Bloody moving TFR Aug 15 - 17 in Midwest

gprellwitz

gprellwitz

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Jun 19, 2005
Messages
12,774
Location
Romeoville, IL
Display Name
Display name:
Grant Prellwitz
Well, they've published notice that they intend to have a moving TFR for the President's Midwest bus tour in IL, IA, and MN August 15 - 17, 2011.
https://www.faasafety.gov/files/notices/2011/Aug/Midwest_Bus_Tour_Final.pdf

It seems like they're playing a game of "how many pilots can we jack up with useless restrictions."

Of course, they aren't telling us yet precisely where it will be when, but there will be irregularly shaped TFRs in addition to the typical 10/30.

Don't add to the numbers! Be careful out there.
 
Last edited:
We had one of these when he won the election, started in Phili, train ride to Wilmington to pick up Biden, and then down to Washington. Interesting to say the least when the graphic was published. The 30nm rings were at each stop, with a wide corridor TFR along the route.

Probably posted somewhere on the POA here when that happened. I don't know if there were many infractions of the TFR, cause it really shut things down on the eastern seaboard.

This one however, may have more potential as it isn't directly following the media coverage of the election.
 
Hey, I did notice that check rides are not included in the dis-allowed flight operations.

I say we all start writing the White House by taking a trick of out Microsoft's EULA book to grant us permission to fly in the TFR zones. Send them an e-mail/hand written letter stating,
By reading this you agree to the terms of the agreement.

This agreement may be terminated in the following manners:
Cancellation of the VIP TFR program
Hard copy statement personally signed by at least one of VIPs covered by the TFR and hand delivered via courier stating these terms are not agreed to.
Personal visitation by at least one of the VIPs covered to [ pilot name ] at least 8 hours prior to the TFR stating these terms are not agreed to.
Phone call from at least one of the VIPs covered at least 8 hours prior to the TFR stating that these terms are not agreed to.
(one or two more onerous ways to break it)

By not terminating this agreement:

The Federal Government and all of its agencies allow [ pilot name ] to fly [ aircraft types and tail numbers ] in the VIP TFR over [ location ] on [ date ]. By agreeing to these terms there shall be no civil, criminal, or monetary penalty directed towards for [ pilot name ] or [ airplane owners name ].
(insert more superfluous legal-speak here)

Any non response or form letter response shall be considered an acceptance of these terms.

Signed,
[ pilot name and contact information ]
Click to expand...

Idiot Boy comes to town tomorrow, I am thinking I send this, any lawyer want to make it sound all legal and stuff?
 
Last edited:
gprellwitz said:
Well, they've published notice that they intend to have a moving TFR for the President's Midwest bus tour in IL, IA, and MN August 15 - 17, 2011.
https://www.faasafety.gov/files/notices/2011/Aug/Midwest_Bus_Tour_Final.pdf

It seems like they're playing a game of "how many pilots can we jack up with useless restrictions."

Of course, they aren't telling us yet precisely where it will be when, but there will be irregularly shaped TFRs in addition to the typical 10/30.

Don't add to the numbers! Be careful out there.
Click to expand...

All I get is a blank pdf on that link. I guess they decided to keep it a secret.
 
EdFred said:
I say we all start writing the White House by taking a trick of out Microsoft's EULA book to grant us permission to fly in the TFR zones. Send them an e-mail/hand written letter stating,

Idiot Boy come to town tomorrow, I am thinking I send this, any lawyer want to make it sound all legal and stuff?
Click to expand...

Love it! Let us know how that works out for you!! Maybe include a clause that they owe you $1M in civil penalties if they try to contact you regarding any alleged TFR violation after they read the disclosure, if they don't otherwise void it per the terms you described.
 
TangoWhiskey said:
Love it! Let us know how that works out for you!! Maybe include a clause that they owe you $1M in civil penalties if they try to contact you regarding any alleged TFR violation after they read the disclosure, if they don't otherwise void it per the terms you described.
Click to expand...

I will absolutely send it if one of the lawyers here wants to clean it up for me. And I will send it every time there is a TFR whether it affects me or not.
 
gismo said:
All I get is a blank pdf on that link. I guess they decided to keep it a secret.
Click to expand...

More or less. They aren't giving anything away yet.

This is what I get (followed by the usual boilerplate)

FLIGHT ADVISORY
VIP Temporary Flight Restriction
Midwest Bus Tour
August 15-17, 2011​
There will be a VIP bus tour in Minnesota, Iowa and Illinois from August 15​
​
​
​
th to 17th, 2011.
To ensure the airspace is secure during this visit, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
will establish Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs) in the airspace over and between several
cities from Minneapolis, MN to Peoria, IL. These restrictions are designed to provide a safe
and secure environment for the VIP visit while enabling fair and equitable access by other
airspace users to the greatest extent possible. In addition to the normal 10 mile and 30 mile
TFRs, there will be irregular shaped TFRs in place at various times and locations.​

The times for this TFR have not yet been determined. Check published NOTAM for​
latest information.
 
