Another really good reason to hate the TSA, the FAA, and TFRs!

I can't blame the guy for making the trips. It is part of being president, stumping for cash and votes for your party members. I can't even blame them for the expense. I may not like it, but it is part of the program. I just don't like the SS and all their buddies going gonzo on the rest of us. I really didn't care when they travelled all over the place before the TFRs. Now it just makes things miserable for the rest of us.
 
steingar said:
I can't blame the guy for making the trips. It is part of being president, stumping for cash and votes for your party members. I can't even blame them for the expense. I may not like it, but it is part of the program. I just don't like the SS and all their buddies going gonzo on the rest of us. I really didn't care when they travelled all over the place before the TFRs. Now it just makes things miserable for the rest of us.
Click to expand...

The problem being they do not want another Reagan or Kennedy situation.

I don't like it either, but with the myopia of both sides, it's never going to change.

Here's my apolitical suggestion though:

They usually have enough agents with them, why not post a pair at the airports (or use sheriffs) to vet the pilot certificates, and allow only non-student flights. Require flightplans, obviously.
 
One of the nuttiest and most vexing things about these TFRs is that it draws a big fat target around the VIP. More than once I've had to deal with a TFR when I would have otherwise had no idea that some big shot was in the area.

My "favorites" have always been the TFRs around these bigshot's homes... how easy would it be to find them without a big fat target on a chart?

Then there's the actual utility of a TFR. what does it do? Compared to a roadblock, it's utterly useless.

As we all know, that line is imaginary, even with AA batteries. Even a Cub can get on top of a defended target and get away... it's been done many times. And a light single once actually penetrated the restricted area in DC ...and nearly penetrated the White House itself, with minimal damage. It made it all the way there without raising any alarm whatsoever... even though there was a big scary circle drawn on the chart.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/09/13/u...-intruder-crashes-plane-into-white-house.html

As the Secret Service is quoted as saying in that article, their focus, in the event of an aerial threat, is to move the prez rather than use countermeasures, so maybe one legitimate concept behind TFRs is to minimize false alarms.

But still... it seems silly, and as is often the case, they get a lot of security theater impact by simply hassling a small, marginalized bunch of "crazy rich playboys in their flying machines".


When the POTUS or some other VIP is being moved, they should just have him wear a fake mustache and affect a limp, then put him in a taxi or on the subway, with maybe one or two similarly-disguised Secret Service agents near him... and maybe fly him between cities in a beat-up old Metroliner or something (saving AF1 only as a "flying HQ" in national emergencies). He wouldn't need much special training, other than to learn to fight the urge to shake hands and kiss babies, and ask people who they're planning to vote for. :D

No road closures, no TFRs, no press releases, no security guys everywhere, no hordes of black SUVs with lights on top zooming around like disturbed ants, followed by every available police vehicle in the city... in NYC, it's as if the street closures are there simply to create room for this fantastic carnival of "security".
 
skidoo said:
So what would happen if 100, 200, or more pilots, as a protest, flew circles one mile outside the tfr all going the same either clockwise or counterclockwise all at the same time. Perhaps that would bring some attention to the issue.

Then, how about if simultaneously everyone turns towards the center for 1/2 mile then back out and resume the circle.?
Click to expand...

Aside from the public relations nightmare that would cause, where do you propose to get that many GA pilots nowadays? We're a dying breed. Literally.

The only place I've seen that many pilots in the last 10 years is Oshkosh.
 
JesseD said:
The problem being they do not want another Reagan or Kennedy situation.

I don't like it either, but with the myopia of both sides, it's never going to change.
Click to expand...

Sorry to sound so cold, but these politicians are men and women -- nothing more, nothing less. They are all in these offices voluntarily, and are totally, 100% expendable. We've got to stop treating them as irreplaceable if we are to ever take back our country.

Until We, the People stop protecting our politicians like royalty, we will be rewarded with an arrogant, corrupt, Ruling Class that galavants around the country with little regard for our freedom or our rights.

And, yes, you have a RIGHT to fly your plane at a public use airport. I don't recall seeing the referendum that gave them the power to ground you. Oh, wait -- there wasn't one. They just TOOK that right.

