|37000 Feet||Browse and search NASA's
Aviation Safety Reporting System
|Local Time Of Day||1201 To 1800|
|Locale Reference||navaid : aco.vor|
|Altitude||msl single value : 2300|
|Controlling Facilities||tracon : cak.tracon|
tower : mia.tower
|Operator||general aviation : personal|
|Make Model Name||PA-28 Cherokee Arrow IV|
|Operating Under FAR Part||Part 91|
|Flight Phase||cruise : level|
|Route In Use||enroute : direct|
|Function||flight crew : single pilot|
|Qualification||pilot : instrument|
pilot : private
|Experience||flight time last 90 days : 19|
flight time total : 2459
flight time type : 1709
|Affiliation||government : faa|
|Function||controller : approach|
|Anomaly||airspace violation : entry|
non adherence : published procedure
non adherence : far
|Resolutory Action||none taken : detected after the fact|
|Consequence||faa : reviewed incident with flight crew|
|Problem Areas||Flight Crew Human Performance|
|Primary Problem||Flight Crew Human Performance|
I planned on a brief local flight of 15 mins to bring the engine up to operating temperature prior to an oil change scheduled for that day. I intended to fly from my home base to ZZZ as a waypoint and return to akr; a total of 28 NM. I was aware of a tfr for the cleveland; oh; area that was in effect at the time of my flight that was centered on cle with a 30 mi radius. Prior to flight; I checked the distance from cle to akr; 29G and my proposed straight-line flight path between the 2 using a plotter and current VFR sectional. Akr measured 33 mi; 29G measured 34.5 mi and my flight path would be 32 mi or greater at all times from the tfr center point. As I was approaching to land at the end of the 15 min flight; I was contacted on the local unicom frequency and told to call akron-canton approach control (cak) via phone when on the ground concerning a 'possible tfr violation.' after landing; I first called 1-800-WX-brief and was connected to lansing FSS. I asked the briefer to rechk the parameters of the cleveland tfr. He stated that 'there are 2 parts to the tfr -- a 10 mi radius no-fly zone; and a 30 mi radius requiring prior contact with ATC and the issuance of a discrete transponder code.' he further verified that the tfr was centered on cle. I immediately re-measured the distances previously referred to using plotter and sectional and recorded the same findings as before consistent with being outside the tfr boundary. I then contacted akron-canton approach control via phone and was told by the supervisor that I had penetrated the tfr. I explained that I had measured all distances prior to flight to avoid just this outcome. He replied that 'you had better get a new plotter as both akr and 29G are within the tfr.' I expressed my total puzzlement and frustration with this outcome; but then supplied all the information he requested. He stated he would have to file a report and I would be contacted by someone within 1 week or so. One more time I returned to my plotter and sectional determined to figure out what went wrong. Finally I saw my mistake -- I had used the statute mi scale instead of the nautical mi scale on my plotter. Using the correct scale I saw that akr lay 1 NM inside the tfr while 29G lay directly on the edge of the 30 NM radius. This mistake had led to a completely unintentional and accidental violation of the tfr. The lessons I learned were: 1) always clarify and verify the units being used when any distances are given. 2) when considering the boundaries of a tfr never rely solely on only a verbal or text description but find a detailed graphic depiction showing all areas included. 3) check and doublechk the scale when using a plotter. 4) and finally; even experienced relatively high time pilots can still make rookie mistakes.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: A PA28 PLT FLEW INTO A TFR BECAUSE HE MADE A SCALE ERROR IN CHARTING THE AREA.
