Disappointed by TFR and ATC

[Palmpilot]

Wasn’t the airport you were located in the inner core 10 nmr?

I've never been to the airport that is the subject of this thread.

The TFR provided for very limited IFR and no VFR in that area. Anyway, next time don’t be a dummy and fly into an area covered by a presidential TFR and expect anything. The secret service runs the show.

The one time I needed to operate VFR in a presidential TFR, it was not a problem. In fact, ATC suggested it.

TFRs should give pilots a reasonably truthful idea of what to expect. Agree or disagree?

 

[Clip4]

I've never been to the airport that is the subject of this thread.



The one time I needed to operate VFR in a presidential TFR, it was not a problem. In fact, ATC suggested it.

TFRs should give pilots a reasonably truthful idea of what to expect. Agree or disagree?

The one time was one time. Your complaint involved a multi day TFR. The FAA is not mind readers and cannot predict air traffic demand at every given hour.

The FAA told you they would handle your flight on a workload permitting basis. During the time you selected they were unable to accommodate VFR requests. The simple solution to your issue is an FAA VFR prohibition because the FAA is not going to give you the operational guarantee you desire and every VFR flight is locked out.

 

[paflyer]

Count yourself lucky. I've been denied VFR entry enough times flying to or from the DC area that I now just file IFR. Depends on how busy they are when you transit. You are more likely to get handled if departing from or arriving at an airport in the class B.

You must be hitting them during a push. Plus it might depend upon your route. Usually N/S they take you right over the center of the PHL runways.

 

[denverpilot]

I got dumped for the first time in a long time by DEN TRACON today. Tower had launched opposite direction traffic off of the runway at us as we were shooting the RNAV and all of a sudden (the departure wasn’t talking to the TRACON yet) it went like this... abbreviated...

“Request RNAV 28 circle to land if possible.”

“Cessna 66N cleared direct DOCKY.”

“Direct DOCKY.” Start the turn. Finish the turn. Right on top of the direct line.

Somewhat impatient voice, “Turn right heading xxx then direct DOCKY when able.”

Acknowledged but the heading given we were already on. We shrugged. Wind was slightly out of the north. Immediately on unkey...

“Cessna 66N squawk 1200 frequency change approved.”

Huh. We got dumped. Okay. Call the Tower...

“Cessna 66N continue inbound, traffic, 11 o’clock, one mile, he has you in sight, climbing through your altitude.”

Sooooo. I figured TRACON dumped us because the head to head traffic he just saw pop up was going to be a problem for him, workload wise, and the Tower had held on to the departure to ask them if we were OJ sight.

Dunno but we passed each other without incident, then the circle to land 35R was wholly uneventful. Tower asked us to do it to the left which was expected, as soon as the outbound traffic passed us.

 

[Palmpilot]

The one time was one time. Your complaint involved a multi day TFR.

It wasn't my complaint, it was the original poster's complaint. I was just suggesting a way that the FAA could make situations like the OP encountered less costly for pilots who read the TFR notice and think it means what it says.

The FAA is not mind readers and cannot predict air traffic demand at every given hour.

The FAA sets policies on how ATC operates, and if that includes giving IFR departures and arrivals in TFRs priority even when the weather is VFR, then that fact should be published. No mind reading is required in order to publish policies.

The FAA told you they would handle your flight on a workload permitting basis.

I don't think the FAA said anything about workload permitting in the TFR I operated in. Earlier, someone pointed out that the notice for the TFR that the OP tried to operate in did not specify workload-permitting for arrivals and departures, only transit operations. The TFR I operated in did not allow transit operations at all.

During the time you selected they were unable to accommodate VFR requests.

That's not true. I have never been denied permission to operate VFR in a TFR.

The simple solution to your issue is an FAA VFR prohibition because the FAA is not going to give you the operational guarantee you desire and every VFR flight is locked out.

I'm not suggesting a guarantee. I'm suggesting that if any priority policies exist in a particular TFR, they should be published in the TFR notice. Publishing policy is not the same as a guarantee.

