressure to close PDK ... or at least the runways that have approach or departure paths over the stadium.
Click to expand...
Have already been addressed.

While I agree that building a stadium there is a stupid idea, a better argument is to make how it is disruptive to air traffic, will adversely affect the economy in the area for higher paying jobs as compared to peanut vendors, and avoid the emotional rhetoric that is easily put to rest by stating, "well we have a TFR". The talking head that refutes using that argument will have proven the value of of TFRs to keep the public safe and that is an even worse siutation. Boortz's approach could make things worse for aviation by his illconceived bloviations.
 
He said "bass rig", I thought referring to a bass fishing boat, not a bass instrument? The fishing boat sounds a lot more in line with the cost of a plane.

The comparison might not be great, but he's right. Look at the number of people who go out and spend $35,000-$40,000 on an F-350 turbo diesel and then another $50,000 on a gooseneck travel trailer so they can go "camping", only to replace it after a few years and a lot of depreciation. And a plane is extravagant? Sorry, not buying it. Even some twin-engined planes get better fuel economy (miles per gallon) than the trucks towing those trailers, at least the planes are going a lot faster while doing it.

The problem is that aviation is labeled as a rich man's hobby. While it does cost money, the sort of affluence required to do the flying that most of us do is just as much within reach of people as buying that F-350 and the travel trailer, it's a matter of what you want to spend your money on. Now if you're talking about going out and buying a brand new plane or some of the larger planes, that is a different story.
 
smigaldi said:
BTW why is he ragging on Bass players. My bass only cost me a few hundred bucks and my amp was a few hundred more. Hardly the cost of a plane. Why even a good Sadowsky 5-string bass is only about $3000, Fender P-bass and J-Basses run at around the $2000 for US made instruments. ;)
Click to expand...

Bass rig, as in Bass Boats
Based on what I've seen, they're from $30,000 to $60,000. Used is $15K to way too much. I was at a boat shop last summer and distinctly recall seeing a 2008 used one for $52K and a brand new 2009 model next to it for $69,500 plus accessories which ran another $8,000 or so. I can buy two airplanes for that much and still have fuel money left over.

If you want to talk spendy toys, a new motorhome will set you back at least $45K and likely higher. About 4 miles from here, there's a 45ish foot Class A diesel pusher motorcoach that has a 7 digit price tag laying on the counter - and it's hideous outside and FUGLY inside. We're talking about stuff that your typical buyer will only use it maybe 14 days a year.
 
Last edited:
fgcason said:
Bass rig, as in Bass Boats
Click to expand...
Basses make poor boats. The wood is pretty dense and would not support much weight. Not to mention that immersion in water would warp the necks and cause a lot of the strings to rub on the frets. Also if you are using an electric bass the amp getting water in it could cause a shock hazard! :rofl:
 
Anyone who thinks TFRs make us safer probably thinks the government is the grand protector along with all the police departments. The supreme court debunked that one a couple years ago. Sorry, the whole TFR issue has gone off the deep end. Boortz has stated so and so have I.

Now, as far as TFRs over a stadium near an airport, the one near AUS comes very close. That TFR does absolutely nothing for the safety of those in that stadium. The 17R localizer path is just within the three mile TFR just about three miles from the threshold. There's no way they will shut that down for the TFR. It won't happen in Atlanta, either.

As far as your opinion about Boortz, you're back to apparently not having a clue of the things he has stated in the past.
 
While I agree with your subject line, a bit of precedent with Raymond James Stadium and the 'GA' runway at KTPA (similar lateral separation, more distance). Not so good for locals, but boy is it nice for out of towners flying in to the game, which I did once. :D
 
KennyFlys said:
Anyone who thinks TFRs make us safer probably thinks the government is the grand protector along with all the police departments. The supreme court debunked that one a couple years ago. Sorry, the whole TFR issue has gone off the deep end. Boortz has stated so and so have I.

