NATO TFR AKA The Death Penalty

[Anthony]

Oh, well in that case, I'm sure someone intent on doing bad things with a hobby rocket, will see the TFR and licensing requirements and just decide they don't want to break TWO laws.

Hey it works for gun control! Look at all the inner cities that have the strictest gun laws in the country. No gun crime there!

 

[Henning]

Replace the parachute with wadding and the desired powder. The motor is already designed to eject the wadding so the powder will be dispersed a hundred or so feet up where the winds can take it.

Rockets are cheap (in the realm of warfare) and have a small enough footprint that 2 man teams could do several shoot and scoots near the edge of the security zone with a nondescript car.

I used to launch the little A motor ones out of the hood scoop on my Camaro Don't sit at the green light too long...

 

[Henning]

"Imminent" means that intent must be known. How does one determine intent of a C-150 that may or may not have wandered unintentionally into a TFR? When nothing else is known, is it based solely on proximity to the VIP?

That's why the Phalanx is such a good answer to the problem. It is a very short in system and it determines if there is a threat profile. It works close in in fleet ops where there can be many things in the air at any given time. If the plane is at a couple hundred meters and closing on a collision course, it is safe to determine that the destruction of the inbound object is appropriate and nobody has to 'pull the trigger'.

 

[poadeleted20]

I agree that a GA plane packed with explosives is a potential threat, but when the government manpads an old lady in her cub, the terrorists really have won.

Hasn't happened yet, and I really doubt it ever will. They had their chance with the Smoketown Bandits, but since they were able to figure out who it was before they got within shoot-down distance, they were able to handle it cleanly, and their systems and procedures have been improved since.

Just remember that every incursion into this zone by one of us will be reported nationally (even internationally), and will be seen by the general public not as evidence of security lunacy, but of our incompetence, and another reason to ban "little airplanes" from the sky.

So please -- read and heed, and don't $%&* it up for the rest of us.

 

[Flying h4x0r]

Re: Be careful in Chicago for NATO summit

Not any different than any other time Obama is in town...

 

[poadeleted20]

Re: Be careful in Chicago for NATO summit

Please define "required" Do i run the risk of missing a TFR in my preflight and having an air force pilot be judge, jury and executioner?

No, you do not. There is a lot involved in ordering a shoot-down in that situation, and I believe it takes a direct order from the President, SecDef, COMNORAD, or the NORAD duty general, and there are a lot of resources at their disposal to help make a determination of whether you are a threat or just a bozo. No 24-y/o first lieutenant in an F-16 gets to make those decisions.

 

[poadeleted21]

Re: Be careful in Chicago for NATO summit

No, you do not. There is a lot involved in ordering a shoot-down in that situation, and I believe it takes a direct order from the President, SecDef, COMNORAD, or the NORAD duty general, and there are a lot of resources at their disposal to help make a determination of whether you are a threat or just a bozo. No 24-y/o first lieutenant in an F-16 gets to make those decisions.

Suppose I get lost and bust the TFR, getting lost isn't a felony that I'm aware of, nor have I seen a police report say "Suspect appeared to be lost, we shot him"

What document can I put my faith and trust in that they won't shoot me?

The only document I see says they can shoot me if they want.

Does "getting shot down by fighter jets" need to be incorporated into my risk management equation.

Only thing I've seen they're willing to put in writing is "We can kill you without due process if you bust the TFR"

 

[poadeleted20]

Re: Be careful in Chicago for NATO summit

Suppose I get lost and bust the TFR, getting lost isn't a felony that I'm aware of, nor have I seen a police report say "Suspect appeared to be lost, we shot him"

What document can I put my faith and trust in that they won't shoot me?

The only document I see says they can shoot me if they want.

Does "getting shot down by fighter jets" need to be incorporated into my risk management equation.

Only thing I've seen they're willing to put in writing is "We can kill you without due process if you bust the TFR"

I see that rational discussion is not on the list today. But since you bring up the police, they can most definitely "kill you without due process" in any number of circumstances, and I doubt that stops you from walking down the street near a bank where you might be mistaken for a bank robber. And the fact that they didn't shoot the Smoketown Bandits ought to tell you something, too.

Problem is, too many folks seem to expect the same irrationality from the National Command Authorities that those folks exhibit in their rants on these subjects, and you don't get to be a 3- or 4-star general by doing that. That's one of the reasons they don't let these decisions get made on TFR busts in the cockpit of the intercepting aircraft -- it's a long, hard road getting from Lt to Lt Gen, and they only want such decisions made by those who have successfully negotiated that road.

