DC SFRA gets more restricted Sept 9

Cap'n Jack

Cap'n Jack

Final Approach
Joined
Jun 25, 2006
Messages
8,999
Location
Nebraska
Display Name
Display name:
Cap'n Jack
The extra restrictions are temorary for the joint session of congress

http://www.eaa.org/news/2009/090409_tfr.pdf

No General Aviation IFR/VFR flights will be authorized to transit through the DC SFRA.
Click to expand...


Special Flights or Operations are not authorized ANYWHERE within the SFRA/FRZ
[FONT=Arial,Arial]Flight training, practice instrument approaches, aerobatic flight, glider operations, parachute operations, ultralight, hang gliding, lighter than air operations, balloon/moored balloon operations, agriculture/crop dusting, animal population control flight operations, banner towing operations, utility line/pipeline inspection flights, model aircraft operations, model rocketry and unmanned aerial systems.
[/FONT]
All flight waivers to operate within the SFRA/FRZ are temporarily suspended during the time of this NOTAM, except waivers beginning with ELO, GOV or SPO.
The NOTAMs discussed in this advisory may change with little or no notice. Pilots are advised to check NOTAMs frequently for possible changes prior to operations in the area. Pilots are strongly advised to contact a Flight Service Station at 1-800-WX-BRIEF (1-800-992-7433) prior to flight to check for all current NOTAMS.
Click to expand...
 
Re: DC FRZ gets more restricted Sept 9

Or to land at any airport except BWI or IAD. If you can operate out of there, there's no reason that other towered airports like HEF couldn't be waived.
 
Re: DC FRZ gets more restricted Sept 9

Note that this is the whole SFRA, not just the FRZ.

This is SOP for these events, e.g. the state of the union, etc., as I recall.

Ultimately, the rules are skewed to shutdown GA, while letting the airlines continue.
-harry
 
mantakos said:
Note that this is the whole SFRA, not just the FRZ.

This is SOP for these events, e.g. the state of the union, etc., as I recall.

Ultimately, the rules are skewed to shutdown GA, while letting the airlines continue.
-harry
Click to expand...

You're right- I changed the thread title; I used the wrong term. Pretty much the only ones allowed unchanged access are the airlines.
 
Re: DC FRZ gets more restricted Sept 9

mantakos said:
Note that this is the whole SFRA, not just the FRZ.

This is SOP for these events, e.g. the state of the union, etc., as I recall.

Ultimately, the rules are skewed to shutdown GA, while letting the airlines continue.
-harry
Click to expand...

Agree. And unnecessary.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
You're right- I changed the thread title; I used the wrong term. Pretty much the only ones allowed unchanged access are the airlines.
Click to expand...
That's because major airliners have never been involved in attacking DC or NYC and, of course, GA aircraft were able to knock down the World Trade Center.
 
AuntPeggy said:
That's because major airliners have never been involved in attacking DC or NYC and, of course, GA aircraft were able to knock down the World Trade Center.
Click to expand...

Now you get it!

I mean do you remember when that Cessna ran into the White House in the 90s?

inset-id4-whitehouse.jpg


Should just ban all those little planes outright. :yes:
 
Ron Levy said:
Sure do -- I lived about five miles from the airport where they guy stole the plane. Final score: White House 1, C-152 0.
Click to expand...

I wonder what it cost to fix the white house. ?
 
Great, stupidity strikes again.
 
Ghery said:
Probably a whole lot less than it cost to buy a new C-152.
Click to expand...

You're forgetting that any White House repairs would be government contracted. They couldn't issue a Request-for-Proposals for less than the cost of a C-152!:fingerwag:
 
I would hope that the White House (as well as many other govt buildings) have an existing contract vehicle for such things as maintenance and repairs. Even for unexpected damage (e.g., storm damage) there should be a T&M and/or IDIQ-like contract in place.
 
As you can tell from the picture, the shrubbery took the brunt of the damage. I believe the building needed little more than some paint.
 
Ron Levy said:
As you can tell from the picture, the shrubbery took the brunt of the damage. I believe the building needed little more than some paint.
Click to expand...

If I were ambitious, I'd do the research, but who wants to bet that it cost more to do that painting and landscaping than a C-152 is worth?
 
Ron Levy said:
As you can tell from the picture, the shrubbery took the brunt of the damage.
Click to expand...

Oh, what sad times are these when passing ruffians can say Ni at will to old ladies. There is a pestilence upon this land, nothing is sacred. Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress in this period in history.

Shrubberies are my trade. I am a shrubber. My name is Roger the Shrubber. I arrange, design, and sell shrubberies
 
smigaldi said:
Oh, what sad times are these when passing ruffians can say Ni at will to old ladies. There is a pestilence upon this land, nothing is sacred. Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress in this period in history.

Shrubberies are my trade. I am a shrubber. My name is Roger the Shrubber. I arrange, design, and sell shrubberies
Click to expand...