Now, as far as TFRs over a stadium near an airport, the one near AUS comes very close. That TFR does absolutely nothing for the safety of those in that stadium. The 17R localizer path is just within the three mile TFR just about three miles from the threshold. There's no way they will shut that down for the TFR. It won't happen in Atlanta, either.
Click to expand...
I agree that TFRs do nothing.

But the problem is that there are tons of people who think they do.

Just watch any news report about airport security and all the people that think that taking off their shoes has made air travel safe. The flying public has not a clue about what is real aviation security, they have been taught to respond to aviation security theater and that is what will happen here as well.

Boortz's argument that the skies will be filled with potential terrorists will just be countered by the pro-stadium factions with the "we have a TFR" argument. That will suffice many in the public as a good solution. The TFRs will do absolutely nothing to keep them safe and will just annoy the heck out of us pilots. It may end up doing more harm as well. As now the Atlanta public will like TFRs, they may ask for more. So in effect Boortz will have created an environment where he managed to create more TFRs, an unintended consequence due to his poor argument.

KennyFlys said:
As far as your opinion about Boortz, you're back to apparently not having a clue of the things he has stated in the past.
Click to expand...
Thanks to your frequent posts from Boortz's website I am all too familiar with his opinions.
 
smigaldi said:
So all the panicky statements such as:
Have already been addressed.
Click to expand...

How so? The TFR excludes arriving and departing aircraft using standard air traffic procedures. Those aircraft will be able to fly over the stadium striking fear into thousands of ignorant people. Those people and ignorant members of the media will call for the closure of the airport. Boortz likely ignored the TFR because he understands that it's completely useless.
 
KennyFlys said:
Anyone who thinks TFRs make us safer probably thinks the government is the grand protector along with all the police departments.
Click to expand...

Nobody thinks stadium TFRs increase safety. Many people feel stadium TFRs increase safety.

Now, as far as TFRs over a stadium near an airport, the one near AUS comes very close. That TFR does absolutely nothing for the safety of those in that stadium. The 17R localizer path is just within the three mile TFR just about three miles from the threshold.
Click to expand...

GRB is even closer, it has no effect on operations.
 
roncachamp said:
Boortz likely ignored the TFR because he understands that it's completely useless.
Click to expand...
Plus he might realize that for his audience, which I assume to be the general public, TFRs are a non issue. People either don't know or care that they exist, or even if they know, many may think it's a good idea.
 
roncachamp said:
How so? The TFR excludes arriving and departing aircraft using standard air traffic procedures. Those aircraft will be able to fly over the stadium striking fear into thousands of ignorant people. Those people and ignorant members of the media will call for the closure of the airport. Boortz likely ignored the TFR because he understands that it's completely useless.
Click to expand...
Those aircraft also have to "be authorized" by ATC". While PDK is a class D airport that subtlity will be lost on the non-pilot public. They think that all airports do or should have a tower and that the tower is all of ATC. This TFR will stop the fear making nordo Cessna 150, tool of terrorists everywhere, from coming into PDK! Isn't that a good thing if you are a panicky, know nothing about aviation security public?
 
smigaldi said:
Basses make poor boats. The wood is pretty dense and would not support much weight. Not to mention that immersion in water would warp the necks and cause a lot of the strings to rub on the frets. Also if you are using an electric bass the amp getting water in it could cause a shock hazard! :rofl:
Click to expand...
I think a bass fiddle would make a fine kayak! :P
 
Everskyward said:
Plus he might realize that for his audience, which I assume to be the general public, TFRs are a non issue. People either don't know or care that they exist, or even if they know, many may think it's a good idea.
Click to expand...
This is quite true. Also, it appears a post in another thread just last week regarding one of Boortz's antics was ignored. Boortz is a lot more concerned about maintaining his unimpeded freedom to exercise his privileges as a private pilot than he is about someone's feelings of safety around an airport or within a stadium. Frankly, so am I.
 
smigaldi said:
Basses make poor boats. The wood is pretty dense and would not support much weight. Not to mention that immersion in water would warp the necks and cause a lot of the strings to rub on the frets. Also if you are using an electric bass the amp getting water in it could cause a shock hazard! :rofl:
Click to expand...

