Florida Pilot having a bad day.

[Richman67]

A bit more on this.

We have a lot of airspace incursion violations in the northeast, especially VIP TFRs. I work with the FAA when the violation falls under the Compliance Philosophy and the investigating inspector chooses to pass the incident off to the applicable FSDO's FPM. When the pilot shows up to the meeting with a compliant attitude the FPM may choose to assign RT (Remedial Training). RT is neither an enforcement or administrative action, so nothing ever appears on the pilot's record -- that's a good thing.

My lead rep and I conduct RTs and most of them are TFR-related. Because this is such a big issue at present it's a FAASTeam area of emphasis. We have conducted safety seminars on this topic and I co-wrote a "decoder" document for the Bedminster TFR in mid-2017. We deal with this topic weekly if not daily, with the involvement of the FSDO on a regular basis.

The problem we see time and time again in these RTs is basic lack of awareness of the TFR on the part of the pilot. The two most common problems are:

1. No briefing, no awareness of the TFR.
2. An electronic self-briefing only, which for one reason or another ends up incomplete or misinterpreted.

It's fairly uncommon to run across an incursion which resulted from a true navigational error. In the vast majority of the cases, the pilot was unaware of the TFR, or believed it to be inactive (or in a different place.) To be fair to the incident pilots, some of the POTUS TFRs have been quite complex, with last-minute changes to dates/times and locations. That adds to the challenge of staying up to date.

We have identified, and heavily recommend, one virtually sure-fire solution to avoid an inadvertent TFR incursion:

Call Flight Service within 30 minutes of your departure time.

That is to say, don't use tfr.faa.gov; don't use Foreflight/WingX/Garmin Pilot/etc.; don't use your in-panel avionics which receive TFR alerts via ADS-B In; call Flight Service. Further, call as close to your departure time as possible to get the latest possible information.

If one calls and ask for an abbreviated briefing, TFRs and adverse conditions only (Leidos is required to always provide adverse conditions), the typical length of call is under two minutes. I tend to call right after I pull my plane out of the hangar and am doing a leisurely walk-around. I call every single time I fly, even if it's just for a flight in the pattern, even if I've called two hours prior for an earlier flight. It's the cheapest insurance imaginable.

This is an article which appeared on my facebook page, GA Safety Briefing:

https://www.facebook.com/notes/ga-safety-briefing/i-flew-into-a-presidential-tfr/338556203223703/

It's a great analysis of what went wrong for a pilot who thought he could trust his EFB weather briefing to keep him appraised of TFRs. He's a convert for the "always call FSS" philosophy. Incidentally the FAA picked up and shared this article along with a number of FSDO's FAASTeam pages. The pilot involved has been asked to speak at a number of clubs and safety seminars. It's a pretty interesting read, and a good example of why it's so important to call rather than trust a self-briefing, when it comes to TFR incursions.

Good luck to all!

Interesting perspective from someone close the process.

There was an episode with a Cirrus (I believe the original post was over on the COPA forum) who's pilot was exonerated from a TFR bust WITHOUT talking to Flight Service, and his lawyer went further to get a letter of interpretation from the Feds about the equivalency of a phone briefing from FSS vs an online briefing. That letter is out there if you google search it, and I think there was even an AOPA article about it. Some see it as rock solid you are NOT required to call Flight Service prior to flying, others see it as a "squishy" answer at best.

After reading about it, I asked the Feds at OSH last year about this, and NOT one would commit to an answer, as nice as they were about it.

Problem is that there is going to be a fundamental change with ATC that will further reduce Flight Service to irrelevancy. The FAA and NATCO have reached an agreement that will permit the publishing of all facilities phone numbers for clearance delivery/IFR release purposes (in the Chart Supplement). Airports under approach control airspace will have numbers that go to that facilities flight data position, and those outside will be routed to the overlying ARTCC data position. What this means is that without the need to contact Flight Service for clearances, you are left with a program that exists solely to provide voice briefings and enroute services, both of which are already rapidly declining due to online resources and ADS-B.

