Skip to main content

View Diary: Exxon's Skies: Why Is Exxon Controlling the No-Fly Zone Over Arkansas Tar Sands Spill? (219 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm sorry, but this diary is noise with no (30+ / 0-)

    substance.  1,000 feet is very low.  A plane flying 3,000 could take excellent photos with a decent camera.  Going down to 1500 would show any detail needed.  It's understandable to not allow unnecessary aircraft below 1,000 feet when there's critical work to be done.

    "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

    by gustynpip on Wed Apr 03, 2013 at 06:46:13 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Agreed (16+ / 0-)

      I think so too - 1000 feet is very low and the request seems reasonable. Assuming press aircraft are allowed above 1000 feet I really don't see this as being much of a big deal.

      The Exxon guy calling the shots seems ridiculous at first glance but he's probably responsible for scheduling Exxon's survey flights and crew transport via helicopters and what not and it's quicker to just let him be the guy approving additional aircraft in that airspace below 1000 feet then setting up some sort of bureaucratic nonsense with the government acting as the middle man and having to coordinate each and every flight Exxon needs to make. Just give them limited authority to do their clean up business for the short term is quicker and easier for everyone right now.

      Seriously, this isn't much of a story.

      [Terrorists] are a dime a dozen, they are all over the world and for every one we lock up there will be three to take his place. --Digby

      by rabel on Wed Apr 03, 2013 at 07:03:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The airspace is public (25+ / 0-)

        and Exxon has no business controlling any of it for any reason whatsoever.

        Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

        by corvo on Wed Apr 03, 2013 at 07:09:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Knee-jerk (13+ / 0-)

          The knee-jerk reaction to this is exactly your comment.  The more reasoned, realistic, thoughtful response includes the fact that well, they do need to get their people and equipment all over this area quickly and efficiently so for this limited time and in this limited area they should be able to do so without interference.

          I still wonder what exactly you think they are up to that this is such a bad idea?

          [Terrorists] are a dime a dozen, they are all over the world and for every one we lock up there will be three to take his place. --Digby

          by rabel on Wed Apr 03, 2013 at 07:14:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You're not addressing the issue (8+ / 0-)

            because you can't.

            Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

            by corvo on Wed Apr 03, 2013 at 07:17:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Pardon me (14+ / 0-)

              Pardon me but I believe I did address the issue, quite clearly and distinctly.  I believe you did not address the issue of exactly what it is that you think the problem here is.

              You also sound a little unhinged.  Take a deep breath, think about this and respond respectfully and thoughtfully like a grown up.

              [Terrorists] are a dime a dozen, they are all over the world and for every one we lock up there will be three to take his place. --Digby

              by rabel on Wed Apr 03, 2013 at 07:23:27 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  If Exxon is doing nothing untoward (21+ / 0-)

                then it can submit to the same public control of American airspace as everyone else does all the time.

                Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

                by corvo on Wed Apr 03, 2013 at 07:24:34 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Sure (15+ / 0-)

                  But in this case, the limit is only 1000 feet.  That's extremely low and doesn't restrict anyone else's access for surveys or photography over 1000 feet.  

                  Do you feel that Exxon should have to deal with press aircraft and curiosity seekers flying around below 1000' while they're trying to do surveys and ferry equipment and personnel to work areas? Do you disagree that this area would be a magnet for people to come and see for themselves?  Do you disagree that it is more efficient to just let Exxon have control for a limited time in this extremely limited airspace of only 1000' AGL so they can do their job quickly and efficiently? Don't you think that's in everyone's best interest?

                  What sort of "untoward" things could they be doing that they could not be found out about by flying at 1200' and watching them?

                  [Terrorists] are a dime a dozen, they are all over the world and for every one we lock up there will be three to take his place. --Digby

                  by rabel on Wed Apr 03, 2013 at 07:31:29 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Same thing happened in the Gulf in 2010 (29+ / 0-)

                    W/ reporters getting excluded:

                    Jackson thought BP might have been in charge since journalists were not only dealing with local and federal authorities, but with BP officials as well.

