POTUS TFR-busted

dmccormack said:
I know someone who has routinely -- (all the time) -- buzzed, done impromptu aerobatics, and the rest and consistently avoided sanction.

We all know it, the FSDO guys know it, and yet the activity continues.
Click to expand...

I have no doubt you are correct, and that this sort of thing happens all the time. But they take the D.C. and Presidential TFRs very seriously.
 
dmccormack said:
I know someone who has routinely -- (all the time) -- buzzed, done impromptu aerobatics, and the rest and consistently avoided sanction.

We all know it, the FSDO guys know it, and yet the activity continues.
Click to expand...
But that's the exact opposite situation - that's a failure to enforce, not an enforcement action. Like deciding whether to roll a boulder down a hill - it's easy to do nothing. Once you start doing something it gets harder to stop. When someone gets the "call the tower" message, the boulder is already rolling down hill. In the case of a Presidential TFR violation, it's GONNA squash somebody - the only question is "who" and "how flat".

I know of only one SFRA violation that resulted in no administrative action, and that was because the US Gov't interceptors violated procedures and went into the airspace without talking to ATC.. End result was "if we violate HIM, we have to violate YOU" and everyone agreed to leave it there - the post intercept investigation clearly showed that the student was lost and there was no malice.
 
TMetzinger said:
This is a case where R&W's Dr. House avatar is really appropriate.

When they tell you in the air to call the number, they have it on tape that they told WHOEVER was pic of that tail number to call. If you don't call, the FAA will find it very easy to figure out who was in the airplane (at least to the applicable standard of proof), and now you're not only presumed guilty, you're presumed to be an asshat too. You can therefore probably forget the informal conference route and plan on getting it socked to you.
Click to expand...

Typically when I get a PD it has the 8020-17 printed out plus the cd of the tower tapes. If the individual did not honor the request to call the tower I will make an effort to call the pilot. If he will not respond or talk to me then the next step is to send a LOI (letter of investigation) via regular and certified mail. If he refuses to acknowledge that then I open up an EIR (enforcement investigation report).

Order 2150.3B takes it from there.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Typically when I get a PD it has the 8020-17 printed out plus the cd of the tower tapes. If the individual did not honor the request to call the tower I will make an effort to call the pilot. If he will not respond or talk to me then the next step is to send a LOI (letter of investigation) via regular and certified mail. If he refuses to acknowledge that then I open up an EIR (enforcement investigation report).

Order 2150.3B takes it from there.
Click to expand...
Thanks. Out of curiousity, do you find a lot of folks don't call in?
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Did I mention monitor guard?!? When Grant, Leslie, and I were flying back from the FlyBQ a couple of years ago with 121.5 being monitored on Com2, and the pres was giving the commencement address at Notre Dame, all we heard over and over and over and over again was the AWACS plane warning planes away on guard. "Aircraft 34 miles north of South Bend, heading 170, speed 105 knots, altitude 3000 feet, you are approaching restricted airspace. Turn around immediately. Contact South Bend Approach on 1xx.xx for further information..." and in all too many cases it was followed by the same call with "You have entered restricted airspace." :frown2:

This is just too easily preventable. Sorry.
Click to expand...

It's encouraging to hear that they are giving people warnings before they bust the airspace. It's nice to see them being proactive like that. It also provides a big incentive to comply with the NOTAM requirement to monitor 121.5 when possible.
 
Ron Levy said:
BTW, I heard at least one plane bust the TFR around State College last week. Too bad they weren't listening on 121.5 as I was, because the first call came before they hit the wall.
Click to expand...

Yup. The first call was generally 4-5 miles from the TFR. IIRC, they were doing a second call where possible just outside the TFR. Then, there'd be a third call and sometimes even a fourth before the intercept happened.
 
steingar said:
Can one always monitor guard when flying IFR if equipped with two radios?
Click to expand...
I always do.
Only because it doesn't hurt to and I have this reoccurring dream that i hear an ELT somewhere where nobody else does and even though I don't land to help (terrain) I let center know exactly where I am and everything.

maybe I should drink less before I go to bed
 
Ron Levy said:
Actually, it does. You need to become more familiar with administrative law as opposed to criminal law.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, that class was cancelled this semester. The worst part is I already bought the book. Hopefully, they won't change editions before the next time it's offered.
 
