Little 'ol lady helped across the sky by two F-16's

[Eclipse]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-us-planeintercepted-,0,3510437.story

http://dailyherald.com/article/20110804/news/708049895/

A 75-year-old South Barrington pilot got the surprise of her life when her small plane was intercepted by two F-16 fighter jets Wednesday night after it entered restricted airspace temporarily put in place for President Barack Obama's visit to Chicago.
The jets were scrambled from Toledo by the North American Aerospace Defense Command at 5:34 p.m. after the Kitfox Model 2 flew into temporarily restricted airspace, said NORAD spokesman Lt. Michael Humphreys.

NORAD officials said the plane did not have a radio, forcing the command to scramble the jets in order to identify it. The jets intercepted the plane, forcing it to turn around and return to its home airport of Mill Rose Farm, Humphreys said.

"Ah the pure thrill and heartfelt joy of a summer evening flight!  How blessed I am to have wings if wood and steel
to carry me to the heavens...

...hmm..what's that light?...

>>>> VROOOOMMMMWHOOOSHHHHSHSHH!!!!!!!!<<<<<

...ahhhhhhh!..."

The Rose family are well-know in these parts, and they have a great restaurant and meat packing plant on an old farm in the NW suburbs.  With said...

I don't want 75-year old women who can't be bothered to check the news and/or TFRs, or who don't know where they
are, flying home-made airplanes without radios any where near my house, which, BTW, is in one of the busiest air sectors in the US!

Marine 1 (or one of its brethren) and two Chinooks flew over my place Tuesday morning, and I heard them on the way back last night.

[AngelWings]

 Hey, mistakes happen. It isn't like she was planning on trying to crash the thing into Air Force One anyway.

[davidsinn]

TFRs are just as stupid as gun free zones. They don't slow the bad guys down at all and just screw the good guys over. Anyone bound and determined to use an aircraft against the president would have already crashed into the target before NORAD knew what was going on.

[Spaceman3750]

I don't want 75-year old women who can't be bothered to check the news and/or TFRs, or who don't know where they
are, flying home-made airplanes without radios any where near my house, which, BTW, is in one of the busiest air sectors in the US!

$10 says she knew EXACTLY where she was flying and flew it every week. She just didn't know about the TFR (which is an honest mistake though inexcusable given that you're supposed to check NOTAMs before you fly). Also, as long as she was outside of Chicago's Class B, its Mode C veil, and any Class C airspace (there's lots of places that fit this description) she isn't required to have a radio, transponder, or even an electrical system.

That said, I wonder if a 75 year old's PPL (or SPL) will survive scrutiny after violating a Presidential TFR. My bet is no.

[jeders]

"Ah the pure thrill and heartfelt joy of a summer evening flight!  How blessed I am to have wings if wood and steel
to carry me to the heavens...

...hmm..what's that light?...

>>>> VROOOOMMMMWHOOOSHHHHSHSHH!!!!!!!!<<<<<

...ahhhhhhh!..."

[Eclipse]

We don't have any way of knowing where she was when intercepted, but this is the airport she took off from:
http://skyvector.com/?ll=42.077248333,-88.159798333&chart=105&zoom=3



Diagram of TFR:


Description:
http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_1_8690.html

[Spaceman3750]

We don't have any way of knowing where she was when intercepted, but this is the airport she took off from:
http://skyvector.com/?ll=42.077248333,-88.159798333&chart=105&zoom=3



Diagram of TFR:


Description:
http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_1_8690.html

As long as she was below 3000' MSL she doesn't have to maintain radio contact (the Class B floor at the departure airport is 3000', probably 1900' where she violated the TFR) but she is required to have a Mode C transponder.

(Pilots correct me if I'm wrong here, I had to look up how to discern the floor of the B airspace)

[peter rabbit]

She just didn't know about the TFR (which is an honest mistake though inexcusable given that you're supposed to check NOTAMs before you fly).

Maybe she is the mom of the senator that couldn't be bothered to check NOTAMs but got off with some 'remedial training'?

[simon]

My advice to her would be to get her grandson to file an ASRS. Pronto.

Joking about it (Michelle Obama etc.) will not be helpful.

I don't think she realizes that busting Presidential TFR's usually result in a suspension. At her age, maybe she doesn't care. But "My computer wasn't working" won't cut it. Not as bad as busting the ADIZ (Which every pilot should know about) but much worse than busting Bravo (Which can go unreported if you just clip a ring and the controller cuts you a break).

Immunity Policy. Advisory Circular 00-46D.