                    The day Jackson chartered a flight, the aircraft could not descend below 3,000 feet. Jackson said even with his longest lens you could not tell if there was a human being on a boat from that height. In hopes of getting closer to the disaster, Southern Seaplane owner Lyle Panepinto requested to fly at a lower altitude, but when authorities questioned who was on the plane, the request was immediately denied when he answered that he was with a photographer from The Times-Picayune in New Orleans.

                    “This was our coast, these were public beaches, Louisiana wetlands and we felt that we had a right to be able to see that,” Jackson said. “We felt like, especially with a foreign company, that BP was calling all the shots.”

                    Here's another account:
                    The TEDxOilSpill Expedition team – photographers Duncan Davidson and Kris Krug, videographer Pinar Ozger and writer Darron Collins – were kept far from the water’s edge by BP’s private security firm, Talon,  whose staff controlled the beaches. When Collins literally crossed the line by stepping over a miles-long orange boom dozens of yards from the water line, he was accosted by a team right out of “Monsters Inc.,” who set about washing his feet and decontaminating his shoes with great flurry and fanfare.

                    It took persistence, luck and a gutsy pilot to score a flight into the massive”no fly” zone to better see and document water set afire and oily sheen to the horizon.

                    Oil company control of access to spill sites is contrary to every principle this country was founded upon.

                    Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not?

                    by RFK Lives on Wed Apr 03, 2013 at 08:58:04 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  There's a huge difference between 1,000 feet (7+ / 0-)

                      and 3,000 feet, not to mention the area involved.  Here, that lower 1,000 feet are needed to provide safety for what needs to be done.

                      Access is not being deprived.  Common sense is being used to provide greater safety for what needs to be done.  There are sooooo many legitimate worries about oil companies.  Making a big deal out of something that's not only innocuous, but necessary, weakens our legitimate positions.

                      "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

                      by gustynpip on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 05:38:24 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  There's a huge difference between being governed (22+ / 0-)

                        by the people we've elected, and being ruled by corporate entities.

                        At least, to those who value such things.

                        The problem is not a no-fly zone at 1,000 feet.  It's who is being allowed to declare it.

                        But, if you knew or cared about the difference between democracy and plutocracy, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

                        income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

                        by JesseCW on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 05:43:55 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  knowledge is a good thing (8+ / 0-)

                          Exxon has not declared a no-fly zone.  The FAA has issued a temporary flight restriction.

                          The FAA recognizes the necessity to limit air traffic in a very small area around an oil spill (as with many other emergency response situations).  The FAA issues a temporary flight restriction for safety of flight reasons.  

                          FAA air traffic controllers still control the airspace.  If a nonparticipating pilot violates the airspace, the nasty letter will come from the FAA.

                          Someone needs to be in charge of who gets waivers to the airspace for operational reasons; that someone is the incident commander on the ground (just how it is done for forest fires etc.).  How else would the FAA know who to authorize into the restricted area without asking the guy who is coordinating the response?

                          "They let 'em vote, smoke, and drive -- even put 'em in pants! So what do you get? A -- a Democrat for President!" ~ Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

                          by craiger on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 07:25:46 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  the newspaper article in the post disagrees (8+ / 0-)

                            The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette revealed that the FAA site noted earlier today that "only relief aircraft operations under direction of Tom Suhrhoff" were allowed within the designated no fly zone.

                            Suhrhoff is not an FAA employee: he works for ExxonMobil as an "Aviation Advisor" and formerly worked as a U.S. Army pilot for 24 years, according to his LinkedIn page.

                            Lynn Lunsford, an FAA spokesman, told Dow Jones a no fly zone was issued because "at least one" helicopter was needed to move clean-up crews around, as well as to spot oil that can't be seen from the ground.