 

[poadeleted21]

Re: Be careful in Chicago for NATO summit

I see that rational discussion is not on the list today. But since you bring up the police, they can most definitely "kill you without due process" in any number of circumstances, and I doubt that stops you from walking down the street near a bank where you might be mistaken for a bank robber. And the fact that they didn't shoot the Smoketown Bandits ought to tell you something, too.

Problem is, too many folks seem to expect the same irrationality from the National Command Authorities that those folks exhibit in their rants on these subjects, and you don't get to be a 3- or 4-star general by doing that. That's one of the reasons they don't let these decisions get made on TFR busts in the cockpit of the intercepting aircraft -- it's a long, hard road getting from Lt to Lt Gen, and they only want such decisions made by those who have successfully negotiated that road.

What about a TFR is rational?

So you're saying "just trust them" it's right there on FAA letter head in black and white, we can kill you if we want and that appears to be all they're willing to say.

Their reasons for doing so seem to be a secret. So apparently we're playing a game with my life and only they know the rules about what I should do to stay alive.

Having an MP put a fully automatic weapon to the side of my head and making me lay face down on the asphalt in the Florida summer was what happened the last time I trusted someone and walked past a line that said "use of deadly force authorized"

So forgive me for being skeptical but that guy didn't have a real good sense of humor about why me, a civilian, was standing inside the flight line under an F-15 checking out the hardware. I can't imagine they'd be any less anal retentive about someone getting so close to the royalty of the world.

And not to go SZ here but I've yet to see a law with such an open end NOT be exploited and misused to the fullest extent.

Yeah sure a cop can put a bullet in you without due process, but the reasons he would have for doing so are not a secret.

 

[poadeleted20]

Re: Be careful in Chicago for NATO summit

The fact that you are still alive after crossing that red line is the best support you could possible have for what I said.

 

[denverpilot]

Can't these doofuses just buy videoconferencing gear?

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Re: Be careful in Chicago for NATO summit

Can't these doofuses just buy videoconferencing gear?

Just hold these meetings in some remote place like, say, the Gilbert Islands, or Midway Island, or any number of other islands in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.

 

[gcd89]

Speaking from experience in these types of operations, yes they will if required.

Osama won the day the TSA was implemented and he knew it.

 

[rpadula]

...

 

[denverpilot]

Still think a mass "civil disobedience" with about 100 aircraft into a TFR would get the point across and get the media airtime necessary to explain... if it were done right. Would require some public figures who were pilots, etc.

Never happen but it'd be fun.

 

[poadeleted21]

Still think a mass "civil disobedience" with about 100 aircraft into a TFR would get the point across and get the media airtime necessary to explain... if it were done right. Would require some public figures who were pilots, etc.

Never happen but it'd be fun.

Probably bring an end to the media stories about "no flight plan was filed'

 

[denverpilot]

Probably bring an end to the media stories about "no flight plan was filed'

!!

 

[fgcason]

Still think a mass "civil disobedience" with about 100 aircraft into a TFR would get the point across and get the media airtime necessary to explain... if it were done right. Would require some public figures who were pilots, etc.

Never happen but it'd be fun.

The only real problem with that is that it's the scape goats that are doing the disobedient thing which simply reinforces the nonsense ideas that are hog tying us to start with.

It's a frigging witch hunt where the witches are guilty before they do anything even if they aren't witches to start with.

 

[gcd89]

Still think a mass "civil disobedience" with about 100 aircraft into a TFR would get the point across and get the media airtime necessary to explain... if it were done right. Would require some public figures who were pilots, etc.

Never happen but it'd be fun.

And then they'd track the tail numbers to owners and they'd be in jail.

 

[poadeleted20]

Still think a mass "civil disobedience" with about 100 aircraft into a TFR would get the point across

The only point that would get across to the general public is that people with light planes are idiots who should be grounded -- all of us.

Never happen but it'd be fun.

No, it wouldn't. It would do to general aviation what 9/11 did to the airlines.

 

[Palmpilot]

Still think a mass "civil disobedience" with about 100 aircraft into a TFR would get the point across and get the media airtime necessary to explain... if it were done right. Would require some public figures who were pilots, etc.

Never happen but it'd be fun.