As the remaining IFR clearances move to an ATC function, and without the NEED to have a touch point with Flight Service for clearances, the number of contacts will continue to fall away, and you will be left with a program that has to justify it's costs for a VERY low number of contacts (and don't forget...they eliminated the Flight Watch position).

Now I DO call Flight Service to update any TFRs ( I also make sure I select "update adverse conditions via email" option when I do the web brief, which I do every time), and I agree it is very cheap insurance, but my responses from them is mixed at best. When I call, I try to emphasize that I want an abbreviated briefing, but it takes me time to recite information regarding my flight, then they have to look, and as you point out, they always have to provide adverse conditions AND most usually always review NOTAMS as well. It is rarely a 2 minute process...more like 5 at a minimum. Some briefers sound annoyed that I am calling at all. OTOH, some realize that I have already done a briefing (my caller ID should pull my file up, and some have called me by name when they pick up) have pulled up that information to provide what I am actually calling about and make the process as painless as possible. Pretty inconsistent, as far as I can tell.

Richman

 

[RoscoeT]

Really?? I’ll take that bet. I have several likes already on my response. If that’s the 0.01%, I guess nearly 10,000 people have already read this.

Don't start feeling all bolstered up over 'likes'. Close to half the country voted for the clown mostly due to tribal party allegiance, so any denigrating joke even when folks know it's a joke will not be liked by about half the folks out there. Then of those half, a few will click 'like'. So I assume you either like the guy or have zero sense of humor. I'm more sure of the latter.

 

[donjohnston]

Unreasonable government regulations.
Some are very reasonable, like requiring transponders or radios in controlled airspace.
Some are not...blocking off 8000+ cubic miles of airspace is one of those.
Take this to the extreme, if 30nm is safer, why not make it 300nm, because 300 would be safer.

You won't address the question and just keep changing your position and subject.

Got it.

 

[Kritchlow]

Don't start feeling all bolstered up over 'likes'. Close to half the country voted for the clown mostly due to tribal party allegiance, so any denigrating joke even when folks know it's a joke will not be liked by about half the folks out there. Then of those half, a few will click 'like'. So I assume you either like the guy or have zero sense of humor. I'm more sure of the latter.

I’ll leave out the politics....

The only reason to mention the likes is to disprove the 0.01% comment.

 

[Ryan F.]

That letter is out there if you google search it, and I think there was even an AOPA article about it. Some see it as rock solid you are NOT required to call Flight Service prior to flying, others see it as a "squishy" answer at best.

Very familiar with that interpretation (attached, below) from June of 2017, and I reference it often. I even use it in RTs. As is sometimes typical of the Chief Counsel, they give an answer that a layperson might read one way, whereas a pilot may (should) read differently.

The real nuts and bolts of the interpretation letter lay a strong foundation for the need to call. The following excerpt is from the fourth paragraph:

"Section 91.103 does not dictate the methods one must use to comply with the requirements of the section. A PIC's failure to contact LMFS prior to a flight would not be a per se violation of 91.103. Similarly, a PIC's reliance on only an EFB would not be a per se violation of 91.103. We note, however that there may be limitations and quality assurance issues in connection with the information available through certain EFB products that may affect compliance with 91.103 and necessitate further information gathering regarding the flight."

If you launch with nothing but a Foreflight briefing and don't wander into a TFR, you're completely legal. Same brief but you DO wander into a TFR, the first question will be, "Why didn't you call?"

... because in the eyes of the FAA, calling is the highest and most direct way of getting the information. There are no internet connection problems, app issues, iOS/Android software update issues, misinterpretation errors, and so on.

So, always call.

After reading about it, I asked the Feds at OSH last year about this, and NOT one would commit to an answer, as nice as they were about it.