                            Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

                            by greenbastard on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 07:28:08 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You're not paying attention (5+ / 0-)

                            It's even starting to look like yourself and others here in a panic over this are purposefully ignoring the facts.

                            This is NOT a no-fly zone. It's a temporary restriction 1000 feet AGL and below.  If you keep saying it's a no-fly zone it becomes clear that you are ignoring the facts and you should basically be ignored.

                            Come on, join the rest of us in reality.

                            [Terrorists] are a dime a dozen, they are all over the world and for every one we lock up there will be three to take his place. --Digby

                            by rabel on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 08:08:15 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  what you call it isn't the point (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            shaharazade, mrkvica, elwior, madhaus

                            the point is they need to get a move-on with this, from the article in the post:

                            "This also means press is prohibited from the area, though Lunsford told Dow Jones that the FAA "is in the process of amending the restriction to allow news media aircraft into the area.""

                            From the Gulf Disaster, we know that the current trend is  cut off access to control the story.

                            Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

                            by greenbastard on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 08:11:03 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yep (3+ / 0-)

                            You're refusing to pay attention.

                            Press is not prohibited from the area.  Press, and everyone else who doesn't get clearance, are prohibited from flying aircraft in the area below 1000'. As far as I know you are welcome to wander in to the area on foot and to fly your aircraft at 1001' anywhere you like.

                            Seriously, I refuse to try to explain things or attempt to have a rational discussion about the current situation with people like yourself who completely reject the reality of the situation and are refusing to pay attention.

                            [Terrorists] are a dime a dozen, they are all over the world and for every one we lock up there will be three to take his place. --Digby

                            by rabel on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 08:23:50 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I quoted the FAA person from the article (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            elwior, madhaus

                            so you are fed up with them, not me:

                            "This also means press is prohibited from the area, though Lunsford told Dow Jones that the FAA "is in the process of amending the restriction to allow news media aircraft into the area.""

                            That is what I copied from the article, and you are the one mistakenly taking their quote out of context to mean all the area, and not the no fly zone area, which is how the FAA person described it as well.

                            Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

                            by greenbastard on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 08:33:43 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Really? (4+ / 0-)

                            You're going to run with this ignorance?

                            So now the FAA can restrict media from the ground as well? You do realize that FAA is the Federal Aviation Administration, right? They don't have any ability to limit people on the ground. You also refuse to acknowledge that this is a limitation on aircraft 1000'AGL and below.

                            You apparently are too dense to recognize this isn't a no-fly zone, it's simply restricted access 1000' and below. I'm done with you and your conspiracies, fantasies and frankly outright delusional thinking and voluntary ignorance. You refuse to understand and that makes you just as dangerous and irresponsible as any oil executive trying to squeeze out another dollar by raping the land and lying to the people.  Good day.

                            [Terrorists] are a dime a dozen, they are all over the world and for every one we lock up there will be three to take his place. --Digby

                            by rabel on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 08:41:59 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  you say you won't continue to argue (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            elwior

                            but then you keep doing it, and you keep arguing with yourself because I never said anything about it being on the ground, nor did the FAA person from the article I quoted.

                            When the FAA person stated, ""This also means press is prohibited from the area," I didn't say they meant the ground, nor is that their implication. It is yours alone.

                            Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

                            by greenbastard on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 09:01:55 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Please get a clue. When the FAA referred (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Larsstephens, Otteray Scribe

                            to "this area", they're talking the area IN THE AIR LESS THAN 1000 FEET.

                            This kind of absolutely silly - no, make that stupid - chicken little type crap is the weakest part of the progressive movement.  Too many people are similar to the redstaters, and won't let go of their conspiracy or plutocracy theories even when the facts slap them in the face.  How ridiculous a  few of you are being.  And solely because you couldn't accept sensible explanations in the beginning, but just kept digging your hole deeper and deeper and now when faced with how silly you've been, can not face admitting it.  