Sure, if you want to see shootdowns actually take place, and the end of GA forever.

I thought you were more sensible than that.

 

[Threefingeredjack]

Re: Be careful in Chicago for NATO summit

I really doubt that will happen in the time it takes some aircraft to close that distance. I do realize that is the intent and protocol, however, I do not believe it is practical nor effective. It only will stop those individuals that abide by the law. Last time I checked terrorists and criminals don't do that.

If the security apparatus really wanted to be effective they'd shut down a LARGE portion of the city from traffic in which the summit was occuring, but of course that won't happen as it would be too much of a hassle. It easier to put "pretend" measures in place so that security staff and politicians can feel like they are doing soemthing.

Without getting into sensitive operational details, available assets are evaluated in each location and the size of the TFR is designed to enable effective coverage. You may believe what you want about capability.

 

[Threefingeredjack]

I'd be very interested to know what constitutes "required", or is that top sekkrit. So there's a very real chance that if I go be-bopping across the country and miss a TFR in my preflight I'll be shot down. Are they going to use tanks to blow up cars that turn the wrong way down a one way street? Even if the streets only one way a couple of days a year?

The TFR makes no sense anyway, why should I assume that "required" means "reasonable" when the entire thing is "unreasonable"

Read your AIM. If you are intercepted and follow directions you will get an interview upon landing. If you ignore your instructions you will be considered hostile and dealt with. You might not like it, but that is the law.

 

[Palmpilot]

Read your AIM. If you are intercepted and follow directions you will get an interview upon landing. If you ignore your instructions you will be considered hostile and dealt with. You might not like it, but that is the law.

That makes it very clear. Thank you.

 

[gprellwitz]

The only point that would get across to the general public is that people with light planes are idiots who should be grounded -- all of us.

No, it wouldn't. It would do to general aviation what 9/11 did to the airlines.

Reading your second comment, I was going to respond with how the airlines are back to (almost?) pre-9/11 flight levels and have no security beyond the hardened cockpit doors, and then thought of the TSA screening passengers and pilots prior to boarding and thought better of it. Much as we decry what has happened to aviation and realize that it is security theatre, even though few others do, it's a lot better than it could be! I fear that your first comment would be prophetic!

 

[denverpilot]

Sure, if you want to see shootdowns actually take place, and the end of GA forever.

I thought you were more sensible than that.

If you're that scared of your government and the people holding the power to pull the trigger, it's sad we've gone that far.

They're publishing documents threatening your death if you meddle in their affairs or their airspace.

You paid for the weapons. Ironic, isn't it?

Who are the terrorists again?

There's nothing sensible about any of it. Politicians are professional liars. We've decided that they're worthy of VIP status?

We'll get over it someday. Usually it takes a real war to dig up true leaders from where they're hiding in normal jobs, and unknown places.

There's not a drop of respect in my body for so-called VIPs who say, "Don't come near us with your airplanes or we'll kill you.".

Respect for the massive firepower I bought them, yes. For the so-called VIPs, who allow their staff to make such threats of Free Citizens on their watch? No.

An example: Drop a TFR over Oshkosh Airventure and threaten to shoot down anything that penetrates it. See how fast you're out of office, never to return.

Why does their dream (manipulating the world) trump the dream of a kid who wants to launch a model rocket?

All Men Are Created Equal. Some are just more equal than others. They have the big guns we all
paid for. Aimed inward. With finger on the trigger. To bring down waves of attacking Citizens in Skyhawks.

And they'll also save us all from the mass hoardes of grandmas and babies carrying more than 3 oz of their favorite personal hygiene products.

I'm so proud of our Security-offering TV-pitchmen overlords. Aren't you?

 

[Jim Logajan]

Hasn't happened yet, and I really doubt it ever will. They had their chance with the Smoketown Bandits, but since they were able to figure out who it was before they got within shoot-down distance, they were able to handle it cleanly, and their systems and procedures have been improved since.

Just remember that every incursion into this zone by one of us will be reported nationally (even internationally), and will be seen by the general public not as evidence of security lunacy, but of our incompetence, and another reason to ban "little airplanes" from the sky.

So please -- read and heed, and don't $%&* it up for the rest of us.

CIA Helped Shoot Down 15 Civilian Planes

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-202_162-4664791.html

Given that in other news the administration keeps reducing the amount of judicial and other cross checks designed to prevent such things happening in this country, I think you are being very optimistic.