 

[Justin M]

OP here, some responses:

Oh, but first: Thanks for listening and responding. I appreciate your attention and commiserating (or not as the case may be) to the situation.

It's helpful to have others at least understand the issue; even if their response is different.

MMU tower doesn't regulate the departures, its NY approach. Bugging the guy in MMU tower isn't going to help,

Right. MMU ground was nice enough to warn me before I choose to wait.

Wasn’t the airport you were located in the inner core 10 nmr? The TFR provided for very limited IFR and no VFR in that area. Anyway, next time don’t be a dummy and fly into an area covered by a presidential TFR and expect anything. The secret service runs the show.

Nope, my home airport isn't within the 10 mile inner core. Also, I didn't randomly wander into a TFR outer ring; I gotta start here.

The one time was one time. Your complaint involved a multi day TFR. The FAA is not mind readers and cannot predict air traffic demand at every given hour.

The FAA told you they would handle your flight on a workload permitting basis. During the time you selected they were unable to accommodate VFR requests. The simple solution to your issue is an FAA VFR prohibition because the FAA is not going to give you the operational guarantee you desire and every VFR flight is locked out.

The FAA tries to work VFRs in when able. If you don’t understand “workload permitting” that is your issue.

“All OTHER aircraft operating within the outer ring(s) listed above are limited to aircraft arriving or departing local airfields, and workload permitting, ATC may authorize transit operations. Aircraft may not loiter. All aircraft must be on an active IFR or a filed VFR flight plan with a discrete code assigned by an air traffic control (ATC) facility. Aircraft must be squawking the discrete code prior to departure and at all times while in the TFR and

Actually, you're linking the OP (me) and another POA contributor. <shrug> It happens. No biggie. But just to clarify. The workload permitting sounds like it is regarding transit of the TFR; which does not apply to my situation as others have pointed out.

Also, I got my transponder code right away; I filed my VFR flight plan, I wasn't going to loiter or train, or count pigeons or any of the other proscribed behaviors, I was headed out of the TFR and was going to stay away.

I just didn't get the "cleared for takeoff".

New York Approach is the best and worst ATC in the world. Fly in their airspace on the regular and you'll know what I mean.

Very true. I still haven't figured out when I should be persistent about my "Skyhawk Alpha Bravo Charlie 123 four thousand five hundred" and when I should shut up because "I do the talking here." (as told to me by NY Approach when I attempted to check in during a hand off from one NY controller to another).

FWIW, my path would have not included the Class Bravo shelf over our airfield. I'm used to flying under the Bravo to get to where I'm going. I'm not expecting clearance into the Bravo to get to where I'm going, although occasionally I am cleared if it makes their lives easier. North of Teterboro (KTEB), I've been getting cleared into the Bravo so I'm not in the path of those flying an approach into TEB.

Anyway, again: Thanks all for reading, responding or lurking. At the end of the day, I don't think I could have changed what I did or what happened, except maybe give my passenger a book so they would be occupied while we were waiting.

 

[jordane93]

New York Approach is the best and worst ATC in the world. Fly in their airspace on the regular and you'll know what I mean.

They are the best. Very professional and almost always work on VFR traffic.

 

[DeckardTrinity]

It would be good to hear from an actual TRACON controller on a question I've had which, I admit, may be FUD, so buyer beware. Do flights that are VFR-on-a-code get handled, operationally speaking, the same as IFR flights, when operating inside the outer ring of one of these TFRs? i.e., outside of a TFR, VFR squawking a code and receiving flight advisories, the VFR pilot is responsible for navigation. But, a TFR is there, in theory, for security or other reasons deemed necessary by whatever powers be, and so the normal VFR squawking rules allowing pilot discretion wouldn't seem to coincide with the intent of a TFR, I would think? My point here is that, given the choice between directing IFR or VFR traffic using IFR rules, would a controller rather deal with the IFR or VFR pilot?

There's also the weather from this past weekend which, while being a scorcher, was CAVU in N NJ. I'm sure OP wasn't the only traffic trying to depart from the outer ring.