Narrative: I PLANNED ON A BRIEF LCL FLT OF 15 MINS TO BRING THE ENG UP TO OPERATING TEMP PRIOR TO AN OIL CHANGE SCHEDULED FOR THAT DAY. I INTENDED TO FLY FROM MY HOME BASE TO ZZZ AS A WAYPOINT AND RETURN TO AKR; A TOTAL OF 28 NM. I WAS AWARE OF A TFR FOR THE CLEVELAND; OH; AREA THAT WAS IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF MY FLT THAT WAS CTRED ON CLE WITH A 30 MI RADIUS. PRIOR TO FLT; I CHKED THE DISTANCE FROM CLE TO AKR; 29G AND MY PROPOSED STRAIGHT-LINE FLT PATH BTWN THE 2 USING A PLOTTER AND CURRENT VFR SECTIONAL. AKR MEASURED 33 MI; 29G MEASURED 34.5 MI AND MY FLT PATH WOULD BE 32 MI OR GREATER AT ALL TIMES FROM THE TFR CTR POINT. AS I WAS APCHING TO LAND AT THE END OF THE 15 MIN FLT; I WAS CONTACTED ON THE LCL UNICOM FREQ AND TOLD TO CALL AKRON-CANTON APCH CTL (CAK) VIA PHONE WHEN ON THE GND CONCERNING A 'POSSIBLE TFR VIOLATION.' AFTER LNDG; I FIRST CALLED 1-800-WX-BRIEF AND WAS CONNECTED TO LANSING FSS. I ASKED THE BRIEFER TO RECHK THE PARAMETERS OF THE CLEVELAND TFR. HE STATED THAT 'THERE ARE 2 PARTS TO THE TFR -- A 10 MI RADIUS NO-FLY ZONE; AND A 30 MI RADIUS REQUIRING PRIOR CONTACT WITH ATC AND THE ISSUANCE OF A DISCRETE XPONDER CODE.' HE FURTHER VERIFIED THAT THE TFR WAS CTRED ON CLE. I IMMEDIATELY RE-MEASURED THE DISTANCES PREVIOUSLY REFERRED TO USING PLOTTER AND SECTIONAL AND RECORDED THE SAME FINDINGS AS BEFORE CONSISTENT WITH BEING OUTSIDE THE TFR BOUNDARY. I THEN CONTACTED AKRON-CANTON APCH CTL VIA PHONE AND WAS TOLD BY THE SUPVR THAT I HAD PENETRATED THE TFR. I EXPLAINED THAT I HAD MEASURED ALL DISTANCES PRIOR TO FLT TO AVOID JUST THIS OUTCOME. HE REPLIED THAT 'YOU HAD BETTER GET A NEW PLOTTER AS BOTH AKR AND 29G ARE WITHIN THE TFR.' I EXPRESSED MY TOTAL PUZZLEMENT AND FRUSTRATION WITH THIS OUTCOME; BUT THEN SUPPLIED ALL THE INFO HE REQUESTED. HE STATED HE WOULD HAVE TO FILE A RPT AND I WOULD BE CONTACTED BY SOMEONE WITHIN 1 WK OR SO. ONE MORE TIME I RETURNED TO MY PLOTTER AND SECTIONAL DETERMINED TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WENT WRONG. FINALLY I SAW MY MISTAKE -- I HAD USED THE STATUTE MI SCALE INSTEAD OF THE NAUTICAL MI SCALE ON MY PLOTTER. USING THE CORRECT SCALE I SAW THAT AKR LAY 1 NM INSIDE THE TFR WHILE 29G LAY DIRECTLY ON THE EDGE OF THE 30 NM RADIUS. THIS MISTAKE HAD LED TO A COMPLETELY UNINTENTIONAL AND ACCIDENTAL VIOLATION OF THE TFR. THE LESSONS I LEARNED WERE: 1) ALWAYS CLARIFY AND VERIFY THE UNITS BEING USED WHEN ANY DISTANCES ARE GIVEN. 2) WHEN CONSIDERING THE BOUNDARIES OF A TFR NEVER RELY SOLELY ON ONLY A VERBAL OR TEXT DESCRIPTION BUT FIND A DETAILED GRAPHIC DEPICTION SHOWING ALL AREAS INCLUDED. 3) CHK AND DOUBLECHK THE SCALE WHEN USING A PLOTTER. 4) AND FINALLY; EVEN EXPERIENCED RELATIVELY HIGH TIME PLTS CAN STILL MAKE ROOKIE MISTAKES.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.