Busting a TFR

I get a briefing PLUS check tfr.faa.gov, then check ForeFlight enroute.

A few years ago I get this phone call that says "AMOC" on the caller ID. It's Homeland Security's Air/Marine Operations Center. They want to know who just departed my airport (the airport manager number rings my phone). Turns out my neighbor (who did everything right) busted a presidential TFR. He called FSS right before 1PM to confirm the TFR started at 2:30. Now it takes him 45 minutes to get his 1929 Waco pulled out, fired up, and warmed up. Not long after his call to FSS, they moved the effective time of the TFR up. He ends up busting it but wondering why is Garmin is showing a big red blob and decides he better get directly out of it. By the time he landed they knew just want color his airplane was.
 
I always scroll over to where there is an active TFR on the map, making sure they are checked on the app. I had FF one night, even though the TFR showed red, they said it wasn’t active quite yet, I went through.

I think we have a hierarchy of TFRs somewhat, the presidential one the biggie, stadium, fire & such less so.
 
It's amazing that with all these threats of being shot down and all these violations, that no one's been shot down yet. It's like they're not actually going to shoot anyone down.
 
Adding safety for whom? For perhaps a dozen people? Maybe. For the other 300+ million? Not a bit.

When 2 of the 3 major US automakers of the time flew to congress in private jets begging for money, congress rightfully harassed them for wasting money. Yet we not only do the private jet thing for "vips", we setup a temporary air defense more significant than the one we had protecting Florida during the Cuban missile crisis. It's not just security theater, it's silly, expensive, and dangerous security theater.

Instead, let them fly coach, an old C-12, or in a big bus, like John Madden used to tour in.

Putting up a TFR for a VIP visit is like putting razor wire around a broken down filled in outhouse. And I mean that irrespective of administration or party.
 
Last edited:
Having been intimately involved with the post-9/11 Air Defense planning and execution beginning on fay zero, TFRs were never designed as a safety measure.
 
Albany Tom said:
Adding safety for whom? For perhaps a dozen people? Maybe. For the other 300+ million? Not a bit.

When 2 of the 3 major US automakers of the time flew to congress in private jets begging for money, congress rightfully harassed them for wasting money. Yet we not only do the private jet thing for "vips", we setup a temporary air defense more significant than the one we had protecting Florida during the Cuban missile crisis. It's not just security theater, it's silly, expensive, and dangerous security theater.

Instead, let them fly coach, an old C-12, or in a big bus, like John Madden used to tour in.

Putting up a TFR for a VIP visit is like putting razor wire around a broken down filled in outhouse. And I mean the irrespective of administration or party.
Click to expand...
Kinda my point. Just that intercept alone was a likely a 100k endeavor.
 
Albany Tom said:
When 2 of the 3 major US automakers of the time flew to congress in private jets begging for money, congress rightfully harassed them for wasting money. Yet we not only do the private jet thing for "vips", we setup a temporary air defense more significant than the one we had protecting Florida during the Cuban missile crisis. It's not just security theater, it's silly, expensive, and dangerous security theater.
Click to expand...
Can I steal this quote :)
 
The flight restrictions immediately after 9/11, for nyc and dc made sense for the short period of time when we really didn't know what was going on, or what was next. Twenty years later, it's just silly. The US national airspace system is either safe, or it's not. Carving up little bits of it as more important than any other doesn't make sense.
 
Dave Anderson said:
Glad we kept that student pilot from nearly destroying the American way of life.
Click to expand...

Yeah, IDGAF about most of that crap. The fact is a TFR tells you what it’s for; there’s four types and depending on type tells you what kind of response you get.

Personally, there was only one TFR in the beginning: National Security. That it has creeped into other types is a conversation with your congressman.

Reality is the likelihood of being shot down are infinitesimally low. Likelihood of having a gigantic USG thorn in your side is high. Whether I like it or not is irrelevant, as is my opinion on whether they’ve been abused or not.

Which they have been. Hypothetically speaking, of course.
 
