Presidential TFR near me, pic of interception

[Cujet]

There is a presidential TFR near me. He has closed my airport all weekend, and I was unable to re-position prior to his arrival, due to horrible weather. We need to get this TFR stuff under control. There is no reason to close the airspace.

Anyway, this pic was taken by a friend, from his front lawn, near Ft. Pierce, Florida. Well within the TFR. AND, it disgusts me that the US Military is against US Citizens like this. Clearly, this guy is not a threat. But I'm sure he will lose all his airman certs.

I suggest we revise the TFR's procedures, so airports are not closed, airspace is not closed and innocent people are not made to be criminals.

 

[Trav]

USSR tactics. Welcome to the new America.

 

[dkryan]

Well, after the moron flew a plane into a building in Austin, Texas, I guess one could envision a single or multi-engine aircraft being used as a weapon.

The bigger thought is on NYC, of course.

But, I agree. The TFRs have gotten ridiculous and there needs to be major changes made. Good luck with that! Until then, carefully read the NOTAMS.

Then again, what's a bigger threat? That Cessna or Russian TU-95 bombers circling Guam?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/...test=latestnews

 

[Robster]

Ahhhhhh. . . the deadly Cessna 150. . .scourge of the skies! Capable of striking fear into the hearts of the ground-bound and paralyzing entire cities!! hehehehehehehehe

I agree. . . the general aviation threat to U.S. security is considerably overblown. I can understand protecting D.C. and of course, the President, but restricting operations for a 30nm diameter is overkill for most GA aircraft, and controllers often will even expand it more if you let them get away with it. One such instance happened to me on a trip back to Harrisburg, PA from Maine last year during the summer. I Was IFR on top at 8000 in a Piper Dakota. . .had my wife and son on board. The flight is going well and following the filed flight plan, which took me through NE New York, down toward NYC and then westward toward Harrisburg--I filed this route due to t-storms forecast for north-central PA. As the flight went on I could see the towering cumulus clouds building (as advertised) in the distance to the west of my route.

I was aware of the Presidential TFR over NYC and had filed a route that kept me well clear of it. Shortly after spotting the cloud buildups as if on cue, the center controller advises me of a route change that included direct to LVZ (Scranton). Since that was the area that had the t-storms I questioned the change and the controller advised that they wanted to keep traffic away from NYC due to the TFR and repeated the instruction to go direct to LVZ. I replied that I needed a different routing due to the weather and the controller basically said, no we need you direct LVZ. At this point I realized that I needed to assert my PIC authority, so I said "OK, you need to come up with a different plan, 'cause I ain't going to LVZ. . .lemme know what you wanna do". . . about five minutes later, I was cleared to remain on the original routing and it ended up being an uneventful flight.

Moral of the story, don't be bullied by controllers. . .at the end of the flight, the PIC is always in charge.

 

[RamFan]

Originally Posted By: Trav
USSR tactics. Welcome to the new America.


Riggghhhhtttttt

 

[L_Sludger]

Originally Posted By: Robster

Moral of the story, don't be bullied by controllers. . .at the end of the flight, the PIC is always in charge.
(+1)
L_Sludger likes this.

 

[JHZR2]

Hey when I griped about being irradiated by mm wave (used to break oxygen bonds, which are prevalent in the body), I was told by many on here to suck it up because it was legal.

Now I'm totally innocent, with no malicious intent, and more often flying on orders with a DoD badge.

But the prevailing thought was that when flying you give up rights to prevent unnecessary search and seizure and are under their control.

I see this as no different. You are under their control, because of a real or manufactured boogeyman.

And just like roads, which are used to direct traffic flow and prevent us from driving through others' back yards, I guess because of the greater freedom in flying, there must be some control there too...

 

[HerrStig]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Hey when I griped about being irradiated by mm wave (used to break oxygen bonds, which are prevalent in the body), I was told by many on here to suck it up because it was legal.

Now I'm totally innocent, with no malicious intent, and more often flying on orders with a DoD badge.

But the prevailing thought was that when flying you give up rights to prevent unnecessary search and seizure and are under their control.

I see this as no different. You are under their control, because of a real or manufactured boogeyman.

And just like roads, which are used to direct traffic flow and prevent us from driving through others' back yards, I guess because of the greater freedom in flying, there must be some control there too...
Unless you happen to be a "very important" anti Second Amendment female US Senator from California with a "US Marshal" id whih allows unlimited "carry" and the avoiding of TSA. As Orwell said, "Some pigs are more equal than other pigs.

 

[NMBurb02]

Originally Posted By: HerrStig
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Hey when I griped about being irradiated by mm wave (used to break oxygen bonds, which are prevalent in the body), I was told by many on here to suck it up because it was legal.

