Mooney Meets F-16 in CA

[fantom]

Small plane forced to land after violating presidential airspace restrictions

A small plane was forced to land in Chino, California, after a pilot violated airspace restrictions in place for President Barack Obama's visit, FAA spokesperson Allen Kenitzer told CNN.

The military also intercepted a private plane Thursday morning, June 7th, in the vicinity of Fullerton, California, Kenitzer said. The aircraft, a Mooney M20, landed at Chino at 6:04 a.m. PDT. The FAA is investigating.

The incidents on Thursday followed a similar issue on Wednesday when a fighter jet intercepted a single-engine airplane northwest of Los Angeles for breaching a temporary airspace restriction, according to a military news release.

The temporary restriction violated by the Cessna aircraft coincided with a campaign visit to the city by Obama, who was on a one-day fundraising swing through the state.

"After intercepting the aircraft, the F-16 followed it until it landed without incident, at approximately 4:58 p.m. PDT where the plane was met by local law enforcement," according to a statement issued by the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD).

The president spoke at a gala for the gay community in Los Angeles, on his third fundraising trip to the Golden State in the past month. Earlier in the day, he attended two campaign events in San Francisco.

NORAD's mission is to protect U.S. and Canadian airspace against possible threats and may require planes to change course or land.

[co2bruce]

Federal airspace shut down for a fundraiser?? The pilot shoud get the TFR's before taking off, but come on!! Official business is one thing but fundraisers??  OK I'm done now.

 

[Jerry 5TJ]

I was unable to depart KCOS a week before when the President was in town.   A minor inconvenience.   Great to have the TFR information pop up on FlightAware on the IPad, just sorry I did not read the small print and arrive at the airport 30 minutes earlier, when departure would have been routine. 

I wonder what an F16 looks like from a Mooney?  I suspect it looks very business-like, indeed. 

I did encounter two F4 fighters years ago over Edwards AFB.  I was on a legitimate flight plan, crossing at about 1000 AGL.  Two F4 jockeys came down to have a look at the slow-moving piston-engine target.   On the ground an F4 looks angular and awkward but when they come up behind you in flight, man, it is clear they are in their element. 

 

 

[davidsguerra]

sooo was it a Mooney or a Cessna? i guess we cant rely on journalists to get their facts straight...

[Hank]

Three planes violated the Fund Raiser in Chief's idiotic TFR last week in Taxifornia.

While it wasn't a TFR, and I was on an IFR flight plan, I had a Blackhawk follow me through R space charted to begin at 1500 agl but the briefer said it was "hot to the ground." Since it overlaid my destination, I went to the grass strip anyway. Overflew to eyeball the windsock, turned cross then downwind, and there's the 'Hawk, banking from behind me to circle out of the way. Turned base, final, landed, and back-taxiied to park, and there's my friendly 'Hawk, watching and hovering.

Guess anything moving counts as practice, although I didn't give them much trouble ducking, dodging or jinking. All they had to do was ask, I was talking to the military controller . . . .

[flyboy0681]

Quote: co2bruce

Federal airspace shut down for a fundraiser?? The pilot shoud get the TFR's before taking off, but come on!! Official business is one thing but fundraisers??  OK I'm done now.

 

[Hank]

Quote: flyboy0681

Huh? Are you saying the president (Obama or otherwise) doesn't deserve protection if he's in a city for a fundraiser but should get it if he's there on official state business?

[flyboy0681]

Quote: Hank

 I can't speak for Bruce, but in my opinion:

1) TFR's provide no significant protection to the myriad self-important personages for whom they are created. GA aircraft pose no threat; aircraft that may pose a threat will penetrate the 10 mile zone faster than they can be intercepted.

2) the overuse of "VIP TFRs" creates significant business interruptions for small business, aviation-related and others whose travel is interrupted.

I will not digress into shutting down highways so that a motorcade containing a single politician can have an uninterrupted ride from the airport to a "meeting" and back again . . .

[stevesm20b]

I don't think TFR's are a good idea. I mean, telling everyone in the world when and where the president is traveling can't be good. I think it would be a lot more secure if no one new when and where the president was going to show up someplace. Just like when President Bush showed up to visit the troops that one Thanksgiving. 

