Notams / TRAs for Obama's Visit

[Gonzo]

Steve6443 and what's the response from DFS?

Or is it 'ok'?

Not getting at anyone, but usually those responsible from the US are happy to talk about their requirements and how we can all make sure those requirements are fulfilled while causing the least possible disruption. Not sure why it would be different in Germany. I've always found them pretty understanding once the impact of their initial request has been explained.

Not that I've been involved this time.

[Steve6443]

Originally Posted by Gonzo

Steve6443 and what's the response from DFS?

Or is it 'ok'?

Not getting at anyone, but usually those responsible from the US are happy to talk about their requirements and how we can all make sure those requirements are fulfilled while causing the least possible disruption. Not sure why it would be different in Germany. I've always found them pretty understanding once the impact of their initial request has been explained.

Not that I've been involved this time.

Hi Gonzo, I rang the DFS in Frankfurt who told me the NOTAM had been released by Frau Allhof from their centre in Dreieich. I rang her, she was out of the office and was told by a colleague that the information came from the BMVI (Bundesministerium für Verkehr und Digitale Infrastruktur). There I was told that this had been implemented by LF17, so I asked to be connected, there an employee said that they understood that (e.g.) UK had much less restrictive rules on Airspace restrictions whilst Obama was around, but in Germany the US still viewed themselves as one of the '4 Siegermächte' and that they felt themselves to be in a position to make demands of Germany which UK, as an example, would never accept.....

My contact indicated that they had tried to lessen the impact of the TRA and negotiate with the Secret Service because the initial NOTAM would close down (e.g.) Hildesheim, Salzgitter airfields without a valid reason for a full weekend but the Secret Service refused to even consider it. The only reason the NOTAM was changed to start Sunday and end Monday is because Obama's plans changed.

Irrespective of whether Obama knows the impact he has or not, the attitude of his staff reflects extremely poorly on him and for this reason alone, he disgusts me.

[mary meagher]

Steve, blaming an American president for reasonable precautions when visiting countries where people like you have peculiar attitudes that might be threatening only makes me wonder what your personal agenda can be. Which politician does NOT disgust you?

[Steve6443]

Originally Posted by mary meagher

Steve, blaming an American president for reasonable precautions when visiting countries where people like you have peculiar attitudes that might be threatening only makes me wonder what your personal agenda can be. Which politician does NOT disgust you? Bin Laden?

Mary, perhaps you could tell me what is so 'peculiar' about wanting to go about MY business according to my needs? For info, I wanted to fly to Hildesheim this Sunday to visit relatives for a birthday get together, it's either a 3 hour drive via car or a 36 minute flight. The choice is obvious - fly. Only I can't, because Obama's secret service demands all air space is closed down whilst he is in a city 25 miles away. He has history of doing this, he did it a while back when he visited Berlin, closing down all of Berlin airspace, inconveniencing me then.

Since when can my desire to go about MY business be considered as a 'threatening' attitude? At the same time, let me ask you to explain why closing down airspace 25 miles from where the President is staying can be considered 'reasonable'? If this is NOT reasonable in UK, it's not reasonable in Germany - both countries are, on the whole, civilised, law abiding countries.

[Gonzo]

Steve,

Assuming your government and DFS understand the implications of such an airspace restriction, then they obviously believe that the benefits of the visit outweigh the issues brought about by the restrictions.

So I still suggest that your irritation should be directed towards your government and DFS.

[Steve6443]

Originally Posted by Gonzo

Steve,

Assuming your government and DFS understand the implications of such an airspace restriction, then they obviously believe that the benefits of the visit outweigh the issues brought about by the restrictions.

So I still suggest that your irritation should be directed towards your gorpvernment and DFS.

Let's agree to disagree, huh? The DFS has to carry out the instructions of the BMVI, the BMVI gets told by the Kanzleramt what has to be done and the Kanzleramt is told by the American Secret Service what they want, or the big man isn't coming. The fact is that the US is this year's partner of the Hannover Messe and as such, the US President is expected to attend, I can see that but then why do the Secret Service make unrealistic demands on the German Government and thus on the people when they don't enforce the same demands on (e.g.) UK? What impact can a private pilot, flying 25 MILES away, flying parallel to him, not even heading in his direction, have on POTUS's security?