                            "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

                            by gustynpip on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 11:12:42 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  rAmen!!! (0+ / 0-)

                            "Double, double, toile and trouble; Fire burne, and Cauldron bubble... By the pricking of my Thumbes, Something wicked this way comes": Republicans!!. . Willkommen im Vierten Reich! Sie haben keine Bedeutung mehr.

                            by Bluefin on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 01:48:34 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  no it doesn't (4+ / 0-)

                            Tom Suhrhoff did not declare a no-fly zone.  The FAA issued a temporary flight restriction.  Tom Suhrhoff is the guy who the FAA has designated to approve waivers into the restricted area, which is not the same as controlling the airspace.  Tom Suhrhoff has no enforcement powers.  He is not sitting at a radar scope issuing air traffic clearances.

                            "They let 'em vote, smoke, and drive -- even put 'em in pants! So what do you get? A -- a Democrat for President!" ~ Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

                            by craiger on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 08:13:27 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  only Exxon's people are allowed (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            elwior

                            from the article:

                            "FAA site noted earlier today that "only relief aircraft operations under direction of Tom Suhrhoff" were allowed within the designated no fly zone.

                            Suhrhoff is not an FAA emploee"

                            So while that dude isn't directing the traffic, only people he designates as his traffic get in.

                            Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

                            by greenbastard on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 08:24:49 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  situation normal (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Mad Season, gustynpip, Otteray Scribe

                            This is how TFRs work.  Whether it's for an air show, a forest fire, or an oil spill.  Or gas plumes, or blasting operations, or ...

                            Is this the first you've heard of TFRs?  Are you going to get this up in arms about all TFRs?  The FAA has already issued six new ones just today in CA, AZ, MN, and TX.  Three of them with corporate contacts for flight waivers:

                            KEETAC LARRY SCHMELZER TELEPHONE 218-778-8739 IS IN CHARGE OF ON SCENE EMERGENCY RESPONSE ACTIVITY. MINNEAPOLIS ZMP ARTCC TELEPHONE 651-463-5580 IS THE FAA COORDINATION FACILITY.
                            NORTH SHORE MINING COMPANY COMMUNICATION, TELEPHONE 218-827-2018, OR SECURITY TELEPHONE 218-827-2021, IS IN CHARGE OF THE OPERATION. MINNEAPOLIS ARTCC ZMP /651-463-5580, IS THE FAA COORDINATION FACILITY.
                            FLORIDA GAS TRANSMISSIONS TELEPHONE 713-303-4315 IS IN CHARGE OF ON SCENE EMERGENCY RESPONSE ACTIVITY. HOUSTON /ZHU ARTCC TELEPHONE 281-230-5560 IS THE FAA COORDINATION FACILITY.

                            "They let 'em vote, smoke, and drive -- even put 'em in pants! So what do you get? A -- a Democrat for President!" ~ Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

                            by craiger on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 08:37:53 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  Stupid (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          gustynpip, elwior

                          This argument is stupid.  The FAA declared the Temporary Flight Restriction (TFR) at the request of Exxon.  It was the FAA who had the authority to make this decision not Exxon.  If Exxon alone decided to declare the TFR there'd be no repercussions to anyone who violated it.  This is no different than a power line falling down and the private power industry getting approval from the local police to close a road down while they fix it.  During the time it takes to fix that power line it's the private power company dictating when the road should be closed, but it's ultimately the decision of the local police to keep it closed.

                          Here's something to blow your mind with:  The private business of Disneyland has had a permanent flight restriction over it since 9/11.  Outraged?

                          •  the issue is it is a media concern, unlike disney (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            elwior

                            so one of these things is not like the other.

                            Which they've now lifted it, deciding that they can manage to coordinate the one helicopter (which is the number they have according to the article), and potential media helicopters.

                            Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

                            by greenbastard on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 09:03:17 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  Of course. Because unless someone believes (0+ / 0-)

                          and knows exactly what you believe and know, nothing more and nothing less, she can not possibly know or care about the difference between democracy and plutocracy.

