Narrative:

At approximately XA10 local, I was practicing instrument approachs at ZZZ when during the second approach ZZZ1 center (who did not identify himself as such) contacted me on the local CTAF and requested I give my call sign (tail number), which I gave and then the controller proceeded to advise me that I had violated a tfr area in effect for a 10 NM radius of a power plant. I advised the controller that I would immediately exit the tfr area or do whatever he instructed that I do. He provided directions to the closest boundary, which I exited and landed at ZZZ. Upon landing and walking into the FBO, a person was talking on the phone and I could tell by the conversation that she was talking to someone from ZZZ1 center or the FAA, and upon asking her she replied it was the FAA who had called her. I asked her to let me talk to them when she was done. I heard her explain to the FAA that many pilots were complaining of getting caught in the tfr as it was poorly published, had no advance warning of it taking effect, poor identification of the power plant landmark as noted on the sectional chart and just as I had discovered in the preceding mins, the procedure turn and holding for some instrument approachs and missed approach procedures lie within the tfr but the airport itself is not inside the tfr. In my conversation with the FAA personnel, I was advised that all violators would face enforcement action. Upon ending my conversation with the FAA, I called the ZZZ2 FSS and explained that I had checked NOTAMS prior to my flight and that no mention was made of instrument approachs not available or that any of the components were out of service at ZZZ. If so many pilots were accidentally getting into restr airspace trying to use the various approachs but the airport was open to all air traffic, it should appear in the NOTAMS. She said she would look into the matter. At about XB30 local ZZZ2 FSS called the FBO person back and advised that a NOTAM for ZZZ instrument approachs would be issued soon. The NOTAM was issued at XB40. The power plant is shown on the most recent and current sectional chart as a 'plant' not specifying in particular what kind of plant. To any one not familiar with the area, a 'plant' could mean anyone of the several processing plants in the area, the company a or the company B, all of which are in close proximity to ZZZ. I am not from the ZZZ area nor am I that familiar with where and what every so called 'plant' on the sectional represents. The FAA NOTAM refers to the plant as being located 4 miles northwest of ZZZ3 which is a tiny town on the sectional chart. ZZZ is a busy uncontrolled airport used by many general aviation pilots in the area for instrument training because it offers a wide array of different approachs: ILS, VOR, NDB, RNAV and GPS. To leave the airport open to all part 91 traffic, yet place the majority of the instrument approach procedures and missed approach procedures inside a tfr area and providing no NOTAM to pilots of such, reflects poor judgement call on the part of the FAA which no one had addressed until my conversations with the FAA and my subsequent call to ZZZ2 FSS. The individuals responsible for making decisions on where to place a tfr should have a realistic understanding of what effects such restrs will have on all pilots using the airspace in and around the tfr. If there have been many complaints by pilots using ZZZ and violations of this tfr due to uncertainty of exactly where its boundaries are because of poor landmark labeling on a sectional chart, then this is an indication that there is room for clarification, proper identification of and education of pilots rather than immediate enforcement actions against them. To locate a center of a tfr would perhaps be better achieved by using a bearing and distance from a local navigation facility, such as the ZZZ4 or ZZZ5 VOR in this particular situation. Pilots like myself can more readily find a VOR than a tiny space for a town or 'plant' on a congested sectional chart. I would also strongly encourage that FAA/FSS provide better dissemination of all tfr's along a pilot's planned route of flight and these would be provided with all other NOTAMS received when obtaining a preflight briefing whether it be a computer or with an FSS. With so many tfr's around 'plants,' stadiums and a wide variety of other unfamiliar areas, pilots need a more simplified way of trying to keep track of what airspace was ok to fly in yesterday and restr today.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN SMA PLT VIOLATED A TFR INVOLVING A PWR PLANT.