jesse said:
My experience indicates otherwise. Although in my case it was the controller's supervisor whom overrode the controller and elected not to refer it.
Click to expand...
If it involves a Security TFR bust, it's not ATC which detects and reports the bust, it's the USAF, and they're gonna report it no matter what. The controller is just relaying the instruction to call, and doesn't have an option to let it slide. For other situations, sometimes letting the controller educate you will end the matter.
 
steingar said:
While all this applies to certificate action, could they use this standard of proof to litigate civil or criminal penalties? Lets say I was flying an aircraft sans license. Could they level fines with an administrative level of proof?
Click to expand...
Who's "they"? If you mean can the FAA levy a civil penalty for an FAR violation based on "more likely than not," the answer is "yes." If you mean can a criminal court levy a fine for violation of a criminal law on that same standard, the answer is "no."

Couldn't I protest claiming a lack of due process?
Click to expand...
You certainly could protest, but as long as the FAA follows the Administrative Procedures Act properly, your protest would be unavailing, because the APA is the due process to which the Constitution entitles you in FAR enforcement cases.
 
steingar said:
Can one always monitor guard when flying IFR if equipped with two radios?
Click to expand...

Not always. For example, it is often advantageous to monitor the ATIS and ATC at the same time. I presume that's one reason why the NOTAM says when possible, or words to that effect.
 
Steve Foley said:
The issues I see with that are:

"Hi, this is Steve Foley, you asked me to call this number" is an admission that I was piloting the aircraft who's pilot was asked to call the number.

"Hi, you asked me to call this number", although not identifying me by name, may allow the person on the other end to identify my voice as the one making the call, hence identifying me as the pilot.

Thanks, but I'll ignore the request and wait for the letter.
Click to expand...
You are certainly entitled to do that. However, unless there is no way for the FAA to figure out it was you in that plane (nobody else knows you had that plane that day, no flight plan with your name on it, no paper trail tying you to it, etc.), that failure to call will only aggravate your situation. But it's a free country, and the choice (and consequences) are yours.
 
steingar said:
Can one always monitor guard when flying IFR if equipped with two radios?
Click to expand...

Depends on your radios and audio panel. Most modern audio panels will allow you to monitor Comm 2 while having Comm 1 selected as the transmit radio and vice versa. In some setups you can either monitor the second radio in your headset or the external speaker if equipped.
 
Steve Foley said:
The FAA has too many petty tyrants on their payroll for me to simply roll over and hope they're nice to me. I don't trust them, and will not help them nail me.
Click to expand...
They don't need your help. However, in most cases, the call is to ATC, and they are often (but not for Security TFR busts) happy to let the matter rest after chewing you out for being dumb. In those cases, it's when you don't call that they start putting pen to paper and then it goes to the FSDO. And when it gets there, they will take your refusal to call as a sign of a "non-compliant attitude," and having browsed 2150.3B, you know where that leads. But as stated above, it's your ticket, and your choice.
 
Ron Levy said:
Who's "they"? If you mean can the FAA levy a civil penalty for an FAR violation based on "more likely than not," the answer is "yes." If you mean can a criminal court levy a fine for violation of a criminal law on that same standard, the answer is "no."
Click to expand...

So lets say, just for the sake of argument, that the FAA fines you for flying without a license. You tell them to pound sand. They send out the Marshals, and you are imprisoned. You are facing a criminal penalty for an administrative infraction which may not have proof beyond shadow of a doubt. Am I interpreting incorrectly?
 
steingar said:
Can one always monitor guard when flying IFR if equipped with two radios?
Click to expand...
Not always, but probably 90% of the time. And the NOTAM says "if capable," not "must always." So, if you've got two radios, and you need to have one on ATIS/AWOS for a while to get that while maintaining watch on ATC's freq, that's fine. Otherwise, if you, say, fly into a TFR while VFR taking to FSS on one while the other's deselected on the audio panel, you have no excuse for not having followed this regulatory FDC NOTAM (4/4386, if you're looking for it).
 
Ron Levy said:
So, if you've got two radios, and you need to have one on ATIS/AWOS for a while to get that while maintaining watch on ATC's freq, that's fine.
Click to expand...