9. Enforcement Policy

In determining the type and extent of the enforcement action to be taken in a particular case, the following factors are considered:...nature of the violation...the certificate holder's level of experience...attitude of the violator...action taken by employer or other government authority...presence of any factors involving national interest...

The filing of a report with NASA...is considered by FAA to be indicative of a constructive attitude...although a finding of violation may be made, neither a civil penalty nor certificate suspension will be imposed if...the violation was inadvertent and not deliberate...and...the person proves that, within 10 days after the violation, he or she completed and delivered or mailed a written report of the incident or occurrence to NASA under ASRS

[♠SARKID♠]

What a dope.

[JeffDG]

My advice to her would be to get her grandson to file an ASRS. Pronto.

Generally, won't help with this type of thing.  They define things like violating VIP TFRs and the SFRA around DC as presumptive deliberate acts, and thus the waiver of sanction from ASRS does not apply.

[Eclipse]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44037919



Rose said she filled out a report with the Federal Aviation Administration, including a note describing how she mistakenly believed the jets were circling to admire her plane.

Gee-sus.

[simon]

They define things like violating VIP TFRs and the SFRA around DC as presumptive deliberate acts, and thus the waiver of sanction from ASRS does not apply.

She is toast without an ASRS submission. I do not know whether the submission will help.

Can you point to a reference where the FAA defines violation of a VIP TFR as "presumptive deliberate"?

(BTW, I like her flight suit. Very fashionable. Wonder how those ankles will hold up in an engine fire.)

[SABRE17]

You know living on cape cod i have to deal with a lot of little old lady drivers on the road, that usually don't do the speed limit and even crash into the fronts of businesses. is it bad Ill be dealing with that in the sky when I fly now???

Come on, "they were admiring my plane", did she not notice the wing-rocking from the F-16's when they intercept?

The fact is that if I bust a TFR tomorrow, as a solo student pilot, I might as well keep my restaurant job for the rest of my life because ill never be a pilot after that...

[AngelWings]

 OK, nevermind my original comment. She is just [darn] crazy! The missiles don't scare her off? Did she accidentally confuse the missiles for picture taking apparatuses? "Plane" stupid.

[JC004]

...
how she mistakenly believed the jets were circling to admire her plane.

?!?!?!?!?!?!

[NCRblues]

...
how she mistakenly believed the jets were circling to admire her plane.

?!?!?!?!?!?!

What, you have never had multimillion dollar military jets circle you to admire your aircraft??? 

[JC004]

...
how she mistakenly believed the jets were circling to admire her plane.

?!?!?!?!?!?!

What, you have never had multimillion dollar military jets circle you to admire your aircraft??? 

Nope, but have tangoed with them a bit playing on military runways.  They usually COMPLAIN.  "GET THIS LITTLE RED WHITE AND BLUE PLANE OUT OF HERE"

[JeffDG]

They define things like violating VIP TFRs and the SFRA around DC as presumptive deliberate acts, and thus the waiver of sanction from ASRS does not apply.

She is toast without an ASRS submission. I do not know whether the submission will help.

Can you point to a reference where the FAA defines violation of a VIP TFR as "presumptive deliberate"?

(BTW, I like her flight suit. Very fashionable. Wonder how those ankles will hold up in an engine fire.)

I can't find a VIP TFR reference, but I do have one from the DC ADIZ:
https://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/5371.PDF

After considering the evidence, the law judge held that respondent violated the FAR as alleged.  He rejected the defense that respondent was eligible for a waiver of sanction based on his filing of an ASRP report, finding that the violations were not inadvertent.
...
That he chose not to ensure that he was complying with the restrictions and limitations of that airspace does not transform his actions from deliberate or advertent to not deliberate or inadvertent.  We find that respondent is not eligible for a waiver of sanction under the ASRP. 

[simon]

I don't want this to turn into a strung out debate on the meaning of words, but I still fail to see how the little old lady's actions or the actions of the pilot from your attachment who busted the ADIZ could be interpreted by anyone as deliberate. Whether they were inadvertent or not is the question. This is where the FAA is most likely to disagree with a pilot.

Deliberate means you meant to do it.

Inadvertent means failing to act carefully or not duly attentive.

Filing an ASRS only prevents action being taken if the act is BOTH "not deliberate" and "inadvertent". The document you attached quotes a great example:

A person who turns suddenly and spills a cup of coffee has acted inadvertently. On the other hand, a person who places a coffee cup precariously on the edge of a table has engaged in purposeful behavior. Even though the person may not deliberately intend the coffee to spill, the conduct is not inadvertent because it involves a purposeful choice between two acts——placing the cup on the edge of the table or balancing it so that it will not spill. Likewise, a pilot acts inadvertently when he flies at an incorrect altitude because he misreads his instruments. But his actions are not inadvertent if he engages in the same conduct because he chooses not to consult his instruments to verify his altitude.

