It's the government, it doesn't have to make sense.

[kallend 1,635]

For those folks that haven't heard it yet, The Government is shutting down 90% of flying in Arizona Mon & Tues with 30 mile TFRs over Phoenix AND Tucson, neither one centered on the VOR nor on the airline airport either. Which means that NO certified flight instrument is capable of displaying the boundary, not to mention that no ATC radar has that boundary mapped either, unless they spend big bucks to have a special overlay drawn, something that isn't even valid without a flight check, and how are they going to flight check it anyway?

Don't you love these rules that there is no practical method of complying with other than not flying at all if you don't want to risk getting shot down by an F16?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ViperPilot 0]

That's what happens when the President comes to town. It's a priviledge to fly, not a right.

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

That's what happens when the President comes to town. It's a priviledge to fly, not a right.

As usual, you miss the point completely.

It's about making rules that cannot be complied with.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ViperPilot 0]

How can it not be complied with? I read the TFRs and they didn't seem uncompliable. Can you paste in the parts you are referring to and give an explanation?

[Jimbo 0]

I have a feeling that he's referring to this part:

Quote

NO certified flight instrument is capable of displaying the boundary, not to mention that no ATC radar has that boundary mapped either, unless they spend big bucks to have a special overlay drawn, something that isn't even valid without a flight check, and how are they going to flight check it anyway?

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[ViperPilot 0]

Maybe I'm just out of it today (it is Sun), but prescribing a XX nm radius in which aircraft can't fly is not only the description of what a TFR is, but is also not hard to follow. From that statement it seems to me that Kallend is complaining that some dude's 430 isn't going to show the TFR boundary. Are you kidding? Yeah, that'd be cool if stuff worked like that, but guess it's just back to the good ol' fashion days of not relying on a screen with a pink line to tell you where you can and can't fly. Kallend, if I'm confusing something, let me know, that's just what I'm getting from this.

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

but guess it's just back to the good ol' fashion days of not relying on a screen with a pink line to tell you where you can and can't fly. Kallend, if I'm confusing something, let me know, that's just what I'm getting from this.

Good point. I'm far from an expert (or even a novice) when it comes to pilots and navigation. Professor, perhaps you could explain this a bit more for those of us who don't understand it.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

but guess it's just back to the good ol' fashion days of not relying on a screen with a pink line to tell you where you can and can't fly. Kallend, if I'm confusing something, let me know, that's just what I'm getting from this.

Good point. I'm far from an expert (or even a novice) when it comes to pilots and navigation. Professor, perhaps you could explain this a bit more for those of us who don't understand it.

-
Jim

What I'm saying is that no instrument certified for navigation by the FAA, whether ADF, VOR, RNAV, GPS or DME is capable of dispaying the boundaries of this restricted zone defined the way it is, and that ATC's radar is also not capable of accurately displaying them without a flight test, by the FAA's own rules, which they cannot do in such a short time frame.

Simple, really.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Jimbo 0]

So, pilots have no way of knowing whether or not they're violating the TFR and ATC has no way of enforcing it. Correct?

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[ViperPilot 0]

Ok, but since when do you need NAV equipment to know where you can't fly b/c of a TFR? You read the TFR, find out where it includes, and then don't fly there. You don't need to use a VOR/DME, GPS, TACAN, whiz wheel, holding your wet finger in the air, or anything else to figure it out.

[ViperPilot 0]

No. It is every pilot's responsibility to find out if there are TFRs. If so, they then must have info as far as what airspace the TFR covers. Then, you just don't fly in that airspace. If an aircraft violates the TFR, ATC can track them (assuming a transponder is on) and then send some vipers after the violating plane.

Kind of like when some roads are blocked off for road construction, you just have to avoid them and find another way until the construction is done, then you can resume normal use. That's the best analogy I can come up w/ off the top of my head.

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

No. It is every pilot's responsibility to find out if there are TFRs. If so, they then must have info as far as what airspace the TFR covers. Then, you just don't fly in that airspace.

I think that what the professor is saying is that given ALL of the technology available to pilots today, that there's simply no way of knowing whether or not they are violating the airspace restriction or not. That's everything from GPS to simple maps.