EdFred said:
Hey, I did notice that check rides are not included in the dis-allowed flight operations.

I say we all start writing the White House by taking a trick of out Microsoft's EULA book to grant us permission to fly in the TFR zones. Send them an e-mail/hand written letter stating,


Idiot Boy comes to town tomorrow, I am thinking I send this, any lawyer want to make it sound all legal and stuff?
Click to expand...

The Federal government is not bound by the terms of the MS EULA which demand automatic acceptance. Neither would they be bound by this ridiculous timewaster.
 
alaskaflyer said:
The Federal government is not bound by the terms of the MS EULA which demand automatic acceptance. Neither would they be bound by this ridiculous timewaster.
Click to expand...
By "ridiculous timewaster," do you mean Ed's letter, VIP TFRs, or Obama's bus tour?
All of the above? At least Ed's letter is funny.
 
alaskaflyer said:
The Federal government is not bound by the terms of the MS EULA which demand automatic acceptance. Neither would they be bound by this ridiculous timewaster.
Click to expand...

Oh look another government employee that wants us to just bend over and take it like good little serfs. Big surprise.

We don't get an option with TFRs - never did. I'm just playing their game. They have the option to respond.
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
Oh look another government employee that wants us to just bend over and take it like good little serfs. Big surprise.

We don't get an option with TFRs - never did. I'm just playing their game. They have the option to respond.
Click to expand...

You dare to question the Ruling Class?
 
EdFred said:
Oh look another government employee that wants us to just bend over and take it like good little serfs. Big surprise.

We don't get an option with TFRs - never did. I'm just playing their game. They have the option to respond.
Click to expand...

Let me know how that works out for you :loco:
 
alaskaflyer said:
The Federal government is not bound by the terms of the MS EULA which demand automatic acceptance.
Click to expand...

Cite? I can find nothing to support that surprising assertion. That's basically saying they aren't bound to abide by contracts.

Neither would they be bound by this ridiculous timewaster.
Click to expand...
The proposed letter is indeed ridiculous since it isn't a contract. And even if one managed to trick some agency into accepting such an alleged contract (with appropriate consideration provided by the pilot to the government,) no contract involving illegal acts is valid.
 
Last edited:
Jim Logajan said:
Cite? I can find nothing to support that surprising assertion. That's basically saying they aren't bound to abide by contracts.

The proposed letter is indeed ridiculous since it isn't a contract. And even if one managed to trick some agency into accepting such an alleged contract (with appropriate consideration provided by the pilot to the government,) no contract involving illegal acts is valid.
Click to expand...

There is nothing illegal about it. The TFR allows for other flights to happen within the TFR. That's all this would do as well.
 
I approve of the concept of defending ourselves against these flight Restrictions by any and all reasonable means possible.
If you are interfering with such attempts, in my eyes you approve of the government's continued and expanding thefts of our liberties........and as such are an enemy not only to GA but truly, to the country.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
I approve of the concept of defending ourselves against these flight Restrictions by any and all reasonable means possible.
If you are interfering with such attempts, in my eyes you approve of the government's continued and expanding thefts of our liberties........and as such are an enemy not only to GA but truly, to the country.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry - was that another draft for the White House, or was that meant for someone in this thread?

As for the other..if one is going to spend some time on a communique why not use a format that might actually have a chance of being read instead of being rejected out of hand?
 
alaskaflyer said:
I'm sorry - was that another draft for the White House, or was that meant for someone in this thread?

As for the other..if one is going to spend some time on a communique why not use a format that might actually have a chance of being read instead of being rejected out of hand?
Click to expand...

Maybe you missed the part where I asked for a lawyer's help.
 
I agree that professional help might be indicated in this situation, but I don't think a lawyer adding legalese will be much assistance. TEHO.
 
EdFred said:
Maybe you missed the part where I asked for a lawyer's help.
Click to expand...