Every other democracy on the planet understands that their leaders are important, but not essential. No other democracy on the planet fawns over their leaders the way we do. Quite frankly, I find everything about the modern presidency to be....Un-American. Thomas Jefferson would puke if he could see what has happened to the presidency.
 
Jay Honeck said:
Aside from the public relations nightmare that would cause, where do you propose to get that many GA pilots nowadays? We're a dying breed. Literally.

The only place I've seen that many pilots in the last 10 years is Oshkosh.
Click to expand...

I wasn't proposing anything, but rather just imagining out loud. Sounds like a bad idea after all.
 
It's probably one of those things that's more fun to fantasize about than to do.
 
Can't you get clearance from ATC to fly in/through it? I've flown through several TFRs but not a Presidential.Once in the days when Quayle was VP I got a briefing before flying from St Louis to Terraheute (however you spell that place) IN, no mention of any airport closures. When I got there they said the airport was closed due to the VP being there. I told them "No, I have business to do on the field, I called and nobody mentioned closure in the briefing, if you didn't want to let me land here you should have told me before I took off." They let me land, the Secret Service took a glance and went about their business.
 
steingar said:
I can't blame the guy for making the trips. It is part of being president, stumping for cash and votes for your party members. I can't even blame them for the expense. I may not like it, but it is part of the program. I just don't like the SS and all their buddies going gonzo on the rest of us. I really didn't care when they travelled all over the place before the TFRs. Now it just makes things miserable for the rest of us.
Click to expand...

Mmmm, I can't seem to find the part about stumping in the Constitution.
[SIZE=+1] Section 2. [/SIZE]
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.


Section 3.

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information on the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
Click to expand...
 
kkoran said:
Mmmm, I can't seem to find the part about stumping in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

I don't see anything in there that prohibits a president from stumping.
 
Palmpilot said:
It's probably one of those things that's more fun to fantasize about than to do.
Click to expand...

Of all the times to not to be able to be toodling along WOT at treetop level with N131SU on the tail of your airplane... The cute little toy helicopters couldn't bother you in the least. The F-15's would have to earn their upkeep to give you a hard time about it and even then...

Great fantasy but no one has a sense of humor anymore. Bunch of whiney paranoid party poopers the whole lot of 'em.




*N131SU = first civilian Sukhoi SU-27 Flanker in the USA.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4lE6HcBPxw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRA0wczZS3U&feature=related
I would love to own that. Every 4 years I would put a rude bumper sticker on the tail saying "TFR THIS!"
 
Palmpilot said:
I don't see anything in there that prohibits a president from stumping.
Click to expand...
Just because something isn't expressly prohibited by the Constitution doesn't make it part of the Presidential duties. Stumping it a activity conducted as a private citizen. It's one thing for the public to be affected by the security needed to protect the President as he conducts the nation's business, but I think the President should consider the impact of his personal activities on the public.
 
Good news! Did my flight, made my visit, and got back before the Obaminator got to town! 1.7 for my buddy (had him do an extra T&G beforehand to make certain nothing shook loose, aircraft just had some maintenance) and 1.2 for me (screaming tail winds on the way back). Looked like they were getting ready to close the freeway behind me on my way home.
 
kkoran said:
Just because something isn't expressly prohibited by the Constitution doesn't make it part of the Presidential duties. Stumping it a activity conducted as a private citizen. It's one thing for the public to be affected by the security needed to protect the President as he conducts the nation's business, but I think the President should consider the impact of his personal activities on the public.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's in the national interest to relax presidential security based on what the president is doing at the time, because if a president is killed while doing political business, the nation still has to deal with the problems inherent in having a dead president. And I don't think you're going to get a congress full of politicians to sign up for the principle that politicians can't engage in politicking after getting elected.

(BTW, I'm NOT saying that TFRs make a meaningful contribution to presidential security!)
 
Jay Honeck said:
Sorry to sound so cold, but these politicians are men and women -- nothing more, nothing less. They are all in these offices voluntarily, and are totally, 100% expendable. We've got to stop treating them as irreplaceable if we are to ever take back our country.

