TFR Violation Beaufort, SC 4/23/2023 Blue Angles Air Show

[Frank B.]

Has anyone heard about a TFR violation that “supposedly” happened on Sunday 4/23/23 during the Blue Angels Airshow performance in Beaufort, SC? Someone told me that he read about the violation but I have looked and looked and I can’t find any info at all on it. It was supposedly a Mooney that descended from 6K to 4K passing through the TFR and later landing at 7FL6. I am just curious of the details and wondering if maybe the pilot was on an IFR flight plan and ATC messed up? Curious minds want to know. 

Even thousands, IFR Flight Plan?

 

Thanks, Frank

_________________
KOMN Hangar Investors, LLC 

[Frank B.]

19 minutes ago, Frank B. said:

Has anyone heard about a TFR violation that “supposedly” happened on Sunday 4/23/23 during the Blue Angels Airshow performance in Beaufort, SC? Someone told me that he read about the violation but I have looked and looked and I can’t find any info at all on it. It was supposedly a Mooney that descended from 6K to 4K passing through the TFR and later landing at 7FL6. I am just curious of the details and wondering if maybe the pilot was on an IFR flight plan and ATC messed up? Curious minds want to know. 

Even thousands, IFR Flight Plan?

 

Thanks, Frank

_________________
KOMN Hangar Investors, LLC 

I think that I finally found the Info.

 

[N201MKTurbo]

Looks like he was IFR.

[ArtVandelay]

4000’? Awfully low for a 700 mile cross country trip, maybe he was trying to stay out of the clouds?

[Hank]

1 minute ago, ArtVandelay said:

4000’? Awfully low for a 700 mile cross country trip, maybe he was trying to stay out of the clouds?

If ATC cleared hum to descend, the violation should be on them and not the pilot, right? We are obligated to follow ATC instructions unless we negotiate different instructions, right?

[ArtVandelay]

If ATC cleared hum to descend, the violation should be on them and not the pilot, right? We are obligated to follow ATC instructions unless we negotiate different instructions, right?

Probably going to be both, PIC responsible to checking TFRs on planned route.

[gmonnig]

12 minutes ago, Hank said:

If ATC cleared hum to descend, the violation should be on them and not the pilot, right? We are obligated to follow ATC instructions unless we negotiate different instructions, right?

 

10 minutes ago, ArtVandelay said:

Probably going to be both, PIC responsible to checking TFRs on planned route.

 Nope. This is 100% on the controller if the aircraft was IFR. If I descend an aircraft and clip a class D in my airspace without getting the transition approved, that's all on me. I have tons of restricted airspace where live firing is going on too. If I descend an aircraft into them, guess what? It's not on the pilot. It's all the same. Also the reason I file IFR into unfamiliar areas, because airspace melts away. 

[Rick Junkin]

FlightAware shows a flight plan route along with his track, so coupled with his altitudes I believe he was IFR, at least at some point. His initial altitude was 6K, then he climbed to 6,500 for about 15 minutes. VFR on top? And then he descended to 4K for the remainder of the trip. Possibly changing altitudes to stay out of the weather, as @ArtVandelay suggested.

My only experience with penetrating a TFR was in 2016 near Beale AFB when I was doing my Mooney transition training. We were working with ATC for an ILS approach to a neighboring field and they gave me a vector through the Beale TFR. I asked about violating the TFR and they responded I was under ATC control and they could clear me through it. This fits with some of the posts on BT that talk about the same kind of thing.

EDIT: “My read is that Roger Alec on Facebook is likely misinformed/uninformed.” My bad, that’s an uninformed assertion by me.

Cheers,
Rick

[GeeBee]

Yep if you are IFR, ATC is responsible. How do you think takeoffs and landings keep occurring at say ATL when a Presidential TFR is up all day?

[exM20K]

 

from the notam.

Restrictions and Requirements			Top
No pilots may operate an aircraft in the areas covered by this NOTAM (except as described).
UNLESS AUTH BY ATC.

https://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_3_6245.html
 

if the pilot is really worried, file a NASA report and go on about your day.

good grief.

I suppose if he missed a handoff, that could explain Beaufort approach trying to raise him on guard.

-dan

[Rick Junkin]

The only wrinkle in this is that the Facebook post says Beaufort was trying to raise the guy on guard. I missed that on my first look. If that’s true then there may be more to the story. Was it Beaufort tower or Beaufort approach calling?

At that altitude and position he would have been talking to Beaufort approach or Jax Center if he were IFR, so the reported calls on guard don’t reasonably fit with the IFR scenario. 

I dunno.