Not if you throw that electric one out and use a real wood one.:D
 
roncachamp said:
You make it sound like specific advance authorization is required. Nothing beyond the normal calls or clearance is required.
Click to expand...
I made it sound exactly as it was written. It would appear that you are choosing to read into it what is simply not there. But to your point, the non-pilot public thinks that ATC authorization is some special thing. That may make the non-pilot population more inclinded to believe that the security theater of TFRs helps to keep them safe. We simply know that to be untrue.
 
smigaldi said:
I made it sound exactly as it was written. It would appear that you are choosing to read into it what is simply not there. But to your point, the non-pilot public thinks that ATC authorization is some special thing. That may make the non-pilot population more inclinded to believe that the security theater of TFRs helps to keep them safe. We simply know that to be untrue.
Click to expand...

It would appear that all you know of stadium TFRs is what you've read, you have no actual experience with them. Here's some free advice, change your attitude a bit and you just might learn something.
 
roncachamp said:
It would appear that all you know of stadium TFRs is what you've read, you have no actual experience with them. Here's some free advice, change your attitude a bit and you just might learn something.
Click to expand...
Steve the NOTAM states what I wrote. It was a quote from the NOTAM

You and I know what it really means and if you had read more carefully what I wrote it is what the non-pilots who think that ATC authorization implies a whole bunch of security garbage, clearances, flight plans, etc. I was agreeing with you and pointing out that the public that are not pilots (non-pilots) do not know the thruth. They think stadium TFRs are useful.

The non-flying (non-pilot) public are ignorant on these issues and that is my point.

I have no idea why you decided to attack me in your posting.

BTW just so you know, while I am sure that Lambeau field presents some challenges to people in the great white north, Wrigley, Comisky, Soldier Field, Ryan field, Joliet Speedway, and NIU gives us Chicagoans a bit of experience with the stadium TFR. So your comment about the NOTAM and what I know about it was way out of line IMHO.

Oh and BTW DuPage FSDO was asked if one could use flight following as part of the authorization to get through these TFRs. This was his reply:

Although the this notam does not apply to aircraft "authorized by ATC", I was told by a flight service Specialist that flight following would not be enough. Seeking further clarification, I have spoken with the FSDO Office at Du Page. One of the Operations Inspectors, Dave Baird, told me that flight following does not qualify as being with ATC as flight following provides no navigational support and is on a work load permitting basis.
Click to expand...
This was asked by the USCG for our USCG Aux flights along the lakeshore so that we could fly through the multiple stadium TFRs that pop up throughout the year. This really blows me away that now the "authorized by ATC" part of the NOTAM means that have to have "naviagational support" Whatever the heck that means. But I digress form the point of this thread.

That point is that people will think and by people I mean those that are not pilots, the TFR will keep their stadium near KPDK safe.

I know and you know that the TFR does nothing of the sort, but that does not mean that people will think otherwise.
 
Last edited:
smigaldi said:
Steve the NOTAM states what I wrote. It was a quote form the NOTAM
Click to expand...

You wrote, "Those aircraft also have to 'be authorized' by ATC." Please explain how an aircraft flying into an airport within a stadium TFR obtains authorization.

You and I know what it really means and if you had read more carefully what I wrote it is what the non-pilots who think that ATC authorization implies a whole bunch of security garbage, clearances, flight plans, etc. I was agreeing with you and pointing out that the public that are not pilots (non-pilots) do not know the thruth. They think stadium TFRs are useful.
Click to expand...
I know what the TFR really means, but I don't think that you do. I doubt many non-pilots know anything about stadium TFRs.

I have no idea why you decided to attack me in your posting.
Click to expand...
I didn't attack you, I offered you some free advice.

