"Antique" aircraft "pulled over" by F-16

[TimAPNY]

This topic has some great discussion in it. I edited it to keep the politics out of it and the useful discussion on restricted airspace here. Please let us keep on topic and leave party lines out of it.

Tim

[RyanShort1]

I sometimes fly near P-49 as our family's ranch is nearby - so TFRs are something I do worry about at times. I just have had a hard time convincing myself that we're the problem. The way I see it, if a terrorist was for real - he'd have the means to use something far more formidable than the little L-2, Cessna 172, or Symphony I've been flying, or for that matter the Biplanes that were recently intercepted. If I were the Secret Service, I'd be worried about a faster plane like a Bonanza or some light twin or chartered Bizjet - in which case your zone needs to be bigger than it is. On the other hand - little aircraft like ours could EASILY be shot down closer in with a decent AA system if they looked to be a threat. I guess the only flip side to that would be if someone could actually get a suitcase nuke nearby, but it would be much simpler to use a ground vehicle in that case. So I really still think that it's mostly a feel good measure.

Ryan

[mustangdriver]

Just to throw the question out - what do the other pilots here think of the whole TFR thing - is it effective, "feel good", or not good enough. I personally suspect that it does more to harm "good" or harmless folks than it would actually do to stop a determined terrorist. Hope I'm wrong.

Ryan

I think it works just fine. You just have to actually read something before you jump in and fire it up.

[LadyO2Pilot]

Just to throw the question out - what do the other pilots here think of the whole TFR thing - is it effective, "feel good", or not good enough. I personally suspect that it does more to harm "good" or harmless folks than it would actually do to stop a determined terrorist. Hope I'm wrong.

Ryan

I think it works just fine. You just have to actually read something before you jump in and fire it up.

I have to fly through or near P-49 often going between SAT and FTW...and lots of the time the area goes big because the President is at Crawford. I have never found it a problem. If I am going to make the flight and have not heard the status of the area I always make it a practice to call FSS while planning the flight. I do not find it is a burden when P-49 is expanded to file that VFR flight plan and talk to ATC. I would ask for flight following regardless. I also monitor 121.5 during the trip just in case. I have never been diverted by ATC in all the years P-49 has existed and only once did I get a curious call asking if I was going to maintain that particular altitude. Shortly I discovered why. Air Force One flew right over me (looked closer than it was) making an approach into TSTI at Waco. That was kinda exciting

I will not get into whether the TFR accomplish what they are supposedly designed for or the political aspects of them. I just have never found it to be a burden if you just inform yourself and play by the rules.

[muddyboots]

This topic has some great discussion in it. I edited it to keep the politics out of it and the useful discussion on restricted airspace here. Please let us keep on topic and leave party lines out of it.

Tim

Thank you, Tim. I was embarassed to see the trouble I have caused you guys, and am grateful for your forbearance.

Last edited by muddyboots on Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[RyanShort1]

Mustangdriver and Lady02Pilot,

I totally agree with you and do try and ALWAYS check shortly before takeoff. It's something that ought to be done. My comments were more towards the effectiveness of the whole deal, as opposed to the realities of what GA pilots should do.

Ryan

[LadyO2Pilot]

Mustangdriver and Lady02Pilot,

I totally agree with you and do try and ALWAYS check shortly before takeoff. It's something that ought to be done. My comments were more towards the effectiveness of the whole deal, as opposed to the realities of what GA pilots should do.

Ryan

Ryan, I too often wonder the same thing and we may never know unless an actual terrorist/attacker attempts something lethal and is either stopped with the system as we know it now........ or not

[mustangdriver]

Mustangdriver and Lady02Pilot,

I totally agree with you and do try and ALWAYS check shortly before takeoff. It's something that ought to be done. My comments were more towards the effectiveness of the whole deal, as opposed to the realities of what GA pilots should do.

Ryan

I think it is effective, but I have to say that I have a problem with TFR being able to shut down a fly in. Being in a medical helicopter we can actually go places that GA aircraft can not, like in the TFR over DC with prior arrangements. It is a hastle sometimes, but I kind of think it is needed.

[RyanShort1]

I guess I'm really not upset about the President or others with a position I respect having security measures in place. It just concerns me that the measure is harsh against those who unintentionally offend, and I wonder just how good it would be against those who would intentionally offend. It's the old freedom vs. security argument and I tend to fall towards the freedom side. It also seems to catch the rural, older, infrequent flyers, or more fun-flying segment of the pilot population - who I would also consider to be a non-threat... and those folks aren't going to be as affected by the inability to use their license. I would think it would only anger them, as well as make them a bit bitter. In such cases a good reprimand would seem much more equitable, especially since most of them had NO intent to harm anyone.

