10 ms·
As someone else mentioned, there’s some speculation in aviation subreddits that the bounds of the altitude restriction map to the MANPAD capabilities that some
by lilytweed 8mo ago
As someone else mentioned, there’s some speculation in aviation subreddits that the bounds of the altitude restriction map to the MANPAD capabilities that some cartels are purported to have.
https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/1r1s4zt/comment/o4s35zu/ https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/1r1s4zt/comment/o...
My read is that the admin is planning forceful strikes on the cartels within Mexico and is worried about their ability to retaliate by taking down US aircraft across the border.
Edit: The closure has now been kiboshed. The wording seems a little “don’t panic-y” to me, but better that than the alternative!
https://x.com/FAANews/status/2021583720465969421 https://x.com/FAANews/status/2021583720465969421
- duxup 8mo agoShooting down civilian American aircraft like that would seem to just be for an even more strong response… Seems unlikely.
- guerrilla 8mo agoThey would want to avoid escalation. Escalation with cartels historically does not go well for anyone involved.
- alex43578 8mo agoEscalation by attacking US civilians or the homeland has also gone poorly. It’s been the casus belli many times, notably ending in two Japanese cities getting nuked…
- guerrilla 8mo agoDropping nuclear bombs on Japan was in an entirely different context which has no relevance here. We're not in the middle of a global war (nor is anyone even at war with Mexico), nor in a nuclear arms race asserting nuclear capabilities for the first time in history. You're forgetting all the times the US failed too, and those cases weren't even on its own border. Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam... the list is very long. Creating an existential threat on your own border is a bad move for anyone. Remember how bad Columbia got? I guess not. The current situation has the potential to be much more dangerous.
- radlad 8mo ago> You're forgetting all the times the US failed too, and those cases weren't even on its own border. Doesn't the US have more resources at home, not less? Wouldn't a strike on US soil be a larger escalation and dictate a swift and larger response?
- willturman 8mo agoThe homeland? Yikes. The last time there was an attack within the United States’ borders it notably ended with a self-owning combination of perhaps the largest bureaucratic waste of time and money in human history (DHS/TSA) and the systematic erosion of enumerated rights.
- m4rtink 8mo agoIf only this was a certainty - Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was shot down with 298 people killed 12 years ago but still no one was directly punished for it...
- bluedino 8mo agoMalaysia isn't going to attack Russia.
- ethbr1 8mo agoI highly doubt the Russians/separatists running the Buk knew the identity of the flight before shooting it down.
- myrmidon 8mo agoMost certainly not, but I don't see how that is relevant. The problem (from a victim/Dutch perspective) is that there is complete denial from the Russian side (despite heaps of evidence around the people involved, origin and transport of the launcher from Russian territory). Even if Russian judges and prosecutors are completely corrupt and biased, an actual investigation/trial is the least that would be expected here, but all we got are the bald faced lies that Russia is particularly fond of.
- m4rtink 8mo agoAt least some vengeance has been already done in blood, although indirectly, given how oversized has been dutch support for Ukraine compared to other similarly sized countries.
- ethbr1 8mo agoBecause the thread was about how shooting down a civilian airliner has consequences, and the person I replied to insinuated it didn't because Malaysia was ill-equipped to push the issue militarily. Which isn't relevant if the people who shot it down had no idea if it was / wasn't Malaysian. Similar to how cartels likely wouldn't have the sophistication to nationally ID any aerial targets they choose to shoot.
- derbOac 8mo agoWould that account for the trapezoidal shape of the one restricted area?
- torpfactory 8mo agoMy bet is a showy armored advance though the open terrain near there… it’ll look great on camera! /s
- mothballed 8mo agoIt seems crazy not to just, tell people that if that's what it is. "Hey if you are flying above 18,000 please don't go lower because you could be blown up by a MANPAD." If the cartels have MANPADS then our intel is already blown by issuing the TFR, so what's the harm in just saying it out loud?
- gordonhart 8mo agoMass panic? Think of how wildly it would be misrepresented in the media and how disruptive it would be to all air travel in the country. People aren't rational actors and the most sensationalized headline is what ends up spreading
- spacephysics 8mo agoFor your first point, on the off chance they have other equipment capable of surpassing MANPADS I’d prefer as a passenger they just fly around. Second point, it’s not obvious if its for MANPAD reasons or it’s our own operation though we can speculate.
- mothballed 8mo agoI'm not sure if the person I replied to edited their comment, or I looked at the wrong one, but the one I originally read said the TFR only had the restriction below 18,000 ft. I was addressing it on that basis, which wasn't requiring people flying above that to route around it.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 8mo agoEven Cartels know that shooting down civilian aircraft in US airspace would be an escalation that would lead to heavy retaliation. Doesn't seem likely to me.