BTW just so you know, while I am sure that Lambeau field presents some challenges to people in the great white north, Wrigley, Comisky, Soldier Field, Ryan field, Joliet Speedway, and NIU gives us Chicagoans a bit of experience with the stadium TFR. So your comment about the NOTAM and what I know about it was way out of line IMHO.
Click to expand...
I doubt many Chicagoans fly to any events at those venues and none of them are within the TFRs for any public use airport, although Brigham Field is close to the TFR for DKB.

Oh and BTW DuPage FSDO was asked if one could use flight following as part of the authorization to get through these TFRs. This was his reply:

This was asked by the USCG for our USCG Aux flights along the lakeshore so that we could fly through the multiple stadium TFRs that pop up throughout the year.
Click to expand...
We're not talking about flying THROUGH the TFR, we're talking about arrivals and departures at an airport affected by a stadium TFR.
 
Flight Following is never enough to get past a TFR. In order to pass through the Waco TFR or Crawford TFR, you must be on a DVFR or IFR flight plan and you must be in contact with ATC at all times with a Mode C transponder.

Even when the expanded TFRs are not in effect, if I'm going to be in that area, I still call Waco or Grey Approach as appropriate and inquire of their status. To not do so is placing your ticket at risk.

I have no clue how the ADIZ or now FRZ works around DCA. I hope I never have to find out. But, even that is a joke. It doesn't do a dang thing but restrict those who would otherwise wish to travel through the area.
 
KennyFlys said:
Flight Following is never enough to get past a TFR. .
Click to expand...
Those other TFRs are a whole different ball of wax and I agree that FF is not enough. my comments are confined to the stadium TFR.

The stadium TFR just says "authorized by ATC", we (USCG) asked what authorization means, and if FF with a request to penetrate the TFR for transition would be enough. The FSDO said no. Also the section that we are referring to does not apply to just landing and departing aircraft. There is an exception for DoD aircraft but we are under DHS, that is why we are trying to work with the FAA on this one to simply procedures for Stadium TFR restrictions.

THIS RESTRICTION DOES NOT APPLY TO; (A) THOSE AIRCRAFT AUTHORIZED BY ATC FOR OPERATIONAL OR SAFETY PURPOSES INCLUDING AIRCRAFT ARRIVING OR DEPARTING FROM AN AIRPORT USING STANDARD AIR TRAFFIC PROCEDURES;
Click to expand...
The way the sentance is written aircraft transistioning for operational and safety purposes just need the ATC authorization. I say that as the statement goes out of its way to say that landing and departing aircraft are different than aircraft authorized for safety and operational purposes. This is the point that we (USCG) are still discussing with Chicago Approach and the FSDO. Last I heard we bounced the issue up to Washington DC.

Not to mention that whole "navigation support" thing that the FSDO used in their reason why we could not get authorized via FF. i hardly ever get ATC navigational support when landing in VMC except for a few statements such as call a x mile base, downwind, etc.
 
Last edited:
roncachamp said:
You wrote, "Those aircraft also have to 'be authorized' by ATC." Please explain how an aircraft flying into an airport within a stadium TFR obtains authorization.
Click to expand...
Which is all that the Stadium NOTAM says.