It would be nice if another pilot would chime in and either back him up or refute his claim.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[ViperPilot 0]

The only way of not knowing whether they violated the airspace or not is because they were too lazy in the first place to check on any TFRs in the area. Every TFR says in black and white where you can't fly. It's simple. You read it and say, "oh ok, I can't fly in this area." Then while you're flying, you don't fly in that area. If a pilot is up flying and doesn't understand where that area is and if he/she is in it, then they shouldn't be allowed to even fly a plane.

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

The only way of not knowing whether they violated the airspace or not is because they were too lazy in the first place to check on any TFRs in the area. Every TFR says in black and white where you can't fly. It's simple. You read it and say, "oh ok, I can't fly in this area." Then while you're flying, you don't fly in that area. If a pilot is up flying and doesn't understand where that area is and if he/she is in it, then they shouldn't be allowed to even fly a plane.

You clearly miss the point entirely. Jimbo nailed it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Jimbo 0]

Nobody disagrees that it's a pilot's responsibility to learn about the TFRs in his/her area; not me, not Kallend. What the good Professor is saying, I believe, is that this particular TFR is both unenforcable by the authorities and impossible for any pilot, with any gear, to accurately detect its boundries.

I think that perhaps these two points are key:

Quote

neither one centered on the VOR nor on the airline airport either.

Again, I'd love for another pilot to join the discussion and either backup or refute his claims.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[ViperPilot 0]

Fine, how bout you or Kallend post some excerpts from the TFR that prove the boundaries are not able to be found. I've seen plenty of TFRs not centered even close to a VOR or airport...didn't affect my ability to stay the hell out of the airspace.

[ViperPilot 0]

Well, it took me all of about 10 seconds to find this. Jimbo, this is a pic of a sectional showing the TFR.

1. Look at map
2. See where TFR boundaries are.
3. Use common sense to avoid TFR by looking at map.

By the way, there are several VORs a pilot could use w/ a DME to determine their relative location to the TFR boundaries. If a pilot cannot understand this simple picture (don't even need to read the TFR) then I don't know how the hell they got a license in the first place, and secondly, how anyone could be that freakin stupid.

Sorry for it to come to this, but Kallend, stop trying to use retarded arguments such as this to talk down on the government. It's just useless. By the way, are you even a pilot? Because if you're not, I'll cut you a ton of slack on this one...I could maybe see how a non-flyer could confuse this, but there's no excuse for a pilot confusing this.

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Well, it took me all of about 10 seconds to find this. Jimbo, this is a pic of a sectional showing the TFR.

1. Look at map
2. See where TFR boundaries are.
3. Use common sense to avoid TFR by looking at map.

By the way, there are several VORs a pilot could use w/ a DME to determine their relative location to the TFR boundaries. If a pilot cannot understand this simple picture (don't even need to read the TFR) then I don't know how the hell they got a license in the first place, and secondly, how anyone could be that freakin stupid.

Sorry for it to come to this, but Kallend, stop trying to use retarded arguments such as this to talk down on the government. It's just useless. By the way, are you even a pilot? Because if you're not, I'll cut you a ton of slack on this one...I could maybe see how a non-flyer could confuse this, but there's no excuse for a pilot confusing this.

Apparently you didn't bother to read my initial post. Seeing the boundaries on a map and locating them from the air are two different things. As the graphic you linked shows very clearly, the TFR is not centered on any navaid, intersection nor on the airport, so precisely locating its boundaries in the air becomes complicated by the fact that no FAA certified navigation equipment is capable of displaying them to the pilot. That means that each point on the boundary needs to be individually computed and identified if you wish to know exactly where it is, a time consuming task. Now, if your flying is so sloppy that you only care about approximate positions, then I agree with you.

And my second point, which you have ignored completely, is that ATC radars are not set up to display such boundaries either, so even ATC can't tell you precisely where you are in relation to the boundary.

Had they located the center of the TFR on a navaid, airport, or charted intersection none of these difficulties would arise.

Being a pilot, I thought you would understand this.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ViperPilot 0]

If you look at the pic, you can see 3 VORs. Someone can easily use these to triangulate position. Now maybe this way takes a bit more work than looking at a GPS, but it's certainly not hard. Yeah, it'd be really easy if it was centered on a VOR, but it's certainly not that much more work to just triangulate your position using the 3 available VORs. So it still stands, a pilot is incompetant if they can't remain outside this TFR. Plus, if they're scared they won't be smart enough to triangulate their position using VORs, then they can just not fly for a few days.

