Why are there no TFRs over Minneapolis?

[mavic3usa]

Is it because no drones have been spotted? There's no reason to block legitimate news gathering by claiming a security interest? I get it, it's super cold and maybe no one is interested, but....

Less "activity" was happening in LA and those TFRs when up pretty quickly. ICE is everywhere in the city and their federal facilities are not in prohibited airspace but are protested daily, the national guard is about to be deployed, and "the entire region is under threats of insurrection" yet no threat from drones? Makes no sense.

 

[GadgetGuy]

Is it because no drones have been spotted? There's no reason to block legitimate news gathering by claiming a security interest? I get it, it's super cold and maybe no one is interested, but....

Less "activity" was happening in LA and those TFRs when up pretty quickly. ICE is everywhere in the city and their federal facilities are not in prohibited airspace but are protested daily, the national guard is about to be deployed, and the entire region is under threats of "insurrection" yet no threat from drones? Makes no sense.

They would just be shot out of the sky, both sides blaming the other!

 

[MS Coast]

ICE is everywhere in the city and their federal facilities are not in prohibited airspace but are protested daily, the national guard is about to be deployed, and the entire region is under threats of "insurrection" yet no threat from drones?

Let's keep this sort of absurd fear-mongering nonsense off this forum, please. There is no threat of an insurrection.

 

[mavic3usa]

Let's keep this sort of absurd fear-mongering nonsense off this forum, please. There is no threat of an insurrection.

The president threatens to invoke the Act constantly. I placed the word "insurrection" is quotes for a reason. The topic is about the various reasons why the government might think it would be a good idea to put up a TFR over the area given it's latest actions on drones and the primary reason for creating a new permanent department in DHS over drone security for exactly this reason; there's no better example.

 

[PHZ]

Is it because no drones have been spotted? There's no reason to block legitimate news gathering by claiming a security interest? I get it, it's super cold and maybe no one is interested, but....

Less "activity" was happening in LA and those TFRs when up pretty quickly. ICE is everywhere in the city and their federal facilities are not in prohibited airspace but are protested daily, the national guard is about to be deployed, and the entire region is under threats of "insurrection" yet no threat from drones? Makes no sense.

None of this makes any sense. Period.

 

[mavic3usa]

None of this makes any sense. Period.

Do you not remember the TFRs that went up on LA when ICE was very active and also there were protests? My question is why not in Mpls.

 

[PHZ]

I can’t answer that. It is -3 at the moment, with -20 predicted Friday, so maybe they don’t think a TFR is necessary??

 

[MS Coast]

The president threatens to invoke the Act constantly. I placed the word "insurrection" is quotes for a reason. The topic is about the various reasons why the government might think it would be a good idea to put up a TFR over the area given it's latest actions on drones and the primary reason for creating a new permanent department in DHS over drone security for exactly this reason; there's no better example.

You said, "... the entire region is under threats of "insurrection." That sort of false and inflammatory claim has no place here. Stick to drone topics. even if the discussion is about the decision making process inside DHS.

 

[mavic3usa]

You said, "... the entire region is under threats of "insurrection." That sort of false and inflammatory claim has no place here. Stick to drone topics. even if the discussion is about the decision making process inside DHS.

sorry you are triggered. you are just trying to derail the thread like you do with so many other threads....

I'm going to dumb it down so you can understand those are not my comments or opinions but are the reasons given by the government which would make the ordinary person believe the area rises to the level that would warrant a TFR, if not, when?

from: and the entire region is under threats of "insurrection"
to: and "the entire region is under threats of insurrection"

 

[MS Coast]

sorry you are triggered. you are just trying to derail the thread like you do with so many other threads....

I'm going to dumb it down so you can understand

There is no threat of an insurrection in Minnesota.

 

[mavic3usa]

There is no threat of an insurrection in Minnesota.

Maybe, maybe not. Not the topic here....

 

[mavic3usa]

Anyway, something is about to happen in Minneapolis, not sure what this means:

Resources - Notices - FAA - FAASTeam - FAASafety.gov

 

[Cafguy]

Anyway, something is about to happen in Minneapolis, not sure what this means:

Resources - Notices - FAA - FAASTeam - FAASafety.gov

To alert Pilots of Airspace restrictions that may be needed in areas where dignitaries or Government officials may be visiting...... I suppose its a NOTAM for expectation of a NOTAM?
Probably not a big event after all You can't get IN and OUT in Minneapolis, So the Celebs and high Profile Gov. People just may opt out on this one.