I guess that's what I was thinking, and that if you had both radios engaged for navigation and communication maybe you'd get a bit of a pass. Doesn't sound too bloody likely, though. Thanks.
 
steingar said:
So lets say, just for the sake of argument, that the FAA fines you for flying without a license.
Click to expand...
They can assess a civil penalty, but they cannot "fine" you.
You tell them to pound sand. They send out the Marshals, and you are imprisoned.
Click to expand...
They would first look to take any funds or property you own, including any airplane registered in your name. They wouldn't imprison you until they exhausted all other means of extracting the money from you.
You are facing a criminal penalty for an administrative infraction which may not have proof beyond shadow of a doubt. Am I interpreting incorrectly?
Click to expand...
I don't think so. Someone who knows this better can correct me if I'm wrong, but in this case, you're being jailed for civil contempt, not a criminal offense, and a) the normal criminal prosecution rights don't apply, and b) they can hold you there until you pay no matter how long that is.
 
steingar said:
I guess that's what I was thinking, and that if you had both radios engaged for navigation and communication maybe you'd get a bit of a pass. Doesn't sound too bloody likely, though. Thanks.
Click to expand...
Of course, if you have both radios engaged, you're probably talking to ATC on one of them, and they aren't likely to watch you fly into a TFR without saying something to you.
 
Ron Levy said:
Of course, if you have both radios engaged, you're probably talking to ATC on one of them, and they aren't likely to watch you fly into a TFR without saying something to you.
Click to expand...


Another reason to file IFR or get FF. I one pops up after you depart, they'll let you know about it.
 
Are there any cases where someone has busted a TFR while operating under a valid IFR clearance? If so - was the pilot free of any blame? It's been my understanding that if you get cleared there it won't be your fault.
 
Ron Levy said:
So will my Garmin Aera 510, and probably sooner.:D
Click to expand...

My 496 paid for itself when it kept us clear of the TFRs my buddy who was flying didn't know about because he failed to get a briefing. I don't think I've ever been so upset with anybody.
 
steingar said:
I guess that's what I was thinking, and that if you had both radios engaged for navigation and communication maybe you'd get a bit of a pass. Doesn't sound too bloody likely, though. Thanks.
Click to expand...

From what's been said here so far, if you got a pass on the 121.5 NOTAM, it sounds like that wouldn't get you a pass on violating the TFR NOTAM.
 
Ron Levy said:
They can assess a civil penalty, but they cannot "fine" you.
They would first look to take any funds or property you own, including any airplane registered in your name. They wouldn't imprison you until they exhausted all other means of extracting the money from you.
I don't think so. Someone who knows this better can correct me if I'm wrong, but in this case, you're being jailed for civil contempt, not a criminal offense, and a) the normal criminal prosecution rights don't apply, and b) they can hold you there until you pay no matter how long that is.
Click to expand...

This would likely be civil contempt. You can be imprisoned after a hearing on the matter, but normal due process for imprisonment does not apply, because you control the situation somewhat: As soon as you comply with the judge's order (whatever it was) you are released from contempt.
 
Anthony said:
Another reason to file IFR or get FF. I one pops up after you depart, they'll let you know about it.
Click to expand...

That's not entirely true.........

At a Wings program a few years back a SLC controller gave a nice presentation on all aspects of ATC....

My question to him was " if I am on FF and a pop up TFR shows up will you tell me about it" His answer was a resounding NO. I need to contact flight watch as my flight progresses and 'they' will pass it along.

I was astounded but apparently this is correct ....

Anyone want to verify this ??? Steven P Mc Nichol ??

Ben.
 
AlwaysBlue said:
Update: FAA wants 60 days suspension for my friend the PP and 90 days for CFII. It appears a lawyer has been retained and the informal hearing is next. We have found some NTSB cases that say essentially anytime a CFI is in the airplane as a CFI, he is the PIC, regardless of the 'student's ratings'.

Has anyone been to an informal hearing? What happens there?
Click to expand...


I have a hard time believing the CFI is PIC regardless.

I have heard that, if you have another pilot in the plane, who has higher ratings/qualifications than the acting PIC, the FAA could go after them as well for not stopping something "stupid" they were well aware was happening.
 