Now I'm totally innocent, with no malicious intent, and more often flying on orders with a DoD badge.

But the prevailing thought was that when flying you give up rights to prevent unnecessary search and seizure and are under their control.

I see this as no different. You are under their control, because of a real or manufactured boogeyman.

And just like roads, which are used to direct traffic flow and prevent us from driving through others' back yards, I guess because of the greater freedom in flying, there must be some control there too...
Unless you happen to be a "very important" anti Second Amendment female US Senator from California with a "US Marshal" id whih allows unlimited "carry" and the avoiding of TSA. As Orwell said, "Some pigs are more equal than other pigs.

Is Animal Farm even read in schools anymore? I would think not, with the mindsets of today's young "adults".

 

[JHZR2]

I'd push Ayn Rand first to this generation. Animal Farm and 1984 were definitely in the curriculum in late 1990s NJ.

 

[Astro14]

It's the presumption of guilt that rankles me about airport "security"...prove to them that you're not a threat...and you're allowed to pass...

As far as TFRs? Been that way for a long time...

But don't think that "the military" is "against civilians"...the ANG guys flying those Vipers are following the orders of a civilian government that directs them to intercept...

 

[Cujet]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2


But the prevailing thought was that when flying you give up rights to prevent unnecessary search and seizure and are under their control.. I guess because of the greater freedom in flying, there must be some control there too...


Not so. Scotus has repeatedly made clear that American citizens have a natural right to free and unrestricted travel. To go where and when they want, and by what ever means they choose.

Airspace is included in this freedom (by law) , with the very same limitations of land based restrictions. In other words, the military gets some.

The restrictions affect safety. Things such as minimum altitude above populated areas, etc.

My beef is simple. I travel in my personally owned aircraft, for personal reasons, and for work. When I am forbidden to use my aircraft, due to location, my right to free and unrestricted travel has just been destroyed.

This weekend is a long one. I wanted to go to my TN property. As soon as I learned about the TFR, I knew I needed to reposition. But, due to weather, could not. Once the weekend rolled around, weather was perfect, and the airport was 100% grounded. Ugh.

All I want is a procedure to work within the system. Possibly a vector out of the area, with a discreet code. But,,,

It's not right, and we all know it. I'm stinkin tired of my rights being trampled. I don't have time for this acrp.

 

[BearZDefect]

Originally Posted By: Cujet
...
I suggest we revise the TFR's procedures, so airports are not closed, airspace is not closed and innocent people are not made to be criminals...

They do the same kind of thing here in Lexington (on the ground) when there is a football game. You unwittingly drive into the unmarked trap, then spend the next hour or more trying to get out because they blocked streets, made important streets one-way, etc. But some people must make good money from those games, what else could make the authorities support such obnoxious behaviour?

 

[Cujet]

Originally Posted By: BearZDefect
Originally Posted By: Cujet
...
I suggest we revise the TFR's procedures, so airports are not closed, airspace is not closed and innocent people are not made to be criminals...

They do the same kind of thing here in Lexington (on the ground) when there is a football game. You unwittingly drive into the unmarked trap, then spend the next hour or more trying to get out because they blocked streets, made important streets one-way, etc. But some people must make good money from those games, what else could make the authorities support such obnoxious behaviour?


I see your point, and I'd find that infuriating too.

There is a big difference between an hour delay, and a 4 day detention. That's my real beef. There is no "out" to the TFR. The FAA gets direction from the Secret Service, and the FAA makes temporary law. Unconstitutional as ehll and it clearly violates my right to "free and unrestricted travel".

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: Cujet
Unconstitutional as ehll and it clearly violates my right to "free and unrestricted travel".


I'm probably way out of my league here...

...but does it?

You are free to walk to your destination. You are free to take a car, a train, a boat. You can ride a horse.

The Constitution doesn't necessarily give absolute authority to do things. We all have the right to free speech, for example. But you can't yell "fire" on a loaded aircraft.

As a US citizen, you have a right to move within your state, or between states. But you don't necessarily have the right to get there by a means of your choosing, via a route of your choosing, and at a time of your choosing. I work within a secure facility, next to an even more secure facility. Most people can travel to my work location, but they have to get their car and person inspected at the visitor center first. Does that infringe on their right? Very few people can travel into the secure compound next to me, due to security reasons. Does that infringe on their right?

I think our right to free movement is in the context of freely moving from state to state (which we absolutely are allowed to do), and which the TFR still allows. You simply must choose a different mode of travel.