FDC 3/1862 FDC PART 1 OF 2 SPECIAL NOTICE. THIS NOTICE MODIFIES FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS PREVIOUSLY ISSUED IN FDC NOTAM 2/0199 TO COMPLY WITH STATUTORY MANDATES DETAILED IN SECTION 352 OF PUBLIC LAW 108-7. EFFECTIVE 0303061100 UTC (0600 LOCAL 03/06/03) UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE. PURSUANT TO 14 CFR SECTION 99.7, SPECIAL SECURITY INSTRUCTIONS, COMMENCING ONE HOUR BEFORE THE SCHEDULED TIME OF THE EVENT UNTIL ONE HOUR AFTER THE END OF THE EVENT, ALL AIRCRAFT AND PARACHUTE OPERATIONS ARE PROHIBITED AT AND BELOW 3,000 FEET AGL WITHIN A THREE NAUTICAL MILE RADIUS OF ANY STADIUM HAVING A SEATING CAPACITY OF 30,000 OR MORE PEOPLE IN WHICH A MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL, NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, NCAA DIVISION ONE FOOTBALL, OR MAJOR MOTOR SPEEDWAY EVENT IS OCCURING. ALL PREVIOUSLY ISSUED WAIVERS TO FDC NOTAM 2/0199 ARE RESCINDED. THOSE WHO MEET ANY OF THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA MAY REAPPLY FOR A WAIVER TO THESE RESTRICTIONS: (A) FOR OPERATIONAL PURPOSES OF AN EVENT, STADIUM, OR OTHER VENUE, INCLUDING (IN THE CASE OF A SPORTING EVENT) THE TRANSPORT OF EQUIPMENT OR PARTS, TEAM MEMBERS, OFFICIALS OF THE GOVERNING BODY, THE IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBERS AND GUESTS OF SUCH TEAMS, AND OFFICIALS TO AND FROM THE EVENT, STADIUM, OR OTHER VENUE, END PART 1 OF 2 FDC 3/1862 FDC PART 2 OF 2 SPECIAL NOTICE. (B) FOR BROADCAST COVERAGE FOR ANY BROADCAST RIGHTS HOLDER, (C) FOR SAFETY AND SECURITY PURPOSES OF THE EVENT, STADIUM, OR OTHER VENUE. THIS RESTRICTION DOES NOT APPLY TO; (A) THOSE AIRCRAFT AUTHORIZED BY ATC FOR OPERATIONAL OR SAFETY PURPOSES INCLUDING AIRCRAFT ARRIVING OR DEPARTING FROM AN AIRPORT USING STANDARD AIR TRAFFIC PROCEDURES; (B) DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, LAW ENFORCEMENT, OR AEROMEDICAL FLIGHT OPERATIONS THAT ARE IN CONTACT WITH ATC. STADIUM SITE LOCATIONS AND INFORMATION REGARDING WAIVER APPLICATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 352 OF PUBLIC LAW 108-7 CAN BE OBTAINED FROM THE FAA WEBSITE AT HTTP://WWW.FAA.GOV/ATS/ATA/WAIVER OR BY CALLING 571-227-1322. PART 2 OF 2
Click to expand...
All I quoted is exactly as written and I made no claims about what it meant. You started accusing me of making the statement into something I never said. So please support your accusation. Where did I claim it to be anything other than what is written?

I even told you I had not implied anything and stated my agreement with you. But you are still adamant that I have said something else.

I have not said anything other than what the NOTAM states, so you cannot point to it. But you felt the need to insult my intelligence anyway. :mad3:
 
Last edited:
smigaldi said:
It just asks.
Click to expand...

Who does it ask? When does it ask?

Do you think that john q public thinks that? Or do you think that the average person who is not a pilot thinks it means more?
Click to expand...
You still don't get it. John Q. Public thinks nothing of stadium TFRs because he doesn't know they exist.

I really think you are not reading or understanding my posts. You are in violent agreement with what I have written.
Click to expand...
I've read and understood all of your posts. You've made it clear that you haven't understood mine, didn't understand the Boortz column, don't understand the stadium TFR NOTAM, and you're determined NOT to understand them.

So be it.
 
roncachamp said:
Who does it ask? When does it ask?

You still don't get it. John Q. Public thinks nothing of stadium TFRs because he doesn't know they exist.
Click to expand...
It has been covered in news that the public gets.

Here are a couple of examples.

http://www.michigandaily.com/content/politics-stadiums-no-fly-zone
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-71084817.html
http://milwaukee.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/stories/2001/09/17/daily16.html
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20010921&slug=faa210

I like this one the best
http://the-ozone.net/misc/01stadsecur.htm
Additionally, Geiger announced that Ohio Stadium, and for that matter all stadia in the country, are now no-fly zones. The days of banner toting aircraft and news helicopters circling Ohio Stadium are now over.
Click to expand...
Guess he really does not understand the stadium TFR? or maybe he understands it better than us, hmmmmm, but that whole banner towing argument is an altogether different thread.