[Hank]

Quote: stevesm20b

I don't think TFR's are a good idea. I mean, telling everyone in the world when and where the president is traveling can't be good. I think it would be a lot more secure if no one new when and where the president was going to show up someplace. Just like when President Bush showed up to visit the troops that one Thanksgiving. 

[flyboy0681]

Quote: Hank

I agree with both points [TFR's are a bad idea; and don't tell the world when & where the President is traveling several days in advance].

[GaryP1007]

Quote: flyboy0681

Well, it's not as if the TFR zero's in on the presidents actual location. A 30 mile radius TFR covers a lot  of ground. In addition, the presidents whereabouts isn't exactly a closely held state secret. Even Lee Harvey knew where JFK was going to be.

[flyboy0681]

Quote: GaryP1007

Well, it's not as if the TFR zero's in on the presidents actual location. A 30 mile radius TFR covers a lot  of ground. In addition, the presidents whereabouts isn't exactly a closely held state secret. Even Lee Harvey knew where JFK was going to be.

[rob]

 The President needs and deserves protection whether he is on official state business or on vacation. It's not about the man, it's about the office. It has nothing to do with political party or beliefs, if has to do with protecting the Republic. Whether or not you agree with or like our President, I assure you, preventing his assasination or even attempted assasination is ALWAYS in the best interest of us all.

The JFK situation ais the perfect example- Kennedy decided not to have the "Bubble" on that limo. I assume every president wrestles with decisions like that: how much security to forego in an attempt to connect with the people. Also, claims that those protected by TFR's are "self-important" are a bit off, don't you think? It's not the President who calls for the TFR, and I'm certain that any and every president would much rather do without the hoopla of all the arrangements necessary for their travel.

President Obama, specifically, is very aware of the disturbance that he creates when he travels. He mentioned that he would have liked to stay in his own home when he was in Chicago for the NATO summit, but that he didn't want to inconvienence half the city, so he stayed in a Hotel with other diplomats. Not to say that other presidents did not make similar decisions in the past, but I recall the Obama example being discussed in weeks past.

"Announcing" where the President will be via TFR isn't really announcing anything that can't already be known. Anywhere the President is going is heavily scrutinized for months in advance. It's impossible to keep Presidential travel a secret, especially if there is going to be any public participation, and there's almost always public participation. I realize that everyone on the Internet is an expert, but perhaps we should hand it to the folks responsible for Presidential securtiy. They have a lot of practice and do a pretty damned good job. They must have some idea what they're doing. 

[flyboy0681]

Quote: rob

 The President needs and deserves protection whether he is on official state business or on vacation. It's not about the man, it's about the office. It has nothing to do with political party or beliefs, if has to do with protecting the Republic. Whether or not you agree with or like our President, I assure you, preventing his assasination or even attempted assasination is ALWAYS in the best interest of us all.

The JFK situation ais the perfect example- Kennedy decided not to have the "Bubble" on that limo. I assume every president wrestles with decisions like that: how much security to forego in an attempt to connect with the people. Also, claims that those protected by TFR's are "self-important" are a bit off, don't you think? It's not the President who calls for the TFR, and I'm certain that any and every president would much rather do without the hoopla of all the arrangements necessary for their travel.

President Obama, specifically, is very aware of the disturbance that he creates when he travels. He mentioned that he would have liked to stay in his own home when he was in Chicago for the NATO summit, but that he didn't want to inconvienence half the city, so he stayed in a Hotel with other diplomats. Not to say that other presidents did not make similar decisions in the past, but I recall the Obama example being discussed in weeks past.

"Announcing" where the President will be via TFR isn't really announcing anything that can't already be known. Anywhere the President is going is heavily scrutinized for months in advance. It's impossible to keep Presidential travel a secret, especially if there is going to be any public participation, and there's almost always public participation. I realize that everyone on the Internet is an expert, but perhaps we should hand it to the folks responsible for Presidential securtiy. They have a lot of practice and do a pretty damned good job. They must have some idea what they're doing. 