TCABM said:
Yeah, IDGAF about most of that crap. The fact is a TFR tells you what it’s for; there’s four types and depending on type tells you what kind of response you get.

Personally, there was only one TFR in the beginning: National Security. That it has creeped into other types is a conversation with your congressman.

Reality is the likelihood of being shot down are infinitesimally low. Likelihood of having a gigantic USG thorn in your side is high. Whether I like it or not is irrelevant, as is my opinion on whether they’ve been abused or not.

Which they have been. Hypothetically speaking, of course.
Click to expand...
Fair point. The amount of waste (either party) is mind boggling.
 
I am reminded of an of an episode of the "A Team"...
The bad guys were hijacking some kind of airplane and the A Team was on board posing as the flight crew or something like that. But, the point being, they were sitting on the ramp talking to ATC and demanding permission to take off. ATC refused so the bad people told them that they would start killing hostages one by one until they got permission to depart. Because, yea, killing people is one thing, but flying without ATC permission is a whole 'nuther level.

edit
Found it - the threat is part of the intro at 3 seconds into the video...: https://therokuchannel.roku.com/watch/ac520555388a5eba9ea7eb8d0d7b932c
Totally realistic.
 
Dave Anderson said:
Then what purpose do they serve?
Click to expand...

An answer to the absolute most dangerous reaction to the government statement "We' have to do something". It doesn't matter that what they do actually or if it mitigates or solves a problem or creates more problems.

I flew out of NAF Andrews from 95-06 and the Secret Service is the absolute most risk adverse organization out there. Dealing with them and their ever changing ramp freezes for a wide range of government (ours and others) routinely put us at min fuel and diverting to Pax for fuel as they moved them around randomly.


 
Pugs said:
[T]he Secret Service is the absolute most risk adverse organization out there.
Click to expand...
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.

We don't protect VIPs because they're VIPs, we protect them because they're symbolic and assassinations are symbolic and chaotic. Whether we like them or not, they're also who We The People elected to lead us, not the bozos down the line.
 
Lindberg said:
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.

We don't protect VIPs because they're VIPs, we protect them because they're symbolic and assassinations are symbolic and chaotic. Whether we like them or not, they're also who We The People elected to lead us, not the bozos down the line.
Click to expand...
Are we protecting them from external or internal threats? It's hard to tell these days.
 
Well, since the thread didn’t specify security TFRs, I’ll say as a whole TFRs are critical for safety. You don’t need non participants snooping around activities that could be hazardous to others.

Post 9/11 VIP TFRs however have gotten out of hand. Clinton’s used to be a typical 3 NM / 3,000 ft like a stadium TFR. There’s no reason to give anything greater than that. Monitor activity further out but there’s no reason to restrict it.
 
Last edited:
Lindberg said:
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.

We don't protect VIPs because they're VIPs, we protect them because they're symbolic and assassinations are symbolic and chaotic. Whether we like them or not, they're also who We The People elected to lead us, not the bozos down the line.
Click to expand...

I'm in no way saying that certain civic leaders should not be protected but the extremes the SS goes to has grown out of control and intrudes on our civili liberties. This president has spent more weekends away than either of the last two presidents (https://www.npr.org/2021/08/07/1024650037/dela-where-hed-rather-be-come-the-weekend-biden-leaves-d-c) and with that comes a full entourage (hundred of people) , transport, road and neighborhood and beach and airspace closures which means other citizens don't get to use those things. (by the way for someone who loves to tell me I'm killing the planet with my SUV he sure loves helo rides)

I fly from Frederick MD so P40 is a fact of life but 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. Both of us are retired USN, both of us have very high security clearances (and in fact I had Yankee White at one point for a WHCA project) and yet the SS has no way of doing risk analysis.

I don't want to see anyone die but they're simply hired as temps to get a job done. No better than any of us.
 
At the very least
Velocity173 said:
Well, since the thread didn’t specify security TFRs, I’ll say as a whole TFRs are critical for safety. You don’t need non participants snooping around activities that could be hazardous to others.