Narrative: AT APPROX XA10 LCL, I WAS PRACTICING INSTRUMENT APCHS AT ZZZ WHEN DURING THE SECOND APCH ZZZ1 CTR (WHO DID NOT IDENTIFY HIMSELF AS SUCH) CONTACTED ME ON THE LCL CTAF AND REQUESTED I GIVE MY CALL SIGN (TAIL NUMBER), WHICH I GAVE AND THEN THE CTLR PROCEEDED TO ADVISE ME THAT I HAD VIOLATED A TFR AREA IN EFFECT FOR A 10 NM RADIUS OF A PWR PLANT. I ADVISED THE CTLR THAT I WOULD IMMEDIATELY EXIT THE TFR AREA OR DO WHATEVER HE INSTRUCTED THAT I DO. HE PROVIDED DIRECTIONS TO THE CLOSEST BOUNDARY, WHICH I EXITED AND LANDED AT ZZZ. UPON LANDING AND WALKING INTO THE FBO, A PERSON WAS TALKING ON THE PHONE AND I COULD TELL BY THE CONVERSATION THAT SHE WAS TALKING TO SOMEONE FROM ZZZ1 CTR OR THE FAA, AND UPON ASKING HER SHE REPLIED IT WAS THE FAA WHO HAD CALLED HER. I ASKED HER TO LET ME TALK TO THEM WHEN SHE WAS DONE. I HEARD HER EXPLAIN TO THE FAA THAT MANY PLTS WERE COMPLAINING OF GETTING CAUGHT IN THE TFR AS IT WAS POORLY PUBLISHED, HAD NO ADVANCE WARNING OF IT TAKING EFFECT, POOR IDENTIFICATION OF THE PWR PLANT LANDMARK AS NOTED ON THE SECTIONAL CHART AND JUST AS I HAD DISCOVERED IN THE PRECEDING MINS, THE PROC TURN AND HOLDING FOR SOME INSTRUMENT APCHS AND MISSED APCH PROCS LIE WITHIN THE TFR BUT THE ARPT ITSELF IS NOT INSIDE THE TFR. IN MY CONVERSATION WITH THE FAA PERSONNEL, I WAS ADVISED THAT ALL VIOLATORS WOULD FACE ENFORCEMENT ACTION. UPON ENDING MY CONVERSATION WITH THE FAA, I CALLED THE ZZZ2 FSS AND EXPLAINED THAT I HAD CHECKED NOTAMS PRIOR TO MY FLT AND THAT NO MENTION WAS MADE OF INSTRUMENT APCHS NOT AVAILABLE OR THAT ANY OF THE COMPONENTS WERE OUT OF SVC AT ZZZ. IF SO MANY PLTS WERE ACCIDENTALLY GETTING INTO RESTR AIRSPACE TRYING TO USE THE VARIOUS APCHS BUT THE ARPT WAS OPEN TO ALL AIR TFC, IT SHOULD APPEAR IN THE NOTAMS. SHE SAID SHE WOULD LOOK INTO THE MATTER. AT ABOUT XB30 LCL ZZZ2 FSS CALLED THE FBO PERSON BACK AND ADVISED THAT A NOTAM FOR ZZZ INSTRUMENT APCHS WOULD BE ISSUED SOON. THE NOTAM WAS ISSUED AT XB40. THE PWR PLANT IS SHOWN ON THE MOST RECENT AND CURRENT SECTIONAL CHART AS A 'PLANT' NOT SPECIFYING IN PARTICULAR WHAT KIND OF PLANT. TO ANY ONE NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE AREA, A 'PLANT' COULD MEAN ANYONE OF THE SEVERAL PROCESSING PLANTS IN THE AREA, THE COMPANY A OR THE COMPANY B, ALL OF WHICH ARE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO ZZZ. I AM NOT FROM THE ZZZ AREA NOR AM I THAT FAMILIAR WITH WHERE AND WHAT EVERY SO CALLED 'PLANT' ON THE SECTIONAL REPRESENTS. THE FAA NOTAM REFERS TO THE PLANT AS BEING LOCATED 4 MILES NW OF ZZZ3 WHICH IS A TINY TOWN ON THE SECTIONAL CHART. ZZZ IS A BUSY UNCONTROLLED ARPT USED BY MANY GENERAL AVIATION PLTS IN THE AREA FOR INSTRUMENT TRAINING BECAUSE IT OFFERS A WIDE ARRAY OF DIFFERENT APCHS: ILS, VOR, NDB, RNAV AND GPS. TO LEAVE THE ARPT OPEN TO ALL PART 91 TFC, YET PLACE THE MAJORITY OF THE INSTRUMENT APCH PROCS AND MISSED APCH PROCS INSIDE A TFR AREA AND PROVIDING NO NOTAM TO PLTS OF SUCH, REFLECTS POOR JUDGEMENT CALL ON THE PART OF THE FAA WHICH NO ONE HAD ADDRESSED UNTIL MY CONVERSATIONS WITH THE FAA AND MY SUBSEQUENT CALL TO ZZZ2 FSS. THE INDIVIDUALS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING DECISIONS ON WHERE TO PLACE A TFR SHOULD HAVE A REALISTIC UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT EFFECTS SUCH RESTRS WILL HAVE ON ALL PLTS USING THE AIRSPACE IN AND AROUND THE TFR. IF THERE HAVE BEEN MANY COMPLAINTS BY PLTS USING ZZZ AND VIOLATIONS OF THIS TFR DUE TO UNCERTAINTY OF EXACTLY WHERE ITS BOUNDARIES ARE BECAUSE OF POOR LANDMARK LABELING ON A SECTIONAL CHART, THEN THIS IS AN INDICATION THAT THERE IS ROOM FOR CLARIFICATION, PROPER IDENTIFICATION OF AND EDUCATION OF PLTS RATHER THAN IMMEDIATE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS AGAINST THEM. TO LOCATE A CTR OF A TFR WOULD PERHAPS BE BETTER ACHIEVED BY USING A BEARING AND DISTANCE FROM A LOCAL NAVIGATION FACILITY, SUCH AS THE ZZZ4 OR ZZZ5 VOR IN THIS PARTICULAR SIT. PLTS LIKE MYSELF CAN MORE READILY FIND A VOR THAN A TINY SPACE FOR A TOWN OR 'PLANT' ON A CONGESTED SECTIONAL CHART. I WOULD ALSO STRONGLY ENCOURAGE THAT FAA/FSS PROVIDE BETTER DISSEMINATION OF ALL TFR'S ALONG A PLT'S PLANNED ROUTE OF FLT AND THESE WOULD BE PROVIDED WITH ALL OTHER NOTAMS RECEIVED WHEN OBTAINING A PREFLT BRIEFING WHETHER IT BE A COMPUTER OR WITH AN FSS. WITH SO MANY TFR'S AROUND 'PLANTS,' STADIUMS AND A WIDE VARIETY OF OTHER UNFAMILIAR AREAS, PLTS NEED A MORE SIMPLIFIED WAY OF TRYING TO KEEP TRACK OF WHAT AIRSPACE WAS OK TO FLY IN YESTERDAY AND RESTR TODAY.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.