Comments on: Another TFR in Canadian airspace

By: Aviatrix

Aviatrix — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 13:46:59 +0000

I haven’t seen a NOTAM leaking across the border like that before, sine 2001, and I’m not really comfortable with it. Would the FAA co-operate so handily if we had an event we wanted to keep aircraft away from? What comes to mind is a crime scene: a lurid tabloid-attracting event where the RCMP haul bodies out of a site near the border. Such sites usually are NOTAMed off with virtual yellow police tape below 3000′ to keep the media helicopters out. Would the Americans issue a NOTAM covering their side of the border, or would there be a ‘freedom of the press’ problem?

And for the sake of the folks who make their livings towing banners, flying airships, and providing aerial media coverage of sporting events: hell no, sports events shouldn’t close airspace.

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 02:02:11 +0000

I think it’s rediculous that TFRs are issued for sporting events. GA is the group that suffers the most from these, yet GA aircraft are the ones least likely to be chosen by anyone with nefarious thoughts about using an aircraft for a terrorist/attack purpose.

For Transport Canada to run lockstep in this was simply a matter avoiding being picked out as the “stubborn neighbour to the north” once again by every media outlet in the USA. We all know that if TC had simply snubbed their nose at the TFR on our side of the airspace, it would be all over the US newspapers in one negative fashion or another the next day.

Yes, the superbowl does present a nice number of people all comfortably together in a single confined space, which in the greater reality does provide a reasonable “target”…but is a TFR really going to stop someone from acting out their plans regardless, providing they do so before any defensive aircraft arrive on the scene?

And even if they do, would they shoot down a stray 152 to “protect” the Superbowl?

If the 152 ended up containing a lost pilot who had accidentally stumbled into the airspare, or who didn’t catch the NOTAM due to lack of preflight planning, what would the stories be in the newspapers then?

I think it’s all rather silly, myself. For the Prime Minister, or the President, I can understand. For a sporting event, not so much.

What’s next? Should every Nascar race, Stanley Cup game, etc etc deserve a TFR as well?

By: Frank Ch. Eigler

Frank Ch. Eigler — Sat, 28 Jan 2006 00:38:42 +0000

I believe the “hazardous condition” is the presence of a large group of warm bodies that might make a spectacular terrorist target, and the perceived ease by which an airborne attacker could harm them. There is a wee bit of logic to it.

By: Flight Nest

Flight Nest — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 22:36:43 +0000

Super Bowl TFR - Gotta Love Canada

So the purpose of a Temporary Flight Restriction (TFR) is to “restrict air travel due to a hazardous condition, a special event.” Since the Super Bowl is considered a “special event” the FAA has issued a TFR for the Super Bowl to be held at Fo…