Article 4 of the Articles of Federation:
Quote:
4.But to instill a national feeling, "[t]he better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this union," it establishes equal treatment and freedom of movement for the free inhabitants of each state to pass unhindered between the states, excluding "paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice." All these people are entitled to equal rights established by the state into which he travels. If a crime is committed in one state and the perpetrator flees to another state, he will be extradited to and tried in the state in which the crime was committed.


Is this is the freedom of movement referred to here?

 

[Cujet]

The method of travel matters not. The national airspace is, by law, belonging to each and every American citizen and they are free to use the navigable parts of it. With minor exceptions for military installations.

49 U.S.C. § 40103 : US Code - Section 40103: Sovereignty and use of airspace

(a) Sovereignty and Public Right of Transit. - (1) The United
States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the
United States.
(2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit
through the navigable airspace. To further that right, the
Secretary of Transportation shall consult with the Architectural
and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board established under
section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973...

Furthermore, the TFR outer rings are now requiring 24 hours prior notice, a filed flight plan AND a discreet squawk code PRIOR to movement for takeoff (not available in all areas) . Um, WHAT? I never know where I must be, what's gonna break down, or when I'm getting free time to travel on my own.

Sorry, but that's blatant restriction on my right to travel. It's a false argument to say that "you can walk". Obviously, the right to travel includes any number of common methods and that mode of travel is not a consideration in any way. I either have the right to free and UNRESTRICTED travel, or I don't.

The fact remains, I cannot walk from FL to TN and back again in a weekend. Nor can I drive it (17 hours each way) . But, I can easily make it there before lunch on Sat, and leave at dinner on Sunday and fully enjoy my weekend. I don't like being detained.

 

[Hokiefyd]

I understand your point. The "unrestricted" part is what I'm not sure of. We will always have restrictions. That's just the nature of a public society. Speed limits restrict us. Various equipment regulations (for aircraft, vehicles, water craft, etc) restrict us. You already said that there are exceptions for military installations. These are all restrictions.

I guess I'm just not sure it's reasonable to expect an absoulutely UNrestricted freedom to travel.

You listed section (a)(1) and (2) above, but didn't quote section (b)(1), (2), (3), of 49 USC 40103.

(b)(1) says that the FAA will develop plans policy that govern the use of the airspace.

(b)(2) says that the FAA will develop traffic regulations on the flight of aircraft for the purposes of identifying and navigating aircraft, protecting individuals and property on the ground, using the navigable airspace efficiently, and preventing collisions between aircraft.

(b)(3) says that the FAA has the authority to identify and establish areas of the airspace that are an interest to national defense or areas of the airspace that cannot be controlled with available equipment.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/40103

I'm not sure that an individual is intended to be granted free and UNRESTRICTED use of navigable airspace. Or at least if we are, I may not be reading the above USC correctly.

 

[Cujet]

Free and unrestricted travel is considered a natural right. To that end, the FAA is tasked with ensuring safety. They do this under the constitutional authority of the (ICC, considered the "elastic clause" ) of the so called interstate commerce clause. And, to a much lesser extent, the so called "general welfare clause", which is a prefatory clause and has no binding power.

Those regulations quoted above are for safety, not for restriction of travel. They are also to allow the military to use some of the airspace.

You would not want, for example, airspace between high rise buildings in a dense city, being a "free for all zone" as that would be clearly unsafe. In very much the same manner as you don't want automotive activity in the middle of a football field.

The "on the fly" airspace closures are stunningly wrong on so many levels. I can accept a modest procedure to allow operations. But I cannot accept outright, needless grounding of thousands of aircraft at the whim of some Secret Service bureaucrat, who directs the FAA to do this.

Consider this, commercial ops are allowed, but private ops are not? Do procedures require that I go through TSA screening for my own flight? To screen for what? Clearly, I can carry any legal firearms on a flight. I can also carry chemicals, gasoline, knives, etc.

Freedom and liberty are exactly that. Leave me alone.

 

[Cujet]

"Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 22.

"Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement: stop lights, signs, etc.

"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 179.

The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

"Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to move from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the 14th amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." Schactman v. Dulles, 96 App DC 287, 293.

 

[Cujet]

Also, remember from where the FAA derives it's power. It's not a Constitutionally enumerated power. The FAA gets it's authority through Congress, from the so called ICC and General Welfare Clause (which is prefatory and simply describes the need for a Constitution)

That authority does not include the right to restrict my travel.

A bit off topic here, but that is why the FAA can heavily regulate airlines, and commercial operations. But there are comparatively few "common sense regulations" affecting part 91 operations. They cannot, for example, prevent me from flying without a flight plan, on an aircraft that has an engine beyond the recommended overhaul period, has no transponder, no radio and has not seen a mechanic in 364 days. Also, violations of FAR's are simply civil in nature.