MaxFriNiteFights: EVENT TFR's; Are they a Controller “Scam”? (Vote)

MaxSez: I note with distain the continual imposition of unnecessary “TFR” Aircraft Type or Airfield Restrictions in most Events where an active controlling entity issues a restrictive ATIS and/or Announcement.

These TFR’s precludes “normal RW type air launch and recovery operation”. Particularly in the vicinity of all Controlled Class B and there; Feeder, Municipals and FBO co-located airspace.

I conclude from observation and participation that’s the Event Restrictive TFR are primarily used for Controller workload reduction!

Pls correct me if I’m wrong, by comment or vote “Yes” supporting this notion and requesting “Minimalist TFR’s” by separate Topic. The suggested Topic will be posted based on overwhelming acclamation of this screed, forthwith:

  • Yes
  • No

0 voters


(Note: The Establishment of “Centers” often clouds my mind when I ponder IF ATC issues. Now that Quasi-IFATC are on the scene of the crime regularly. It indicates to me, that the staffing shortage May have been solved! “Events :Maximum Effort w/Radar Required”!)

1 Like



MaxSez: Example FNF TFR (A Ghost Warning)

As controller we won’t want to deal with people departing an airport 10nm away then the pilot pushes to cut the queue which happen 99% of the time.

1 Like

Yes, Max. You are correct. The TFR’s are in place to reduce our workload when we are already working with a high level of traffic.

If we are controlling 50+ aircraft at a FNF, having someone takeoff from an airport 15 miles away from the hub requesting an approach is very hard to work with. That is why TFR’s are in place.


As a controller, we also do it to establish realism. We do value your opinion, however you’re never (for example) going to see a flight from Gatwick to Heathrow. That’s why the TFRs are in place


It’s really not an easy task, vectoring 100 plus aircraft on busy days. That’s why we limit local traffic. We do apologize to the GA traffic this may effect, however there are people who would abuse the airspace if the TFR weren’t in place.

1 Like

If everyone who wanted to fly from a local airport was willing to wait their turn in line, we wouldn’t have a need for these TFRs.

Sadly, many local flyers think their proximity to the airport gives them priority arrival status, and will ignore instructions from the very folks who make flying in busy airspace attractive — ATC. Having to vector, warn, vector again, get the plane back on your frequency, warn, and ghost takes a significant amount of time, and reduces the ability of controllers to provide quality service to the many users who are flying respectfully and responsibly.

I’d love if we didn’t need these TFRs, but unfortunately the privilege of local flying has been spoiled by some bad eggs.


MaxSez: I’m please to see the Usual Suspects Circle the Wagons and attempt to defend the Undependable! Those numerous specious argument Floated by comment just reinforce my position that Event TFR are a “Scam”!
G’day, Max

1 Like

Just as a question, isn’t it possible for the TFRs to be tweaked in favour of GA pilots in that sure, they would block aircraft trying to cut the approach line at busy bravos while at the same time give liberty to the GA pilots who are avoiding the busy airports.

@Kiz. MaxSez: The IF GA Biases are well documented here. Pleased you addressed and highlighted it! RW GA’s fly the B’s where-ever an FBO is co-located. Next!

1 Like

Sometimes TFRs allow this (E.g. no flying between EGKK and EGLL), and sometimes they don’t (E.g. flights between airports within the TFR are not permitted).

I think I am a maybe on this. I think everyone here has a point. For me, TFR’s are just for increased realism, but also so that a TBM doesn’t park at a gate for an A320. I never really thought this subject being about the workload for ATC.

MaxAsk: Why, or do you endorse the Scam and “Non-Real World” procedure on IF as a learning vehicle?

Max. I wouldn’t consider this a scam but as the others have said, it’s purpose is to put an end to the local fliers who increase controller workload. Imagine coming off of a 15hr long hauler flight (knowing you, you wouldn’t fly a T Hauler), but the disservice that a 747 does flying a 20nm hop from one airport to another and expecting the same service for the guy coming off of that long haul isn’t fair. Delays, tight on fuel, and other issues come into play.

If folks are set on doing a local flight like that in we’ve got an abundance of other airports to choose from away from the rest of the traffic.



That can’t be true. I don’t think Heathrow (for example) would ever let pilots fly to Gatwick. It just doesn’t work. Plus, I applaud IF for taking RW Procedures into consideration when doing these events, really makes it more realistic!

Are we just going to ignore how repositioning flights exist…


…no. I meant more as a light aircraft, Cessna type craft :)

@DeerCrusher… MaxSez: Ah a Controversial Topic , It’s like chumming the IF waters for guppies or throwing a bone to a Pack of snarling wolves. Ya gotta just sit back and enjoy the movie.
Ya Gotta Love it, Max

(20+ Responses and counting/Poll 60/40)


Guppies… More like piranhas. 😁