                          Do you have any idea how totally foolish you sound?  It's when people spouting garbage like this that they lose credibility for anything else they have to say.

                          "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

                          by gustynpip on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 11:08:18 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                  •  you assume they are doing (6+ / 0-)

                    good things, I don't think they deserve the benefit of that doubt, regardless of the airspace limitation height.  More importantly, I don't think any one from a private company should usurp the role of public adminstration of the air space.    It is just plain wrong.  

                    •  I do not assume they are doing good things (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Oldestsonofasailor, Mad Season

                      I absolutely reject you attributing to me that I assume they're doing good things. I'm simply being realistic with the limit on other aircraft flying below 1000'AGL because it could disrupt operations.

                      I make no comment on whether or not there are press or Government regulators on the ground to oversee operations first hand because it's not clear to me what is happening on the ground.

                      What I am commenting on is simply the practicality of limiting aircraft from the area below 1000' for a limited time while Exxon does their job. That's it.  The fact that you and others here are going off your rocker because of this practical limitation is ridiculous and petty.

                      I'm a skydiver and I can tell you with certainty and from personal experience with my legs hanging out the open door of an aircraft at 1000' that you can see plenty from that height with your naked eyes including pointing out your friends on the ground, waving to them and having them wave back at you. A photographer with a zoom lens can see anything from 1000' that they could see from 500' or lower. This is completely a non-issue.

                      Again, please explain exactly what it is you feel Exxon could possibly do by having limited control of this limited airspace for a limited time. Not a single one of you have been able to come up with even a hypothetical example of what could possibly go wrong with this. You can't even come up with a decent conspiracy theory, you're just immediately jumping up and smashing the panic button over nothing.

                      [Terrorists] are a dime a dozen, they are all over the world and for every one we lock up there will be three to take his place. --Digby

                      by rabel on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 08:03:58 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  probably (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        mrkvica, elwior

                        but you said Exxon needed to be able to move in personnel and equipment to deal with this emergency, necessitating this no fly zone.   I guess that is ambiguous enough to mean to cover up how bad the damage is as well as the more common 'fix things'.  

                        I have since gone to the FAA site,  Exxon has a contact for emergency operations, which appears standard.

                        As for being suspicious of big oil, expecting to be lied to, for the extent of the damage to be covered up, to expect these companies to stonewall and deny.  That is not conspiracy theory, that is years, decades and more of practical real world outcomes every time there is a spill.   It is watching Exxon fight the financial responsibility for over 20 years in court for the spill of the Exxon Valdez.  It is watching BP fight the gulf spill, the lies, etc.   No conspiracy theories necessary.

                        I would rather panic and find out it was unnecessary than assume Exxon would ever do what was right for the public, take the responsibility to make things right and just sit on my ass hoping for the best.

                  •  The answer is yes (0+ / 0-)

                    Do you feel that Exxon should have to deal with press aircraft and curiosity seekers flying around below 1000' while they're trying to do surveys and ferry equipment and personnel to work areas?

              •  Thank you for providing a place for all of those (7+ / 0-)

                who want pure corporate governance to make their beliefs clear with no more effort than clicking the "Recommend" button.

                It's important to have lists of the enemies of (small d) democracy.

                income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

                by JesseCW on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 05:42:02 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Google earth.... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            elwior

            or satellites?

            You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

            by murrayewv on Wed Apr 03, 2013 at 07:18:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  The NOTAM is not unusual. (10+ / 0-)

          Keeping aircraft above one thousand feet for a five mile radius is not at all unusual.  Besides, as both craiger and I said elsewhere, a thousand feet is not much of a restriction.  I don't think most people realize how low a thousand feet is.

          As for the public owning the airspace, actually that is controlled by FAA regulations which breaks airspace down into classifications. When flying an airplane you cannot go just anywhere willy-nilly.

          Additional information at the link.

          http://www.dailykos.com/...