No competent lawyer will help you. You're attempting to create a "shrinkwrap" contract where someone is bound to the terms (including your over the top cancellation terms) before they are aware of them. The courts have held such contracts are not enforceable as a matter of basic contract law. (I've already provided a citation and ruling from the Circuit Court of Appeals on point above)

The Microsoft EULA you speak of is distinguishable in that you have the opportunity to read the agreement, and must act in some way to accept the contract ("Click her to agree" That's why these are referred to as "Click-Wrap" agreements)

I also see a lack of mutual consideration. I don't see what the Federal Government receives in return for all of the benefits you are receiving in such a contract. The only way a contract lacking in mutual consideration can be valid is if it is executed under seal (more formal than even a written and signed document). Your "contract" comes nowhere close to this standard.
 
alaskaflyer said:
The Federal government is not bound by the terms of the MS EULA which demand automatic acceptance. Neither would they be bound by this ridiculous timewaster.
Click to expand...

The feds would be bound to the EULA, but they, like most significant sized organizations, have a master agreement in place with negotiated Ts&Cs. One of those terms specifies that the master agreement overrides any other agreement between the parties (including the EULA), and also specifies specific officers who can agree to amend the master agreement, overriding the common law presumption that all employees are agents of their employers.

Again, however, the EULA requires a positive affirmative action on the part of the bound party to accept the Ts&Cs of the agreement, and that party can read the entirety of the agreement before accepting said agreement, unlike this "contract".
 
Do it anyway Ed. At least get some media exposure. We need to keep thinking of ways.
 
JeffDG said:
The feds would be bound to the EULA, but they, like most significant sized organizations, have a master agreement in place with negotiated Ts&Cs. One of those terms specifies that the master agreement overrides any other agreement between the parties (including the EULA), and also specifies specific officers who can agree to amend the master agreement, overriding the common law presumption that all employees are agents of their employers.

Again, however, the EULA requires a positive affirmative action on the part of the bound party to accept the Ts&Cs of the agreement, and that party can read the entirety of the agreement before accepting said agreement, unlike this "contract".
Click to expand...

So I send a $5 "campaign contribution" along with it with the terms stating if they cash the check, or it is not returned they agree to the terms and conditions. That way they "get something" out of it. What greedy politician isn't going to turn down money? Even if it's only $5.
 
EdFred said:
So I send a $5 "campaign contribution" along with it with the terms stating if they cash the check, or it is not returned they agree to the terms and conditions. That way they "get something" out of it. What greedy politician isn't going to turn down money? Even if it's only $5.
Click to expand...

Then you would have an agreement with the Democrat party or with the Committee to Reelect Barack Obama, neither of which have the authority to bind the FAA, NTSB or Secret Service to this agreement, leaving those agencies fully capable of prosecuting you without any issue.
 
JeffDG said:
Then you would have an agreement with the Democrat party or with the Committee to Reelect Barack Obama, neither of which have the authority to bind the FAA, NTSB or Secret Service to this agreement, leaving those agencies fully capable of prosecuting you without any issue.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to make it out to the CRBO or the Dems. And don't Executive Orders trump pretty much everything unless the SCOTUS says otherwise?

His cashing the check binds him to all terms and conditions...
 
I realy do not think Ed's idea will do anything but I like it.
He should post the final version and all of us can send $5 made out to Obama with it.
 
EdFred said:
I'm not going to make it out to the CRBO or the Dems. And don't Executive Orders trump pretty much everything unless the SCOTUS says otherwise?

His cashing the check binds him to all terms and conditions...
Click to expand...

But he will neither see nor cash the cheque.

He is legally required to refuse a personal gift, and even then, he would be binding himself as an individual, not in his official capacity as President. The only way he could accept the money would be as a campaign contribution, and I've already pointed out the fact that such a contract would be pointless.

Oh, and sending the President a cheque (to him personally) in exchange for him enacting a specific policy or signing a contract on behalf of the United States would make you guilty of attempted bribery of a public official.
 
JeffDG said:
No competent lawyer will help you. You're attempting to create a "shrinkwrap" contract where someone is bound to the terms (including your over the top cancellation terms) before they are aware of them. The courts have held such contracts are not enforceable as a matter of basic contract law. (I've already provided a citation and ruling from the Circuit Court of Appeals on point above)
Click to expand...

You misread ProCD v. Zeidenberg. The lower court had found for the defendant, but the appeals court found for the plaintiff. It clearly states "Shrinkwrap licenses are enforceable unless their terms are objectionable on grounds applicable to contracts in general (for example, if they violate a rule of positive law, or if they are unconscionable). Because no one argues that the terms of the license at issue here are troublesome, we remand with instructions to enter judgment for the plaintiff."

According to Wikipedia, due to other rulings the issue is not clear: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrink_wrap_contract
 
alaskaflyer said:
I didn't think Ed cared about the details. As I said, we aren't bound by the EULA.
Click to expand...
Who is "we"?

"We" is but one half step removed from 'us'. And if there is an 'us' there must be a 'them'. I see Ed's contract as an attempt to man the pitchfork. You know, to march on the castle....
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top