Busting restricted airspace

GMascelli

GMascelli

En-Route
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
3,448
Location
Ocean City, MD
Display Name
Display name:
GaryM
On the way home from Hanover, VA today I heared the Air Force try and contact an aircraft that was headed for restricted airspace. Multiple warnings went unanswered with a final directive by the air force to contact the FAA.

The bust was approximately 30 miles north of KGAI Gaithersburg, MD. I figure KFDK is maybe 18-20 and P-40 is darn close to 30. It just makes me wonder what people are doing, and how far behind the plane they really get.
 
GMascelli said:
On the way home from Hanover, VA today I heared the Air Force try and contact an aircraft that was headed for restricted airspace. Multiple warnings went unanswered with a final directive by the air force to contact the FAA.

The bust was approximately 30 miles north of KGAI Gaithersburg, MD. I figure KFDK is maybe 18-20 and P-40 is darn close to 30. It just makes me wonder what people are doing, and how far behind the plane they really get.
Click to expand...

Did you try digging up a LiveATC recording?

But, if you're not responding to calls like that, I think it's not a case of being behind the airplane, it's being oblivious to the world at large.
 
Jack Spectre said:
But, if you're not responding to calls like that, I think it's not a case of being behind the airplane, it's being oblivious to the world at large.
Click to expand...
Mostly, I think it's a case of folks not following the FAA's directive to monitor 121.5 if able. And please note the imperative "shall" in that regulatory FDC NOTAM.

FDC NOTAM 4/4386 said:
ALL AIRCRAFT OPERATING IN UNITED STATES NATIONAL AIRSPACE, IF CAPABLE, SHALL MAINTAIN A LISTENING WATCH ON VHF GUARD 121.5 OR UHF 243.0.
Click to expand...
 
Yep, had guard on while passing in the speed ring,heading north east home to KILG, Wilmington. I try to keep com 2 on guard when not picking up the next ATIS on my flight path.

I don't think there is a LiveATC archive for 121.5, I'll have to go search.
 
GMascelli said:
On the way home from Hanover, VA today I heared the Air Force try and contact an aircraft that was headed for restricted airspace. Multiple warnings went unanswered with a final directive by the air force to contact the FAA.

The bust was approximately 30 miles north of KGAI Gaithersburg, MD. I figure KFDK is maybe 18-20 and P-40 is darn close to 30. It just makes me wonder what people are doing, and how far behind the plane they really get.
Click to expand...

Must be you LOL. When Tamson and I were flying back from GED after our Lunch with you and Mary we heard a PA32 being warned and warned and warned and Oooop he busted told to do a 180.
pmanton said:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40872205/ns/politics/


It looks like it was big iron this time

Paul
N1431A
2AZ1
Click to expand...

Sounds Like An AVE.F situation. Radios must have gone TU but then not sure how they got clearance to land.
 
Ghery said:
Oops. That can't be good for a career.
Click to expand...
Here's the rule:
C. ANY PERSON OPERATING AN AIRBORNE AIRCRAFT UNDER INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES (IFR) WITHIN OR TRANSITING THE DC SFRA/FRZ WHO IS AWARE OF AN INABILITY TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN RADIO CONTACT WITH ATC MUST CONTINUE THE FLIGHT VIA THE TWO-WAY RADIO COMMUNICATIONS FAILURE PROCEDURES FOUND IN THE FAA AERONAUTICAL INFORMATION MANUAL (AIM) OR APPLICABLE FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS (FAR).
Click to expand...
If it wasn't VMC, then the pilot was required to continue to DCA. OTOH, if it was VMC, the pilot screwed up big-time.
 
Ron Levy said:
Here's the rule:
If it wasn't VMC, then the pilot was required to continue to DCA. OTOH, if it was VMC, the pilot screwed up big-time.
Click to expand...

The rule you quoted sez nothing about MC, only FR.
 
Rules are one thing. Washington DC paranoia is another. Hence my comment.
 
Doggtyred said:
Please review the distinction between IFR, VFR, IMC and VMC.
Click to expand...
IFR and VFR refer to the rules under which you are operating. IMC and VMC refer to the meteorological conditions in which you are flying, and also depend on the airspace in which you are, with 91.155 setting the boundaries between the two. The lost comm rule (91.185) requires very different actions for IFR aircraft which have lost comm depending on whether or not you are in, and can stay in, VMC.
 
