TFR Bust = Criminal Record For Pilots?

On 2007-10-24 04:19:56 -0700, Ron Natalie said:

JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:
Larry Dighera wrote:
An emergency situation forced a decision to violate the TFR.


In an emergency, there is no violation of the TFR. The PIC has the
authority to devitate....


I wouldn't bet my skin, tin, or ticket on that one.
The fact you are in distress isn't going to keep the guys in the
black helicopters or F-16's from trying to intercept you.
The FAA's track record on emergency authority isn't as iron clad
as you would like. The FAA has decided that if you get into the
emergency by your own screw up then they will still blast you for
the resulting deviations.

No one has been shot down by black helicopters or F-16s. Imagine the
fallout if someone were. "FAMILY OF FOUR SHOT DOWN BY F-16. A family of
four in a Cessna were forced to descend into a temporarily restricted
area when the engine on their airplane quit for unknown reasons.
Although the pilot broadcast his emergency on the radio, the F-16s were
not equipped with civilian frequencies and opened fire without warning."

Nope. Don't see it happening. Heads would roll and it would be the end
of the TFR system as we know it.

This is not something new. The FAA has always had the authority to
press criminal charges against pilots the willfully violate restricted
areas. It is not surprising that they have had to publicly re-assert
this authority in view of the numerous pilots violating flight
restrictions.

But fear of getting shot down or charged with criminal activity are
poor excuses for staying out of TFRs. Fear of getting slammed by a
DC-10 full of fire retardant, crashing and starting yet another fire
ought to be foremost in your mind.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

Ron Natalie writes:

I wouldn't bet my skin, tin, or ticket on that one.

If you have an emergency, all of Part 91 can be suspended for the purpose of
ensuring safety.

The fact you are in distress isn't going to keep the guys in the
black helicopters or F-16's from trying to intercept you.

Maybe, but that has nothing to do with the legality of doing so.

Ron Natalie wrote:

I wouldn't bet my skin, tin, or ticket on that one.
The fact you are in distress isn't going to keep the guys in the
black helicopters or F-16's from trying to intercept you.
The FAA's track record on emergency authority isn't as iron clad
as you would like. The FAA has decided that if you get into the
emergency by your own screw up then they will still blast you for
the resulting deviations.

No arguement there. You're going to be held responsible if you screw up.
That's nothing new. Once you have the emergency, I think the presence of a
TFR is going to be a non-issue. I think the FAA would have a hard time
pressing the case that you deliberately violated a TFR if you'd declared an
emergency beforehand. The criminal violation that we're talking about refers
to a deliberate violation. If you did something dumb like run out of fuel
and were forced to come down in a TFR, I have a hard time seeing criminal
charges being pressed (although I'll agree that it's not out of the realm of
possibility).

As I said, I dropped smack into the middle of a TFR (not a political /
security one) after an engine failure and the FAA didn't even mention the TFR.
It's not like I could have gone somewhere else.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200710/1

On 2007-10-22 08:34:34 -0700, Bob Fry said:


This administration is out of control. Of course we knew that a long
time ago. If the killing of hundreds of thousands in an illegimate war
was not enough to warn us, criminalizing common flying habits might be
the clue some need.

What is out of control are some of the reactions to this. If you want
to know what AOPA really said, go to their web site. AOPA is not
opposed to criminal penalties for pilots who willfully and repeatedly
violate TFRs.

The language of the FAA notam is this: "Any person who knowingly or
willfully violates the rules concerning operations in this airspace is
subject to certain criminal penalties under 49 USC 46307."

I think that is clear enough. You had to know you were violating the
TFR and deliberately did it anyway to face a criminal penalty.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On Oct 22, 11:34 am, Bob Fry wrote:
"LD" == Larry Dighera writes:


So a pilot who simply fails to get a briefing--something hundreds or
thousands of pilots do every day--"may deserve criminal prosecution".
... This administration is out of control ... criminalizing common flying habits might be
the clue some need.

I have noticed a distinct tone, or mode of thinking one could say, of
a portion of the readers and contributers to this group. The last
time I encountered it was in a discussion of the overflight of "built-
up" or populated areas at unsafe and low altitudes while not in the
process of taking-off or landing. In that discussion a similar
rationale was offered as you offer, Mr. Fry, ... common habit. That
writer first proposed that this activity was common habit, and as long
as nothing happened on a particular flight where the regs were
ignored, then the regs were irrelevant. When I pushed the discussion
further the notion of "freedom" was invoked (implying somehow that
Canadians are less "free" than our friends in the U.S. because we
don't make a habit of buzzing beaches and scud-running over cities and
towns and thereby disregarding our aviation regulations) as an
explanation for why regulations put in place in an attempt to find a
balance between the safety of pilots, those people they fly over, and
the privileges afforded those with pilot certificates were unnecessary
and were trumped by these notions of common practice and so-called
"freedom".

