Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

n4gix

Five Little Words...

Recommended Posts

...That Will Ruin Your Day."You have busted a TFR...."About an hour ago, a helicopter which had departed Lansing, Michigan was passing through the Chicago airspace while enroute to (somewhere in) California. Presumably this was a ferry flight...In any case, suddenly the controller at Gary (KGYY) called out "aircraft to the west of Gary at about thirty-five hundred feet squawking four-two-three-five, identify yourself."After a brief delay, a pilot responded "Helicopter three-five-nine-foxtrot-juliet*.""Helicopter 359FJ, you have busted a TFR, hover in position and await further instructions..."TSA had the controller instruct the pilot to land at KGYY, shut down, and remain in the cockpit until further notice... Oops!I suspect he won't be the only one to run afoul of having the sitting President make Chicago his getaway retreat over the next few years...Here's a link to a sectional showing the TFR boundaries. Note that this pilot was only violating the "outer zone," otherwise he'd be in serious trouble... http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/sect_print_9_5909.html*Note: ficticious reg to preserve the real pilot's identity, not to mention his dignity

Share this post


Link to post
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

We had a guy take off from a local airport a few years ago-just for a local fun flight-flew exactly 5 miles from his home airport. Unfortunately for him-the Pres. was at a social function at a house right below him. The f-16's escorted him back to his small field-he (about 76) and his poor wife were trembling. They let him off with a warning-poor guy.Thank god for xm and portables like the Garmin 496/696 that display tfr's with live info. Sometimes better than atc which doesn't even always know..We need tfr's in our sims now-along with escorts..

Share this post


Link to post
The f-16's escorted him back to his small field-he (about 76) and his poor wife were trembling. They let him off with a warning-poor guy.
Yikes! I can imagine how frightened they must have been...I had absolutely no idea just how restrictive these TFRs actually are. Here's section "i" of the one effective around Chicago currently:i. The following operations are not authorized within this TFR: flight training, practice, instrument approaches, aerobatic flight, glider operations, parachute operations, ultralight, hang gliding, balloon operations, agriculture/crop dusting, animal population control flight operations, banner towing operations, model aircraft operations, model rocketry, and Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS).Gulp! :(

Share this post


Link to post
Yikes! I can imagine how frightened they must have been...I had absolutely no idea just how restrictive these TFRs actually are. Here's section "i" of the one effective around Chicago currently:i. The following operations are not authorized within this TFR: flight training, practice, instrument approaches, aerobatic flight, glider operations, parachute operations, ultralight, hang gliding, balloon operations, agriculture/crop dusting, animal population control flight operations, banner towing operations, model aircraft operations, model rocketry, and Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS).Gulp! :(
WOW no RC Planes, I would love to See and F-16 slow down and escort a RC Model plane.....LOL

Share this post


Link to post

More importantly I'd love to see an F-16 try and stop any terrorists in an airliner from getting from the edge to the centre of a TFR before it completed whatever evil deed it was being employed for. And let's face it, that's what TFRs are supposed to be for.Even at 250 knots an airliner could make the 15 miles from outside a TFR to the centre of its exclusion zone in less than four minutes. And it's highly unlikely any terrorists who want to use an airliner in the same manner as they were used in the 9-11 attacks are going to turn to one another in the cockpit and point out that they need to carefully adjust the auto throttle setting to 245 knots in case they get in trouble with the FAA, and to give a pair of F-16s time to scramble and intercept them.The airliners which went into the World Trade Centre were going so fast you can actually see the wing failing from overspeeding on one of them before it impacts. TFRs are laughable, there's no way they'd prevent a determined terrorist, all they do is hurt general aviation and place restrictions on law abiding citizens in the US who want to enjoy flying, a result which I'm sure the terrorists in other countries are highly thrilled about. TFRs were, and still are, a ridiculous knee-jerk reaction to 9-11, as the incident on the original post pretty much proves.

Share this post


Link to post
More importantly I'd love to see an F-16 try and stop any terrorists in an airliner from getting from the edge to the centre of a TFR before it completed whatever evil deed it was being employed for. And let's face it, that's what TFRs are supposed to be for.
I would love to see it too! I have my bets on the F-16(s). I suspect if a terrorist was able to take control of an airliner without anyone in the world not knowing about it is highly unlikely. I still remember all those passengers on those fateful flights calling home, calling 911, and various law enforcement agencies. Even ATC was well aware of the terrorist takeovers. They were successful once but it won't happen again. Jim

Share this post


Link to post

The f-16's don't have to scramble-they are already up and seconds away...