          The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

          by Otteray Scribe on Wed Apr 03, 2013 at 08:11:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The last I checked the FAA isn't a private (9+ / 0-)

            organization like Exxon is.

            So yes, the statement that the public owns the airspace IS true.  The FAA is public.

            •  Private organizations request NOTAMs (11+ / 0-)

              all the time. This happens most often if there are flight operations being conducted in an area.  

              If a privately owned gliderport is conducting high altitude wave flying operations, a temporary airspace restriction will be issued that may go as high as 50,000 feet and several miles wide around where the mountain wave is working. In those cases, airliners and military aircraft have to stay out of the "window" of flight operations.

              Skydiving groups often request, and are granted, TSA restrictions during operations.

              This diary is promoting a conspiracy theory where there is no conspiracy.  The public may own the airspace, but the FAA controls it.  The modern air traffic control system was established after several high profile mid-air collisions occurred in the late 1940s.

              From the Federal Air Regulations (FAR) Note especially item number 3, which I have bolded:

              3-5-3. Temporary Flight Restrictions

              a. General. This paragraph describes the types of conditions under which the FAA may impose temporary flight restrictions. It also explains which FAA elements have been delegated authority to issue a temporary flight restrictions NOTAM and lists the types of responsible agencies/offices from which the FAA will accept requests to establish temporary flight restrictions. The 14 CFR is explicit as to what operations are prohibited, restricted, or allowed in a temporary flight restrictions area. Pilots are responsible to comply with 14 CFR Sections 91.137, 91.138, 91.141 and 91.143 when conducting flight in an area where a temporary flight restrictions area is in effect, and should check appropriate NOTAMs during flight planning.

              b. The purpose for establishing a temporary flight restrictions area is to:

              1. Protect persons and property in the air or on the surface from an existing or imminent hazard associated with an incident on the surface when the presence of low flying aircraft would magnify, alter, spread, or compound that hazard (14 CFR Section 91.137(a)(1));

              2. Provide a safe environment for the operation of disaster relief aircraft (14 CFR Section 91.137(a)(2)); or

              3. Prevent an unsafe congestion of sightseeing aircraft above an incident or event which may generate a high degree of public interest (14 CFR Section 91.137(a)(3)).

              4. Protect declared national disasters for humanitarian reasons in the State of Hawaii (14 CFR Section 91.138).

              5. Protect the President, Vice President, or other public figures (14 CFR Section 91.141).

              6. Provide a safe environment for space agency operations (14 CFR Section 91.143).

              The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

              by Otteray Scribe on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 04:06:52 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Thank you. (6+ / 0-)

                This is a very informative and reasoned response.  

                "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"

                by newfie on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 04:33:56 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  who enforces this? (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                corvo, shaharazade, elwior, Mad Season

                FAA or the requesting party, who decides if an aircraft is violating the air space, who is the contact person for information about the restriction, normally?

                •  If an aircraft bores a hole in a restricted area (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Larsstephens, craiger

                  the nearest ATC should know about it in real time if the aircraft is transponder equipped. The transponder will inform ATC of the aircraft's identity, altitude and flight path. If no radar tracking, anyone on the ground who sees them can report it to the FAA. In some cases, there will be an FAA inspector observer on the ground to monitor both permitted and non-permitted aircraft. If an aircraft violates restricted airspace of any kind, the aircrew can expect to do some serious explaining to an FAA inspector.

                  In the past, depending on the severity of the violation, an offender can expect anything from a written reprimand to a fine and loss of pilot's license.  If the TSA is the airspace around the President or Vice-President, a pilot who wanders into that TSA will be escorted to the nearest airport by a couple of F-16s. That gets a conversation with both the FAA and the Secret Service.

                  The company manager on the ground has the responsibility to inform the FAA when they are finished with flight operations in the TSA. However, in the event of a situation such as described in 14 CFR Section 91.137(a)(3)), the FAA may (and probably will) keep the TFR in place so there are not two dozen small airplanes trying to occupy the small airspace at the same time.  Aerial rubberneckers are just as much a hazard as those who ogle motor vehicle wrecks and don't pay attention to where they are going.