One other point - NY TRACON is woefully understaffed... like, 54% last year IIRC. That can't help matters when these TFRs pop up.

 

[tspear]

I do not work in TRACON. I have gone on a tour of a TRACON (Potomac, very cool to do).
I few things I learned. As a general rule, except for class Bravo, ATC is staffed based on predicted IFR traffic levels only. ATC only guarantees IFR traffic separation. VFR you are on your own. Class Bravo is staffed to handle separation of all traffic; both VFR and IFR.
The TRACON/Tower have a priority list. Roughly along the lines of emergency, then IFR, then VFR transient, then training.
Lastly, they do not adjust for TFRs. Trying to adjust for TFRs is considered to complicated; instead they treat it like a weather event. You get fit in based on the priority list based on the natural slop available in the system. It just happens that in the east coast, there is not as much slop in the system.

Man, I really need to get a tour of Boston TRACON since I moved here. Having that picture back in the DC area really helped my routing and timing.

Tim

 

[luvflyin]

It would be good to hear from an actual TRACON controller on a question I've had which, I admit, may be FUD, so buyer beware. Do flights that are VFR-on-a-code get handled, operationally speaking, the same as IFR flights, when operating inside the outer ring of one of these TFRs? i.e., outside of a TFR, VFR squawking a code and receiving flight advisories, the VFR pilot is responsible for navigation. But, a TFR is there, in theory, for security or other reasons deemed necessary by whatever powers be, and so the normal VFR squawking rules allowing pilot discretion wouldn't seem to coincide with the intent of a TFR, I would think? My point here is that, given the choice between directing IFR or VFR traffic using IFR rules, would a controller rather deal with the IFR or VFR pilot?

There's also the weather from this past weekend which, while being a scorcher, was CAVU in N NJ. I'm sure OP wasn't the only traffic trying to depart from the outer ring.

One other point - NY TRACON is woefully understaffed... like, 54% last year IIRC. That can't help matters when these TFRs pop up.

My experience is from years ago but I don’t think things will have changed much. We didn’t put VFR’s on ‘hard’ routes. We didn’t take over completely by vectoring everyone all the time. We did know where to vector them away from if they started getting close to places they weren’t supposed to be. Separation between aircraft didn’t change at all. There is at least one currently working Approach Controller around here. Paging @Radar Contact

 

[chemgeek]

The TRACON/Tower have a priority list. Roughly along the lines of emergency, then IFR, then VFR transient, then training.Tim

This aligns with my flying experience in the Washington and Philly class B airspace. If you arrive at a busy time in the wrong place VFR you may be SOL. Never an issue IFR.

 

[denverpilot]

One other point - NY TRACON is woefully understaffed... like, 54% last year IIRC. That can't help matters when these TFRs pop up.

Not saying they aren’t, but I’m always leery of an agency saying a facility is more than half understaffed and in the same website shows annual growth in traffic in the same area, and they haven’t started metering the number of IFR aircraft that they’ll service.

54% is a BIG number of people. There’s virtually no way anything in business can operate, let alone grow every year, that understaffed.

Since I don’t the growth number is fake, the “operations” are easy to count, the staffing number smells funny.

 

[mtuomi]

Also, I got my transponder code right away; I filed my VFR flight plan, I wasn't going to loiter or train, or count pigeons or any of the other proscribed behaviors, I was headed out of the TFR and was going to stay away.

I just didn't get the "cleared for takeoff".

So what happened was, that the airspace was saturated with higher priority traffic, and you were put to the bottom of the pile waiting for the airspace to clear out.
Same as on a busy day around New York airspace when you get sent to the penalty box on an IFR flight plan with "hold for release".

VFR flight plans are pretty much useless, I'm pretty sure ATC did not even know you had filed one. It goes to the FSS.

 

[Palmpilot]

VFR flight plans are pretty much useless, I'm pretty sure ATC did not even know you had filed one. It goes to the FSS.

