Busted TFR, what to expect?

Robert M. Gary wrote:

Can anyone on this list actually claim to check for TFRs for every
local flight in the pattern? Who would have known the VP was going to
be in Sac? He came stealth.

I'm like you, rarely check notams. When prez/vice prez are anywhere in
the state it's big news and you'll hear about it.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In rec.aviation.piloting Newps wrote:


Robert M. Gary wrote:

Can anyone on this list actually claim to check for TFRs for every
local flight in the pattern? Who would have known the VP was going to
be in Sac? He came stealth.

I'm like you, rarely check notams. When prez/vice prez are anywhere in
the state it's big news and you'll hear about it.

They really didn't say much about it on the news, if at all. In
fact, it was further south, towards Modesto and Stockton more than
Sacramento, IIRC. As far as the newspaper, they go to press that night,
so the news you heard the night before is printed in the morning the
following day. The Sac. Bee only does one printing per day. So it would
have been really easy to not hear about the VP's visit until the day
after.

Either way, NOTAMs definitely should have been looked at or
notifications sent out, in one way or another.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEddqyyBkZmuMZ8L8RAsuvAJsEwEWJGRzeyCa30NGwWi L2f8jsuQCgrTLQ
Kn1jxDDXS09/HjMGhyseSho=
=OK0h
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:



Can anyone on this list actually claim to check for TFRs for every
local flight in the pattern? Who would have known the VP was going to
be in Sac? He came stealth.

I'm like you, rarely check notams. When prez/vice prez are anywhere in
the state it's big news and you'll hear about it.


They really didn't say much about it on the news, if at all.


That's California, not Montana.

I'm like you, rarely check notams. When prez/vice prez are anywhere in
the state it's big news and you'll hear about it.

You would think that would be the case, in this case it was not. The
prez was here about 3 weeks ago and it was all over the paper. There
was nothing that I saw concernnig the VP visit. In fact, I mentioned to
several of the pilots in the area that there was a TFR the other day
and not a single one knew about the TFR or the visit. I believe this
was a stealth visit.

-robert

Newps wrote:

I'm like you, rarely check notams. When prez/vice prez are anywhere in
the state it's big news and you'll hear about it.

Are there ever TFRs in Montana?

--
Peter

Peter R. wrote:

Newps wrote:


I'm like you, rarely check notams. When prez/vice prez are anywhere in
the state it's big news and you'll hear about it.


Are there ever TFRs in Montana?

Sure. We are in a prime forest fire area. Fire TFR's are small,
usually a 5 mile radius around the fire and a few thousand feet agl.
Those TFR's are easy to avoid, just don't fly very low over smoke and
you won't have to worry about it. Cheney comes to Billings every August
from Jackson on AF2, he then hops on the Blackhawk or Chinook and flies
to Fort Smith for some trout fishing on the world famous Bighorn River.
There's a TFR here at the airport while he's actually here. They then
fly VFR in the helicopters to the river, 40 miles SE of BIL at about
1500 agl. There's a small TFR over the cabins they rent, 5 miles and a
few thousand feet I think. When the prez comes to Montana therre's only
about five places they will go and you'll hgere about it a week in
advance on the local news and in the paper. When Cheney is at his home
in JAC there will be F16's watching the TFR there. You'll occasionally
hear the F16 pilots over JAC here in the tower at BIL as they try to
contact the wayward spamcan pilot on 121.5 and shoo him away from the TFR.

In article ,
Newps wrote:


I'm like you, rarely check notams. When prez/vice prez are anywhere in
the state it's big news and you'll hear about it.

There are reasons other than a political figure being in the area that
may cause a TFR to be up.

bob wrote:
Should I bother filing the
NASA ASRS form?

Can't hurt can it?

Still haven't heard anything from the FSDO, but not much time has
passed. I'll post with whatever they eventually flog me with, but in
the meantime here's some comments on the comments:

Q. Why would NOTAMs on another frequency or AWOS be easier to check
than the current methods?
A. Current methods require one to check a web page or make a phone
call, an extra effort rather different from simply checking another
frequency. It's not so much the time involved, but the relatively
different task.

Q. Are there pilots that really check before EVERY flight?
A. Apparently so. And maybe I will join the ranks. But my computer
isn't on all the time and being Windoze takes a while to boot. Dialing
1-800-WX-BRIEF isn't difficult, maybe they could have a recording just
for major NOTAMs in the area (they already connect you to your regional
FSS station based on your calling phone number).

Q. Don't you check weather before every flight?
A. X-country, yes, local, no. It's a California thing I guess...ya
gotta live here a summer to understand.

Q. How would an email notification work, they don't know what airport
you're at?
A. Similar to AOPA's system, the FAA would setup a web page where
pilots voluntarily participating would submit their email address and
location (either state, zip code, or airport ID) and they would receive
emails for TFR and NOTAMs. This would help for the local flights where
many pilots don't get a briefing. The point being, no single method
will work, but an email notification system would be very cheap and
relatively effective for those participating. We might as well
recognize that for local VFR flights there are just a lot of pilots
that don't get briefings, so why not reduce the number of TFR
violations with a simple email system?

BTW, there's an interesting report about TFR violations at
http://www.volpe.dot.gov/opsad/docs/tfranalysis.pdf. Here's a
statistic that caught my eye: "...2900 violations in the two years
between June 2002 and June 2004 alone."

Obviously the current system isn't working well. Why not be practical
and implement additional notification methods to reduce the violation
rate?

bob wrote:

Obviously the current system isn't working well.

Hypothetically querying, how is someone who admits to not checking TFRs
capable of accurately commenting on the effectiveness of the system?

--
Peter