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

If you look at the pic, you can see 3 VORs. Someone can easily use these to triangulate position. Now maybe this way takes a bit more work than looking at a GPS, but it's certainly not hard. Yeah, it'd be really easy if it was centered on a VOR, but it's certainly not that much more work to just triangulate your position using the 3 available VORs. So it still stands, a pilot is incompetant if they can't remain outside this TFR. Plus, if they're scared they won't be smart enough to triangulate their position using VORs, then they can just not fly for a few days.

Where did I claim it couldn't be done?

However, triangulating from VORs is subject to the inherent error in VOR navigation (ever wonder why those airways are 8 miles wide?).

The entire POINT of my post was that with a little forethought the FAA could have made the exercise trivially easy and very precise, but in typical bureaucratic fashionm, chose to go the other way.

And you still ignored the point about ATC.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[sinker 0]

*chewing popcorn, sippin a bud*

this is a good'un... keep goin boys...

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[ViperPilot 0]

Quote

The entire POINT of my post was that with a little forethought the FAA could have made the exercise trivially easy and very precise, but in typical bureaucratic fashionm, chose to go the other way.***

How would you have made it easier? Considering the president is visting the city, then it makes since to make the city the center of the TFR. Sure the FAA could have centered the TFR on one of the VORs, but then it would leave the location of the president towards the boundary of the TFR and not in the center, which makes the most sense considering he's the reason for the TFR.

***And you still ignored the point about ATC.

ATC can just as easily look at their screens and see the distance between an aircraft and the city as it can see the distance between an airport an aircraft. Sure it's not as easy as going by the already marked lines of different classes of airspace, but it can be done. Plus the TFR is 30 nm for a reason. They'll be able to tell if you're getting close to the boundary and advise you to turn away. Sure you might be a 1/2 mi away when they think you're a mile away, but that's not that big of deal. They can easily figure out if you're within 5-10 mi of the TFR boundary and immediately advise you to be careful and change course.

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

The entire POINT of my post was that with a little forethought the FAA could have made the exercise trivially easy and very precise, but in typical bureaucratic fashionm, chose to go the other way.***

How would you have made it easier? Considering the president is visting the city, then it makes since to make the city the center of the TFR. Sure the FAA could have centered the TFR on one of the VORs, but then it would leave the location of the president towards the boundary of the TFR and not in the center, which makes the most sense considering he's the reason for the TFR.

***And you still ignored the point about ATC.

ATC can just as easily look at their screens and see the distance between an aircraft and the city as it can see the distance between an airport an aircraft. Sure it's not as easy as going by the already marked lines of different classes of airspace, but it can be done. Plus the TFR is 30 nm for a reason. They'll be able to tell if you're getting close to the boundary and advise you to turn away. Sure you might be a 1/2 mi away when they think you're a mile away, but that's not that big of deal. They can easily figure out if you're within 5-10 mi of the TFR boundary and immediately advise you to be careful and change course.

Just look at your own link and ask if there was somewhere they could have made the center that would be incredibly easy rather than a PITA.

As for being "not that big of a deal" being off by a mile or so, try telling that to the F16s, or in the license revocation proceedings

I guess you work for the government.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[sinker 0]

Quote

Just look at your own link and ask if there was somewhere they could have made the center that would be incredibly easy rather than a PITA.

As for being "not that big of a deal" being off by a mile or so, try telling that to the F16s, or in the license revocation proceedings

I guess you work for the government.

I like PITA bread.

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[ViperPilot 0]

Should have, would have, could have...the point is, it's not hard to avoid that TFR. It may not be the easist location so that slack-jawed Kletus pilot can avoid the TFR, but any competant pilot will either find it easy to avoid the TFR by using triangulation or even better, not even coming close to the issue by not getting close to the boundary. Just because a TFR at a football game says 3 miles doesn't mean it's a good idea to fly 3.2 miles away. Common sense and basic airmanship will keep any pilot safe from some vipers lighting his ass up.