The people in government appear to have been learning that they can get away with a great deal, given proper "handling" of the consequences.

 

[Palmpilot]

If you're that scared of your government and the people holding the power to pull the trigger, it's sad we've gone that far.

It's not the government that I'm scared of. It's the reaction of an aviation-phobic public. A coordinated mass airspace violation will make that worse, not better, and making that worse is NOT what we want to do.

As for the possibility of getting shot down, if they see one hundred airplanes violating the TFR, how are they to know it's not a coordinated attack? One light airplane is not likely to be a security threat. Coming to that conclusion about a coordinated violation by a hundred of them would be a difficult decision to make. It's not a conclusion that I think I could come to or justify if I were responsible for the security of the conference.

Scaring people with our airplanes is NOT a good idea.

 

[Jim Logajan]

It's not the government that I'm scared of. It's the reaction of an aviation-phobic public. A coordinated mass airspace violation will make that worse, not better, and making that worse is NOT what we want to do.

As for the possibility of getting shot down, if they see one hundred airplanes violating the TFR, how are they to know it's not a coordinated attack? One light airplane is not likely to be a security threat. Coming to that conclusion about a coordinated violation by a hundred of them would be a difficult decision to make. It's not a conclusion that I think I could come to or justify if I were responsible for the security of the conference.

Scaring people with our airplanes is NOT a good idea.

That scenario wold be the worst way to execute civil disobediance. Something of a strawman, actually.

I believe in cases where civil disobediance has succeeded, they start with media campaigns or equivalent. Civil disobediance comes later, and should be well publicized well ahead of time. It helps to have sympathetic reporters involved.

The promotion of a bunker mentality with respect to aviation rights is something I just don't understand. I'm not aware of anyone ever winning back rights withot devising some form of attack.

 

[denverpilot]

That scenario wold be the worst way to execute civil disobediance. Something of a strawman, actually.

I believe in cases where civil disobediance has succeeded, they start with media campaigns or equivalent. Civil disobediance comes later, and should be well publicized well ahead of time. It helps to have sympathetic reporters involved.

The promotion of a bunker mentality with respect to aviation rights is something I just don't understand. I'm not aware of anyone ever winning back rights withot devising some form of attack.

Correct. You don't start with a sneak attack flash mob kind of thing. Sheesh. It'd be a massively publicized event.

Agreed also on the bunker mentality. My idea sucks, but there has to be someone bright out there who can figure out a way to MASSIVELY embarrass the bureaucrats driving the false TFR security bus.

That's the key to success. A very public, irrefutable, embarrassment which shows the ridiculousness of the "system", whatever system it is.

A Skyhawk indeed landed in Red Square, after all...

 

[Palmpilot]

The promotion of a bunker mentality with respect to aviation rights is something I just don't understand. I'm not aware of anyone ever winning back rights withot devising some form of attack.

It's not a bunker mentality. It's choosing actions that won't do more harm than good.

 

[DouglasBader]

The few hundred pound payload of your average light plane pales in comparison.

The damage done is really irrelevant; it's not about killing a maximum number of people of a massive dollar value in property destroyed. It's about terror. That's why it's called terrorism.

Many focus on the damage done to the airlines in the aftermath of 09/11, but the truth is that the effecton general aviation was much greater.

We came very close to not being allowed to fly without a clearance and flight plan, and the public was afraid of light airplanes for a long time. In ag aircraft, we were required to install special disabling devices, and for a time we had to put prop locks on the aircraft.

TFR's like the one in question are common. Look at the DC area. Look at what we had to go through to fly during the olympics. There's nothing unusual in the TFR as presented.

Do something stupid like fly into the TFR area and cause an incident, and no damage needs to be done physically: the resulting fall-out only damages general aviation in the eyes of the public and feeds the media frenzy.

Does a TFR physically stop an aircraft? No. It stops those who honor the TFR. Those who don't get stopped by other means. The TFR excludes those who read and obey. Those who don't become targets of interest. Those that are really interesting may get intercepted, investigated, and even forced down. This isn't a new process. Try flying into a presidential VIP TFR some time and see what that does for you.

You want to see the end of general aviation as we know it? Get six or seven light airplanes around the country and conduct a coordinated attack on a public event or building. Most likely very little damage will be done, but the resulting restrictions that will take place will do severe damage to the industry. See how it affects rentals, charters, ambulance flights, instruction, aerobatics, and a host of other things.