They like the Chief Counsel to be the voice on those matters.

When I call, I try to emphasize that I want an abbreviated briefing, but it takes me time to recite information regarding my flight, then they have to look, and as you point out, they always have to provide adverse conditions AND most usually always review NOTAMS as well. It is rarely a 2 minute process...more like 5 at a minimum. Some briefers sound annoyed that I am calling at all.

I hear you. My longest call, including the "Briefer" and state voice commands, has been 2:36, when there are no TFRs to be reported, but that's just my experience. And they've gotten a lot better, at least in my opinion, about keeping it short when asking for an abbreviated briefing. In years past it was very hard to get off the phone with FSS. Regardless, if we want to simply get TFRs, we should be able to get them without an extra delay. Otherwise, it's a disincentive to call in some cases.

 

[MooneyDriver78]

Aim small, miss small. A mile is pretty damn far off course...

Am I the only one who goes flying with no course, no destination, just to aimlessly fly around enjoying the feeling of flying and sightseeing?

 

[Kritchlow]

Very familiar with that interpretation (attached, below) from June of 2017, and I reference it often. I even use it in RTs. As is sometimes typical of the Chief Counsel, they give an answer that a layperson might read one way, whereas a pilot may (should) read differently.

The real nuts and bolts of the interpretation letter lay a strong foundation for the need to call. The following excerpt is from the fourth paragraph:

"Section 91.103 does not dictate the methods one must use to comply with the requirements of the section. A PIC's failure to contact LMFS prior to a flight would not be a per se violation of 91.103. Similarly, a PIC's reliance on only an EFB would not be a per se violation of 91.103. We note, however that there may be limitations and quality assurance issues in connection with the information available through certain EFB products that may affect compliance with 91.103 and necessitate further information gathering regarding the flight."

If you launch with nothing but a Foreflight briefing and don't wander into a TFR, you're completely legal. Same brief but you DO wander into a TFR, the first question will be, "Why didn't you call?"

... because in the eyes of the FAA, calling is the highest and most direct way of getting the information. There are no internet connection problems, app issues, iOS/Android software update issues, misinterpretation errors, and so on.

So, always call.



They like the Chief Counsel to be the voice on those matters.



I hear you. My longest call, including the "Briefer" and state voice commands, has been 2:36, when there are no TFRs to be reported, but that's just my experience. And they've gotten a lot better, at least in my opinion, about keeping it short when asking for an abbreviated briefing. In years past it was very hard to get off the phone with FSS. Regardless, if we want to simply get TFRs, we should be able to get them without an extra delay. Otherwise, it's a disincentive to call in some cases.

Airlines never call, and nobody says boo about it. I’m sure if there was a requirement that would have been addressed long ago. Of course it’s a bit more complicated as airlines have certain weather products approved, but that sort of illustrates my point.

 

[mscard88]

Airlines never call, and nobody says boo about it. I’m sure if there was a requirement that would have been addressed long ago. Of course it’s a bit more complicated as airlines have certain weather products approved, but that sort of illustrates my point.

Airlines are also on IFR flight plans with a clearance. So if there's a TFR it's already coordinated, or the airline could have a delay possibly.

 

[MooneyDriver78]

You won't address the question and just keep changing your position and subject.

Got it.

You’re original question:
“And THIS is "another reason GA is dying"??? Really? People looking to get their pilots license are saying "No, there might be one of those TFR's and I won't be able to go fly. So why bother?" “
I answered this, in summary, yes.
If I was thinking of becoming a pilot and reading the news that a F16 was used to force a plane to land because it violated an airspace, this would definitely cause me to rethink that decision.

In general I don’t think any of the negative press is good for GA...
Got it?

 

[Kritchlow]

Airlines are also on IFR flight plans with a clearance.

That’s true, but we are still approved to cancel for uncontrolled fields and depart with a 50 mile pick up.

