X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 15:40:34 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imr-ma04.mx.aol.com ([64.12.206.42] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.10) with ESMTP id 4524174 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 17:44:04 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.206.42; envelope-from=VTAILJEFF@aol.com Received: from imo-ma03.mx.aol.com (imo-ma03.mx.aol.com [64.12.78.138]) by imr-ma04.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id o9MLhK3p021725 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 17:43:20 -0400 Received: from VTAILJEFF@aol.com by imo-ma03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.9.) id q.ed0.99e4e5f (34976) for ; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 17:43:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtprly-dd03.mx.aol.com (smtprly-dd03.mx.aol.com [205.188.84.131]) by cia-da08.mx.aol.com (v129.5) with ESMTP id MAILCIADA081-d4074cc205713d2; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 17:43:17 -0400 Received: from Webmail-m114 (webmail-m114.sim.aol.com [64.12.232.230]) by smtprly-dd03.mx.aol.com (v129.4) with ESMTP id MAILSMTPRLYDD033-d4074cc205713d2; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 17:43:13 -0400 References: X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: [LML] Re: TFR info (without political commentary) X-Original-Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 17:43:13 -0400 X-AOL-IP: 75.63.174.250 In-Reply-To: X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI MIME-Version: 1.0 From: vtailjeff@aol.com X-MB-Message-Type: User Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8CD4049437BEABD_AF8_179C3_Webmail-m114.sysops.aol.com" X-Mailer: AOL Webmail 32823-STANDARD Received: from 75.63.174.250 by Webmail-m114.sysops.aol.com (64.12.232.230) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Fri, 22 Oct 2010 17:43:13 -0400 X-Original-Message-Id: <8CD40494379895C-AF8-A3BC@Webmail-m114.sysops.aol.com> X-Spam-Flag:NO X-AOL-SENDER: VTAILJEFF@aol.com ----------MB_8CD4049437BEABD_AF8_179C3_Webmail-m114.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" November 2-- vote like your life depends on it -----Original Message----- From: Lancair To: lml@lancaironline.net Sent: Fri, Oct 22, 2010 10:17 am Subject: [LML] Re: TFR info (without political commentary) I flew to MD last weekend to an airport within the Washington DC TFR=20 (By now shouldn't the TFR be renamed? The "T" stands for temporary and it'= s been 10 years!) =20 I was rerouted a bit coming in but that was minor. Departure required a= flight plan be opened, and after 5 phone calls for a void time I gave up= and opened in the air over the field. Definately the way to go if it VFR= . =20 =20 My return had again a small reroute out of DC but that was minor. The tri= p home was to have me arriving during one of the many visits by the Comman= der-in-Chief. Fortunately I was not based at one of the four major airpor= ts in Columbus that were within the 10 mile no-fly zone so I was able to= plan an IFR flight into KDLZ that was within the 30 mile restricted zone= but accessible. Had I been based at Port Columbus, OSU, Bolton, or Ricken= backer I would have had to land elsewhere and wait - although commercial= flights (you remember, like the planes that are the cause for the current= concern) were still allowed in and out.=20 =20 The situation is simple: the Fed wants to look like they are doing somethi= ng, they dare not upset the very large constituency that flys commercial= tin so instead they restrict private access to the skies. And as long as= we get to and from our destinations most of the time, we grin and bear it= . I do not expect that to change in my lifetime so I will not waste my ti= me complaining 'cause it will not do any good and the stress could just co= st me a medical!=20 =20 Robert M. Simon ES-P N301ES =20 From: Bill Kennedy [mailto:bill_kennedy_3@hotmail.com]=20 Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 11:10 PM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: TFR info (without political commentary) AOPA member services sent an update on a TFR affecting my home airfield.= It included a link to TFR operations, content as follows: Requirements for flight in the outer area: Limited to arriving or departing local airfields=20 *Transit operations may be authorized=20 Must be on active VFR or IFR flight plan=20 Squawk discrete code obtained from ATC=20 Two-way communication with ATC=20 No loitering=20 Operations not authorized: My conclusion: It'd be pretty easy to comply with these rules if I really= needed to fly today. -- or archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html ----------MB_8CD4049437BEABD_AF8_179C3_Webmail-m114.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" November 2-- vote like you= r life depends on it



-----Original Message-----
From: Lancair <lancair-esp@ustek.com>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Sent: Fri, Oct 22, 2010 10:17 am
Subject: [LML] Re: TFR info (without political commentary)

I flew to MD last weekend to an airport within the= Washington DC TFR
(By now shouldn't the TFR be renamed? The "T"= stands for temporary and it's been 10 years!)
 
I was rerouted a bit coming in but that was minor.&n= bsp; Departure required a flight plan be opened, and after 5 phone calls&n= bsp;for a void time I gave up and opened in the air over the field.&n= bsp; Definately the way to go if it VFR. 
 
My return had again a small reroute out of DC but th= at was minor.  The trip home was to have me arriving during one of th= e many visits by the Commander-in-Chief.  Fortunately I was not based= at one of the four major airports in Columbus that were within the 10 mil= e no-fly zone so I was able to plan an IFR flight into KDLZ that was withi= n the 30 mile restricted zone but accessible. Had I been based at Port Col= umbus, OSU, Bolton, or Rickenbacker I would have had to land elsewhere and= wait - although commercial flights (you remember, like the planes that ar= e the cause for the current concern) were still allowed in and out.
 
The situation is simple: the Fed wants to look= like they are doing something, they dare not upset the very large constit= uency that flys commercial tin so instead they restrict private access to= the skies.  And as long as we get to and from our destinations most= of the time, we grin and bear it.  I do not expect that to change in= my lifetime so I will not waste my time complaining 'cause it will= not do any good and the stress could just cost me a medical! 
 
Robert M. Simon
ES-P N301ES
 

From: Bill Kennedy [mailto:bill_kennedy_3@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 11:10 PM
To: lml@lancaironline.net<= /A>
Subject: TFR info (without political commentary)

AOPA member services sent an update on a TFR affecting my home airfield.= It included a link to TFR operations, content as follows:

Requirements for flight in the outer area:

  • Limited to arriving or departing local airfields=20
  • *Transit operations may be authorized=20
  • Must be on active VFR or IFR flight plan=20
  • Squawk discrete code obtained from ATC=20
  • Two-way communication with ATC=20
  • No loitering

Operations not authorized:

My conclusion: It'd be pretty easy to= comply with these rules if I really needed to fly today.

 ----------MB_8CD4049437BEABD_AF8_179C3_Webmail-m114.sysops.aol.com--