Hahn Law Firm, P.C., recently obtained a dismissal of an FAA order suspending an airman’s certificate due to an incursion into the Crawford Ranch TFR. The administrative law judge found that the FAA did not prove that the weather briefer advised the pilot of the TFR and, hence, the pilot was not responsible for the incursion.
Two zones of special use airspace
surround President Bush’s
On the morning of the day in question, the pilot took off and flew cross country with the destination airport being just inside the expanded TFR. He utilized flight following during the flight and contacted Gray Approach for the descent and landing. Although he was under the observation of ATC, and had been assigned a discreet code, no mention was made to him of the expanded TFR. When he took off from that same airport a few hours later, he squawked 1200 and immediately departed the area. The take off from that uncontrolled airport within the boundary of the expanded TFR without a flight plan or discreet code triggered the violation.
The FAA alleged that the pilot violated
the
At the hearing, the pilot testified that he obtained a preflight weather briefing and that he requested advisories as to temporary flight restrictions along his route. He further testified that the briefer did not advise him of the expanded Crawford TFR. The FAA could provide no evidence to counter the pilot’s testimony because the FAA did not preserve the audiotape of the briefing. Rather, the FAA argued that it should be presumed that the briefer advised the pilot of the TFR because that is standard procedure. The FAA also argued that a single briefing the pilot obtained early in the morning was not sufficient to cover a flight several hours later, and therefore he should have called FSS for a second briefing.
However, the administrative law judge disagreed and found for the pilot. He stated that, although it may be reasonable to presume that the briefer executed his or her duties correctly, the only direct evidence at the hearing was that the briefer did not advise the pilot of the TFR. Without any evidence to contradict the pilot’s testimony, the judge was compelled to conclude that the pilot did not receive advisories regarding the TFR. The judge also noted that the TFR had been active for several days prior to the flight, so the pilot’s failure to obtain a second updated briefing did not excuse the weather briefer’s omission.
The FAA has pursued hundreds of pilots for violations of the Crawford TFR with all but a few receiving 60-day suspensions. The Hahn Law Firm has now been successful in representing three pilots for Crawford TFR violations.
Lessons from this case:
1. Always get a preflight briefing.
2. Always ask for temporary flight restrictions along your route of flight.
3. Always make a documentation trail to prove that you obtained a briefing. Obtain a telephone briefing (as opposed to online) because it is recorded, make the call yourself so your voice will be on tape, and make sure your name is recorded in addition to or in lieu of your tail number.
4. If you think you violated a TFR (or any FAR), file a NASA Form immediately.
5. If you think your briefing was deficient, or if you want to prove you obtained one, request a copy of the tape immediately.
6. If the FAA begins an investigation against you, contact an aviation attorney as soon as possible. Steps taken by an airman early in an investigation can be decisive to the outcome.
7. If you do not know how to do any of the above, ask your flight instructor or give us a call at (214) 744-3200.