 

[SkyDog58]

Am I the only one who goes flying with no course, no destination, just to aimlessly fly around enjoying the feeling of flying and sightseeing?

I do that quite a bit. I also tend to wander around and off my course when I am on a cross country to somewhere specific unless pressed for time.

 

[mscard88]

That’s true, but we are still approved to cancel for uncontrolled fields and depart with a 50 mile pick up.

IF that's in your airline's Op Specs I believe right?

 

[mscard88]

I do that quite a bit. I also tend to wander around and off my course when I am on a cross country to somewhere specific unless pressed for time.

IOW you get lost a lot.

 

[SkyDog58]

IOW you get lost a lot.

Lost in the moment.

 

[Kritchlow]

IF that's in your airline's Op Specs I believe right?

It’s in our manual for certain. Actually it’s in every carriers manual that I know of. Have flown for several, and heard other carriers cancel so I’m sure it’s quite common.

 

[wilkersk]

Very familiar with that interpretation (attached, below) from June of 2017, and I reference it often. I even use it in RTs. As is sometimes typical of the Chief Counsel, they give an answer that a layperson might read one way, whereas a pilot may (should) read differently....

Interesting, it references AC 00-63A. That AC was revised by "Change 1", dated 1/6/2017. Its a substantial change. I wonder why they didn't cancel and issue AC 00-63B?

The way I understand it, once SWIM is fully implemented, the need to call an FSS will be all but obsolete. Till then, its a patchwork system at best. But hey, we're making progress, right?

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_00-63A_CHG_1.pdf

 

[mscard88]

Lost in the moment.

Is that what's referred to as a senior moment?

 

[SkyDog58]

Is that what's referred to as a senior moment?

With which you are probably quite familiar.

 

[donjohnston]

You’re original question:
“And THIS is "another reason GA is dying"??? Really? People looking to get their pilots license are saying "No, there might be one of those TFR's and I won't be able to go fly. So why bother?" “
I answered this, in summary, yes.
If I was thinking of becoming a pilot and reading the news that a F16 was used to force a plane to land because it violated an airspace, this would definitely cause me to rethink that decision.

In general I don’t think any of the negative press is good for GA...
Got it?

Yep. Got it. Making yourself aware of TFR's along your route of flight is too much trouble.

And rather than being forced to wear a seat belt when driving a car is too much government intrusion, you don't drive.

One less pilot is not going to hurt GA one little bit.

 

[mscard88]

With which you are probably quite familiar.

Uh uh now, we're talking about you, not me.

 

[wilkersk]

I also noticed Foreflight's disclaimer on TFR data:

Foreflight Support Center IMPORTANT NOTICE: Graphical TFR information is ONLY updated and displayed if you select the TFR Map overlay while connected to the Internet, or while using an in-flight weather receiver. However, if the FAA publishes a TFR without associated graphical shape information it may not be possible for ForeFlight Mobile to show the graphical TFR on the Maps page. Therefore you should also check the Airports page, under NOTAMs > TFRs for airports along your route, and contact FSS or ATC to confirm that your route does not cross any such TFRs

 

[yetti]

A bit more on this.

We have identified, and heavily recommend, one virtually sure-fire solution to avoid an inadvertent TFR incursion:

Call Flight Service within 30 minutes of your departure time.


Good luck to all!

This does not work either. There were lots of FAA notes about not flying drone during the Houston flooding. A very large super secret TFR was put up over the Houston area for several days. On of the Houston Pilots posted it on Facebook. A drone operator posted a video about the flooding. He had checked TRF.gov and all the online sources and all the NOTAMs. I called the briefer to find the number of the TFR. The briefer could not find it. I finally found it by looking at the FAA listing of TFRs an told the briefer about it. Then let the drone pilot know to take down his video. The FAA could do a much better job if they would use 20th century tools to publish FAA.