[1964-M20E]

Well guys the TFR situation gets even better when there are major sporting events I believe 3 or 5nm radius.  There are no NOTAMS about them, ATC does not know about them and the FAA does not publish them on the TFR web site and like someone mentioned above if someone is intend on doing harm the TFR means nothing.  The only way to know about it is if you are familiar with the area and know the stadium is there.

 

Secondly how long has the TFR been active over Disney World in Orlando?  It has been there since 9-11 not so temporary in my mind.

Finally I believe the TFRs have been over used by the FAA and other entities.

[Immelman]

I met an F16 in my Mooney the day before yesterday. There was no TFR, and approach called him as traffic ahead. We took turns taking a look at Mt. Whitney from above, he about 2000' higher than I was. What a great day!

[rob]

The argument that the TFR is overused probably has merit. I am so rarely affected by them that I really don't care, even after living in two college towns that had stadium TFRs. They're not really a big deal in my opinion. Remember, a TFR doesn't necessarily mean you can't fly. 

[flyboy0681]

Quote: 1964-M20E

Secondly how long has the TFR been active over Disney World in Orlando?  It has been there since 9-11 not so temporary in my mind.

[Hank]

ATC always reminds me of the stadium TFR here when I'm coming home, but since they are not at my field I have to remember it before departure. But since my college days are decades behind and hundreds of nm away, I don't always keep up with when they are playing. I've been vectored around it to get in before, thankfully.

Another good reason to use Flight Following and fly high--stadium TFRs are 3 nm, 3000' agl, and "one hour before until one hour after" the game. Good luck knowing which town below you has a college stadium with 30,000 seats and a home game before you pass overhead, much less when the game might end. IFR takes care of it, too.

My previous comment about "self important" folks getting TFRs applies not just to the President, a man whose Office I respect whether I do the current officeholder or not, but to the various and sundry other politicos for whom TFRs are also created. Campaign season just makes it worse. At least where I live now, I no longer have to worry about the State Patrol shutting down the interstate during rush hour so a campaign can get back to the airport and head out to their next stop. But I expect several more of these in Columbus, OH this summer and fall, ranging from Pres to VP to Senators and opposition candidates for each position. More reasons to be thankful I no longer live there.

[gsengle]

Quote: flyboy0681

You echoed every one of my points.

The only thing that I don't agree with is the TFR. They were created after 9/11 and the country did just fine without them for decades.

[flyboy0681]

Quote: gsengle

Wait - TFR's aren't new - just the big one around DC...  Or am I missing something?  Whats the real history here?

[OR75]

no real new story ... but really "two wrongs don't make a right"

• 
  
• I don't like those TFR (especially when it come to fundraising, I can understand the need for firefighting - it is a tough enough job that the pilots really should have to worry about other planes in the area) 
  
• busting a TFR in these days of information overload does not seem right
  

 

[jlunseth]

We have had 44 presidents, of whom 4 have been killed in assassination attempts, and two others, T. Roosevelt and Reagan, were wounded.  Three of those killed, Lincoln, Garfield, and McKiinley, were Republicans.  One (JFK) was a Democrat.  Roosevelt and Reagan were both Republicans.  There have been more than 20 other presidential assassination attempts foiled.  In my lifetime JFK was shot, Martin Luther King was killed, RFK was killed, and looney tunes killed John Lennon and tried to kill Reagan and a pope.  The looney tunes did it "just because."  It may be that the rest of us are inconvenienced, but Presidents, Vice Presidents and other public figures are not just inconvenienced, they are targets regardless of political party.  They have been targets since the dawn of time. 

As for having done fine without many TFR's for decades before 9-11, we also did fine with the twin towers standing in NY before 9-11.  Things changed.

Unfortunately, in my experience, those who complain most about inconveniences such as TFR's and TSA's, are also those first to be heard to say "where was the government and why weren't they doing their job" when something like 9-11 happens.

Man up.  Act like a PIC.  Get your briefing and avoid the TFR's regardless of which political party holds the oval office at any given moment.   It ain't that hard.

[Joe Zuffoletto]

Quote: flyboy0681

I hadn't thought of that. Maybe it should be relabeled "PFR" for Permanent Flight Restriction.