Ryan

[muddyboots]

Ryan, I too often wonder the same thing and we may never know unless an actual terrorist/attacker attempts something lethal and is either stopped with the system as we know it now........ or not

So using that logic I can write anti-pregnancy device on a piece of duct tape, and stick it on my forehead...and if I never get pregnant that means it worked...

I'm not saying it doesn't work, or that it isn't keeping El Jeffe' alive. But I wonder who actually makes the rules and decides that it is working? As it is, I woudln't be surprised if it's not the White House. Are they bothering to look at it's costs versus effectiveness or is this just another idiiotic overresponse?

[LadyO2Pilot]

In such cases a good reprimand would seem much more equitable, especially since most of them had NO intent to harm anyone.

Ryan

I have known three guys who have been escorted to an early descent at a unplanned destination while flying in the vicinity of P-49 (expanded). Two instances were due to poor or non-existant flight planning but harmless motives. The other was a slight oops in navigation combined with speed which prompted an interesting Hertitage flight. However, in all three cases, there were conversations and strong reprimands but no suspensions of licenses. All three complied immediately with any commands or requests made. I also know of another guy who did not comply and continued to his destination with an escort and who, I am told, was some what belligerent with the authorities. He lost his license for 120 days so I was told. So I guess all situations are handled differently despite all the press that the pilots can lose flying privileges for periods of time.

[mgeorge51]

A lot of the TFR's seem to be a very real reduction in the average man's freedom while accomplishing very little.
Case in point. I can not fly my 800 pound L-2 over the Cardinals stadium without getting busted. If you drive by the stadium on the South side you will be little more then 40 feet from the spectators.
Which could do more damage my 800 pound aircraft (payload 200 pounds), or a large truck filled with the same explosives used in Oklahoma.
I fear that by not standing up to these issues we are not only giving up some freedom but are also playing into the irrational fears of the average citizen who thinks they are in danger from the crazy pilots they allow in the sky.

I would rather trust more people and be a little more at risk then loose any of my freedom.

Funny related story
A buddy and I were driving my Saladin (6 wheeled armored car with a 76mm FAKE gun), as he drove it quite far up the airports ramp I noticed a bunch of big black limos around. Anyway I told my buddy driving to head back to the hanger.
A couple of minutes later the airport police came up and kindly asked me to not drive the armoured car on the ramp when the Vice President (Gore)was there.
What would happen today. I probably would be in the hokey or shot.

[fritzthefox]

Personally, I agree with the eloquently stated position of Forgotten Fields...it is an expensive and ineffective response to an unlikely scenario, and all out of proportion to the damage that would likely result. Presidents die in office all the time, and the country manages to get along just fine without them. Statistically, our fearless leaders are more likely to fall over from a bum ticker. Should we also restrict their movements to only Surgeon General approved restaurants?

This country is probably in less danger from a hijacked aircraft than ever before. So long as 9/11 remains a living memory for the citizens of this country, no one is ever going to successfully hijack an airliner again. Any attempt to do so will almost certainly result in the same fate that befell flight 93. Efforts to hijack a smaller aircraft are unlikely to produce serious damage, as demonstrated by the nutball teenager who was inspired to slam his Cessna into a high-rise bank in Florida a few years ago. Since there are cheaper ways to break windows, it is doubtful terrorists would choose to pursue light aircraft as delivery systems.

It is still pretty easy to rent a U-haul, since ground based vehicles have managed to escape any of the restrictions imposed on aircraft, despite their being both the favorite targets and delivery systems for a large percentage of terrorist bombings.

The unpleasant truth is that it is pretty difficult to predict the behavior of crazy people, and the world is teeming with technology that can be easily converted into a weapon of one kind or another by a sufficiently motivated looney. The only way to be truly safe from the actions of a single madman would be to regress to the stone age. Like nuclear ICBM's (remember those?) the best we can hope for is to learn to live in the shadow of them and hope the wrong guy doesn't rub the magic lamp.

If we can manage to build a nice enough world, maybe no one will want to. Otherwise, we'll be back in the stone age soon enough, one way or another. I'd like to fly unrestricted until then.

[RyanShort1]

Anyone else see the ANN report?

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=0c55837c-3b8c-45a8-9de4-4f416b61868d&

Yikes!
Ryan

[Randy Haskin]

Anyone else see the ANN report?

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=0c55837c-3b8c-45a8-9de4-4f416b61868d&

Yikes!
Ryan

Pretty good excuse, if ya ask me.