The public is aware of these restriction. They do not understand them, which is the point of my posts that you seem to be missing.

I have been asked my regular people all kinds of silly question about flight restrictions since 9/11. you probably have as well. Things like 'can you just get in your plane and fly anywhere you want without anyone permission?'

The public is aware of flight restrictions and generally are supportive of them. Us pilots have not done a good job of pointing out their failings. Probably mostly due to the fact that if we did more draconian security theater would be imposed upon us. Can anyone say nationwide ADIZ?

Whatever Steve. you are right. I did learn something but it was not about the stadium NOTAM.

The whole point of this argument is that the people of Atlanta when told that there is a stadium flight restriction will think that this protects the stadium form those evil planes. I don't think anyone on this board thinks that the stadium NOTAM does anything but create a facade of safety. It is window dressing, security theater, etc. Or do you think it really keeps people safe?
 
Last edited:
smigaldi said:
It has been covered in news that the public gets.

Here are a couple of examples.

http://www.michigandaily.com/content/politics-stadiums-no-fly-zone
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-71084817.html
http://milwaukee.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/stories/2001/09/17/daily16.html
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20010921&slug=faa210
Click to expand...

Did you actually read any of those? The first three don't apply to the stadium TFR and the last contradicts itself.

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20010921&slug=faa210I like this one the best
http://the-ozone.net/misc/01stadsecur.htm
Guess he really does not understand the stadium TFR?
Click to expand...

That can't be determined from that article as it predates stadium TFRs.

The whole point of this argument is that the people of Atlanta when told that there is a stadium flight restriction will think that this protects the stadium form those evil planes. I don't think anyone on this board thinks that the stadium NOTAM does anything but create a facade of safety. It is window dressing, security theater, etc. Or do you think it really keeps people safe?
Click to expand...

You still don't get it. You felt Boortz forgot all about the stadium TFR in his "rant". That can't be determined from the article. What you have not yet grasped is that arrival and departure aircraft are unaffected by the stadium TFR. That's the traffic that will be flying over a stadium if built at the suggested site. If Boortz had mentioned the stadium TFR it would have suggested he did not understand it. Just as your mention of it suggests that you do not.
 
Boortz knows about TFRs more than anyone might guess. Normally, he flies his own plane to any appearance. When Bush showed up in Atlanta, it would shoot down his chance to fly on those days. The only blessing with the stadium TFRs is they are nowhere near any airports. That won't be the case if the morons continue with the idea of putting in the stadium at Doraville which would result in a TFR practically in the middle of the ILS 20L PDK.
 
KennyFlys said:
Boortz knows about TFRs more than anyone might guess. Normally, he flies his own plane to any appearance. When Bush showed up in Atlanta, it would shoot down his chance to fly on those days. The only blessing with the stadium TFRs is they are nowhere near any airports. That won't be the case if the morons continue with the idea of putting in the stadium at Doraville which would result in a TFR practically in the middle of the ILS 20L PDK.
Click to expand...

Some stadium TFRs are near airports, some airports are within stadium TFRs. The blessing is arrival and departure aircraft are unaffected by the TFR.
 
roncachamp said:
You still don't get it. You felt Boortz forgot all about the stadium TFR in his "rant". That can't be determined from the article. What you have not yet grasped is that arrival and departure aircraft are unaffected by the stadium TFR. That's the traffic that will be flying over a stadium if built at the suggested site. If Boortz had mentioned the stadium TFR it would have suggested he did not understand it. Just as your mention of it suggests that you do not.
Click to expand...
Well not that it matters to you. But I have not said anything like what you are characterising above.

It is clear to me that you do not understand that I am making an observation about how the uninformed public will react when told there is such a thing as a stadium TFR by a politician.

Boortz's argument is weak IMHO, I pointed out how it could be countered by a politician. If one does not try to understand how their arguments will be countered then they will loose. That is a basic tenet of debate that I think you are unfamiliar with.