                  3. Prevent an unsafe congestion of sightseeing aircraft above an incident or event which may generate a high degree of public interest (14 CFR Section 91.137(a)(3)).
                  A new NOTAM will be issued revoking the previous one, once the FAA determines it safe to do so. That determination is not made by the company conducting the operation, but the FAA itself.

                  The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

                  by Otteray Scribe on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 08:41:38 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Unless you're Sen. James Inhofe (R-Kamikaze) (0+ / 0-)

                    blowing a landing op at KPIL.

                    If an aircraft violates restricted airspace of any kind, the aircrew can expect to do some serious explaining to an FAA inspector.

                    "Double, double, toile and trouble; Fire burne, and Cauldron bubble... By the pricking of my Thumbes, Something wicked this way comes": Republicans!!. . Willkommen im Vierten Reich! Sie haben keine Bedeutung mehr.

                    by Bluefin on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 02:00:40 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  At no point did I deny any of that. (0+ / 0-)

                What I denied is the implicit claim that because the FAA is in charge that makes the airspace non-public.

                Someone can legitimately use the phrase "public airspace" even though the FAA exists - for the exact same reason someone can use the phrase "public airwaves" even though the FCC exists.

          •  You understand that the FAA is a regulatory (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            corvo, shaharazade, elwior

            agency which answers to the public, right?

            income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

            by JesseCW on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 05:44:30 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  magic words (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            corvo, shaharazade, elwior

            controlled by FAA regulations. not Exxon regulations.   Not Exxon employees.  The public's employees going about the public's business.  Why not just give Exxon a freaking Senate seat for one more vote they haven't already bought?

        •  This sort of thing happens all the time.... (8+ / 0-)

          There were nine NOTAMS issued today for Temporary Flight Restrictions today alone.  http://tfr.faa.gov/...

          Seriously, this happens every day.  Airshows;  President/Vice President or foreign heads of state visit; dirigible traffic due to sporting events like races, golf games, etc; wildfires; Military exercises.

          It's never a story when there is a TFR for any of these things, even though "control" of that airspace may be handed over to the US Secret Service, Diplomatic Security Service, Military Controllers, the people who run the Goodyear Blimp, or the organizers of the US Open.  

          Move on, there's nothing to see here.

        •  An analogy: (9+ / 0-)

          Have you ever seen road cones, or a flagman controlling traffic? Those are almost always private contractors controlling access to a public road. They file a traffic control plan with whatever public agency controls that road, and then the contractor gets to manage it.

          This is no different.

          Look, here's me shutting down part of a bike path (and I didn't even ask permission first!)

      •  And this is a bull-shit comment. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        megisi, cybersaur, elwior

        It's public air space and the "government"  has every right and responsibllitiy  to control it, NOT EXXON.

        "I'm totally pro-choice in the matter of abortion. But of course I'm also so radically pro-life that I think every person from birth onward must have full and affordable access to healthcare." - Gail Collins

        by gritsngumbo on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 06:15:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Which still doesn't answer (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dss, elwior, JesseCW

      the title question of the diary.

      Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

      by corvo on Wed Apr 03, 2013 at 07:08:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You got it first, I just read this diary and the (0+ / 0-)

      1000' floor to the NFZ seems reasonable to me. Any competently equipped photographer can get very detailed pics/vids from above that altitude.

      What isn't reasonable is the influence of ExxonMobil on the FAA (a branch of OUR government). I can understand an advisory role, but to actually be in apparent control of the airspace is just flat out wrong.

      "Double, double, toile and trouble; Fire burne, and Cauldron bubble... By the pricking of my Thumbes, Something wicked this way comes": Republicans!!. . Willkommen im Vierten Reich! Sie haben keine Bedeutung mehr.

      by Bluefin on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 01:33:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site