NATO TFR AKA The Death Penalty

"The public" isn't even conscious of light aircraft beyond what they're spoon-fed by the media. And as someone else points out, the lifespan of a light aircraft story in the modern media is about 6 hours. All of our worry that they think we're "dangerous" comes from this... if you walk up to a person on the street and ask them what they think of light aircraft, their FIRST response is... "uhhhhh..." nothing. Their SECOND response is... "Oh yeah, the news said their dangerous."
Click to expand...

General Aviation was devastated by 09/11. Perhaps you weren't involved enough with it to notice, but it certainly was deeply affected, and it still hasn't recovered.

Whether Joe Schmoe on the street stays preoccupied over general aviation issues, you can bet that a high-profile issue involving light airplane will result in greater restrictions to GA activity, and lesser freedoms. Does anyone want that?
 
We've already had a "high profile" GA " issue". Some doofus ran a Piper into an IRS building.

The public never got told that absolutely nothing could have stopped that. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Luckily they did get told it was a deranged act by an individual. They know individuals fly light aircraft.

With this thread going I decided to start asking smart folks who have zero knowledge of Aviation what they think about TFRs. It takes a bit of time since most don't know what one is. Pick a friend who'd strike up a discussion about anything over coffee.

Had a conversation with a co-worker today. He eventually asked "How much stuff can your airplane haul?".

I told him. He said, "With that much of a certain type of explosive you could take out a building!"

Yes... but where are you going to get your hands on THAT kind of explosive?

And where should that be stopped at?

He agreed. It only took five minutes.

Then I pointed out that a rental truck is still a much better delivery system for explosives. He agreed.

So, I asked... If the authorities set up a system where you could be driving along on an Interstate and if you cross a line on the Interstate that's never in the same place, and only announced via the Internet at most a day prior, and then ALSO published a document that said they could shoot to kill anyone that crossed it, would you agree to that as an effective way to stop rental truck bombs?

He got it. No.

Same with boats on lakes? He really got it.

How to have that kind of rational discussion of TFRs to the public on a huge scale? I have no idea.

But one guy in Colorado is now enlightened about how TFRs infringe upon travel by light aircraft.
 
denverpilot said:
We've already had a "high profile" GA " issue". Some doofus ran a Piper into an IRS building.

The public never got told that absolutely nothing could have stopped that. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Luckily they did get told it was a deranged act by an individual. They know individuals fly light aircraft.

With this thread going I decided to start asking smart folks who have zero knowledge of Aviation what they think about TFRs. It takes a bit of time since most don't know what one is. Pick a friend who'd strike up a discussion about anything over coffee.

Had a conversation with a co-worker today. He eventually asked "How much stuff can your airplane haul?".

I told him. He said, "With that much of a certain type of explosive you could take out a building!"

Yes... but where are you going to get your hands on THAT kind of explosive?

And where should that be stopped at?

He agreed. It only took five minutes.

Then I pointed out that a rental truck is still a much better delivery system for explosives. He agreed.

So, I asked... If the authorities set up a system where you could be driving along on an Interstate and if you cross a line on the Interstate that's never in the same place, and only announced via the Internet at most a day prior, and then ALSO published a document that said they could shoot to kill anyone that crossed it, would you agree to that as an effective way to stop rental truck bombs?

He got it. No.

Same with boats on lakes? He really got it.

How to have that kind of rational discussion of TFRs to the public on a huge scale? I have no idea.

But one guy in Colorado is now enlightened about how TFRs infringe upon travel by light aircraft.
Click to expand...

I pretty much have a standing challenge to anyone who thinks small GA is a good terrorist weapon: pick a terrorist objective for which you think small GA would be used. I'll find a cheaper, faster, better, safer (for the terrorist) method to achieve the same objective.

Some people might think spraying chemicals will win the challenge, but there are other delivery methods for deadly chemicals that also have the advantage of being stealthy. All it takes is a devious mind and a willingness to think outside the box.
 
Ron Levy said:
Yeah. I loved what he said in an aside to the AOPA film crew covering him giving an interview/briefing to the media in a video for AOPA members: "You guys don't pay me enough to defend idiots like this."
Click to expand...

Who was Boyer defending?
 
I think there's a word missing in the quote. "defend against idiots like this" is probably what he said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top