I was wondering when that would come up... ;)

"My kingdom for a shrubbery!"
 
"Help, help, I'm being repressed!!!
 
As you can tell from the picture, the shrubbery took the brunt of the damage. I believe the building needed little more than some paint.
Click to expand...
As the story goes, the pilot didn't score a 'direct hit' on the building, but touched down 100' short, skidded into a hedge, clipped a magnolia tree, then skidded another 30' before coming to rest against the side of the building.

But the pilot was reputedly extremely intoxicated, so you can't fault his stick and rudder skills too much for landing a little short of target . You could probably make a fair case against him for failing to properly apply the prescribed antidotes to a few FAA textbook "hazardous attitudes", though.

Of course, this presumes that he landed short of his target. It may be the case that his goal was to land safely on the lawn, but landed long. There's specualtion that he may have been inspired by the guy who landed a 172 near Red Square.
-harry
 
mantakos said:
Of course, this presumes that he landed short of his target. It may be the case that his goal was to land safely on the lawn, but landed long. There's specualtion that he may have been inspired by the guy who landed a 172 near Red Square.
Click to expand...
Folks in Harford County who knew him were pretty sure it was a suicide.
 
hm
faa search does not show a cessna fatal from 1980-2009 in DC.
did security shoot him?
6 records meet your criteria.
A docket of supporting materials may exist for factual and probable cause reports. Please contact Records Management Division. Dockets are not available for preliminary reports.

PDF Reports require the free Adobe Reader for viewing.

Current
Synopsis


PDF
Report(s)
(Published)


Event
Date


Probable
Cause Released


Location


Make / Model


Regist.
Number


Event
Severity


Type of Air Carrier Operation
and Carrier Name (Doing Business As)

Probable Cause


Factual(7/23/2007) ,
Probable Cause(2/11/2008)


5/30/2006


2/11/2008


Washington, DC


Eurocopter EC-135P1


N601FH


Fatal(1)


NSCH

Probable Cause


Factual(5/23/2006) ,
Probable Cause(5/30/2006)


6/7/2005


5/30/2006


Washington, DC


Embraer 170


N803MD


Fatal(1)


SCHD (D.B.A. US Airways Express)

Probable Cause


Factual(9/4/2001) ,
Probable Cause(10/2/2002)


8/5/2001


10/2/2002


Washington, DC


de Havilland Dash 8-100


N935HA


Fatal(1)


SCHD Name

Probable Cause


Factual(10/2/2002) ,
Probable Cause(10/6/1988)


8/21/1987


10/6/1988


WASHINGTON, DC


BELL 206B


N83080


Fatal(3)




Probable Cause


Factual(10/6/1988) ,
Probable Cause(3/22/1989)


8/11/1987


3/22/1989


WASHINGTON, DC


BOEING 747-200B


JA182


Fatal(1)


SCHD ALL NIPPON AIRWAYS

Probable Cause


Factual(3/22/1989) ,
Probable Cause(1/13/1983)


1/13/1982


1/13/1983


WASHINGTON, DC


BOEING 737-222


N62AF


Fatal(78)


SCHD AIR FLORIDA, INC
 
Probably because NTSB doesn't record intentional criminal acts, just accidents. You won't find that kid that stole the plane in Tampa shortly after 9/11 and crashed it into an office building. In any event, the crash killed him, not security.
 
I seem to remember the 9/11 aircraft at least having an entry.. not much more than a sentence or two.. but it had an entry.
 
Doggtyred said:
I seem to remember the 9/11 aircraft at least having an entry.. not much more than a sentence or two.. but it had an entry.
Click to expand...

9/11/2001 entries all say
NTSB said:
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and any material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI. The Safety Board does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket.


The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

The Safety Board did not determine the probable cause and does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and any material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI.
Click to expand...

The one on 9/11/1994 was Frank Corder, and was initially thought to be an attack on Bill Clinton, but later reduced to an intoxicated suicide.

I wish more people would use the "real" 9/11 as an example of the safety of GA. That or the BoA building in Tampa. Both are prime examples of the lack of danger posed by small aircraft.
 
Research services of both the Congress and DHS itself have determined that small aircraft pose an insignificant threat.
 
Ron Levy said:
Probably because NTSB doesn't record intentional criminal acts, just accidents. You won't find that kid that stole the plane in Tampa shortly after 9/11 and crashed it into an office building. In any event, the crash killed him, not security.
Click to expand...

Yup. The kid took out one whole office. Windows, drywall, rental office furniture. I think they had to redrywall the adjacent office. Probably needed some carpet too. Total damage had to be well in excess of $15,000. I'm thinking at least $16,400. Plus new blinds for the office, so maybe another $500.

I mention the results of the White House "crash", Cory Lidle bouncing off the apt in NY, and that kid messing up a small part of a cubicle farm to anyone who talks about potential for GA damage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top