- lilytweed 8mo agoGood point. I guess it depends on the force, size, and especially effectiveness of any potential strikes. (i.e. How cornered a cartel might feel and how much flexing an outsized response might stand to gain them.)
- estearum 8mo agoMistakes happen though
- mothballed 8mo agoUnless the government is planning an attack on the cartel[s] that is so existential that such action wouldn't be considered an escalation but rather a tic for tat. A trapped animal will generally use all its facilities regardless of its expected effectiveness.
- beepbooptheory 8mo agoRemember that there is no "the" cartel, just so many different towns and interests and bribed officials. It makes it a significant (and perhaps convenient) misnomer dont get me wrong, but maybe important to remember. Extremely good, highly researched book if you want to get angry at me or call me idiot! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Cartels_Do_Not_Exist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Cartels_Do_Not_Exist
- mattmaroon 8mo agoUnless we start bombing them first. That’s not hard to imagine these days.
- ibejoeb 8mo agoNot hard to imagine these days? Wouldn't you hope for an intervention if it were known that a hostile, state-level military planned to down civilian aircraft?
- torpfactory 8mo agoMy read is most likely some kind of strike on the cartels. There hasn’t seemed to be any significant US military buildup so it’s something they’ll be able to do with a smaller force. The trapezoid makes me worried about a ground incision there- it extends to the border and would be a cover space for an invasion force. Absolutely bonkers that we are even having this discussion. The TFR is most likely contingency planning for possible retaliation by cartel drones and the need to keep the airspace clear so they can see (with radar) and shoot down drones and not passenger aircraft.
- grosswait 8mo agoYou are the first person to mention invasion. Kind of bonkers to jump to that conclusion.
- torpfactory 8mo agoIt is totally nuts. We will see I guess. If there will be a ground invasion, people will see the convoys moving into position. You can’t really hide that much stuff.
- ben_w 8mo agoUnfortunately, we find ourselves living in a bonkers time.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- alexissantos 8mo agoNuts, definitely. Bonkers to jump to that conclusion? No, especially with this US administration. Mexico itself is concerned enough about the possibility that it's made statements to make it clear it wouldn't be acceptable. Mexico thinks it's nuts, too, but not bonkers to think the US might do it. US troops in Mexico 'not on the table', Sheinbaum tells Trump https://www.france24.com/en/americas/20260112-us-troops-mexico-not-on-the-table-sheinbaum-trump https://www.france24.com/en/americas/20260112-us-troops-mexi...
- FranklinJabar 8mo ago[flagged]
- walletdrainer 8mo ago“Terrorists” would tend to not consider themselves such. I doubt the same is true of cartels and their members.
- Etheryte 8mo agoI'm pretty sure no one else reading the comment has any trouble understanding what is meant when talking about cartels in Mexico. What exactly is ambiguous to you?
- FranklinJabar 8mo ago[dead]
- hackable_sand 8mo ago[flagged]
- petesergeant 8mo agoIt means organized crime focusing on drugs in this context
- FranklinJabar 8mo ago[flagged]
- FergusArgyll 8mo agoA drug cartel is a criminal organization composed of independent drug lords who collude with each other in order to improve their profits and dominate the illegal drug trade.[1] Drug cartels form with the purpose of controlling the supply of the illegal drug trade and maintaining prices at a high level. The formations of drug cartels are common in Latin American countries. Rivalries between multiple drug cartels cause them to wage turf wars against each other. Drug cartels often transport both drugs and narcotics, and most often the term "Narcotics cartel" is not used to describe an organization that transports the latter legally defined set of illegal substances, such as marijuana. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_cartel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_cartel
- pigbearpig 8mo ago"Maybe, or maybe FL180 is a nice clean line for class A airspace. No need to bother transcontinental flights for a local issue." Way more plauible
- petesergeant 8mo agoWhat does that mean sorry?
- bombcar 8mo agoFL180 is 18000 feet, meaning that flights OVER don’t need to divert.
- mazugrin2 8mo agoIt is a pedantic but meaningful distinction that I'd only point out on a sorta geeky site like this, but actually, FL180 (or, flight level one-eight-zero) is the altitude at which an altimeter will read 18,000 feet if it's set to assume that the barometric pressure is 1013 hPa (29.92 inHg). Above a certain transition altitude, aircraft switch their altimeters from reading altitude in the local pressure to this "standard" pressure. This is because above that altitude and safely away from terrain, it's no longer important to know precisely how high you are, but it _is_ important to know what altitude you are relative to all the other aircraft nearby.
- anovikov 8mo agoThat it limits local flights but not international ones as they fly higher.
- reactordev 8mo agoIt means that you have no business being below FL180 or 18,000ft to enter this airspace.