Until We, the People stop protecting our politicians like royalty, we will be rewarded with an arrogant, corrupt, Ruling Class that galavants around the country with little regard for our freedom or our rights.

And, yes, you have a RIGHT to fly your plane at a public use airport. I don't recall seeing the referendum that gave them the power to ground you. Oh, wait -- there wasn't one. They just TOOK that right.

Every other democracy on the planet understands that their leaders are important, but not essential. No other democracy on the planet fawns over their leaders the way we do. Quite frankly, I find everything about the modern presidency to be....Un-American. Thomas Jefferson would puke if he could see what has happened to the presidency.
Click to expand...

Okay, I'm sorry but I've gotten sick of this. Nobody took your country away Jan 20th 2009. Heck nobody took it away 8 years before that. Nor did they take it away 20 years before that (and so on). The United States of America has always (at least to anyone with the ability to read) been known to suffer from two things:

  1. An idiotic reverence of the past as perfect (for proof in how stupid that is just go look up the scandals of past administrations, and by past I mean going back to those of the Founding Fathers)
  2. This idiotic victimization complex. Everything happens personally to someone. No it doesn't.
The world you are searching for probably (unless you like the idea of a White slave / land owner class ruling the government) never freaking existed. The USA has always been a representative democracy, because a true democracy (i.e. mob rule) is wholly unsustainable. Going back to the 1790's you can dig up evidence that people were engaged in shenanigans and repeatedly re-elected. Sorry to burst your bubble.

They've also always been an arrogant ruling class. They've fought over principles of whom should rule, oh yes. Still the only thing that's really changed is they don't shoot each other in duels anymore. Do you really think that a moneyed Jefferson really identified with the "common folk" in the end? No, he was an "Ivory Tower Elite" and would be lampooned today for it. He was quite happy to tell other people what to do, if it fit his philosophy. While I may agree with him on copyright, there are a great many issues I would disagree with him on. Then again he was simply a product of his times.

The last I saw, flying (like driving) is a privilege. You have the right to assembly. You do not have a "right to drive" nor a "right to fly", unless they have surreptitiously added to the constitution via an amendment. Now if you're like the last guy I met, you'll somehow claim it's about a "right to travel." Well, sorry to say, it doesn't say how you travel, just that you can, and courts of competent jurisdiction have ruled no you can't drive without a license and have to follow the rules. They ruled "no" years before there was a Reagan Revolution. The states set the rules for driving. Now, whom is it that set's the rules for flying again? The FAA! What does the FAA say about it? No, you can't. (right now)

I was trying to offer a common-sense solution. Something that would be workable, palatable even, to all sides. IMHO there is no reason for a good pilot to have to sit while the president is in town, provided the proper paperwork is filed and safety maintained. However we, as a country, have said the safety of the chief executive is important. This cuts across party lines in most cases, witness the general reaction in the country to Kennedy being killed or Reagan being injured. You're not going to change that overall, so you might consider working on a solution that can be palatable to the country.
 
JesseD said:
Okay, I'm sorry but I've gotten sick of this.
<snip of enormously long rant>
Click to expand...

Whew! Feel better? :wink2:

So, to sum your post up in one sentence: "It's always been this way -- suck it up."

Sorry, that's not in my makeup. Until we stop treating our politicians like royalty, we will be rewarded with the insulated, out-of-touch people we've got running the country.

Specifically, this cult of personality toward our presidents is unAmerican, and needs to stop. These people are just guys, like you and me, and the reverence and majesty with which we are now treating the office is absurd.

Hell, the money spent every time a president wants to visit a fast-food joint is just astronomical -- it's nearly unbelieveable. We are now ringing them with more security than any Roman Emperor could boast -- and for what, again? To save the nation from... what, again? Another state funeral?

Well, you know what? If somebody takes a shot at a president, that's life, and it goes with the territory. To completely disrupt life for everyone else in the country every time the president wants to play golf, in an attempt to provide royal protection for a single man, is criminally absurd.

In short, it's stupid. And, no, it HASN'T "always been this way". Real people used to be able to talk to these folks, and there have always been crazy, violent people who "might" do evil toward a politician. Now, these cringing, fearful politicians live in a bubble -- ringed with razor-wire, and enormous, unwieldy, costly TFRs that screw up everyone around them.