Last edited:
I have a hard time believing the CFI is PIC regardless.
Click to expand...
Following cite is from Administrator v. Strobel, SERVED: August 1, 1995; NTSB Order No. EA-4384 (page 7)
FN10 Our precedent makes clear that, "[r]egardless of who is
manipulating the controls of the aircraft during an instructional
flight, or what degree of proficiency the student has attained,
the flight instructor is always deemed to be the pilot-in-command."
Administrator v. Hamre, 3 NTSB 28, 31 (1977). This
principle was reaffirmed in Administrator v. Walkup, 6 NTSB 36
(1988).

FN11 See 14 C.F.R. 1.1, which defines "pilot in command," as
"the pilot responsible for the operation and safety of an
aircraft during flight time."
​
And.....
14 CFR 1.1 General Definitions says: Pilot in command means the person who:
(1) Has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight;
(2) Has been designated as pilot in command before or during the flight; and
(3) Holds the appropriate category, class, and type rating, if appropriate, for the conduct of the flight.

​
So the $64,000 question is......'was there a convo about PIC before the incident?'
 
AlwaysBlue said:
Following cite is from Administrator v. Strobel, SERVED: August 1, 1995; NTSB Order No. EA-4384 (page 7)
FN10 Our precedent makes clear that, "[r]egardless of who is
manipulating the controls of the aircraft during an instructional
flight, or what degree of proficiency the student has attained,
the flight instructor is always deemed to be the pilot-in-command."
Administrator v. Hamre, 3 NTSB 28, 31 (1977). This
principle was reaffirmed in Administrator v. Walkup, 6 NTSB 36
(1988).

FN11 See 14 C.F.R. 1.1, which defines "pilot in command," as
"the pilot responsible for the operation and safety of an
aircraft during flight time."
​
And.....
14 CFR 1.1 General Definitions says: Pilot in command means the person who:
(1) Has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight;
(2) Has been designated as pilot in command before or during the flight; and
(3) Holds the appropriate category, class, and type rating, if appropriate, for the conduct of the flight.

​
So the $64,000 question is......'was there a convo about PIC before the incident?'
Click to expand...


Well, then. How about that.... I wish these "Administrator v. Walkup" type things were made more open. Where do you guys find these? (Maybe I just never tried to look)

I have actually always had the "Who is PIC" convo with a CFI (after I got my private certificate)
 
Last edited:
Steve Foley said:
Again, based on your standard, if the only evidence submitted is a hunch that the FAA goon thinks I did it,
Click to expand...

Steve Foley said:
The FAA has too many petty tyrants on their payroll for me to simply roll over and hope they're nice to me. I don't trust them, and will not help them nail me.
Click to expand...

So maybe I should change my signature line to say "Goon and petty tyrant extraordinaire"?? :D
 
N801BH said:
That's not entirely true.........

At a Wings program a few years back a SLC controller gave a nice presentation on all aspects of ATC....

My question to him was " if I am on FF and a pop up TFR shows up will you tell me about it" His answer was a resounding NO. I need to contact flight watch as my flight progresses and 'they' will pass it along.

I was astounded but apparently this is correct ....

Anyone want to verify this ??? Steven P Mc Nichol ??

Ben.
Click to expand...

I suspect that it is one of those 'traffic permitting' things. On FF you are bottom priority for ATC, so any service such as notifying you of a pop up NOTAM is not required. I have heard on several occasions a controller advise myself or others on FF of nearby NOTAMS as a courtesy, but I think that what the SLC controller is trying to say 'don't count on FF to keep you out of trouble'.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
So maybe I should change my signature line to say "Goon and petty tyrant extraordinaire"?? :D
Click to expand...

Not all FAA employees are goons and tyrants, but the agency sees to attract more than their fair share. If the shoe fits ...
 
Last edited:
OK, So, I guess I'm a little slow...

So here's the stupid questions;

I see the TFR's for once the POTUS arrives at a destination all the time. But there is a moving TFR that surrounds AF-1, right? I don't think I've ever seen one of those listed in a briefing on DUAT.

What am I missing?

If he flies to Marquette this weekend, likely he will go right over Detroit (assuming they don't short cut through Canadian air space). How do I know when to not go out and pound out some landings?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top