POTUS TFR-busted
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
POTUS TFR-busted
My PP friend and her CFII were on an instrument training flight under the hood, under vfr rules, no flight plan was filed and they apparently clipped a Presidential TFR. The inevitable 'call ATC' radio call was received. Neither the student or CFII invoked ASRS. Both are now subject to enforcement actions (suspensions). The flight was performed at the CFII's direction. She gave the navigational tasks to my friend who then executed such. Any ideas on why the PP should get nailed here? Isn't the CFII totally liable for this apparent goof? Although both pilots can log this time, isn't there actually only 1 PIC?
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: EGYD
Posts: 1,073
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No sympathy.
They were both licenced pilots.
Your Private pilot friend was logging PIC no doubt, so they should accept responsibility as well.
I'm glad to see the FAA taking enforcement action - they don't do it enough in my opinion which has lead to real degradation in airmanship as people used to not expect any repercussions of not assuming the responsibilities of being a pilot, and when appropriate pilot in command.
You may say it could happen to anyone. It doesn't - I make sure it doesn't happen to me and make sure my students understand the pre-flight preparation I teach them is an absolute minimum.
They were both licenced pilots.
Your Private pilot friend was logging PIC no doubt, so they should accept responsibility as well.
I'm glad to see the FAA taking enforcement action - they don't do it enough in my opinion which has lead to real degradation in airmanship as people used to not expect any repercussions of not assuming the responsibilities of being a pilot, and when appropriate pilot in command.
You may say it could happen to anyone. It doesn't - I make sure it doesn't happen to me and make sure my students understand the pre-flight preparation I teach them is an absolute minimum.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No fighter jets. They only clipped the outer fringe, like about 1 mile.
We were just wondering if the CFII is automatically the PIC. You can only have 1 PIC, right?
We were just wondering if the CFII is automatically the PIC. You can only have 1 PIC, right?
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: EGYD
Posts: 1,073
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not under FAR.
If you are qualified on category and class/type then you can log PIC whilst receiving instruction.
Therefore you can argue part 91.3 can apply to both pilots.
If you are qualified on category and class/type then you can log PIC whilst receiving instruction.
Therefore you can argue part 91.3 can apply to both pilots.
(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BG,
I don't disagree with your thought about 91.3 and it got me thinking.
14 CFR 1.1 General Definitions says:
I also found an NTSB case that says a CFI (acting as such) is the PIC always, no matter what the ratings of the 'student' are.......
Thanks.
I don't disagree with your thought about 91.3 and it got me thinking.
14 CFR 1.1 General Definitions says:
Pilot in command means the person who:
(1) Has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight;
(2) Has been designated as pilot in command before or during the flight; and
(3) Holds the appropriate category, class, and type rating, if appropriate, for the conduct of the flight.
So it's a 'person' not 'persons'. And logging time is a separate matter.(1) Has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight;
(2) Has been designated as pilot in command before or during the flight; and
(3) Holds the appropriate category, class, and type rating, if appropriate, for the conduct of the flight.
I also found an NTSB case that says a CFI (acting as such) is the PIC always, no matter what the ratings of the 'student' are.......
FN10 Our precedent makes clear that, "[r]egardless of who is
manipulating the controls of the aircraft during an instructional
flight, or what degree of proficiency the student has attained,
the flight instructor is always deemed to be the pilot-in-command."
Administrator v. Hamre, 3 NTSB 28, 31 (1977). This
principle was reaffirmed in Administrator v. Walkup, 6 NTSB 36
(1988).
FN11 See 14 C.F.R. 1.1, which defines "pilot in command," as
"the pilot responsible for the operation and safety of an
aircraft during flight time."
Above cite from Administrator v. Strobel, SERVED: August 1, 1995; NTSB Order No. EA-4384 (page 7)
I think we're good now, but I guess my friend will find out at her hearing.manipulating the controls of the aircraft during an instructional
flight, or what degree of proficiency the student has attained,
the flight instructor is always deemed to be the pilot-in-command."
Administrator v. Hamre, 3 NTSB 28, 31 (1977). This
principle was reaffirmed in Administrator v. Walkup, 6 NTSB 36
(1988).
FN11 See 14 C.F.R. 1.1, which defines "pilot in command," as
"the pilot responsible for the operation and safety of an
aircraft during flight time."
Above cite from Administrator v. Strobel, SERVED: August 1, 1995; NTSB Order No. EA-4384 (page 7)
Thanks.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: EGYD
Posts: 1,073
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
either the student or CFII invoked ASRS. Both are now subject to enforcement actions (suspensions).
Surely they were monitoring 121.50 as required by !FDC 4/4386 ?
Oh I bet they didn't read that either.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 1,267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeez BigGrecian... you almost seem to take this one personally? Sure this was a tremendous cock-up from their side, and a CFII should know better. But don't come an tell me you've never messed up yourself? Fortunately I have never busted a president's TFR, but sure missed a few NOTAMs one including a runway closure where I was picking up my passengers. Embarrassing to say the least, but none was harmed and I learnt from it.
And oh.. FDC 4/4386 says IF CAPABLE, SHALL MAINTAIN A LISTENING WATCH ON VHF GUARD 121.5. Are you sure they had two radios? Many C152s don't and are used for initial IR training.
And oh.. FDC 4/4386 says IF CAPABLE, SHALL MAINTAIN A LISTENING WATCH ON VHF GUARD 121.5. Are you sure they had two radios? Many C152s don't and are used for initial IR training.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Farnham, UK
Posts: 323
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Suggest having a look at this month's (Feb) issue of FLYING magazine (US version).
Flying mag
In it there is an article that you may find useful. The author busted a TFR on Long Island. It details his encounter with the process, some history on the FAA v TSA issues regarding TFRs and also some lawyer advise.
One bit which stuck out -
Good Luck
T'Bug
Flying mag
In it there is an article that you may find useful. The author busted a TFR on Long Island. It details his encounter with the process, some history on the FAA v TSA issues regarding TFRs and also some lawyer advise.
One bit which stuck out -
Aviation lawyer says: "Did you file a NASA report"
"No" I said "I always thought they were more for air carrier safety issues?"
There was a long pause. He said quietly "It would have been your ticket out of jail. You still would have a suspension on your record, but it would have been waived under the immunity of the report."
"No" I said "I always thought they were more for air carrier safety issues?"
There was a long pause. He said quietly "It would have been your ticket out of jail. You still would have a suspension on your record, but it would have been waived under the immunity of the report."
T'Bug
