Bedminster Presidential TFR violated THREE times today, one forced to Land.

That's not a presidential airspace violation, this is a presidential airspace violation.

upload_2019-8-4_12-14-48.png

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/breaking-man-55-arrested-connection-12920991

_102548119_para2.jpg


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-44844039

The location is Trump Turnberry not far from Prestwick. Our global venturer Katamarino passed very close to the location of the photos above, but I don't think El Pres was at home that day.
 
Last edited:
There are simply tooooooo many NOTAMs anymore. They need to rank them as to safety-of-flight or risk to certificates!
 
Spring Ford said:
That's not a presidential airspace violation, this is a presidential airspace violation.

View attachment 76587

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/breaking-man-55-arrested-connection-12920991

_102548119_para2.jpg


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-44844039

The location is Trump Turnberry not far from Prestwick. Our global venturer Katamarino passed very close to the location of the photos above, but I don't think El Pres was at home that day.
Click to expand...

How is this person not dead?
 
Kenny Phillips said:
There are simply tooooooo many NOTAMs anymore. They need to rank them as to safety-of-flight or risk to certificates!
Click to expand...

Considering how many apps, websites, and email alerts cover TFR’s, there is no excuse for violating one. Especially a well publicized one like the Bedminster TFR.
 
Groundpounder said:
How is this person not dead?
Click to expand...

I doubt he showed up on any radar, so the Noble Eagles weren't dispatched to shoot him down. Secret service showed some restraint and didn't shoot the idiot butt fan flyer, which was a good move on their part. Imagine the headlines if they had killed an otherwise peaceful protestor.

He didn't deserve to be shot, arrested yes, but not shot.
 
Groundpounder said:
I didn’t say he should be dead, but considering the number of guys with guns and ear pieces tasked to protect the POTUS in that general area, I’m amazed he didn’t get taken out.
Click to expand...

And who would be the best ones to do it? The US Secret Service or the British law enforcement? It would look pretty bad for US SS to shoot the pilot in an ultralight in Scotland. And it would look bad for the British to shoot a British subject out of the Scottish sky just for flying over Trump.

Fiveslide said:
I doubt he showed up on any radar, so the Noble Eagles weren't dispatched to shoot him down. Secret service showed some restraint and didn't shoot the idiot butt fan flyer, which was a good move on their part. Imagine the headlines if they had killed an otherwise peaceful protestor.

He didn't deserve to be shot, arrested yes, but not shot.
Click to expand...

Would Noble Eagles ever be dispatched to intercept over Scotland?
 
SoCal RV Flyer said:
Well below par" can be taken either as a slam or a compliment. Protesters gotta know their sports.

On the first tee in my monthly tournaments, I wish all my co-players a sub-par round
Click to expand...

Yeah, wtf? I wish I was below par. Meaning the greatest round of my life. Even if somebody said I was below bogey golf, I'd take it as a compliment.
 
Deelee said:
Yeah, wtf? I wish I was below par. Meaning the greatest round of my life. Even if somebody said I was below bogey golf, I'd take it as a compliment.
Click to expand...

I cheat and I still can't break 18 over par. I might get a bird every now and then, but hole before and the hole after were usually double bogey.

I was on the highschool golf team, we'd drink airplane bottles of rum on the way to the course. Five out of six of us shot 45+ on 9 holes consistently. We had a good time!
 
I have no idea if the Secret Service are allowed guns in the UK.

No one else is!
 
Fiveslide said:
I doubt he showed up on any radar, so the Noble Eagles weren't dispatched to shoot him down. Secret service showed some restraint and didn't shoot the idiot butt fan flyer, which was a good move on their part..
Click to expand...

The news said that Greenpeace had given a 15 min warning of the protest flight.
 
Make people start to pay for costs that are incurred for intercepts.

The State of NH started charging people that climbed Mt Washington unprepared and had to be rescued. The amount of people that tried to climb the mountain in flips flops and shorts declined dramatically.
 
Groundpounder said:
Make people start to pay for costs that are incurred for intercepts.

The State of NH started charging people that climbed Mt Washington unprepared and had to be rescued. The amount of people that tried to climb the mountain in flips flops and shorts declined dramatically.
Click to expand...

That's why I chose to just drive to the top.
 
Groundpounder said:
I didn’t say he should be dead, but considering the number of guys with guns and ear pieces tasked to protect the POTUS in that general area, I’m amazed he didn’t get taken out.
Click to expand...

Believe it or not but someone give the authorities a heads up as this guy approached that it was happening and the reason why
 
How about just eliminating these TFRs? Before we had these was there a rash of attacks on politicians from the air? I think these were enacted post 2001, weren’t they? And like the TSA, which we also got from those attacks, they likely do no good.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
How about just eliminating these TFRs? Before we had these was there a rash of attacks on politicians from the air? I think these were enacted post 2001, weren’t they? And like the TSA, which we also got from those attacks, they likely do no good.
Click to expand...

The gubment should do a study. Put a man on a runway and see if that man can avoid being hit by a GA aircraft. I'm pretty sure the president could juke left then go right and the pilot would have to fly the missed. :D
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
How about just eliminating these TFRs? Before we had these was there a rash of attacks on politicians from the air? I think these were enacted post 2001, weren’t they? And like the TSA, which we also got from those attacks, they likely do no good.
Click to expand...

The British are doing a fun thing of throwing milkshakes at the idiots in their gov't.
 
That guy, the one who landed a gyrocopter on the White House lawn, and others show these idiotic TFRs are nothing more than security theatre. If the POTUS were really serious about getting rid of useless regulations those would be the first to go.
 
