|37000 Feet||Browse and search NASA's
Aviation Safety Reporting System
|Local Time Of Day||1201 To 1800|
|Locale Reference||airport : 1g0.airport|
|Operator||general aviation : personal|
|Make Model Name||Small Aircraft|
|Operating Under FAR Part||Part 91|
|Flight Phase||descent : approach|
|Function||flight crew : single pilot|
|Experience||flight time last 90 days : 40|
flight time total : 4200
|Affiliation||government : faa|
|Anomaly||airspace violation : entry|
non adherence : published procedure
non adherence : far
|Independent Detector||other flight crewa|
|Resolutory Action||none taken : detected after the fact|
|Consequence||faa : reviewed incident with flight crew|
|Problem Areas||ATC Human Performance|
Flight Crew Human Performance
|Primary Problem||Flight Crew Human Performance|
|Air Traffic Incident||Pilot Deviation|
VFR flight from mount comfort, indiana, to grosse ile, mi, on sep/mon/03, landed at wood county airport, ohio, to await removal of the tfr, which was to terminate at XI20 local time. After landing, I received a phone call advising that I had entered the area to the north, which was inside the tfr. We all agree that wood county airport is outside the tfr area. This report is intended to avoid the factors, which led to this apparent violation. I called flight service at XA59 for a WX briefing. I was previously aware of the tfr emanating from monroe, mi, and the briefer confirmed 30 mi radius along with the WX data, and XI20 local time in northwest ohio as the termination time for the tfr. The briefer did not say NM and consequently, I did not write nautical. I marked my VFR sectional chart 30 mi from monroe across my intended route. My discussion with the briefer primarily involved the WX and time constraints for the tfr. The briefer did not clarify 'nautical' and I did not question it. I urge that all briefers emphasize 'nautical' in all cases where it is appropriate. I have since spoken with another briefer, who had some interpretation problems with the tfr in question. Such advisories should cater to the lowest common denominator as violations are more likely from non professional and inexperienced pilots. I have attached a simple method of marking a tfr area where airports outline the tfr and connecting dots is very basic.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: VFR ACFT PENETRATES TFR DURING PLEASURE FLT.
Narrative: VFR FLT FROM MOUNT COMFORT, INDIANA, TO GROSSE ILE, MI, ON SEP/MON/03, LANDED AT WOOD COUNTY ARPT, OHIO, TO AWAIT REMOVAL OF THE TFR, WHICH WAS TO TERMINATE AT XI20 LCL TIME. AFTER LNDG, I RECEIVED A PHONE CALL ADVISING THAT I HAD ENTERED THE AREA TO THE N, WHICH WAS INSIDE THE TFR. WE ALL AGREE THAT WOOD COUNTY ARPT IS OUTSIDE THE TFR AREA. THIS RPT IS INTENDED TO AVOID THE FACTORS, WHICH LED TO THIS APPARENT VIOLATION. I CALLED FLT SVC AT XA59 FOR A WX BRIEFING. I WAS PREVIOUSLY AWARE OF THE TFR EMANATING FROM MONROE, MI, AND THE BRIEFER CONFIRMED 30 MI RADIUS ALONG WITH THE WX DATA, AND XI20 LCL TIME IN NW OHIO AS THE TERMINATION TIME FOR THE TFR. THE BRIEFER DID NOT SAY NM AND CONSEQUENTLY, I DID NOT WRITE NAUTICAL. I MARKED MY VFR SECTIONAL CHART 30 MI FROM MONROE ACROSS MY INTENDED RTE. MY DISCUSSION WITH THE BRIEFER PRIMARILY INVOLVED THE WX AND TIME CONSTRAINTS FOR THE TFR. THE BRIEFER DID NOT CLARIFY 'NAUTICAL' AND I DID NOT QUESTION IT. I URGE THAT ALL BRIEFERS EMPHASIZE 'NAUTICAL' IN ALL CASES WHERE IT IS APPROPRIATE. I HAVE SINCE SPOKEN WITH ANOTHER BRIEFER, WHO HAD SOME INTERPRETATION PROBS WITH THE TFR IN QUESTION. SUCH ADVISORIES SHOULD CATER TO THE LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR AS VIOLATIONS ARE MORE LIKELY FROM NON PROFESSIONAL AND INEXPERIENCED PLTS. I HAVE ATTACHED A SIMPLE METHOD OF MARKING A TFR AREA WHERE ARPTS OUTLINE THE TFR AND CONNECTING DOTS IS VERY BASIC.
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.