 

[Richman67]

Very familiar with that interpretation (attached, below) from June of 2017, and I reference it often. I even use it in RTs. As is sometimes typical of the Chief Counsel, they give an answer that a layperson might read one way, whereas a pilot may (should) read differently.

The real nuts and bolts of the interpretation letter lay a strong foundation for the need to call. The following excerpt is from the fourth paragraph:

"Section 91.103 does not dictate the methods one must use to comply with the requirements of the section. A PIC's failure to contact LMFS prior to a flight would not be a per se violation of 91.103. Similarly, a PIC's reliance on only an EFB would not be a per se violation of 91.103. We note, however that there may be limitations and quality assurance issues in connection with the information available through certain EFB products that may affect compliance with 91.103 and necessitate further information gathering regarding the flight."

If you launch with nothing but a Foreflight briefing and don't wander into a TFR, you're completely legal. Same brief but you DO wander into a TFR, the first question will be, "Why didn't you call?"

... because in the eyes of the FAA, calling is the highest and most direct way of getting the information. There are no internet connection problems, app issues, iOS/Android software update issues, misinterpretation errors, and so on.
.

But we're not talking about JUST GP, Foreflight or other third party sources/websites.

We're also talking about sources that are DIRECTLY controlled by the FAA, that is the FAA TFR site, but more relevantly, the 1-800-WX-BRIEF site itself (which, technically, is a third party source). With those two sources, there should be zero "limitations and quality assurance issues in connection with the information".

If I check the Leidos site right before I launch, that information should be identical to that received from a voice brief. If it is not, then there is a fundamental problem with the way the information system works.

Ultimately, Flight Service is going to go away. Maybe not now, or a year from now, but certainly in the medium term. With the transfer of clearances/releases at uncontrolled fields to the relevant approach/center facilities, there will be virtually nothing for Flight Service to do. I'm not advocating for that, but you'll have an entire expensive infrastructure in place for a system that is no longer relevant. It would be trivial (from a technical perspective) to add a "airborne flight information" position to most ARTCC facilities to handle airborne information requests (weather updates, filing flight plans, etc). Flight Service no longer really provides in person briefs, DF steers, airport area advisories, Flight Watch, or weather observations. All they really do now are clearances, voice briefs and en-route information (minus flight watch). With clearances going away, you're left with a very expensive way for someone to get a voice briefing or information that most ATC facilities can also provide.

That is currently only tangential to the TFR drama, but will ultimately become very relevant on this particular issue in the future.

Richman

 

[Ryan F.]

We're also talking about sources that are DIRECTLY controlled by the FAA, that is the FAA TFR site, but more relevantly, the 1-800-WX-BRIEF site itself (which, technically, is a third party source). With those two sources, there should be zero "limitations and quality assurance issues in connection with the information".

Yeah, the FAA thought of that. This appears on the bottom of every single page on tfr.faa.gov:

Further, scroll down a bit on this page: https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/ntap/foreword.html

You'll see text that looks a lot like this...

In all fairness, the FAA does say to call 800-WX-BRIEF... a lot. They never say go to 800wxbrief.com, or to use any other source. They only recommend speaking to a briefer. I was reminded of this at a recent meeting involving the push to issue an InFO. "We already tell pilots to call Flight Service" was a statement I heard more than once.

As for the system being broken or, at best, less than ideal, I won't argue that point, but in the meantime, this is the best way to avoid busting a TFR.

 

[kkoran]

This does not work either. There were lots of FAA notes about not flying drone during the Houston flooding. A very large super secret TFR was put up over the Houston area for several days. On of the Houston Pilots posted it on Facebook. A drone operator posted a video about the flooding. He had checked TRF.gov and all the online sources and all the NOTAMs. I called the briefer to find the number of the TFR. The briefer could not find it. I finally found it by looking at the FAA listing of TFRs an told the briefer about it. Then let the drone pilot know to take down his video. The FAA could do a much better job if they would use 20th century tools to publish FAA.

