What's up with FAA no-fly zones?, page 1

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times

Topic started on 20-6-2011 @ 04:23 PM by CobraCommander

I have been hearing little bits and pieces about no-fly zones being set up here and there. I pretty much thought it was just a localized thing, but apparently not. Seems to be widespread and very unusual.

Unprecedented number of domestic no-fly zones quietly declared by FAA

reply posted on 20-6-2011 @ 04:29 PM by Spieluhr

reply to post by CobraCommander

Maybe they don't want anyone crashing into a cloaked spaceship.

reply posted on 20-6-2011 @ 04:38 PM by Heartisblack

Probably Stuxnet hacking I wouldn't doubt

reply posted on 20-6-2011 @ 04:44 PM by CobraCommander

I could see maybe for hazards like the wildfires or something, but most of these are for security. And for that matter, how come we aren't really seeing anything in the news about the wildfires either?

reply posted on 20-6-2011 @ 04:48 PM by boondock-saint

IMO, the No-Fly zones might have something
to do with those Nuclear facilities in the USA
leaking radioactive materials into the atmosphere.
These particles can piggy back on a jet liner.
Ever tried to de-contaminate a jet liner???
Ticket sales would triple to cover the costs.

reply posted on 20-6-2011 @ 04:50 PM by Bixxi3

reply to post by CobraCommander

Theres been quite abit in the news but how much can they really report about it? Especially when you have important news stories to cover like an obama impersonate being hurried off stage

reply posted on 20-6-2011 @ 04:55 PM by Neopan100

most of them are for smaller aircraft surface to 3000ft.

reply posted on 20-6-2011 @ 05:06 PM by DJW001

If you go to this site:
tfr.faa.gov...

... and click on the blue hyperlinks in the NOTFAM column you can read the actual notifications, which list the reasons for the notice. Most of them do seem to be legitimate fires which are too small to warrant national news attention. I'm not so sure what the deal with Hibbing, Minnesota, is, though.

reply posted on 20-6-2011 @ 05:28 PM by bluestar.ranch

Its part of the plan... Put TSA in place... slow down and eventually almost stop air travel... make it harder for private piolots to fly... for "our security" stopping "dangerous" aircraft overhead will protect us all... ( or give TPTB power to control all flights) its just the start... WATCH and see if more private planes wont be grounded soon for a false flag.... lets see (from one who knows)

reply posted on 20-6-2011 @ 06:00 PM by CobraCommander

Originally posted by DJW001
If you go to this site:
tfr.faa.gov...

... and click on the blue hyperlinks in the NOTFAM column you can read the actual notifications, which list the reasons for the notice. Most of them do seem to be legitimate fires which are too small to warrant national news attention. I'm not so sure what the deal with Hibbing, Minnesota, is, though.

Ten in the past two years, and fifty in the past two weeks? Just don't seem to jive.

reply posted on 20-6-2011 @ 07:59 PM by deselby

Originally posted by CobraCommander

Originally posted by DJW001
If you go to this site:
tfr.faa.gov...

... and click on the blue hyperlinks in the NOTFAM column you can read the actual notifications, which list the reasons for the notice. Most of them do seem to be legitimate fires which are too small to warrant national news attention. I'm not so sure what the deal with Hibbing, Minnesota, is, though.

Ten in the past two years, and fifty in the past two weeks? Just don't seem to jive.

but those are surely only active restrictions? so at any point in time a majority are going to be recent

reply posted on 20-6-2011 @ 08:09 PM by Phage

Originally posted by DJW001
If you go to this site:
I'm not so sure what the deal with Hibbing, Minnesota, is, though.

FDC 1/9100 ZMP MN.. FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS HIBBING MINNESOTA. EFFECTIVE 1106211630 UTC UNTIL 1106211730 UTC. PURSUANT TO 14 CFR SECTION 91.137(A)(1) TEMPORARY FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS ARE IN EFFECT FOR BLASTING ONLY RELIEF AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS UNDER DIRECTION OF KEETAC LARRY SCHMELZER ARE AUTHORIZED IN THE AIRSPACE AT AND BELOW 4500 FEET MSL WITHIN A 3 NAUTICAL MILE RADIUS OF 472456N/0930557W OR THE HIBBING /HIB/ VOR/DME 291.0 DEGREE RADIAL AT 17.5 NAUTICAL MILES 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

Boom!

edit on 6/20/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 20-6-2011 @ 09:26 PM by Lono1

reply to post by CobraCommander

2 in 2009,
4 in 2010
and then nothing until June this year...

Then 14??? Something is up

tfr.faa.gov...

reply posted on 21-6-2011 @ 08:38 AM by DJW001

reply to post by Phage

Boom!

Of course, the iron mine.

reply posted on 21-6-2011 @ 09:45 AM by deselby

reply to post by Lono1

am I invisible or something? on a list of no fly zones it obviously makes zero sense to include a load of inactive restrictions. pilots want at-a-glance data on where is off-limits without having to trawl through a load of irrelevant listings

look, here's the list from May 2010:

web.archive.org...://tfr.faa.gov/tfr2/list.html

exactly the same pattern

and here's June 2009

web.archive.org...://tfr.faa.gov/tfr2/list.html

EDIT: wayback machine links don't seem to work here. to check for yourself go to www.archive.org... and enter tfr.faa.gov... as input

edit on 21-6-2011 by deselby because: links were broken

reply posted on 24-6-2011 @ 10:40 PM by Lono1

Originally posted by Bixxi3
reply to post by CobraCommander

Theres been quite abit in the news but how much can they really report about it? Especially when you have important news stories to cover like an obama impersonate being hurried off stage

Or Anthony Wiener's Wiener...
2d line

reply posted on 24-6-2011 @ 11:04 PM by NuclearPaul

Originally posted by boondock-saint
IMO, the No-Fly zones might have something
to do with those Nuclear facilities in the USA
leaking radioactive materials into the atmosphere.

Why else would it be a "hazard" to fly there?

Is it because if a plane crashes there the passengers are likely to drown?

Or is it "hazardous" because people could take photos?

Or is it "HAARPous"?

edit on 24/6/11 by NuclearPaul because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 24-6-2011 @ 11:07 PM by NuclearPaul

reply to post by Phage

That makes sense.

Especially only affecting low altitudes.

reply posted on 25-6-2011 @ 09:30 AM by Essan

reply to post by NuclearPaul

It's because they don't want CIA/Mossad operatives disguised as arabs flying planes by remote control (having previously abducted and murdered the passengers) into a nuclear power station

(apparently there's been a problem with tabloid journalists flying their helicopters within the restrictions zones to see those power plants in Nebraska which false internet rumours had suggested were about to explode and kill billions of people because of flooding along the Missouri)

reply posted on 25-6-2011 @ 09:38 AM by Essan

reply to post by deselby

Yes

As per the FAQs: "The List Page lists all active TFRs"

Once the TFR is lifted then it's removed from the list. Obvious really. Although it looks like a handful have been left on for some reason and that that has led to the confusion.

Pages: ^^TOP^^