Share this post


Link to post

I wouldn't be too sure about that. Several US Air Force personnel are on record as saying that US domestic forces are, or have on occasion, been quite stretched.This was Mike Strickler, NORAD's spokesman commenting on the matter: 'When you're filling in, obviously it's going to cause some strain. You're spreading resources a little thinner than we would like."He went on to say that defences (or defenses with an S if you're from the US) had not been compromised, but then again, he would say that I imagine, so who can say for sure. Nevertheless, it's been commented on numerous times in reliable sources such as Air Forces Monthly that the US Air Force is stretched and that it cannot afford to maintain standing patrols; even the head of the US Test Pilot School is on record confirming that in AFM.There are a number of reasons for this shortage of course. It's worth noting that when the majority of the US F-15 fleet was grounded due to cracks in the airframes, the US actually had to rely on Canada to cover large sections of the Western USA. The need for aircraft in Afghanistan, Iraq and many other worldwide committments the US has, means combat types are spread thinner than they used to be, and it also means they're using up airframe hours much quicker too. Most of the huge reserve of US combat aircraft are from a time when the military purse strings were much looser, courtesy of the Cold War, but these days those types are getting their airframe hours swallowed up very fast. A good example of that is the A-10 Thunderbolt II, which is undergoing a rebuild programme to extend its service life - thirty years ago that would have been: 'can we have a new aircraft type?'.The strain on resources is compounded by the fact that modern aircraft, such as the F-22 and F-35, are multirole types, which means you have less aircraft doing more work, and as an obvious result, even more airframe hours getting used up. Neither of these types are fully in service yet either. The retirement of modern types such as the F-117 Nighthawk is very visible evidence of how airframe hours get used up when military committments expand, it's not exactly an ancient type but it's already hangar queen. Conversely, the reliance on the B-52 (introduced into service 54 years ago), and quite clearly an ancient type pulled out of reserve, only serves to emphasise the issue even more.The simple fact is, US Air Force planners were told they could not have the numbers of aircraft they wanted, because the budget simply was not there, and whilst every military force always wants a lot of toys and generally asks for more, it was quite a shock to them to find they could not have anywhere near what they thought even their revised allocations would amount to.This is why I said 'scrambled', the fact is there are not as many standing patrols as the US Government would have you or I believe.

Share this post


Link to post
I wouldn't be too sure about that. Several US Air Force personnel are on record as saying that US domestic forces are, or have on occasion, been quite stretched.This was Mike Strickler, NORAD's spokesman commenting on the matter: 'When you're filling in, obviously it's going to cause some strain. You're spreading resources a little thinner than we would like."He went on to say that defences (or defenses with an S if you're from the US) had not been compromised, but then again, he would say that I imagine, so who can say for sure. Nevertheless, it's been commented on numerous times in reliable sources such as Air Forces Monthly that the US Air Force is stretched and that it cannot afford to maintain standing patrols; even the head of the US Test Pilot School is on record confirming that in AFM.There are a number of reasons for this shortage of course. It's worth noting that when the majority of the US F-15 fleet was grounded due to cracks in the airframes, the US actually had to rely on Canada to cover large sections of the Western USA. The need for aircraft in Afghanistan, Iraq and many other worldwide committments the US has, means combat types are spread thinner than they used to be, and it also means they're using up airframe hours much quicker too. Most of the huge reserve of US combat aircraft are from a time when the military purse strings were much looser, courtesy of the Cold War, but these days those types are getting their airframe hours swallowed up very fast. A good example of that is the A-10 Thunderbolt II, which is undergoing a rebuild programme to extend its service life - thirty years ago that would have been: 'can we have a new aircraft type?'.The strain on resources is compounded by the fact that modern aircraft, such as the F-22 and F-35, are multirole types, which means you have less aircraft doing more work, and as an obvious result, even more airframe hours getting used up. Neither of these types are fully in service yet either. The retirement of modern types such as the F-117 Nighthawk is very visible evidence of how airframe hours get used up when military committments expand, it's not exactly an ancient type but it's already hangar queen. Conversely, the reliance on the B-52 (introduced into service 54 years ago), and quite clearly an ancient type pulled out of reserve, only serves to emphasise the issue even more.The simple fact is, US Air Force planners were told they could not have the numbers of aircraft they wanted, because the budget simply was not there, and whilst every military force always wants a lot of toys and generally asks for more, it was quite a shock to them to find they could not have anywhere near what they thought even their revised allocations would amount to.This is why I said 'scrambled', the fact is there are not as many standing patrols as the US Government would have you or I believe.
Well my experience with Cap and also talking to a few pilots that have been intercepted is it is a matter of minutes..Stretched-for sure-but I don't think here.

Share this post


Link to post