Does anyone know what the weather at Beaufort was? A lower ceiling would drive the Blues to fly their low show, which could be a consideration as well. But I’m just guessing.

EDIT: Disregard, I answered my own question. Weather was severe clear on the 23rd. 

Cheers,
Rick

Edited April 25, 2023 by Rick Junkin

[Rick Junkin]

1 hour ago, exM20K said:

I suppose if he missed a handoff, that could explain Beaufort approach trying to raise him on guard.

 

Good point.

[Hank]

Would have been exciting to be intercepted by a Blue Angel, and led to landing!

[ArtVandelay]

84 years old and still flying, I hope to be that lucky.
I’m guessing that J has standard steam panel and pilot doesn’t use an EFB or have fancy panel that could have given him better situation awareness.

[larrynimmo]

Two years ago I had flight following and was cleared through the Baltimore Bravo…at the first controllers had asked me…I was going to fly beneath the outer rings.

as I entered by the north, another  controller made a rather rude statement to the effect “you are in the way of everything!” And he vectored me and forgot about me and as I entered what is militsry prohibited area that is always hot…I called and asked for vectorsback to my home airport in Easton…he gave me a direct to instruction through a military area. As soon as I was out of the military area he cancelled my flight following

I didn’t sleep well that night, I filed a NASA report in detail…and luckily never got that dreaded phone call.

[Shadrach]

46 minutes ago, larrynimmo said:

Two years ago I had flight following and was cleared through the Baltimore Bravo…at the first controllers had asked me…I was going to fly beneath the outer rings.

as I entered by the north, another  controller made a rather rude statement to the effect “you are in the way of everything!” And he vectored me and forgot about me and as I entered what is militsry prohibited area that is always hot…I called and asked for vectorsback to my home airport in Easton…he gave me a direct to instruction through a military area. As soon as I was out of the military area he cancelled my flight following

I didn’t sleep well that night, I filed a NASA report in detail…and luckily never got that dreaded phone call.

I have many years of flying through and around the Washington Tri-Area Class B. To some degree, it may be a function of exposure, but it is the only sector where I have have felt compelled to ask for a number to call…twice.  Most of my XC flying spans the eastern seaboard. The vast majority of controllers are competent and professional. The few times that I have encountered controllers that are not, it has been with Washington Center or Potomac Tracon. Maybe there’s something in the water in the DC area.

[GeeBee]

I think every facility has its issues, there seems to be an institutional "DNA" that occurs.  I've had to call an complain to NorCal a couple times and when it comes to just plain rudeness nobody beats DEN. The really finest folks IMHO opinion is ATL. Got a lot of weather? They usually say "deviate as necessary, call me when you're direct". In defense of Potomac, Saturday before last, I wormed my way into KMTN with a ton of weather from PXT to Winchester. Did a quick turn then headed back to ATL. By this time the line had moved north and had a break in it deep in the SFRA. I was routed Graco V93 PXT V20 RIC. I took off and asked for 4000' to stay low and visual so I could deviate around the rain shafts. Potomac asked if I was SFRA qualified, I replied affirmative, he said I can take you around that weather to the West if you want and I took his offer. I was able to climb to 12,000 and get clear. In short they were very helpful and very accommodating. They gave me a couple of intersections to tag and that was it, I was clear. 

[Fly Boomer]

1 hour ago, GeeBee said:

Potomac asked if I was SFRA qualified, I replied affirmative, he said I can take you around that weather to the West if you want and I took his offer.

What were you flying?  I suspect it makes a difference.

[wombat]

Another idea on N91316's actions....   

Let's be generous and assume that when he took off, he had a full route clearance, but one that didn't keep him out of the TFR.  (Not too unreasonable, since the TFR was probably not active then)

And let's be generous again and assume that he was flying in accordance with that clearance the entire time.

It sounds like he was out of contact with ATC for quite a while, but what standards are there for how often or when you need to check in with ATC?  If his route had no IFR reporting points (91.183) and his last radio call had been to proceed direct to some point on the far side of the TFR, did he really violate the TFR?  Or did he violate some other rule? If you are over BNA VOR and are told "Fly BNA 355 outbound, proceed to V24, then as filed."  Well, V24 is 300+ miles away.    When are you obligated to start making heroic efforts to talk to ATC again?  Your next required radio call is a couple of hours away.