Now, of course, the TFRs we pilots despise only impact a relatively small number of people -- but that's just one layer of this onion. EVERYTHING is disrupted when a modern president "invades" an area -- everything, cars, buses, trains, commerce, schedules, meetings, business, church, sports -- EVERYTHING is set aside, delayed or cancelled, for a SINGLE MAN to do whatever the heck it is that he decides is more important than ANYTHING ELSE going on? Crazy.

And although I'd like to fantasize that the November election will be the start of a new, more common-sense approach toward fiscally responsible national governance, I'm cynical enough to believe that little will change. It's going to take a heckuva lot more than a mid-term election to right this ship.

But that doesn't mean I'm going to take your fatalistic, "oh, well" approach. I'm not THAT "comfortably numb"...yet.
 
Palmpilot said:
I don't think it's in the national interest to relax presidential security based on what the president is doing at the time, because if a president is killed while doing political business, the nation still has to deal with the problems inherent in having a dead president. And I don't think you're going to get a congress full of politicians to sign up for the principle that politicians can't engage in politicking after getting elected.

(BTW, I'm NOT saying that TFRs make a meaningful contribution to presidential security!)
Click to expand...
I agree and I didn't suggest that we should. My point was that the President should consider the impact of his travels on the public.

I seriously doubt the President has any idea how his security negatively affects people and businesses. Things like how a flight school (small business) was effectively shut down for a week because the President's vacation. No income, but still have to pay the rent and the loans on the aircraft). The flight instructor (one of those guys who is building time so he can get one of those $16K regional jobs :wink2:) who can't work while the President is in town but still has to pay his rent and buy ramen noodleserhaps a small businessman who missed an important meeting because his plane was trapped by a TFR. Perhaps an effort to publicize the impacts of Presidential travel on individuals and businesses would would make someone take notice.
 
As I mentioned above, VPOTUS will be on our airport Tuesday giving a stump speech in the air museum. Don't get me started. :incazzato:

Just got an e-mail from the airport manager -- not only will the runway be closed for about three hours, the Secret Service will also slap "freezes" on the airport, during which nothing and nobody moves. If you are in the FBO or in your hangar, you stay there until the freeze is lifted. Apparently it has yet to be decided whether the FBO's mechanics will be allowed to continue their work indoors.

Then the next day POTUS makes a campaign appearance in downtown Portland, less than a mile from my condo. Remembering the citywide gridlock the last time VPOTUS came here, I'll probably just call in sick that day.

:mad2:
 
JesseD said:
The last I saw, flying (like driving) is a privilege.
Click to expand...

I'm not necessarily disputing your main point, but I would like to comment on this issue.

The problem with that word "privilege" is that a privilege is something that, historically, was bestowed by a king, and as such could be arbitrarily withheld without recourse. Notice that when Magna Carta placed limits on the English king's power in 1215, it used the word "right" many times, but it didn't mention "pivilege" even once.

You have the right to assembly. You do not have a "right to drive" nor a "right to fly", unless they have surreptitiously added to the constitution via an amendment.
Click to expand...

The Ninth Amendment makes the fact that a right is not mentioned in the Constitution irrelevant.

Now if you're like the last guy I met, you'll somehow claim it's about a "right to travel." Well, sorry to say, it doesn't say how you travel, just that you can, and courts of competent jurisdiction have ruled no you can't drive without a license and have to follow the rules.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court has said that the right to travel must not be unreasonably burdened or restricted. I certainly don't think that licensing and rulemaking per se are unreasonable, but it seems to me that it would be pretty easy to create restrictions on how you travel that the Court might find unreasonable.

So the right to travel issue boils down to answering the question "What is a reasonable burden or restriction?"
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
The Supreme Court has said that the right to travel must not be unreasonably burdened or restricted. I certainly don't think that licensing and rulemaking per se are unreasonable, but it seems to me that it would be pretty easy to create restrictions on how you travel that the Court might find unreasonable.

So the right to travel issue boils down to answering the question "What is a reasonable burden or restriction?"
Click to expand...