- Someone1234 8mo agoIt means any aircraft transitioning over the area at high altitude isn't impacted, because they're too high to care. It is a ground and "everything near the ground" stop. Meaning low altitude helicopters and private aircraft have to consider it, even transitioning, but realistically commercial aircraft not taking off/landing in the area won't.
- NedF 8mo ago[dead]
- omgJustTest 8mo agoKnowing the restriction goes to 18k certainly says that either S-A or A-S reach must be limited but the as your post points out no buffer between MANPAD actual range and the limit imposed. I think unlikely to say MANPAD, specifically. There's a small private airfield to the west with only a single victor airway connecting to el-paso. the victors end at 17999 ft, effectively cutting traffic for non-commercial or non-business jet operators. Closure of the victor airway there seems, again limiting airborne craft due to airborne hazards. Hazards in the air, near the surface that are, seemingly, unplanned with a cone pointing at mexico. That's kind of the most anyone will get until more info, could be some urgent testing of some capability or response to small craft (drones) coming over the boarder. Emergency timing could be to garner interest or emphasize importance, which works well politically. Las Cruces International Airport and Dana Jetport are unaffected.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- timbre1234 8mo agoThe restriction goes to 18k because that's the top of VFR space. Anyone operating above 18k has to be on an IFR clearance and under positive ATC control. That makes it easy for the feds to make a call and say "Hey, center, get everyone out of this airspace" wheras in the VFR altitudes it's very difficult for them to legally clear the space since a VFR plane could be flying around not talking to anyone.
- ErroneousBosh 8mo agoI only know about Las Cruces from the Organ Mountain Outfitters training material in the DaVinci Resolve sample footage. Sadly they closed a few months ago, which is a shame because I never got my arse in gear to order a shirt from them.
- JumpinJack_Cash 8mo agoOf course, the US elected the only celebrity of the 80s and 90s who hates blow. On the other hand a careful analysis of the plumbing system of Trump's Tower and Trump's Hotels in general would reveal possibly the highest concentration of coke than any other building in the world considering the intersection of wealth and istrionic personalities who called those apartments home at one time or the other. Fate sure loves irony Besides I would go to my grave claiming that racism is particularly strong in the war on drugs, if coca grew plentiful and naturally in the US and Europe it would not be illegal at all. But it's scary because uh ohh inssulfation of an extract of a plant coming from the global south we are all gonna die, somebody will please think of the children. But hey you can gulp 60 oz of super strong energy drinks which equate to about 5-6 fat lines, matter of fact you can gulp 600 oz and cause yourself a heart attack and nobody would bat an eye or investigate the safety profile of such drinks It's the same old story with alcohol too
- frumplestlatz 8mo ago> But hey you can gulp 60 oz of super strong energy drinks which equate to about 5-6 fat lines Are you joking? Look, I’m no stranger to drugs, but coke is not a “60oz energy drink” and its potential for generally destroying someone’s life is, while not at the same level, definitely in the same ballpark as crack, heroin, and meth.
- JumpinJack_Cash 8mo ago60 oz energy drink = 5-6 fat lines perhaps more The most dense energy drinks have 350-400 of caffeine in a can these days and on top of that there's the taurine etc. 60 oz is 4 cans, do your math. 4 * 400 = 1600mg of caffeine alone > > potential for generally destroying someone’s life is, while not at the same level, definitely in the same ballpark as crack, heroin, and meth. That's more of the result of the enviornment and the associated people who frequent such circles and not the stimulant per se.
- frumplestlatz 8mo agoI don't say this lightly, as someone who has spent decades around drugs, and as a result, knows more than a few recovering addicts: this comes across as wild rationalization by an addict. And while 1600mg of caffeine is 4x the FDA's recommended daily intake and really isn't a good idea, someone on that much caffeine is neither going to feel nor behave in any way similar to someone on coke.
- Spooky23 8mo agoSounds like a great way to reinforce the "We ready to move along from Epstein" narrative.
- danesparza 8mo agoI think it's simpler. It's going to make the cartel drones easier to spot.
- dylan604 8mo agoDo you think the cartels won’t see this news? If this is all it was, the cartels can just wait 10 days and start up again.
- cameldrv 8mo agoDoing a closure up to 18k feet is common because that's where class A airspace starts, i.e. you need a clearance to go there, you can't just fly around VFR wherever you want. The airspace above 18k might not be officially closed, but controllers can be instructed to just not give a clearance into whatever area they deem is unsafe on a particular day.
- hackernudes 8mo agoToday I learned: Man-portable air-defense systems (MANPADS) are shoulder-fired, surface-to-air missiles designed for use by individuals or small teams to engage low-flying aircraft, helicopters, and UAVs.