So if someone busts a TFR because they did not take duty of care to call Flight Services etc., it is probably not inadvertent and the ASRS offers no protection.

In effect, you might say that in busting a TFR, the FAA might presume it is not inadvertent. If you got a Flight Services verbal briefing, asked for TFR's along the route of flight and the briefer said there wasn't any (And you have the tape), you probably have a good case that it was inadvertent. But I don't think one could ever safely presume something was deliberate off the bat.

Like I said, it is just a finer point on words. But regardless of works, in the end of course, if the FAA wants your butt, you are going to have to put up a pretty good case to keep it.

[AirDX]

TFRs are just as stupid as gun free zones. They don't slow the bad guys down at all and just screw the good guys over.

The only sensible comment in this entire thread.

[davidsinn]

TFRs are just as stupid as gun free zones. They don't slow the bad guys down at all and just screw the good guys over.

The only sensible comment in this entire thread.

The thing that gets me is the aviation community not only tolerates but in some cases defends governmental action that if done to the regular populace would cause riots.

[RADIOMAN015]

TFRs are just as stupid as gun free zones. They don't slow the bad guys down at all and just screw the good guys over.

The only sensible comment in this entire thread.

As the folks up in Maine wh

The thing that gets me is the aviation community not only tolerates but in some cases defends governmental action that if done to the regular populace would cause riots.

Ask the folks up in Maine, every time President George Bush Senior went up to his summer home in Kennebunk.   Not only was the airspace affected, but also the water space in the bay as well as vehicle routes in and around the town.  Eventually, though, I think the TFR got reduced to an acceptable level to the locals.  Apparently there was one small airport with basically recreational/private pilots that always had to be closed.

Remember that's TFR's also used for other things besides security.   For security you do need to address the "exceptions" and if you don't have an exclusion zone, you have no way to ID the exception until it is too late.   Also that's the reason why sometimes those security TFR's are larger than the other types.   

One thing I could never understand is why they never had US Army helicopter gunships stationed within an inner perimeter security zone.  Those F16's/F15's could cause a lot of collateral damage when compared with the AH64 Apache precision firing system.   
RM
   

[N Harmon]

TFRs are just as stupid as gun free zones. They don't slow the bad guys down at all and just screw the good guys over.

Non-concur. There are non-security justifications for TFRs, namely involving SAR/DR operations. And the major problem with gun free zones is they invite violence by decreasing the potential that victims are armed. TFRs do not.

If someone can not be bothered with checking for TFRs, then they shouldn't be flying. Simple as that. Sorry, but this isn't your dad's 1960's airspace environment.

One thing I could never understand is why they never had US Army helicopter gunships stationed within an inner perimeter security zone.  Those F16's/F15's could cause a lot of collateral damage when compared with the AH64 Apache precision firing system.

I suspect the reason they use fighter aircraft is that they can intercept just about anything, whereas the AH64 is speed limited.

That said, the USCG already patrols the Washington DC ADIZ with helicopters. They even carry electronic message boards for situations like this. I see no reason why they, or the army, couldn't do the same around VIP security zones.

[N Harmon]

The thing that gets me is the aviation community not only tolerates but in some cases defends governmental action that if done to the regular populace would cause riots.

I don't understand what this means.

[davidsinn]

The thing that gets me is the aviation community not only tolerates but in some cases defends governmental action that if done to the regular populace would cause riots.

I don't understand what this means.

If large swaths of the country on busy highways were periodically closed off at random with smaller zones inside that could get you killed for violating them, the people would riot. Yet that's what the FAA is doing with these VIP TFR and ADIZ. They're jacking up some of the busiest airspace in the country for the illusion of safety. It's one thing to throw a TFR up for an emergency or for safety(rocket launches and weapons ranges come to mind) I have no problem with that. But to do it for a person is just plain un-American, that whole, all men are created equal thing... And before anybody gets their panties in a twist about me not liking Obama, that's true, I don't. However, I said the same things about Bush 43 whenever he came to the area and screwed everything up around the city I worked in at the time.

[Майор Хаткевич]

The thing that gets me is the aviation community not only tolerates but in some cases defends governmental action that if done to the regular populace would cause riots.

I don't understand what this means.