What "FAA listing of TFRs" did you find this "super secret" TFR in?

 

[ripnet]

What about using www.1800wxbrief.com for your briefing? Since this is run by FSS (Leidos?) isn't this the exact same information you'd get from a human briefer? I use this site religiously before every flight.

 

[Ryan F.]

Regarding the question about the 1800wxbrief.com website, there's no straightforward way for me to address that... keep in mind I'm just a pilot and volunteer anyway. The simplest response I can provide is that from an enforcement perspective you can't go wrong by calling.

 

[AKBill]

Requiring violation of TFR, I think one of my former Bosses would say "well you have to be tough when your stupid". No real excuse, "if you can't do the time don't do the crime"...

Really, to bad the guy didn't check for NOTAMS knowing Trump was in the area. Bet he just gets his hand slapped..

 

[yetti]

What "FAA listing of TFRs" did you find this "super secret" TFR in?

I believe it was this site https://pilotweb.nas.faa.gov/PilotWeb/

I too find it incredible that whatever the "official" source that the briefers have is not possible to be made reliably and accurately via the internet. I would think the internet is past the fad phase. Most systems and processes that you want to be reliable remove the human factor from the chain.

 

[StevieTimes]

When I watch movies, spaceships are always talking to the right people on the proper frequency.

I would think maybe this would be a future ADS-B thing. I can see the controller looking at their screen and seeing a slow plane flying towards the TFR. They click the plane, choose "contact", and say "Unidentified space craft, you are about to enter a TFR, please turn around immediately, or if you prefer, state your destination and prepare for vectors."

You (and I mean YOU, not like, generic somebody) would answer, and only the controller would hear you, because they opened a private chat with you. Why do we have frequencies? I could just choose "GROUND" on my radio, then I cycle through the options, like "TOWER", "APPROACH/DEPARTURE", "CENTER", etc. Why do I care what frequency that is? My plane knows full well where we are.

In other words, pretend we're in flight simulator, because we can be. Let technology manage the specifics, let us focus on flying.

The future, man...

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

We have a lot of airspace incursion violations in the northeast, especially VIP TFRs. I work with the FAA when the violation falls under the Compliance Philosophy and the investigating inspector chooses to pass the incident off to the applicable FSDO's FPM

Any of those incursions involve Stadium TFRs?

 

[Ryan F.]

Any of those incursions involve Stadium TFRs?

I don't know. I have only been been personally involved with VIP TFRs. But, I don't get to see the big picture.

 

[LongRoadBob]

A bit more on this.

We have a lot of airspace incursion violations in the northeast, especially VIP TFRs. I work with the FAA when the violation falls under the Compliance Philosophy and the investigating inspector chooses to pass the incident off to the applicable FSDO's FPM. When the pilot shows up to the meeting with a compliant attitude the FPM may choose to assign RT (Remedial Training). RT is neither an enforcement or administrative action, so nothing ever appears on the pilot's record -- that's a good thing.

My lead rep and I conduct RTs and most of them are TFR-related. Because this is such a big issue at present it's a FAASTeam area of emphasis. We have conducted safety seminars on this topic and I co-wrote a "decoder" document for the Bedminster TFR in mid-2017. We deal with this topic weekly if not daily, with the involvement of the FSDO on a regular basis.

The problem we see time and time again in these RTs is basic lack of awareness of the TFR on the part of the pilot. The two most common problems are:

1. No briefing, no awareness of the TFR.
2. An electronic self-briefing only, which for one reason or another ends up incomplete or misinterpreted.

It's fairly uncommon to run across an incursion which resulted from a true navigational error. In the vast majority of the cases, the pilot was unaware of the TFR, or believed it to be inactive (or in a different place.) To be fair to the incident pilots, some of the POTUS TFRs have been quite complex, with last-minute changes to dates/times and locations. That adds to the challenge of staying up to date.