The Supremes have said you have a right to travel, but not necessarily a right to travel by a particular means of transport. Just because driving from Boston to LA takes significantly longer than flying does not mean that keeping you off the plane is preventing you from travelling.
 
JeffDG said:
The Supremes have said you have a right to travel, but not necessarily a right to travel by a particular means of transport. Just because driving from Boston to LA takes significantly longer than flying does not mean that keeping you off the plane is preventing you from travelling.
Click to expand...

They did NOT merely say you have a right to travel. They said the government may not "unreasonably burden or restrict" travel. I think you're overlooking the requirement that burdens or restrictions must be reasonable.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0394_0618_ZO.html

(See section III, sixth paragraph.)

For example, in my opinion:

-Denying a driver's license or pilot certificate to an applicant who failed to meet reasonable qualifications would be reasonable.

-Denying a driver's license or pilot certificate to an otherwise qualified applicant because the examiner didn't like you personally would be unreasonable.

-Denying a driver's license or pilot certificate to an otherwise qualified applicant because of the applicant's race would not only be unreasonable, it would certainly be struck down by a court if proven.

-Telling some people, but not others, that they cannot fly as a passenger puts the former at a disadvantage, and would be unreasonable if it were done without due process.

-Telling all Democrats that they can fly as a passenger, but telling all Republicans that they cannot, would be unreasonable, and would certainly be struck down by a court.

So the issue here is "At what point does Secret Service interference with people's travel plans become unreasonable?"

I don't pretend to have the answer to that, but under Supreme Court case law, I think that's the question that needs to be answered, probably by the courts.
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
I'm not necessarily disputing your main point, but I would like to comment on this issue.

----SNIP


The Supreme Court has said that the right to travel must not be unreasonably burdened or restricted. I certainly don't think that licensing and rulemaking per se are unreasonable, but it seems to me that it would be pretty easy to create restrictions on how you travel that the Court might find unreasonable.

So the right to travel issue boils down to answering the question "What is a reasonable burden or restriction?"
Click to expand...

Not disagreeing with you, but try selling it to a judge. In the tripod system (chosen by the founders of the country) they are the final arbiters. Several courts of competent jurisdiction (a court that has the legal authority to rule on such a question) have found that such restrictions are constitutionally valid.

Several courts of competetent jurisdiction have upheld the authority of the FAA to regulate flight (as power invested by both the legislative and executive branches) in the U.S.

You are, of course, free to file a suit challenging the use of Presidential / VP no-fly NOTAM's, but given the general psyche of the nation, the "global war on terror", previous assasinations / attempts, and the random idiots that give GA a bad name by crashing into buildings (intentionally), I don't think it will get far.
 
Jay Honeck said:
Whew! Feel better? :wink2:

So, to sum your post up in one sentence: "It's always been this way -- suck it up."

-snip

But that doesn't mean I'm going to take your fatalistic, "oh, well" approach. I'm not THAT "comfortably numb"...yet.
Click to expand...

So to sum up your rant: "I want to live in a different country than has ever existed, even since day one."

You don't think these people, going back to the founders, had isolation? Why, simply the distances involved caused it. Sure, anyone could "Cry Harold" but let's be realistic. There has always been isolation, and as a rule, there has always been a ruling class. Once in a while it shifts, but really, be honest in your argument.

I'm not saying you can't change it, but you'll have to change the collective psyche first. Even the vehemence against the Republican TARP and Democratic Health Care have only caused 20% of the country to really become incensed.

Consider the Royal Family in England is relatively irrelevant (other than in a ceremonial sense) and (funny) it still hasn't been eliminated. Why? They're part of the national psyche.

So I encourage you to file suit against the Presidential / VP NOTAM's in court. I think my idea was the better solution, but you are free to pursue your own.
 
steingar said:
Its the office that's important. The guy less so. American Presidents have been killed in office on numerous occasions. The government is still here.
Click to expand...


I don't think George Washington ever considered himself "just a regular guy."

Neither did Jefferson, Adams, Roosevelt (both), Eisenhower, Wilson... you get the idea.
 
dmccormack said:
I don't think George Washington ever considered himself "just a regular guy."