 

 91.13 is perhaps an option, because we all know that if you are talking to ATC (and he's flying IFR, so he MUST be talking to ATC) you should be getting occasional radio calls from them to change frequencies if nothing else.  I don't like to suggest 91.13 because what is one person's 'careless and reckless' is another person's every day.  Example: One pilot told me when flying without ADS-B In, he once got to about 2 NM from another airplane in flight in the Bay area in California without seeing it despite having it called out to him from ATC. He was so freaked out by this he said he will NEVER fly without ADS-B in again and thinks that anyone that does should be violated under 91.13.    I think he's...  a bit extreme, to put it kindly.

 

Regardless, a nice long conversation with the FAA is in order for at least that pilot.

[GeeBee]

2 minutes ago, Fly Boomer said:

What were you flying?  I suspect it makes a difference.

M20R

[GeeBee]

11 minutes ago, wombat said:

Another idea on N91316's actions....   

Let's be generous and assume that when he took off, he had a full route clearance, but one that didn't keep him out of the TFR.  (Not too unreasonable, since the TFR was probably not active then)

And let's be generous again and assume that he was flying in accordance with that clearance the entire time.

It sounds like he was out of contact with ATC for quite a while, but what standards are there for how often or when you need to check in with ATC?  If his route had no IFR reporting points (91.183) and his last radio call had been to proceed direct to some point on the far side of the TFR, did he really violate the TFR?  Or did he violate some other rule? If you are over BNA VOR and are told "Fly BNA 355 outbound, proceed to V24, then as filed."  Well, V24 is 300+ miles away.    When are you obligated to start making heroic efforts to talk to ATC again?  Your next required radio call is a couple of hours away.

 

 91.13 is perhaps an option, because we all know that if you are talking to ATC (and he's flying IFR, so he MUST be talking to ATC) you should be getting occasional radio calls from them to change frequencies if nothing else.  I don't like to suggest 91.13 because what is one person's 'careless and reckless' is another person's every day.  Example: One pilot told me when flying without ADS-B In, he once got to about 2 NM from another airplane in flight in the Bay area in California without seeing it despite having it called out to him from ATC. He was so freaked out by this he said he will NEVER fly without ADS-B in again and thinks that anyone that does should be violated under 91.13.    I think he's...  a bit extreme, to put it kindly.

 

Regardless, a nice long conversation with the FAA is in order for at least that pilot.

For starters if you lose comm IFR, the first rule is "If VFR conditions exist land as soon as practicable". Apparently the weather was quite good. Second the AIM "suggests" that you monitor guard. Now the AIM is not regulatory, but the NTSB in various violation appeals considers it "careless" not to follow its meme. So there is not a lot of wiggle room here.

[wombat]

@GeeBee The things you say are not wrong, but.... I know you are not this extreme about it, but please follow along with my reasoning here...

In my 182 I've only got one radio.       Can't monitor guard.   Maybe N91316 is in the same boat? (haha.  A plane, in a boat!)  It almost sounds like you are suggesting that any pilot who flies an aircraft without a second radio is in violation of 91.13. What would you think of a plane with no radio at all?  Yikes! And what do I do about getting weather at my destination?  Can't switch off of 121.5 because that's a violation of 91.13, right?  So every airplane needs to have a dedicated radio just for 121.5?  I really doubt that's what you are really suggesting; I took that to an extreme.And I really doubt that N91316 has only one radio. But this is exactly the sort of reason I don't like to invoke 91.13. Because what seems extreme to me might not seem extreme to you.   This is why we have rules other than 91.13, so we have a document that says what is 'extreme'.    

 

A big part of my question here is when does it go from just a quiet frequency to lost comms ?   5 minutes?    50 minutes?   The rules about that don't exist.  91.183 is what we've got and it has nothing to say about this.    I've called up ATC a bunch of times just because things got quiet for 'too long' for my liking. 

[exM20K]

30 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

For starters if you lose comm IFR, the first rule is "If VFR conditions exist land as soon as practicable". Apparently the weather was quite good. Second the AIM "suggests" that you monitor guard. Now the AIM is not regulatory, but the NTSB in various violation appeals considers it "careless" not to follow its meme. So there is not a lot of wiggle room here.

Good point about lost cons procedure.  From the time stamps on the liveATC recordings, it sounds like this pilot was out of contact with ATC for 9 minutes.  That’s an eternity, especially in a busy airspace.

-dan

[wombat]

@exM20K 9 minutes?   I'm a Western States (excluding California) pilot.... I get 9 minute blocks without hearing ATC talk to anyone else on the radio let alone talking to me.   Now I do know there is a difference between flying out here and flying on the crowded Eastern Seaboard, and 9 minutes is acceptable out here but not out there.   But how much wiggle room is there?   3 minutes?  90 seconds?

[GeeBee]

It is not unusual when I think it gets too quiet to do a radio check. Did one last Saturday with BHM approach.