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 16 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Can you share a source for this? It's not in the updates to the NYT article.
	▲	Hikikomori 7 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Balloon looked brown?
	▲	downrightmike 30 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 36 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 2 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."