Neither did Jefferson, Adams, Roosevelt (both), Eisenhower, Wilson... you get the idea.
Click to expand...

Actually, Washington did. He was quite self-effacing as was Jefferson, though that might have just been the style of the time.

But it really doesn't matter. They ****ed standing up. They put their pants on one leg at a time. They were just these guys, you know?
 
JesseD said:
Not disagreeing with you, but try selling it to a judge. In the tripod system (chosen by the founders of the country) they are the final arbiters. Several courts of competent jurisdiction (a court that has the legal authority to rule on such a question) have found that such restrictions are constitutionally valid.

Several courts of competetent jurisdiction have upheld the authority of the FAA to regulate flight (as power invested by both the legislative and executive branches) in the U.S.

You are, of course, free to file a suit challenging the use of Presidential / VP no-fly NOTAM's, but given the general psyche of the nation, the "global war on terror", previous assasinations / attempts, and the random idiots that give GA a bad name by crashing into buildings (intentionally), I don't think it will get far.
Click to expand...

I think you read more into my post than was intended. I'm not taking a position on which restrictions are reasonable and which are not (other than the ones I specifically listed in my other post).
 
steingar said:
Actually, Washington did. He was quite self-effacing as was Jefferson, though that might have just been the style of the time.

But it really doesn't matter. They ****ed standing up. They put their pants on one leg at a time. They were just these guys, you know?
Click to expand...


Read Cherow's biography on Washington, or previous works by Flexner, Freeman, or Ellis.

He never, ever thought of himself as a "common man," in spite of his careful posturing to the contrary.
 
dmccormack said:
Read Cherow's biography on Washington, or previous works by Flexner, Freeman, or Ellis.

He never, ever thought of himself as a "common man," in spite of his careful posturing to the contrary.
Click to expand...
You mean a politician was giving the public a crafted personae? I'm shocked I tell you, just shocked!
 
steingar said:
Actually, Washington did. He was quite self-effacing as was Jefferson, though that might have just been the style of the time.
Click to expand...

Before he was appointed Commander in Chief of the Continental Army, Washington is said to have attended the sessions of the Second Continental Congress in uniform, so maybe he wasn't as self-effacing as all that.
 
dmccormack said:
Read Cherow's biography on Washington, or previous works by Flexner, Freeman, or Ellis.

He never, ever thought of himself as a "common man," in spite of his careful posturing to the contrary.
Click to expand...

Wow, telepaths! They can tell what dead men were thinking! Kinda like a Mormon version of Mr. Spock.
 
Palmpilot said:
Before he was appointed Commander in Chief of the Continental Army, Washington is said to have attended the sessions of the Second Continental Congress in uniform, so maybe he wasn't as self-effacing as all that.
Click to expand...

It was a studied, careful, practiced disdain for power.

When Washington returned from his first trip to the Ohio country in 1754 he had his travel journal published. From that point on he was a public man.
 
I have two questions. Are airliners grounded if a TFR goes into affect over a metropolitan airport (like KORD)? If not, then how are the airlines getting around the TFR but the GAs can't?
 
Tarheel Pilot said:
I have two questions. Are airliners grounded if a TFR goes into affect over a metropolitan airport (like KORD)? If not, then how are the airlines getting around the TFR but the GAs can't?
Click to expand...

No, they're not...read the language of the NOTAMs. They generally exempt Part 121 carriers and those on specified TSA security programs.
 
Tarheel Pilot said:
I have two questions. Are airliners grounded if a TFR goes into affect over a metropolitan airport (like KORD)? If not, then how are the airlines getting around the TFR but the GAs can't?
Click to expand...

JeffDG said:
No, they're not...read the language of the NOTAMs. They generally exempt Part 121 carriers and those on specified TSA security programs.
Click to expand...
The part 121 guys have better and more lobbyists that us little airplane fliers.
 
Tarheel Pilot said:
I have two questions. Are airliners grounded if a TFR goes into affect over a metropolitan airport (like KORD)? If not, then how are the airlines getting around the TFR but the GAs can't?
Click to expand...

No, aircraft like those used for the 9/11 attack are not affected by the TFRs.

They shut out G.A. to prevent another 1/5/2002 style attack.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top