Narrative:

I spoke to FAA. We discussed far 91 137.C5 which states that carrying accredited news media be permitted into a temporary flight restr area upon filing a flight plan, provided they stay above all relief aircraft in the area. I filed my flight plan after speaking to the FAA several times through the morning, making sure that we both understood the regulation the same way. I had spoken to a united states coast guard lieutenant who told me that he didn't want any civilian aircraft in the area and would not discuss this any further with me. I told this to the FAA who stated that the coast guard, he felt, had no jurisdiction over the airspace. Later in the day another representative of the FAA in the same office called and explained the scenario he went through with the coast guard, navy and fbi, and none of them claimed the temporary flight restr, so the last person he spoke to was with the fbi who said that it was up to the FAA. At this he stated he is the FAA and saw no reason to tie up so much airspace for something that happened 13 days earlier and the rescue was on the ocean floor. At this, the fbi stated they were requesting the temporary flight restr and the FAA then suggested shrinking it down to maybe 5 mi and 3000 ft. The FAA gave me the phone number to talk to the fbi. I called the fbi and told them I would like to find out about operating at 3000 ft, and they said absolutely not. I stated that I had been out there almost every flyable day and had not seen a rescue or relief aircraft above about 1000 ft in the area for a week, which I had spoken to other pilots about, also. The fbi stated that they didn't want us getting pictures of bodies being rescued and that they had sensitive equipment in the area at 3000 ft. We wouldn't affect their equipment. The actual incident took place after I spoke to the FAA, filed my flight plan and was cleared into the area by ny TRACON and then requested to leave the area. I explained that I had spoken to FAA washington and told them who I had spoken to and his phone number. I later spoke to the TRACON people on the phone and asked them if they were familiar with the 91.137c5 regulation covering news media and he stated that he was only vaguely aware with it. I questioned why they were not familiar with it and they said they don't encounter it often. After 2 weeks of being asked to enter the area under the regulation I would think they would research it further. Also the temporary flight restr was giving a ZBW phone number with it and they said they had nothing to do with it and didn't know why their number was given out. After this incident was all over with, I was finally given the number of a gentleman, who I never called, as I was leaving the area back to nyc. I was always under the impression that the temporary flight restrs were to protect the airspace, not to help someone keep the news media out of an area and violate the first amendment. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: this temporary flight restr is now defined as having a 20 NM radius with a ceiling of 3000 ft. The reporter cites 2 problems related to the control of the temporary flight restr area. One involves the gap between the TRACON's knowledge and procedures, and the other involves the lack of aircraft tracking in temporary flight restrs. The reporter adds that the original intent of the temporary flight restr seems to have been lost since anyone can say they filed a flight plan and fly into the area. In the final analysis, this reporter was not found to have violated any rules related to the temporary flight restr.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AFTER HAVING FILED A VFR FLT PLAN AND RECEIVING A CLRNC INTO A TEMPORARY FLT RESTR AREA, A BH06 PLT WAS TOLD TO LEAVE THE TEMPORARY FLT RESTR AREA. THE PLT WAS ON A CHARTER FOR THE NEWS MEDIA AND INFERRED THAT HE HAD PERMISSION AND WAS OPERATING UNDER THE APPLICABLE FAR.