Fiveslide said:
I doubt he showed up on any radar, so the Noble Eagles weren't dispatched to shoot him down. Secret service showed some restraint and didn't shoot the idiot butt fan flyer, which was a good move on their part. Imagine the headlines if they had killed an otherwise peaceful protestor.

He didn't deserve to be shot, arrested yes, but not shot.
Click to expand...

What if he was wearing a towl on his head yelling Allday Snackbar?
 
I remember when people used to be upset about presidential TFRs.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
And like the TSA, which we also got from those attacks, they likely do no good.
Click to expand...

How many terrorist has the TSA caught trying to board a plane.... zero.

How many terrorist has the TSA prevented from boarding a plane because of their presence.?? I don't know that one. Sure it is a pain to have to go through but I am glad someone did something besides complaining.

And if the airport security had been doing their job instead to bowing to public pressure then 9/11 never would have happened.
 
Zeldman said:
How many terrorist has the TSA caught trying to board a plane.... zero.
I don't know that one. Sure it is a pain to have to go through but I am glad someone did something besides complaining.
Click to expand...

What the TSA does is spend $8.1B per year with no evidence they have any effect on the safety of travel. The rates of that kind of attack (non crew members deliberately destroying a plane that departed from a US airport) have not changed in a statistically significant way before and after the formation of the TSA (it is a very rare event so hard to obtain much statistical power). There is some evidence that the existence of the TSA screening indirectly causes 500 more deaths per year on the highways due to people deciding to drive instead of taking a short haul flight. Additionally there is the violation of everyone's privacy and the enormous waste of time.

And if the airport security had been doing their job instead to bowing to public pressure then 9/11 never would have happened.
Click to expand...

I'd be interested to hear more of what you mean here. Certainly it seems the FBI had messed up.

One more interesting fact about airport security screening which is not often noted. Hijackings in the US peaked in 1969. Metal detectors were introduced in Jan 1973. Yet it appears most people think that the metal detectors were responsible for reducing hijackings.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
What the TSA does is spend $8.1B per year with no evidence they have any effect on the safety of travel. The rates of that kind of attack (non crew members deliberately destroying a plane that departed from a US airport) have not changed in a statistically significant way before and after the formation of the TSA (it is a very rare event so hard to obtain much statistical power). There is some evidence that the existence of the TSA screening indirectly causes 500 more deaths per year on the highways due to people deciding to drive instead of taking a short haul flight. Additionally there is the violation of everyone's privacy and the enormous waste of time.



I'd be interested to hear more of what you mean here. Certainly it seems the FBI had messed up.
Click to expand...


As much as it pains me to say it, the show aspect of airline security post 9/11 probably saved the airlines. Or at least some of them.

People in general are very bad at assessing risk. Big, scary, no-control-over-it, but extremely rare risks have a lot more impact (particularly multiplied by media coverage, both social and traditional) and cause mass freak outs. This way people could see that the authorities were "doing something" and felt like they could go back to flying.

Much more common risks (that don't get promoted because they aren't news), that we have the perception of control over, but are much more likely to occur (like traffic accidents) we just kind of shrug and go on.

John
 
SkyDog58 said:
Would Noble Eagles ever be dispatched to intercept over Scotland?
Click to expand...
The term Noble Eagle is as in Operation Noble Eagle. The jets who do the flying aren't called Noble Eagles, all though we say it's a "Noble Eagle" sortie. Go figure, it doesn't make any sense...

Anyhoo, the Secret Service talks with the country that the POTUS is visiting and passes their defensive requirements. If that country can't meet or exceed them, we typically go to provide the coverage that they can't or won't. So... yes we could be patrolling over Scotland. I've flown those types of sorties in six countries counting the US and Canada.
 
jsstevens said:
As much as it pains me to say it, the show aspect of airline security post 9/11 probably saved the airlines. Or at least some of them.

People in general are very bad at assessing risk. Big, scary, no-control-over-it, but extremely rare risks have a lot more impact (particularly multiplied by media coverage, both social and traditional) and cause mass freak outs. This way people could see that the authorities were "doing something" and felt like they could go back to flying.
Click to expand...

This is a good point and an argument for the idea of privatizing airline security. Let the airlines and their insurers decided what the appropriate tradeoff between security (or at least the perception of security, as in security theatre) and convenience should be. They are in the best position to judge what will be acceptable and reassuring to the customers and also perhaps actually improve security. I very much doubt that they would choose to require shoes being taken off and no liquids over 3.4 ounces.

There is really no reason to think it will be one size fits all. The FAA and TSA in some sense already acknowledge this in the division into those operations requiring TSA screening (more that 12,500 lbs gross weight and more than 61 passengers) and those which don't. There are likely additional factors which could weigh in such as nature of departure and destination airports, etc.
 
The whole post 9/11 security thing is an example of an industry that just got completely out of hand because every politician was throwing money at it in an attempt to make it look like they were doing something. Now it's like Elvis in his final years forced to do 3 shows a night because failing to do so would put a thousand people out of work. It's a big boulder rolling down a hill, you can't stop it. Although some of the really stupid ideas did get canned such as the color coded threat level chart. I mean who in their right mind was ever gonna set that thing to green? Even on the sunniest of days.
 
I also do wonder what the effect on the airlines would have been without the TSA. Not only does the public have a hard time rationally assessing very rare big risks, they also have a very short memory. So it is possible that airline traffic would have been back to normal in a few weeks after it became clearer that these attacks were a one-off sort of event.

Of course after the 2001 attacks the airlines begged for all sorts of relief from the federal government. They were dependent on rate setting by the CAB prior to deregulation and so have been in that habit since back in the 1930s. One of the more interesting aspects of that relief was that their liability in the event of terrorist attacks was limited so they didn't have to be responsible for the damage that their aircraft could cause when misused.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top