Navy wants "permanant" TFR turned into prohibited area.

AOPA Online ^ | Feb 26, 2004 | AOPA

[AntiKev]

The other shoe drops
Navy wants "permanent TFR" turned into prohibited area

Feb. 26 — At the U.S. Navy's insistence, the FAA on Thursday formally proposed turning the Department of Defense (DoD) temporary flight restriction (TFR) over the Kings Bay Naval Base in Georgia into prohibited airspace.

"This is a general aviation pilot's worst nightmare and has questionable security benefits," said AOPA President Phil Boyer. "The Pentagon is dictating national airspace policy. And it could get worse. AOPA has learned that the DoD has already submitted requests to turn the remaining permanent TFRs into prohibited areas."

The existing TFR has severely impacted operations at St. Marys Airport (4J6) in nearby St. Marys, Ga. Originally, the TFR covered the airport, prohibiting all operations. The size of the TFR was subsequently reduced so that operations could resume, but the location of the TFR caused cancellation of the only instrument approach procedure into the airport.

The proposed prohibited area will have a 2-nm radius up to but not including 3,000 feet msl, centered on 30 degrees, 48 minutes North, 81 degrees, 31 minutes West.

The FAA is accepting comments on the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) until April 12, 2004.

"The FAA and, more importantly, the Department of Defense need to hear from the people affected by this change — general aviation pilots," said Boyer. "AOPA urges pilots to file formal comments."

Pilots may file comments online by clicking on "Simple Search" and entering docket number 15976. Written comments should be mailed to: Docket Management System, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room Plaza 401, 400 Seventh St. SW, Washington D.C., 20590-0001. Make sure to include the full docket identification (FAA-2003-15976/Airspace Docket No. 03-AWA-5) at the beginning of written comments.

"Not long ago, I half-jokingly suggested we start calling these post-9/11 TFRs over military bases 'PFRs,' or permanent flight restrictions because they'd been around so long," said Boyer. "Now the Pentagon is planning to turn that joke into reality."

[AntiKev]

Why do they go after general aviation? Espically implementing a TFR that would cancel the ONLY instrument approach to a small airport. This really ticks me off. TFR's only cause trouble for pilots, because like the gun debate, if someone's going to use an airplane to perform an act of terror, they're going to do it. End of story. They probably don't even understand airspace restrictions, let alone go out of their way to avoid them.

[AntiKev]

Ping.

Could you please ping the GA list?

[Aeronaut]

[Thermalseeker]

They probably don't even understand airspace restrictions, let alone go out of their way to avoid them.

Yeah, but us GA pilots really scare those military folks! I'm a huge threat to them in my 1965 Citabria! With full fuel and a passinger I might be able to drop a pack of firecrackers on them! Oh, the horror!

In the meantime, our ports go unprotected, our borders are wide open and our neighbor to the north will grant amnesty to anybody who requests it.

[DustyMoment]

I can see both sides of the issue but, as a boater, I come down on the side of the Gen. Aviation communities. Boats are being restricted in certain venues (with the same national security excuse) and there is no proven threat or issue. The Navy, the military, the Pentagon have many other options at their disposal than permanently restricting air space. Most air bases have a "hot" ready alert on duty and they can launch them ready alert if they feel threatened.

[banjo joe]

Exactly. Sounds more like a "look like we're doing something" feel-good restriction. The military are not afraid of GA, but the stoopid general public is, and media fear mongers will capitalize on it.

[af_vet_rr]

Why do they go after general aviation?

I wish I knew why. This has been going on long before 9/11, 9/11 was just a convenient excuse by some to create more restrictions. At times I think that some view GA like they view firearms, that it should be severly restricted for no good reason.

[holden]

IMHO, pols go after GA because a large constituent block is given a vicarious can of whoop-ass against (perceived) rich kids' toys, all under the guise of public safety and apparently benevolent big-gubmint action.

IOW, such mindless, fluff actions feed the Left's thoughtless hatreds.

HF

[AntiKev]

Maybe GA pilots scare the general public, or maybe they're envious of us. When really there is no reason to be. I mean, it does take a modicum of common sense and brains to become a pilot, but basically anyone can do it with enough study. Just like the gun debate, the fear is irrational...don't leave it up to the elected officials to tell us that, because they won't.

[Archangelsk]

So much for St. Mary County (4J6) airport as a great x-country for my commercial students.

[AntiKev]

That really is too bad. I bet it's a nice airport eh? Why does this always happen to the nice ones? First Meigs now this.

[Severa]

Funny how this article doesn't mention that this is the East Coast home of the Ohio class missile submarines. (nothing against you AntiKev just making an observation to this article)

[spodefly]

One of the boxes that I practice aerobatics in is located just south of the Kings Bay Naval Base, over the marshes near the mouth of the St. Mary's. It is outside the area designated for the TFR, but is pretty close.

I mention this because one of the pictures that I carry in my head is one from a few years ago -- at about 5500 feet upside down in the Pitts looking down at the St. Mary's, the green marshes, little puffy's at about 4000 feet, and a nuke sub making its way out to sea on the St. Mary's. Beautiful. Just thought I'd share.

The airport at St. Mary's (and the nearby Fernandina Beach) are among the favorite destinations for student pilots in Georgia doing their cross country work.

[Archangelsk]

And yet every pilot who checks his/her sectional knows to avoid that little red triangle to the NE of the airport.

[Criminal Number 18F]

This is a power grab by the admiral at the King's Bay base. His ostebsible concern is not that people could commit terrorism using a GA aircraft but that they will photograph activities at the base.

This seems reasonable until you remember:

1. All the interesting stuff is inside the submarine.
2. All the nations of the world that concern themselves with nuclear submarines have reconnaissance satellites.
3. The answer to a P-area forcing someone intent on photography to stand off is simple: bigger lens.

Once, the only prohibited areas were areas where highly sensitive military work was going on, period. In the last few years, as equality has been replaced in our society by a return to a largely hereditary and entirely unaccountable aristocracy, the personal safety of politicians has been served by Prohibited Areas around their august presence. Since 911, the prohibitions have been extended to well-connected corporations such as Disney and the NFL. We're but a hop, skip and a jump from having a permanent line between nobles and commons reinstituted -- equality before the law is the last of the basic principles of the Founders still standing, but not for long.

Accept the chains, workers of the world... it's for the children.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F