NFL, other leagues oppose reduction of game-day no-fly zone
The events of 9/11 exposed in very horrifying terms the manner in which an airplane can be weaponized. It prompted efforts to avoid a similar outcome in the future.
More than two decades later, the government is considering a softening of critically important safety standards that keep planes away from sports venues during games. And the NFL is concerned.
"I’m very worried," NFL's senior vice president of security Cathy Lanier told Tisha Thompson of ESPN.com. "Aircraft can be used as a weapon and that is one of the top concerns that we've had for 20 years."
Currently, a temporary flight restriction applies above any stadium or raceway with a capacity of more than 30,000 from one hour before the event begins to one hour after it ends. This creates a no-fly zone 3,000 feet above and three nautical miles from the center of the stadium.
The FAA Reauthorization Act, passed his summer, allows the FAA to grant a waiver to within three-fourths of a mile of a stadium during game day.
"It's simply wrong to suggest that existing flight restrictions have any connection to preventing terrorism," U.S. Representative Sam Graves (R-Missouri) told Thompson. "It's also wrong that a construction crew wanting to use a drone to inspect a roof three miles away -- just to give an example -- has to wait until a ballgame is over to do their job, or else they're breaking federal law."
President Joe Biden's staff raised the red flag about the potential relaxation of this important security consideration that had been "slid into" the new law.
"The bill could introduce unnecessary risks to those attending major sporting events if the effectiveness of safety and security buffers currently provided by temporary flight restrictions were to be decreased," the White House said in a July 17 statement.
The NFL, Major League Baseball, NASCAR, and the NCAA have been aggressively opposing the shrinking of the no-fly zone. Beyond the potential for a terrorist act, the NFL is concerned about the potential an error sparking a tragedy.
"A lot of individuals and others will want to fly over large crowds to advertise," Lanier told Thompson. "And in that congested airspace, an accident is very much a concern."
The whole thing makes no sense. Why take any chances? Why reduce the time available to respond to a potential threat?
The sky is a big place. A stadium takes up finite space. During games, what's the downside in keeping winged weapons of mass destruction away from what would be a fairly soft target?