09/11 caused big changes in flight instruction, and shut down a third of the flight schools. It changed a lot of things. I've heard a lot of people opine that light aircraft are no threat; that may be true in some cases, so far as the direct target. It may be very wrong in other cases. But one of the primary victims that would lose in such a case is general aviation, and it would lose in a big way. Forget the actual amount of damage that could be done; the results go much farther than that, and this is the purpose of terrorism. We're still dealing with the after affects of 09/11 today. It could easily be much, much worse, and will get that way if any light aircraft get used for illicit terrorist purposes, even if not a soul gets killed.

Don't underestimate the true consequences. They'll be much worse than you imagine.

The TFR is there for a reason, and it's valid.

 

[Anthony]

Doug,

I don't know where you got from any of my posts that I was advocating flaunting or violating a TFR. Nor do I recommend making a "statement" with GA by doing so. I realize what they will do if I wandered into a TFR with my Tiger.

My point is that many of these security measures only affect the law abiding, and are not practically effective. A TFR would be effective concerning a slow flying piston aircraft. I don't know how effective it would be against a fast mover. Maybe with Phallanx, or a missle system, but you'd still have to deal with collateral damage on the ground that would slow the decision making process. I am sure they practice these scenarios, and in the minds of the people that manage them, they've got it all covered. In reality, I am not so sure.

 

[Henning]

Re: Be careful in Chicago for NATO summit

No, you do not. There is a lot involved in ordering a shoot-down in that situation, and I believe it takes a direct order from the President, SecDef, COMNORAD, or the NORAD duty general, and there are a lot of resources at their disposal to help make a determination of whether you are a threat or just a bozo. No 24-y/o first lieutenant in an F-16 gets to make those decisions.

Right, which is why for security purposes the current system is completely useless. It makes it impossible for the F-16 to be effective even if he were loitering overhead. By the time the threat was noticed, it's too late for the process to be effective and all the fighter would be able to do is add to the carnage due to his shooting angle.

 

[poadeleted20]

Read your AIM. If you are intercepted and follow directions you will get an interview upon landing. If you ignore your instructions you will be considered hostile and dealt with. You might not like it, but that is the law.

Actually, you have to do more than just "ignore your instructions" to be considered "hostile" and thus get shot down -- as the Smoketown Bandits proved.

 

[poadeleted20]

CIA Helped Shoot Down 15 Civilian Planes

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-202_162-4664791.html

Given that in other news the administration keeps reducing the amount of judicial and other cross checks designed to prevent such things happening in this country, I think you are being very optimistic.

The people in government appear to have been learning that they can get away with a great deal, given proper "handling" of the consequences.

Despite the title, that was the Peruvian Air Force doing things in Peru. I'm not speaking to what is done outside the US by non-US forces, where the rules and responses are radically different.

 

[poadeleted20]

A Skyhawk indeed landed in Red Square, after all...

The reason that happened in 1987 was the outcry over the shootdown of KAL 007 in 1983. The Russians were terrified of the political ramifications of a repeat episode and established better identification procedures. Once they realized what Rust's aircraft was, they determined that it was not a serious threat, and let it continue.

 

[poadeleted20]

Re: Be careful in Chicago for NATO summit

Right, which is why for security purposes the current system is completely useless. It makes it impossible for the F-16 to be effective even if he were loitering overhead. By the time the threat was noticed, it's too late for the process to be effective and all the fighter would be able to do is add to the carnage due to his shooting angle.

Clearly, you aren't familiar with all the systems and procedures in place, or the many systems tests done to determine necessary reaction times and identification procedures, including a BD-5J doing simulated cruise missile profiles against the DC area.

 

[rpadula]

Do something stupid like fly into the TFR area and cause an incident, and no damage needs to be done physically: the resulting fall-out only damages general aviation in the eyes of the public and feeds the media frenzy.

I don't think this scares the general public. How many accidental incursions have we had over the last 10 years? They've all been a big nothingburger. And every news coverage of the "escorted little bitty rogue airplane" have had the half-life of the last Kardashian marriage.

 

[Threefingeredjack]

Actually, you have to do more than just "ignore your instructions" to be considered "hostile" and thus get shot down -- as the Smoketown Bandits proved.

That is correct. The decision matrix for targets ignoring the instructions of intercepting aircraft has several branches, and exactly how you are dealt with has escalating steps. But the result will be more than an interview when you land.