Busting a TFR

Albany Tom said:
If there's a deterrence, for an actual organize group, it's more likely that we spend something like 3+ trillion dollars and took over an entire country just to get the last nut that tried it. In terms of TSA, there are numerous reports of all sorts of things slipping past them, and again, attempts that have been stopped by passengers. TFR/SFRA, I don't see how that's a deterrent to a one way trip.

After Oklahoma City, they put jersey barriers around a lot of federal buildings, so you can't park trucks right up beside them anymore. A reasonable solution. They didn't close the roads within a four block radius.
Click to expand...
So it sounds like you’re saying the terrorists just decided to be good guys.

It’s truly one or the other. Either security has an effect, or the bad guys just opted not to do it.
 
Kritchlow said:
So it sounds like you’re saying the terrorists just decided to be good guys.

It’s truly one or the other. Either security has an effect, or the bad guys just opted not to do it.
Click to expand...

No, not at all. You're making the assumption that something the government did had a positive effect, or even that it was the only thing that changed. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The best assumption is almost always that the government response is at best useless, and more likely counter-productive. In any area. Sometimes there are exceptions. Sometimes the blind squirrel gets the nut.

Twenty years ago yesterday, the world of aviation changed. Before 9/11, the general understanding in this country was that hijackings were rare, and relatively harmless. Stay in your seat, cooperate with the nuts, it'll be over soon. 9/11 changed that. Mid-flight, actually. If a passenger of a US aircraft attempts something similar today, they may not survive to the landing and their arrest. The TSA didn't change that, nor did flight restrictions. The unwritten rules of behavior have changed, and every American is aware of that.
 
Albany Tom said:
No, not at all. You're making the assumption that something the government did had a positive effect, or even that it was the only thing that changed. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The best assumption is almost always that the government response is at best useless, and more likely counter-productive. In any area. Sometimes there are exceptions. Sometimes the blind squirrel gets the nut.

Twenty years ago yesterday, the world of aviation changed. Before 9/11, the general understanding in this country was that hijackings were rare, and relatively harmless. Stay in your seat, cooperate with the nuts, it'll be over soon. 9/11 changed that. Mid-flight, actually. If a passenger of a US aircraft attempts something similar today, they may not survive to the landing and their arrest. The TSA didn't change that, nor did flight restrictions. The unwritten rules of behavior have changed, and every American is aware of that.
Click to expand...
My point is there are only two possibilities why it has not happened again.

1) Security procedures
2) The terrorists are being nice guys

If you have a third option, I’m listening.
 
Kritchlow said:
Wait… Are you suggesting the POTUS should have no more security than you or me?

It’s not about protecting the person, as much as it is protecting the office.
Click to expand...

I have stood within 20 feet of two world leaders one one occasion and about 30 feet of another world leader on a second occasion. Nobody ever checked me or the bag I was carrying. Our security for VIPs is way over the top.
 
I'm glad there are not many TRF's in AK. Because I would most likely bust them, not on purpose of course. Are the TRF's posted on ATIS at controlled fields effected?
 
AKBill said:
I'm glad there are not many TRF's in AK. Because I would most likely bust them, not on purpose of course. Are the TRF's posted on ATIS at controlled fields effected?
Click to expand...
I don't know, but they are depicted on apps like ForeFlight and on Web sites like Skyvector.com if you turn on the TFR feature. For example, right now there is a giant orange circle centered on KLGB for the upcoming VIP TFR, and multiple areas marked in red for the west coast fire TFRs.
 
Clip4 said:
So you think today that groups of Arab descent people can board US commercial aircraft with box cutters and mount a major attack on US infrastructure and the TSA processes in place do not provide a deterrent? I going to have to disagree.
Click to expand...

TSA routinely misses 95% to 97% of the weapons and explosives when the GSA conducts their periodic red flag tests, so no, I don't think TSA processes provide a deterrent at all.

https://www.cnn.com/2015/06/01/politics/tsa-failed-undercover-airport-screening-tests/index.html
 
DesertNomad said:
3) the flying public will now tackle and beat these nuts to death before they can do anything.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It used to be being hijacked meant 24 hours in Havana drinking daiquiri's. Now they intend to kill us all and evidence the last 20 years is we passengers will not put up with it. Passengers have not hesitated to jump in and start beating them.

My grandfather was an Eastern pilot back when a plane was being hijacked every few weeks for nut jobs that wanted to go to the workers paradise. For a while he flew with a Ruger Security six in his Jepp bag and when the AOPA consensus became "take'm shut up and fly the jet" he said that's what you do.

Not anymore.
 
The Federal limit for personal knives is 1. 5 inches. Longer is a Felony on Federal property. I learned that at the Greenbelt Federal Court House, fortunately, the guard was a fine fellow, and had me measure the knife while he looked away. Back to my car, and the knife was saved.