Narrative: I SPOKE TO FAA. WE DISCUSSED FAR 91 137.C5 WHICH STATES THAT CARRYING ACCREDITED NEWS MEDIA BE PERMITTED INTO A TEMPORARY FLT RESTR AREA UPON FILING A FLT PLAN, PROVIDED THEY STAY ABOVE ALL RELIEF ACFT IN THE AREA. I FILED MY FLT PLAN AFTER SPEAKING TO THE FAA SEVERAL TIMES THROUGH THE MORNING, MAKING SURE THAT WE BOTH UNDERSTOOD THE REG THE SAME WAY. I HAD SPOKEN TO A UNITED STATES COAST GUARD LIEUTENANT WHO TOLD ME THAT HE DIDN'T WANT ANY CIVILIAN ACFT IN THE AREA AND WOULD NOT DISCUSS THIS ANY FURTHER WITH ME. I TOLD THIS TO THE FAA WHO STATED THAT THE COAST GUARD, HE FELT, HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER THE AIRSPACE. LATER IN THE DAY ANOTHER REPRESENTATIVE OF THE FAA IN THE SAME OFFICE CALLED AND EXPLAINED THE SCENARIO HE WENT THROUGH WITH THE COAST GUARD, NAVY AND FBI, AND NONE OF THEM CLAIMED THE TEMPORARY FLT RESTR, SO THE LAST PERSON HE SPOKE TO WAS WITH THE FBI WHO SAID THAT IT WAS UP TO THE FAA. AT THIS HE STATED HE IS THE FAA AND SAW NO REASON TO TIE UP SO MUCH AIRSPACE FOR SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED 13 DAYS EARLIER AND THE RESCUE WAS ON THE OCEAN FLOOR. AT THIS, THE FBI STATED THEY WERE REQUESTING THE TEMPORARY FLT RESTR AND THE FAA THEN SUGGESTED SHRINKING IT DOWN TO MAYBE 5 MI AND 3000 FT. THE FAA GAVE ME THE PHONE NUMBER TO TALK TO THE FBI. I CALLED THE FBI AND TOLD THEM I WOULD LIKE TO FIND OUT ABOUT OPERATING AT 3000 FT, AND THEY SAID ABSOLUTELY NOT. I STATED THAT I HAD BEEN OUT THERE ALMOST EVERY FLYABLE DAY AND HAD NOT SEEN A RESCUE OR RELIEF ACFT ABOVE ABOUT 1000 FT IN THE AREA FOR A WK, WHICH I HAD SPOKEN TO OTHER PLTS ABOUT, ALSO. THE FBI STATED THAT THEY DIDN'T WANT US GETTING PICTURES OF BODIES BEING RESCUED AND THAT THEY HAD SENSITIVE EQUIP IN THE AREA AT 3000 FT. WE WOULDN'T AFFECT THEIR EQUIP. THE ACTUAL INCIDENT TOOK PLACE AFTER I SPOKE TO THE FAA, FILED MY FLT PLAN AND WAS CLRED INTO THE AREA BY NY TRACON AND THEN REQUESTED TO LEAVE THE AREA. I EXPLAINED THAT I HAD SPOKEN TO FAA WASHINGTON AND TOLD THEM WHO I HAD SPOKEN TO AND HIS PHONE NUMBER. I LATER SPOKE TO THE TRACON PEOPLE ON THE PHONE AND ASKED THEM IF THEY WERE FAMILIAR WITH THE 91.137C5 REG COVERING NEWS MEDIA AND HE STATED THAT HE WAS ONLY VAGUELY AWARE WITH IT. I QUESTIONED WHY THEY WERE NOT FAMILIAR WITH IT AND THEY SAID THEY DON'T ENCOUNTER IT OFTEN. AFTER 2 WKS OF BEING ASKED TO ENTER THE AREA UNDER THE REG I WOULD THINK THEY WOULD RESEARCH IT FURTHER. ALSO THE TEMPORARY FLT RESTR WAS GIVING A ZBW PHONE NUMBER WITH IT AND THEY SAID THEY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT AND DIDN'T KNOW WHY THEIR NUMBER WAS GIVEN OUT. AFTER THIS INCIDENT WAS ALL OVER WITH, I WAS FINALLY GIVEN THE NUMBER OF A GENTLEMAN, WHO I NEVER CALLED, AS I WAS LEAVING THE AREA BACK TO NYC. I WAS ALWAYS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE TEMPORARY FLT RESTRS WERE TO PROTECT THE AIRSPACE, NOT TO HELP SOMEONE KEEP THE NEWS MEDIA OUT OF AN AREA AND VIOLATE THE FIRST AMENDMENT. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THIS TEMPORARY FLT RESTR IS NOW DEFINED AS HAVING A 20 NM RADIUS WITH A CEILING OF 3000 FT. THE RPTR CITES 2 PROBS RELATED TO THE CTL OF THE TEMPORARY FLT RESTR AREA. ONE INVOLVES THE GAP BTWN THE TRACON'S KNOWLEDGE AND PROCS, AND THE OTHER INVOLVES THE LACK OF ACFT TRACKING IN TEMPORARY FLT RESTRS. THE RPTR ADDS THAT THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE TEMPORARY FLT RESTR SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN LOST SINCE ANYONE CAN SAY THEY FILED A FLT PLAN AND FLY INTO THE AREA. IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, THIS RPTR WAS NOT FOUND TO HAVE VIOLATED ANY RULES RELATED TO THE TEMPORARY FLT RESTR.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.