The TFR required that he have one on file, with a beacon code assigned prior to takeoff. From the quote in post #12:

"All aircraft must be on an active IFR or a filed VFR flight plan with a discrete code assigned by an air traffic control (ATC) facility. Aircraft must be squawking the discrete code prior to departure and at all times while in the TFR and must remain in two-way radio communications with ATC."​

 

[Justin M]

My home airport will have the same TFR impact on Saturday and I'd like to try my flight a second time. Do you think it would be worth calling ATC to see if there is a better route for me to take so I can get released (should I go North instead of South?) Or a better time? I could go earlier. Who would you call? If all else fails, I might call the tower to see who they recommend I call since we know that Tower isn't the one making the decision about the release.

 

[chemgeek]

I've been getting emails this week from FAASafety.gov on routing info during the TFR. Here is one tidbit:

TOWER ENROUTE CLEARANCE (TEC) ROUTES:
ALL TEC routes via SBJ (V3),FJC (V6 & V162),ETX (V30),BUSKY,SAX
V249 SBJ @ 8,000',BWZ @ 4,000' and SBJ Overflights are NOT
AUTHORIZED.
Aircraft will be rerouted by the towers via: SAX COATE V188 LVZ (Destination) ALT 080/090/100 or via
V16.

If you set up your own account you can probably get these. Looks like they want folks to skedaddle north.

 

[bkspero]

Aircraft will be rerouted by the towers... or via V16.

If you set up your own account you can probably get these. Looks like they want folks to skedaddle north.

Looks like V16 provides a southbound routing. No details though on waypoints to transition onto it.

 

[tspear]

My home airport will have the same TFR impact on Saturday and I'd like to try my flight a second time. Do you think it would be worth calling ATC to see if there is a better route for me to take so I can get released (should I go North instead of South?) Or a better time? I could go earlier. Who would you call? If all else fails, I might call the tower to see who they recommend I call since we know that Tower isn't the one making the decision about the release.

I have had good luck emailing Tracon for the area. Takes a few days to find the right person usually. I have had less luck with towers.



Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk

 

[Radar Contact]

Not saying they aren’t, but I’m always leery of an agency saying a facility is more than half understaffed and in the same website shows annual growth in traffic in the same area, and they haven’t started metering the number of IFR aircraft that they’ll service.

54% is a BIG number of people. There’s virtually no way anything in business can operate, let alone grow every year, that understaffed.

Since I don’t the growth number is fake, the “operations” are easy to count, the staffing number smells funny.

My only NY connection is a close friend that works there. They are very understaffed. Each area (sector) is different. They have absolutely metered the number of aircraft that they are able to serve. There have been delay programs due to staffing. The controllers are on mandatory 6 day work weeks and 10 hour shifts. That is the most by law they can work them. They have been trying and are continuing to try a lot of different methods to get the facility staffed but they are still struggling. That said, I understand your leeriness.

 

[EdFred]

My only NY connection is a close friend that works there. They are very understaffed. Each area (sector) is different. They have absolutely metered the number of aircraft that they are able to serve. There have been delay programs due to staffing. The controllers are on mandatory 6 day work weeks and 10 hour shifts. That is the most by law they can work them. They have been trying and are continuing to try a lot of different methods to get the facility staffed but they are still struggling. That said, I understand your leeriness.

Have they tried oh, I don't know, hiring more controllers?

 

[Radar Contact]

There is at least one currently working Approach Controller around here. Paging @Radar Contact

It would be good to hear from an actual TRACON controller on a question I've had which, I admit, may be FUD, so buyer beware. Do flights that are VFR-on-a-code get handled, operationally speaking, the same as IFR flights, when operating inside the outer ring of one of these TFRs? i.e., outside of a TFR, VFR squawking a code and receiving flight advisories, the VFR pilot is responsible for navigation. But, a TFR is there, in theory, for security or other reasons deemed necessary by whatever powers be, and so the normal VFR squawking rules allowing pilot discretion wouldn't seem to coincide with the intent of a TFR, I would think? My point here is that, given the choice between directing IFR or VFR traffic using IFR rules, would a controller rather deal with the IFR or VFR pilot?