Longer is defined as a deadly weapon, and subject to immediate arrest.

All knives are forbidden on aircraft, including the one you are flying solo (That is the dumb extreme). Learned that at Ft. Meade airport, when searched by a TSA officer, after I had hidden my knife just in case......

Pessimism can win.
 
geezer said:
All knives are forbidden on aircraft, including the one you are flying solo (That is the dumb extreme). Learned that at Ft. Meade airport, when searched by a TSA officer, after I had hidden my knife just in case......
Click to expand...

Does anyone have an actual source for that? It would seem to be counter to safety for the pilot not to have access to a tool that could cut a seatbelt or harness post-crash, and if the pilot is going to do something dumb with it he's also the one already in charge of the aircraft itself....

Along the same lines, going bush flying (Alaska?) one would expect one could (and should) carry a firearm in the aircraft....

Asking only in the context of Part 91 GA from Podunk Field, not anywhere near a TSA-controlled passenger terminal where such things are clearly verboten. :rolleyes::D
 
  • P
    whitepines said:
    Does anyone have an actual source for that? It would seem to be counter to safety for the pilot not to have access to a tool that could cut a seatbelt or harness post-crash, and if the pilot is going to do something dumb with it he's also the one already in charge of the aircraft itself....

    Along the same lines, going bush flying (Alaska?) one would expect one could (and should) carry a firearm in the aircraft....

    Asking only in the context of Part 91 GA from Podunk Field, not anywhere near a TSA-controlled passenger terminal where such things are clearly verboten. :rolleyes::D
    Click to expand...
    Well, part 121 requires us to have an axe in the cockpit.
 
whitepines said:
Does anyone have an actual source for that? It would seem to be counter to safety for the pilot not to have access to a tool that could cut a seatbelt or harness post-crash, and if the pilot is going to do something dumb with it he's also the one already in charge of the aircraft itself....

Along the same lines, going bush flying (Alaska?) one would expect one could (and should) carry a firearm in the aircraft....

Asking only in the context of Part 91 GA from Podunk Field, not anywhere near a TSA-controlled passenger terminal where such things are clearly verboten. :rolleyes::D
Click to expand...

I have a survival knife and a hatchet in my survival kit. Are we not supposed to have survival kits in the plane?
 
whitepines said:
Does anyone have an actual source for that? It would seem to be counter to safety for the pilot not to have access to a tool that could cut a seatbelt or harness post-crash, and if the pilot is going to do something dumb with it he's also the one already in charge of the aircraft itself....

Along the same lines, going bush flying (Alaska?) one would expect one could (and should) carry a firearm in the aircraft....

Asking only in the context of Part 91 GA from Podunk Field, not anywhere near a TSA-controlled passenger terminal where such things are clearly verboten. :rolleyes::D
Click to expand...

I don’t believe there is such a source.

if you carry a weapon, it must be in your baggage and your must declare firearms to the operator. All you have to do is check if you remembered to tell yourself that you packed a firearm on board. If it’s a knife, you don’t even have to declare it, you just pack it in your luggage.
 
geezer said:
All knives are forbidden on aircraft, including the one you are flying solo (That is the dumb extreme). Learned that at Ft. Meade airport, when searched by a TSA officer, after I had hidden my knife just in case......
Click to expand...

whitepines said:
Does anyone have an actual source for that?
Click to expand...
No one has an actual source for that, because it doesn’t exist. The TSA guy was blowing smoke.
 
MauleSkinner said:
No one has an actual source for that, because it doesn’t exist. The TSA guy was blowing smoke.
Click to expand...
More likely the TSA guy was repeating something that he'd been told by someone else repeating something he'd been told or read on the Internet. The FA unions made a big stink when the TSA was prepared to allow small knives back on airplanes a few years ago, so they had Congress write a law that no knives could be allowed on planes ever. But it only applies where there's TSA screening. So I guess if you had to go through TSA screening to get on your 172, the statement would be accurate. But as a general rule, no.
 
Last edited:
geezer said:
The Federal limit for personal knives is 1. 5 inches. Longer is a Felony on Federal property. I learned that at the Greenbelt Federal Court House, fortunately, the guard was a fine fellow, and had me measure the knife while he looked away. Back to my car, and the knife was saved.

Longer is defined as a deadly weapon, and subject to immediate arrest.

All knives are forbidden on aircraft, including the one you are flying solo (That is the dumb extreme). Learned that at Ft. Meade airport, when searched by a TSA officer, after I had hidden my knife just in case......

Pessimism can win.
Click to expand...
The limit is 2.5 inches; it's a misdemeanor in most facilities unless you use it to commit a crime; and there's an exception if you're carrying it incident to "hunting or other lawful purposes." The Greenbelt Federal Court House, being a court house, would make it a felony if you were going on the court floors.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/930
 
Zeldman said:
Should.??

