>. "The FAA and DOW acted swiftly to address a cartel drone incursion.

The threat has been neutralized, and there is no danger to commercial travel in the region.

The restrictions have been lifted and normal flights are resuming."

▲ noelsusman 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Doesn't really pass the sniff test. Why would you need a 10 day closure to deal with a drone incursion?

I'm guessing DoD and the FAA were squabbling over a test the military wanted to run, and it didn't go up the chain fast enough to get resolved before testing was scheduled to begin.

Edit: Here's the actual notice from the FAA[1]. Note that it was issued at 0332 UTC, but the restrictions weren't scheduled to go into place until 0630 UTC. Either the FAA is clairvoyant, or Sean Duffy is lying.

[1]https://tfr.faa.gov/tfr3/?page=detail_6_2233

▲

HillRat an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Recent updates say this was a unilateral call by FAA because DOD was refusing to coordinate with them for creating safety corridors for DOD drones and/or HEW usage. Issues came to a head after DOD shot down a highly threatening mylar party balloon, which FAA evidently considered to be a somewhat reckless use of military weaponry in a US city's airspace.

	▲	cornellwright 19 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Can you share a source for this? It's not in the updates to the NYT article.
	▲	Hikikomori 10 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Balloon looked brown?
	▲	downrightmike 33 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		reckless use of military weaponry in a US city's airspace.

▲

nkrisc 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Charitably guessing that if they don't know how long they'll need to keep airspace closed then you give yourself plenty of time and rescind early if necessary, as opposed to continually issuing extensions which could cause confusion.

▲

hshdhdhj4444 an hour ago | parent [-]

Or you say “until further notice”.

Indeterminate end dates are not a new problem.

▲

zthrowaway an hour ago | parent [-]

FAA restrictions aren’t applied in a hand wavy fashion.

▲

afavour an hour ago | parent [-]

This story would suggest otherwise.

	▲	zthrowaway an hour ago \| parent [-]
		In what way?

▲

indoordin0saur 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Was it meant to be "up to 10 days" rather than 10 days? If the drones are no longer flying over the airport it makes sense they'd open it back up.

▲

noelsusman 3 hours ago | parent [-]

The closure was for 10 days full stop. I can't think of a reason to do that in response to an active threat.

▲

brynnbee 39 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I think the point was to get headlines and attention, as someone else said it sounds like the FAA is frustrated that the DoD isn't cooperating, and this seems like a possible attempt to make this frustration public to pressure DoD into playing more nicely.

▲

schiffern 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This is OpSec 101. Making the public closure too "tight" around the operational timeline could (negligently) leak operational details. You can always cancel a closure later.

▲

iAMkenough 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Is saying "indefinitely" or "until further notice" any worse than "10 days?" The specificity of the timeline was what caught my eye.

	▲	vachina an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Indefinitely infers permanence. You’ll scare everyone off with that language.

▲

an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

stefan_ 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Ding ding. Always assume weaponized incompetence in this administration:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/airspace-closure-followed-spat-...

> FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford on Tuesday night decided to close the airspace — without alerting White House, Pentagon or Homeland Security officials, sources said.

In the meantime, the politician responsible of course made up a quick lie and yall ran with it, fantasizing about cartel MANPADs:

> Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said in a statement, "The FAA and DOW acted swiftly to address a cartel drone incursion."

▲ ajross 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲ schiffern 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

  > yup, it was a lie

Note that Rep Crockett doesn't claim inside information, she was just entering a newspaper article into the record. Presumably you also want to fact-check the newspaper article.

https://www.texastribune.org/2026/02/11/el-paso-air-space-cl...

	▲	ajross an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Reuters has it too. It was indeed a lie.

▲ boringg 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I'm merely passing on live information to update the conversation. Don't shoot the messenger.

▲

mrWiz 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Is it OK to comment on and critique the message, though?

▲

yunnpp 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

When you have multiple paragraphs in a quotation, each paragraph must start with a quote. Only the last paragraph in the quotation ends with a quote. Just pick up any book with dialogue in it and see for yourself. This is why I think your comment came across as you personally endorsing the official statement; it's not clear at first glance where the quote ends. The correct/incorrect placing of quotes is the kind of subtle thing that would lead someone to interpret one thing or the other without actually realizing what just happened.

▲

mercanlIl 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Which writing style standard does that correspond to?

This is an internet discussion board with people from diverse backgrounds. Informal quotation style is common. Your comment is the first time I’ve seen someone assert that new paragraphs should start with a quote.

▲

phlakaton 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's common practice when dealing with sites and clients that don't have fancy quoting features, going all the way back to USENET forums and probably before. It avoids just this ambiguity when you might be mixing quote and commentary.

	▲	notpushkin 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Hmm, honestly I’ve mostly seen > used for quotations in plain-text-y environments. Not sure about USENET, but ever since email it seems to be the de-facto standard everywhere. (On HN, I mostly see >, italics, or monospace as the quotation indicators.)

▲

notpushkin 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Not sure which particular standard it is but it is a thing. Agreed that it’s nitpicking though, it’s pretty easy to understand the boundaries of the quotation either way.

▲

ajross 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

And I was merely commenting on the likely veracity of the quote you posted. No shooting happening here.

▲

pavel_lishin 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

HackerNews will be shut down for 10 days as we deploy counter-messenger technology.

	▲	Spooky23 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Good news, the messenger has been neutered. You may continue messaging.

▲

boringg 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Thats true - and I noticed that (but I wanted clarity from shots fired). Though the other follow on comments are interesting - say I may or may not endorse by how I wrote it, that my grammar/punctuation (it was just a fast cut copy) makes it look like i'm endorsing.

My comment is a non statement but people are clearly riled up these days.

▲

codys 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It seems like the messenger might endorse the message though, and is attempting to be coy.

Folks should be careful of people using the "messenger" title to attempt to obtain the appearance of impartiality.