It would be like having a 3 lane motorway closed in both directions because a car had had a puncture and the Police decided, in order to prevent each and every eventuality, that all traffic past the spot was to be stopped until the tyre had been replaced.

Yes, maybe we require a chancellor with more balls to stand up to the Secret Service like Tony did but you can hardly claim that the German government voluntarily said 'Hey, Obama is coming to town, to make him feel really happy, we'll shut down numerous airfields within a 30 nautical mile radius of his location....'

[homonculus]

Does anyone seriously think the governments of any of the three countries (UK, USA, Germany) seriously weigh up benefit and risk? They make a decision and couldn't give a monkey's uncle about the social or economical cost to individuals or small companies. Any of us who remember the GA situation with the London olympics realise that 'security' over rides the citizen. I do feel sympathy for the security services who will get it in the neck if the other side ever succeed, but an objective risk:benefit assessment would never support many of the restrictions the states have imposed on their citizens this millennium. Let us just be grateful we dont live in other countries where corruption and the lack / failure of democracy means there is even less opportunity for the common man to put his so called servant to the onus of justification.

[rej]

Originally Posted by Gonzo

Steve6443 and what's the response from DFS?

Or is it 'ok'?

Not getting at anyone, but usually those responsible from the US are happy to talk about their requirements and how we can all make sure those requirements are fulfilled while causing the least possible disruption. Not sure why it would be different in Germany. I've always found them pretty understanding once the impact of their initial request has been explained.

Not that I've been involved this time.

I have now dealt (very closely) with 3 visits to the UK and on all occasions the visiting teams have been very engaging, undemanding and very good to work with. I cannot (nor would) comment on another State's restrictions but the entire team has worked very hard to make this work with the "least possible disruption" at the forefront of the planning along with achieving the overall aim of what is required.

[homonculus]

Sorry, these words dont rebut the issue: another state has 'requirement's on our sovereign soil / airspace. We comply 'while causing the least possible disruption'.

Are the requirements proven to be necessary? Are their needs greater than the disruption to others? Are they justified?

[mikehallam]

Well as a poster above was unkind enough to remind me !!
(I feel the pain now)

We couldn't fly for approx. 6 Summer weeks during the bun fight fest that our Gov. had for the Olympics.

As it happened our own CAA were for some months prior going to be accommodating and viewed favourably proposals for small airfields far away from any event to have exit corridors .....

Then our own dear Government sent in the heavy brigade (Special Branch) and the hitherto all powerful CAA were simply pushed aside.

BTW. We too have forbidden G.A. areas this week-end for the US President's visit, but frankly that's small beer. Personally I'm much more incensed that he's abused our own Sovereign's hospitality & her stance of neutrality by threateningly lecturing Britain if we dare to reject a complete Eu take-over of our own Democracy.

mike hallam

[Reverserbucket]

30NM Presidential TFR's are standard in the U.S. and there is little consideration to the impact on non-CAT operations whilst in effect. I've experienced a number of them as well as similar for the VP (a smaller radius restriction if I recall). It would seem the perceived threat is as high at home as it is abroad. I would've imagined going for a drive with Prince Philip in the Range Rover would have warranted a safety risk-assessment based on the credentials of Obama's usual drivers

[Capt Kremmen]

Steve 6443

I identify completely with your strictures. Don't forget, we're not dealing with any form of rationality. We're dealing with Presidential aura's. The mystique of Presidency, the same kind of nonsensical big balls display that makes Oily Dave jump into his limo flanked by police outriders for a shortish hop down Whitehall.

The same degree of selfish ostentation that makes Harry, upon leaving Twickenham, occupy the outside lane of the motorway to the ire and discomoding of Mr. Average Motorist whose tax pounds are paying for the building and maintenance of the motorway in the first place.

As for the Olympics ! Thanks to all that adverse publicity, no wonder GA is shrinking.

[custardpsc]

Well. I think this probably says more about local governments than it does about US Secret Service requirements. When an TFR is issued for presidential flights in the USA they are fairly straightforward and not generally too much of an issue. The ones I have operated around have an inner core with a requirement for any aircraft operating within it to be ( in short) an air carrier and an outer ring that forbids training flights and crop spraying etc but allows ifr flights and some vfr ones, with a squawk/under atc. Not particularly arduous.

[mgahan]

RISK ASSESSMENT NEEDED

Perhaps if these folk are so much at risk that they require such a level of protection they should not travel outside their own jurisdiction.

MJG