Can you expand on that.??
Click to expand...

Sure. If one goes down in the Alaskan bush, far from civilization, one might want a way to eat / survive long enough to be rescued? Even if the main purpose isn't eating, and becomes more avoiding being eaten by the local wildlife.

Never been to Alaska though, so take with a truckload of salt. It's on a bucket list though.
 
I was a Juror, at the Beltsville Court house.

The official measurement was inscribed into the top of his desk.

Having lost finger nail clippers to the Federal Officers at an airport, I know not to quibble when I have the option of saving the knife by returning to my car, and leaving it.

The guards there may have shortened the measure on their own, but if they take you into custody, even if found not guilty, you have a record. That can be a can of worms for future security clearances. All my adult life, I have had security clearances, most of the timer above confidential.
 
Last edited:
whitepines said:
Sure. If one goes down in the Alaskan bush, far from civilization, one might want a way to eat / survive long enough to be rescued? Even if the main purpose isn't eating, and becomes more avoiding being eaten by the local wildlife.

Never been to Alaska though, so take with a truckload of salt. It's on a bucket list though.
Click to expand...

Ok, thanks. I very rarely carried a firearm during my years of flying wild Alaska. My main bear protection was a magnesium flare. I never had to use it, but the folks I knew that did said Mr. Bear departed the area as soon as it lit off. And since I mostly flew scheduled services there was a 90 pound survival kit on the plane.

And yes, first responders to a plane crash usually aren't people but critters looking for an easy meal.

If you get to Alaska, be sure to be able to identify wolf poo and bear poo. Wolf poo is smallish and has hair in it. Bear poo is larger and has bear bells in it, plus smells like pepper spray....:lol:
 
Some poor cat went into the Sacramento TFR yesterday. The controller I was talking to said "everybody hold on a second, trying to save this guy his license" then tried multiple ways to get a hold of the guy. Looking at him on the map, it was not a success...
 
Palmpilot said:
I once saw a post from a pilot who had to go through TSA screening to get to his aircraft on the GA side of Oakland International during a POTUS TFR.
Click to expand...

I think in that situation I'd wait for the POTUS TFR to lift, then get my aircraft. Good ADM and all that...
 
Kritchlow said:
My point is there are only two possibilities why it has not happened again.

1) Security procedures
2) The terrorists are being nice guys

If you have a third option, I’m listening.
Click to expand...

There is another possibility. It is such a low rate event that we don’t even know that the frequency has changed. Presently that is the case.

The rate of non-crew deliberately crashing an airliner which left a domestic US airport is not significantly different before and after 9/11/2001. The rate of such events is so low that it will take about 50 years to detect a difference with reasonable statistical power.
 
Pugs said:
... a buddy flies from Fredrick as well virtually every weekend to their beach place in Rehoboth beach DE has now turned into a major, and sometimes impossible, task.
Click to expand...
Not debating the appropriateness of TFRs, just curious about this. I live in Rehoboth Beach, and noting a TFR posted for a planned POTUS visit this weekend (only the second, I think, so far), I'm wondering what difficulties your friend has had getting here. There has been very little disruption on the ground (unless you live in that particular part of town, and need to go through the temporary checkpoints). And based on the banner planes flying overhead nearly every day this summer, I don't think there's been much impact on GA.

Now if you had to fly to Wilmington, that would be a different matter -- many more weekend disruptions there.
 
Hmm, I may have made the assumption it was Rehoboth as their beach place and where they fly into. His is a Nanchang CJ-6 so not hard to miss.
 
Pugs said:
Hmm, I may have made the assumption it was Rehoboth as their beach place and where they fly into. His is a Nanchang CJ-6 so not hard to miss.
Click to expand...
Well, the closest airport is KGED, so I wouldn't necessarily see it. Would stand out though!
 
Lindberg said:
If there was any risk tolerance in their function at all, they wouldn't have any reason to exist.
Click to expand...
Well, except for that counterfeit currency thing, which was the reason that they were created as an organization in the first place.
 
PPC1052 said:
Well, except for that counterfeit currency thing, which was the reason that they were created as an organization in the first place.
Click to expand...
Except that if you quoted in context I specifically refer to their "protective duties":

"Yes. Because their protective duties exist solely for the purpose of preventing black swan events. A 1% chance that they fail is far too high. If there was any risk tolerance in their function at all, they wouldn't have any reason to exist."
 
Lindberg said:
Except that if you quoted in context I specifically refer to their "protective duties":

"Yes. Because their protective duties exist solely for the purpose of preventing black swan events. A 1% chance that they fail is far too high. If there was any risk tolerance in their function at all, they wouldn't have any reason to exist."
Click to expand...
Which would have been fine, until you ruined it with "they wouldn't have any reason to exist."
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top