While I can understand the frustration at the existence of an
unpredictable and moving "TFR", don't you agree that your ire would
better be directed at the source of the frustration and make efforts
to lower the level of paranoia and fear overwhelming your nation,
especially around aviation, instead of making the ridiculous argument
that your "common habit" somehow justifies the disregard of
regulations (it sounds like you are in the habit of flying without
getting briefings and checking NOTAMS) by everyone. The pilot buzzing
a beach in Florida in the name of "freedom" and the pilot who makes a
habit of taking off without even a cursory briefing and checking of
NOTAMS are the true hazards to the public and other aviators, not
regulations.

If you really believe this particular regulation goes too far why not
organize your local aviation enthusiasts and professionals and
vocalize to your local representation in government your
dissatisfaction with your federal government and its organizations.
Your so-called "common habit" is a rather poor form of rebellion that
will only reflect poorly on yourself and others that think likewise.

On Oct 22, 4:58 am, Larry Dighera wrote:
Is this new change TFR wording the result of our new Administrator
who, unlike the previous one, holds an airmens certificate?

While I believe those airmen who fail to get a briefing immediately
before departing, or who fail to concern themselves with current
airspace information published on Sectional Charts, or otherwise
display wanton negligence and disregard for FAA regulations may
deserve criminal prosecution, such criminal charges against a pilot
whose inadvertent violation of a TFR results in no harm nor hazard to
persons nor property seems inappropriate to me.

CRIMINAL REFERENCE IN TFRS RANKLES AOPA
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#196411)
AOPA says it's concerned about a not-so-subtle change in the
wording of the text descriptions of temporary flight restrictions
(TFRs). The FAA is now warning pilots they could be held
criminally responsible for violating TFRs. AOPA says the agency
has always had that ability but seeing it in black and white
raises the specter that those powers will actually be employed.
AOPA President Phil Boyer has written the FAA asking that pilots
who accidentally bust TFRs not face criminal proceedings.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#196411
Further, if legal balance is to be maintained, it would seem only
equitable that FSS briefers who fail to brief TFRs should also be
subject to criminal proceedings.

I think that the Dept of Homeland security needs to set up TDRs
(Temporary Driving Restrictions) which are not marked by signs, and
can come and go at any time. All drivers of automobiles must check
with their local DMV prior to driving on the roads to ensure that they
don't violate them. If a TDR is violated, it is a criminal offense.
Everywhere the president goes, a 30nm TDR will appear around the
location where the president will be, and only authorized vehicles
will be allowed on the road. Need to run to the store for milk?
Tough, wait untilt he president is done and leaves...

Larry Dighera wrote in
:


Is this new change TFR wording the result of our new Administrator
who, unlike the previous one, holds an airmens certificate?

While I believe those airmen who fail to get a briefing immediately
before departing, or who fail to concern themselves with current
airspace information published on Sectional Charts, or otherwise
display wanton negligence and disregard for FAA regulations may
deserve criminal prosecution, such criminal charges against a pilot
whose inadvertent violation of a TFR results in no harm nor hazard to
persons nor property seems inappropriate to me.


The very nature of a TFR makes this ludicrous. It's a TEMPORARY flight
restriction. Prior to 9/11, they were used for things like giving rescue
crews room to do their job after an accident or emergency (keeping
newscopters and other rubberneckers out of their way).

Aside from the new post-9/11 TFRs (ie: President beacons and sporting
events, etc) TFRs cannot be predicted preflight in many circumstances. To
prosecute for violating them is insane.

The result will be that pilots will be so afraid to violate a TFR that they
will always call for briefings every time they get in the plane (even if
it's a return trip from a $200 hamburger and they already had weather from
an hour before), and they will always use ATC services (flight following,
etc.).

The inevitable result of course is that our ATC and FSS systems will get so
intensely congested that flight delays will be blamed on unavailability of
services, and airlines will want to create laws to force all pilots to pay
for the services that they now are forced to abuse.

Oh, wait. Maybe we're already here.

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:30:55 GMT, Judah wrote in
:

The result will be that pilots will be so afraid to violate a TFR that they
will always call for briefings every time they get in the plane (even if
it's a return trip from a $200 hamburger and they already had weather from
an hour before),...

The way I read it, CFR Title 14, Part 91, § 91.103 requires exactly
that.

Larry Dighera wrote in
:

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:30:55 GMT, Judah wrote in
:

The result will be that pilots will be so afraid to violate a TFR that
they will always call for briefings every time they get in the plane
(even if it's a return trip from a $200 hamburger and they already had
weather from an hour before),...

The way I read it, CFR Title 14, Part 91, § 91.103 requires exactly
that.

Yeah. It's a joke.

It's self-destructing, like almost everything else in public policy in this
country these days.