He apparently had the wrong freq plugged in according to latest news reports.
 
Ron Levy said:
Too bad they didn't have 121.5 in the #2 as required by FDC NOTAM.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that was a big mistake.

And if it's in their checklists to monitor it before entering the FRZ, they're going to get in trouble for not following those, too.
 
Ron Levy said:
The rule I quoted references the FAR's, and the FAR in question (91.185) very clearly specifies different actions based on flight conditions.
Click to expand...

But does it apply to a flight operated under part 121? Wouldn't they be required to follow their OpSpecs?

They certainly should have been monitoring 121.5, but I think it will be interesting to learn what the flight crew was doing. Did they know or suspect they had a problem?
 
There is at least one Part 121 operator who's company op specs require company on #2 comm. Therefore, monitoring 121.5 is impossible.
 
Ron Levy said:
The rule I quoted references the FAR's, and the FAR in question (91.185) very clearly specifies different actions based on flight conditions.
Click to expand...

No, 91.185 doesn't specify MC, only FR. Stop making things up.
 
That's what I was just told also by a fella flying for them. Number one is on the primary freq. No. two is with the company. They'd have to have a third radio. Even then, at some point they would be trying to get ATIS.

I have 121.5 on number two most of a trip, but not not when departing and arriving when switching between approach/departure, tower/ground and getting ATIS. I've always wished we could have one radio that also monitored guard as in the military.

Arriving in Addison, I don't know how many approach controllers they'll turn me over to; so, I have tower and ATIS in on number two from about 25 miles out. Number one says on approach and if I miss a frequency, the old one is still queued up in the Garmin.

Best,

Dave
 
Clark1961 said:
No, 91.185 doesn't specify MC, only FR. Stop making things up.
Click to expand...
Your interpretation of the term "VFR conditions" in 91.185(b) is not shared by the FAA. The FAA considers that term synonymous with VMC as defined in 91.155. And 91.185 most certainly does not apply to flights conducted under VFR.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Your interpretation of the term "VFR conditions" in 91.185(b) is not shared by the FAA. The FAA considers that term synonymous with VMC as defined in 91.155. And 91.185 most certainly does not apply to flights conducted under VFR.
Click to expand...

Speaking for the FAA again? We'll see how it holds up. If they were on an IFR clearance then they were in IFR conditions. Do you get the hint that I'm not interpreting the term "VFR conditions"??? I am pointing out that MC doesn't equal FR no matter how much you wish to argue.

OBTW, I'm quite sure the flight wasn't conducted under VFR. Really Ron, that wasn't even a nice try.
 
As previously stated some Part 121 operators use the number 2 radio for company communications. In my Part 121 experience we never monitored 121.5 but used the number 2 radio for company.
 
Clark1961 said:
Speaking for the FAA again? We'll see how it holds up. If they were on an IFR clearance then they were in IFR conditions. Do you get the hint that I'm not interpreting the term "VFR conditions"??? I am pointing out that MC doesn't equal FR no matter how much you wish to argue.

OBTW, I'm quite sure the flight wasn't conducted under VFR. Really Ron, that wasn't even a nice try.
Click to expand...

Take a look at the definitions in 14CFR 1. The phrase 'IFR Conditions' "means weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules." There's no separate definition for the phrase "VFR Conditions", but the meaning follows pretty clearly, I think.
 
Clark1961 said:
Speaking for the FAA again? We'll see how it holds up. If they were on an IFR clearance then they were in IFR conditions.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily, as pointed out by Chucky. And given the weather in the Mid-Atlantic region the day of the event, they probably weren't.

Do you get the hint that I'm not interpreting the term "VFR conditions"??? I am pointing out that MC doesn't equal FR no matter how much you wish to argue.
Click to expand...
If the regulation wasn't titled "IFR operations: Two-way radio communications failure" and the phrase was "VFR," not "VFR conditions," you might have a point. Since the reg is so titled, and the phrase is "VFR conditions," your final statement, while true, is irrelevant. If you lose 2-way comm while operating under IFR in "VFR conditions" (i.e., conditions less than those specified for VFR operations in 14 CFR 91.155) and can remain in "VFR conditions", you are absolutely required to do what it says in 91.185(b) ("continue the flight under VFR and land as soon as practicable," which doesn't include entering the SFRA/FRZ without 2-way comm) unless some other emergency situation requires a different course of action per 91.3(b).
 