We have identified, and heavily recommend, one virtually sure-fire solution to avoid an inadvertent TFR incursion:

Call Flight Service within 30 minutes of your departure time.

That is to say, don't use tfr.faa.gov; don't use Foreflight/WingX/Garmin Pilot/etc.; don't use your in-panel avionics which receive TFR alerts via ADS-B In; call Flight Service. Further, call as close to your departure time as possible to get the latest possible information.

If one calls and ask for an abbreviated briefing, TFRs and adverse conditions only (Leidos is required to always provide adverse conditions), the typical length of call is under two minutes. I tend to call right after I pull my plane out of the hangar and am doing a leisurely walk-around. I call every single time I fly, even if it's just for a flight in the pattern, even if I've called two hours prior for an earlier flight. It's the cheapest insurance imaginable.

This is an article which appeared on my facebook page, GA Safety Briefing:

https://www.facebook.com/notes/ga-safety-briefing/i-flew-into-a-presidential-tfr/338556203223703/

It's a great analysis of what went wrong for a pilot who thought he could trust his EFB weather briefing to keep him appraised of TFRs. He's a convert for the "always call FSS" philosophy. Incidentally the FAA picked up and shared this article along with a number of FSDO's FAASTeam pages. The pilot involved has been asked to speak at a number of clubs and safety seminars. It's a pretty interesting read, and a good example of why it's so important to call rather than trust a self-briefing, when it comes to TFR incursions.

Good luck to all!

Great info, great post. As an inexperienced student pilot (in Norway, but you never know...might fly in the US on vacation, etc. and it is probably similar here) you mention that they can change "last minute" so I was even seeing a possible problem after following your advice. you check with FSS and get the info, take off 30 minutes later, and maybe the flight takes a while until you are near it. Where would you pick up the updates (if any) while flying?

Sorry if this is very basic, but I am a little unsure.

Seems like with todays technology, even though possible, it's not well coordinated. A student could be forgiven for even wondering why if your ground track shows you heading towards a restricted, or prohibited airspace you might get a warning through radio "you are now heading directly for a prohibited airspace 10 NM direct on current track" or just some kind of warning.

 

[Ryan F.]

Great info, great post. As an inexperienced student pilot (in Norway, but you never know...might fly in the US on vacation, etc. and it is probably similar here) you mention that they can change "last minute" so I was even seeing a possible problem after following your advice. you check with FSS and get the info, take off 30 minutes later, and maybe the flight takes a while until you are near it. Where would you pick up the updates (if any) while flying?

Sorry if this is very basic, but I am a little unsure.

LongRoadBob, that's a good question and I'm afraid the answer isn't very satisfying (but hopefully a little bit encouraging.) Remember, I'm just the messenger, so while all of the ideas and reactions posted on this thread are completely valid, I can't do anything with them. I'm just sharing how the system works today, how one can best make themselves knowledgeable about the location and status of TFRs, and best protect themselves against possible enforcement actions.

Generally speaking if you call for a TFR briefing within 30 minutes of departure, it will be quite rare to run into a situation in which the boundaries of the TFR, active times, etc. change while you'e enroute. The key is the call shortly before departure. If you checked TFRs the night before (or even called FSS the night before), take off the next day (without the aforementioned before-departure call) and launch into a TFR whose boundaries and/or active times changed, your actions will not be viewed favorably. Using a defense of "but I called... 12 hours prior" won't get you anywhere.

If you do everything by the book, call for the TFR briefing just prior to departure, and end up penetrating a TFR whose boundaries and/or active times changed from the time you called 'til the time you penetrated it, you may still hear from the FAA, and definitely will if it's a POTUS TFR. But -- I can only tell you unofficially of course, as a volunteer -- you won't be pursued for an enforcement action under those circumstances. There may still be an investigation, but it would be a stretch to find fault with the pilot.