This may be over your head if you have not dealt with political realities but...

In this situation if a politicians counters with the "we have stadium TFRs to keep you safe" argument to the public, the only counter that we in aviation have is to point out that the stadium TFR fails to do exactly that. When that happens the opposing side now has the moral high ground to create even more restrictive flight TFRs. IOW they way you are arguing will only result in the pro-TFR side getting more of what they want, and you will have opened the door for them, just like Boortz.


Let me simplify how it would sound
-------------------------------

Public: Airplanes could hit the stadium and hurt us

Pro-stadium forces: We have a stadium flight restriction that will prevent rouge aircraft from getting close to the stadium during game events

Anti-stadium/pro-aviation: forces: That TFR does not apply to landing or departing aircraft, any aircart just speaks with ATC to gain entry.

Pro-stadium forces: So what you are saying is we need further restrictions? Good, we will press the FAA to not allow any operations during game events

Public: Yeah thank you Mr. Public official, you are keeping us safe from those evil airplanes


Anti-stadium/pro-aviation: What just happened? How did we screw this up? Don't they see we pose no threat?

-------------------

Now I know you need to see the disclaimers as subtlety appears to be lost on you in this thread. I do not agree with the above. I am just illustrating how it could go down.

That stadium TFR exists for two reasons. First as part of security theater, and second to clear the skies of banner towers. The first part is used to calm the public, not to actually do anything productive for security.

Is that clear enough for you?

Do you finally get it? Or will you continue to put words in my mouth and attack me for pointing out the obvious?
 
Last edited:
smigaldi said:
Well not that it matters to you. But I have not said anything like what you are characterising above.
Click to expand...

You didn't say, "Well he did forget all about the stadium TFR in his rant."?

It is clear to me that you do not understand that I am making an observation about how the uninformed public will react when told there is such a thing as a stadium TFR by a politician.

Boortz's argument is weak IMHO, I pointed out how it could be countered by a politician. If one does not try to understand how their arguments will be countered then they will loose. That is a basic tenet of debate that I think you are unfamiliar with.

This may be over your head if you have not dealt with political realities but...

In this situation if a politicians counters with the "we have stadium TFRs to keep you safe" argument to the public, the only counter that we in aviation have is to point out that the stadium TFR fails to do exactly that. When that happens the opposing side now has the moral high ground to create even more restrictive flight TFRs. IOW they way you are arguing will only result in the pro-TFR side getting more of what they want, and you will have opened the door for them, just like Boortz.


Let me simplify how it would sound
-------------------------------

Public: Airplanes could hit the stadium and hurt us

Pro-stadium forces: We have a stadium flight restriction that will prevent rouge aircraft from getting close to the stadium during game events

Anti-stadium/pro-aviation: forces: That TFR does not apply to landing or departing aircraft, any aircart just speaks with ATC to gain entry.

Pro-stadium forces: So what you are saying is we need further restrictions? Good, we will press the FAA to not allow any operations during game events

Public: Yeah thank you Mr. Public official, you are keeping us safe from those evil airplanes


Anti-stadium/pro-aviation: What just happened? How did we screw this up? Don't they see we pose no threat?

-------------------

Now I know you need to see the disclaimers as subtlety appears to be lost on you in this thread. I do not agree with the above. I am just illustrating how it could go down.

That stadium TFR exists for two reasons. First as part of security theater, and second to clear the skies of banner towers. The first part is used to calm the public, not to actually do anything productive for security.

Is that clear enough for you?

Do you finally get it? Or will you continue to put words in my mouth and attack me for pointing out the obvious?
Click to expand...
So you now understand that arrivals and departures are unaffected by the stadium TFR! That's great! See, you CAN learn! You just have to put more effort into it than the average person.
 
smigaldi said:
As I pointed out above Boortz did not anticipate how the Stadium TFR will be used against his argument. This was pointe dout in several posts, including the one you quoted. Go back and read them.
Click to expand...

The stadium TFR won't be used against his argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top