Ron Levy said:
Did any of your Part 121 experience come after the issuance of FDC NOTAM 4/4386?
Click to expand...

I retired about a year and half ago, so to answer your question, yes.

However, the GOM (General Operations Manual) that each air carrier is required to have is regulatory. Therefore if the GOM states number two radio is to be used to monitor company, Airinc, Atlanta Flightwatch, etc then that's where it's set.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
If the regulation wasn't titled "IFR operations: Two-way radio communications failure" and the phrase was "VFR," not "VFR conditions," you might have a point. Since the reg is so titled, and the phrase is "VFR conditions," your final statement, while true, is irrelevant. If you lose 2-way comm while operating under IFR in "VFR conditions" (i.e., conditions less than those specified for VFR operations in 14 CFR 91.155) and can remain in "VFR conditions", you are absolutely required to do what it says in 91.185(b) ("continue the flight under VFR and land as soon as practicable," which doesn't include entering the SFRA/FRZ without 2-way comm) unless some other emergency situation requires a different course of action per 91.3(b).
Click to expand...

The reg says "Land as soon as practical", not "soon as possible". Given that Part 121 operations are controlled by OpSpecs, and one must have an approved airport listed in the OpSpecs perhaps the crew made the judgment to continue to destination. There is a lot of information not available to the public regarding what has happened.

I'm not going to armchair quarterback their decision. Let's let the professionals work this out.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
The reg says "Land as soon as practical", not "soon as possible". Given that Part 121 operations are controlled by OpSpecs, and one must have an approved airport listed in the OpSpecs perhaps the crew made the judgment to continue to destination. There is a lot of information not available to the public regarding what has happened.

I'm not going to armchair quarterback their decision. Let's let the professionals work this out.
Click to expand...
understood. That said, if they were where the press reports say, they had three Piedmont airports about as close as DCA.
 
Ron Levy said:
understood. That said, if they were where the press reports say, they had three Piedmont airports about as close as DCA.
Click to expand...

If that's true, it sounds like it would have taken them about the same time to get on the ground there as continuing to their filed destination, so 91.185(b) would not have required them to divert even if it was VMC.

As for whether the SFRA rules were violated, it doesn't sound like we have enough information to make that determination.
 
Ron Levy said:
understood. That said, if they were where the press reports say, they had three Piedmont airports about as close as DCA.
Click to expand...

OK, so in order for a Part 121 carrier to divert from a flight plan they will need a re release from the Dispatcher. A crew cannot simply decide to divert and land without knowledge of their associated flight control, unless it's an emergency. Dispatch and release of a Part 121 flight is a joint responsibility of the Captain and Dispatcher.

Like it's been stated earlier, there is simply too many unknowns in this situation.
 
Dave Siciliano said:
I have 121.5 on number two most of a trip, but not not when departing and arriving when switching between approach/departure, tower/ground and getting ATIS. I've always wished we could have one radio that also monitored guard as in the military.
Click to expand...

The Garmin SL30 Nav/Com (and SL40 Com) are capable of having one frequency active while simultaneously monitoring a second frequency. That makes it a GREAT radio for a single-radio airplane, and pretty nice if you want to monitor guard and two other frequencies in a 2-radio airplane.

I leave the audio panel set to talk on Com1 and monitor Com2 any time I'm in the air. Then, when I'm not actively using Com2 to grab an ATIS or some other such secondary usage, I flip-flop it back to 121.5. I begin with Tower and Departure in Com1, and I go through ATIS->Clearance->Ground on Com2, then switch to guard just prior to contacting the tower for takeoff.

I've been especially religious about doing this since FlyBQ '09 - Grant, Leslie and I monitored guard on Com2 on the way home from Wings, and that was the day Pres. Obama was giving the commencement address at Notre Dame. The whole way, we kept hearing "Aircraft 35 miles north of South Bend, heading 160, altitude 3500, speed 100, you are approaching restricted airspace. Turn away immediately and contact South Bend Approach on 1xx.xx for further information." That would be followed by a similar transmission stating "You have entered restricted airspace..." One or two actually made it to the inner ring. We as pilots in general really suck at staying out of these TFR's. :frown2:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top