There's also the weather from this past weekend which, while being a scorcher, was CAVU in N NJ. I'm sure OP wasn't the only traffic trying to depart from the outer ring.

One other point - NY TRACON is woefully understaffed... like, 54% last year IIRC. That can't help matters when these TFRs pop up.

I'll take a stab here. No, the flights that are VFR in the outer ring do not get treated the same as an IFR. That said, if you start to deviate from the TFR (i.e start doing airwork) you will be questioned. If you start to head towards the inner circle you will be turned away and questioned. If you don't comply, the result is out of air traffic's hands and the other branches of the government will do their part. We work very close with them during these TFR's and will know what each other is doing at all times.

As to preference of IFR or VFR, I have none. I try my best to provide ATC on a first come, first served basis as the 7110.65 requires. Keep in mind that I also have to give first priority to separating aircraft and while incredibly rare, flight following is based on the ability to provide the additional service (i.e. volume of traffic, frequency congestion, etc).

Back to the meat and potatoes of this NY TFR VFR delay...without actually being there, I can't speak on how this happened. In Chicago (espeically during the last president) we routinely did the TFR's and we never delayed VFR's in the outer ring... not once to my knowledge.

 

[Radar Contact]

Have they tried oh, I don't know, hiring more controllers?

I think the problem is people don't want to live on long island, they don't like the cost of living, they don't like the local culture, they don't like the idea of working 6-10's, etc. They have tried new hires but like other high level TRACON's (Chicago as an example) that doesn't work well and very very few can check out. It's a conundrum in that they need experienced controllers that can check out but experienced controllers don't want to go there. Not sure how well it would go if they tried to force move experienced controllers there (legally or morally). They are trying different incentive programs now, not sure they have been in place long enough to know if they are working. It takes 2-3 years a lot of times to train an experienced controller on a facility like N90 or C90. It is safe to say that they are behind the power curve.

 

[tspear]

I think the best solution for the controller shortage is to move the center. NYC and surroundings will always be super expensive. And it is not like TRACON staffers look out of a window to see the planes. Therefore, like call centers around the country moved away from metro areas, TRACON should move to college towns and the outskirts of metro areas where prices are less. Ideally with fail over or secondary sites available which are remote based on staffing and/or demand.

Tim

 

[Radar Contact]

I think the best solution for the controller shortage is to move the center. NYC and surroundings will always be super expensive. And it is not like TRACON staffers look out of a window to see the planes. Therefore, like call centers around the country moved away from metro areas, TRACON should move to college towns and the outskirts of metro areas where prices are less. Ideally with fail over or secondary sites available which are remote based on staffing and/or demand.

Tim

As a small town guy, I'm on board. My understanding is part of the plan in the event they aren't successful at staffing N90 is to move the facility away from there. That said, it is also my understanding that local members of congress got involved and shut that down. I have zero data to back these statements up nor the care to research it beyond what I was told about it from a fairly knowledgeable source.

I'm not sure how top heavy they are at N90 (meaning controllers eligible to retire) but if they were able to move the facility, it may actually be worse in the short term as they could end up with a lot of early retirements. No easy quick solutions there.

 

[EdFred]

Don't move the facility, but just supplement it from elsewhere. Then as controllers quit/retire, just don't replace them at the original facility, put the replacement on at the new facility. That way it never gets the knee jerk shut down response from the congressvermin.

 

[Ryan F.]

They are the best. Very professional and almost always work on VFR traffic.

I deal with them daily and they are outstanding. That they're able to operate at the high level they do so consistently is beyond impressive. That's pure human production in a technically demanding environment.

This airspace is too busy for pilots who don't know what they are doing -- that is true. And the TRACON's way of handling that is sometimes to flip the page and move on, by denying services to VFR traffic. Sometimes there's no other way. In my experience they do that as a last resort, but sometimes it's necessary.