There's nothing wrong with checking in with FSS enroute and asking for TFR updates. It would be nice if we could get them reliably from ATC, but there are too many gaps and inconsistencies there, unfortunately. Sometimes ATC is on top of it, sometimes they're not.

Hope this helps in case you ever fly here!

 

[PaulS]

As long as the FAA insists on using a format for Notams and briefings from 100 years ago when telexing each character costs a dollar then we will continue having problems like this. It's time to lose (loose for those who don't know the difference) the abbreviations and spell things out. Important stuff, type, location, time and duration first, then all the other lawyer crap last. Simplify it, make it readable and these problems will diminish. Put a graphic in the briefings showing locations on charts. This shouldn't be difficult. The problem with bureaucracies is they keep doing things one way because that is always the way it's done, rather than doing what makes sense.

 

[LongRoadBob]

LongRoadBob, that's a good question and I'm afraid the answer isn't very satisfying (but hopefully a little bit encouraging.) Remember, I'm just the messenger, so while all of the ideas and reactions posted on this thread are completely valid, I can't do anything with them. I'm just sharing how the system works today, how one can best make themselves knowledgeable about the location and status of TFRs, and best protect themselves against possible enforcement actions.

Generally speaking if you call for a TFR briefing within 30 minutes of departure, it will be quite rare to run into a situation in which the boundaries of the TFR, active times, etc. change while you'e enroute. The key is the call shortly before departure. If you checked TFRs the night before (or even called FSS the night before), take off the next day (without the aforementioned before-departure call) and launch into a TFR whose boundaries and/or active times changed, your actions will not be viewed favorably. Using a defense of "but I called... 12 hours prior" won't get you anywhere.

If you do everything by the book, call for the TFR briefing just prior to departure, and end up penetrating a TFR whose boundaries and/or active times changed from the time you called 'til the time you penetrated it, you may still hear from the FAA, and definitely will if it's a POTUS TFR. But -- I can only tell you unofficially of course, as a volunteer -- you won't be pursued for an enforcement action under those circumstances. There may still be an investigation, but it would be a stretch to find fault with the pilot.

There's nothing wrong with checking in with FSS enroute and asking for TFR updates. It would be nice if we could get them reliably from ATC, but there are too many gaps and inconsistencies there, unfortunately. Sometimes ATC is on top of it, sometimes they're not.

Hope this helps in case you ever fly here!

Thanks for the reply. So it seems one just has to do due diligence. As you say, check close to departure time.

Good to know.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

At least...maybe the guy should go to prison?
He violated airspace by 1 mile, it’s like going 62 in a 60mph speed zone, but getting pulled over by a tank. Since when did it become ok to use military power to control the citizens as normal operating procedure?
The appropriate response would be call on guard and warn him off.
Just another reason GA is dying...

I think the better question is when did it become OK to even have TFR's. That patriot act BS during the Bush admin ruined our country...

 

[Kritchlow]

I think the better question is when did it become OK to even have TFR's. That patriot act BS during the Bush admin ruined our country...

There were presidential prohibited areas (other than the WH) long before the Patriot Act. Not exactly a TFR, but same concept. The area would actually get larger if the POTUS was at the locale, and diminish in size when he wasn’t. Kennebunkport Maine comes to mind.

 

[mscard88]

I remember when Bob Dole was campaigning in Panama City FL. Tower asked if we could depart earlier than scheduled departure as Dole was on his way back to the airport and the airspace would be closed down for him to depart. We got out early and on our way but another of our flights inbound was vectored away until Dole was out of the area. And this was scheduled airline service!

 

[SoCal RV Flyer]

A TFR is useless if it's not enforced and there are no consequences for violating it. This pilot was made an example for the rest of us. Sucks to be him.

I'm more curious about how an F-16 "intercepts" a Cessna 150 or something that's doing a mind-bending 100 knots. Strafe across the nose? Pull alongside in crazy high alpha flight? Circle around the offender? It'd be great if someone could chime in who knows exactly how this goes down.