Post 9/11 Security TFRs however have gotten out of hand. Clinton’s used to be a typical 3 NM / 3,000 ft like a stadium TFR. There’s no reason to give anything greater than that. Monitor activity further out but there’s no reason to restrict it.
Click to expand...
This is exactly where I am at. I'm not saying they need to be removed but they need to be evaluated as we just accept them and they continue to get out of hand.
 
Velocity173 said:
Well, since the thread didn’t specify security TFRs, I’ll say as a whole TFRs are critical for safety. You don’t need non participants snooping around activities that could be hazardous to others.

Post 9/11 Security TFRs however have gotten out of hand. Clinton’s used to be a typical 3 NM / 3,000 ft like a stadium TFR. There’s no reason to give anything greater than that. Monitor activity further out but there’s no reason to restrict it.
Click to expand...
What good is a 3nm tfr? Even with a slow plane that gives you two minutes to do something. What are you going to do in two minutes?
 
Salty said:
What good is a 3nm tfr? Even with a slow plane that gives you two minutes to do something. What are you going to do in two minutes?
Click to expand...
Identify the offender so that when he lands you can dump him face down on the asphalt for questioning…pretty much what they do with the bigger TFRs except it involves less jet fuel.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Identify the offender so that when he lands you can dump him face down on the asphalt for questioning…pretty much what they do with the bigger TFRs except it involves less jet fuel.
Click to expand...
Could you imagine the political "****storm" that would occur if you shot down some 20 yr old kid that broke airspace? The likelihood of that happening is astronomical. Then do we really think a bad actor that wants to do damage isn't going to eventually find a way? We solved a big portion of the 911 problem with increased security and awareness at the commercial level.
 
Dave Anderson said:
Could you imagine the political "****storm" that would occur if you shot down some 20 yr old kid that broke airspace? The likelihood of that happening is astronomical. Then do we really think a bad actor that wants to do damage isn't going to eventually find a way? We solved a big portion of the 911 problem with increased security and awareness at the commercial level.
Click to expand...
Nobody is going to get shot down. The TFR is so the USSS has warning to get the VIP off the X. The 3-mile core likely gives them enough warning to do that if they duck and run for every violation. They don't want to do that, so they have a 30-mile warning area.
 
Lindberg said:
It's amazing that with all these threats of being shot down and all these violations, that no one's been shot down yet. It's like they're not actually going to shoot anyone down.
Click to expand...
They were seconds away. When the FRZ first went up, the Governor os a southern state was in a King Air. The pilot was over DC. ATC was controlling the plane, but there was no contact between him and the facility charged with destroying threats. The shooter was ready to take action when the controller figured out his target was actually a target.
 
sourdough44 said:
Most flight apps have the TFRs depicted days in advance. That seems cheaper than dealing with the Feds over the issue.
Click to expand...
Yea but they don't always work. FltplanGO did not show the TFR all weekend on their map. I notified them and they fixed it today. So that is why I always use 800wxbrief dot com and check multiple sources.

On another note a old time POAer, Scott Migaldi, use to say its "Security Theatre" Best description of a VIP TFR I've heard.
 
Last edited:
LesGawlik said:
They were seconds away. When the FRZ first went up, the Governor os a southern state was in a King Air. The pilot was over DC. ATC was controlling the plane, but there was no contact between him and the facility charged with destroying threats. The shooter was ready to take action when the controller figured out his target was actually a target.
Click to expand...
So you're saying no one got shot down.
 
Lindberg said:
It's not.

So now would you prefer all aircraft be required to be on a discrete code and talking to ATC at all times everywhere, or only when in certain sensitive areas? I prefer the latter.
Click to expand...

I disagree. We're out of range of any possible hostile AF. But even if it weren't safe, why should we have extra protection for people who are not any more important than anyone else? It's a simple risk equation. What's the worst case event that could be caused by a temporarily lack of federal leadership? Supreme court justices and cabinet members can't be appointed for a while? Bit of a delay signing bills into law? Fewer press conferences? The outage of an Amazon shipping facility would cause more economic damage to the US. Our people in government do have an important role to play in society, but they aren't, but ANY stretch of the imagination, all that important.
 
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