Maybe because if it's ONE knucklehead, then they get intercepted/shot down/punished, and everyone gets to fly another day. BUT if everyone was flying, and the bad guys weren't stopped because no one knew they were there, you can bet NO ONE would be flying the next day, or probably week.

[Eclipse]

If large swaths of the country on busy highways were periodically closed off at random with smaller zones inside that could get you killed for violating them, the people would riot.

This has been happening for years all over the country.  POTUS generally gets a closed highway, point-to-point, wherever he goes in the US.

[N Harmon]

If large swaths of the country on busy highways were periodically closed off at random with smaller zones inside that could get you killed for violating them, the people would riot.

But that happens every time the President comes to town. Highways get closed off to traffic, local roads too. And you can bet trying to bust through one of those roadblocks will get you killed.

And the extent of the closings corresponds to the threat. If the President is traveling south bound, then the north bound lane will still be closed because it is easy enough to cross over the median.

The sky, unlike the ground, is one big connected area, topologically speaking. To get the same amount of protection you have to go for distance.

It sucks, but what is the alternative?

[davidsinn]

It sucks, but what is the alternative?

Prevent him from traveling except for state business comes to mind real quick. He's there to do a job for a set period of time. Not to use his bully pulpit to play politics on the people's dime(not singling out the current one because I know they've been guilty of it for decades if not longer.)

If large swaths of the country on busy highways were periodically closed off at random with smaller zones inside that could get you killed for violating them, the people would riot.

This has been happening for years all over the country.  POTUS generally gets a closed highway, point-to-point, wherever he goes in the US.

I know it has. Doesn't make it right though. If the threat is really that high then don't be there. All the TFRs and ADIZs in the world didn't stop one guy from planting a Cessna in the oval office in the 90's or another one on Red Square in the 80's.

[N Harmon]

Prevent him from traveling except for state business comes to mind real quick.

Who gets to define "state business"?

[davidsinn]

Prevent him from traveling except for state business comes to mind real quick.

Who gets to define "state business"?

I think we can all agree that a birthday party, vacation or political fund-raiser do not meet the definition. Surveying a disaster area or meeting heads of state for example, would meet the definition.

It all comes down to the 10th amendment and the commerce clause. The feds closing the airspace for a VIP is not interstate commerce. Regulating the airspace over the many states is not a constitutionally appointed power and thus should be reserved to the states per the 10th.

[Eclipse]

^ Which sounds great over coffee, and doesn't change the fact that this lady was oblivious to some basics requirements for flying an airplane, especially over my house.

[davidsinn]

^ Which sounds great over coffee, and doesn't change the fact that this lady was oblivious to some basics requirements for flying an airplane, especially over my house.

Looks to me like she took off and landed safely. That's the basic requirements right there. Everything else is just bureaucracy.

[a2capt]

If someone is that clueless and dingbatty about why an F-16 is on her side, in this day and age ..  It's time to hang it up.

[JeffDG]

Prevent him from traveling except for state business comes to mind real quick.

Who gets to define "state business"?

The Chief of State.

[davidsinn]

Prevent him from traveling except for state business comes to mind real quick.

Who gets to define "state business"?

The Chief of State.

Circular logic. The congress should define it being the duly elected representatives of the people and the constitutional check on the executive.

[JeffDG]

Prevent him from traveling except for state business comes to mind real quick.

Who gets to define "state business"?

The Chief of State.

Circular logic. The congress should define it being the duly elected representatives of the people and the constitutional check on the executive.

Is the Chief of State not the duly elected representative of the people?  For that matter, which member of Congress or Senate is elected by all the people.  They represent their districts and/or states, while the President and Vice President are elected nationally.

[davidsinn]

Is the Chief of State not the duly elected representative of the people? while the President and Vice President are elected nationally.


No and no. The president is elected by the electoral college while the VP is elected by no one under the current system. The popular vote is just a suggestion on who the president will be. In fact winning the popular vote does not even mean you'll be the president. See Bush v. Gore, 2000. Besides you're missing the point of the checks and balances. The Chief of State should not be the one to decide on conditions that limit the Chief of State. That's self serving.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Electoral College gives States the choice, not the people. Ignore the national totals and judge state by state.

[Spaceman3750]

That said, the USCG already patrols the Washington DC ADIZ with helicopters. They even carry electronic message boards for situations like this. I see no reason why they, or the army, couldn't do the same around VIP security zones.

Because every time the government alters the spending of "my" tax money (either increasing or decreasing, or otherwise altering the status quo), the general populace whines and complains.