Narrative:

A single T45, flew vr-1353 on aug/sat/99, at approximately XC00. We were originally scheduled for the route at XA30 that day, and tried to reschedule it aug/fri/99, but were unable to reach someone. We got a message machine that stated that no one would be in until the following monday. We filed an IFR/VFR flight plan with the reno FSS out of reno international airport. The briefer was able to read NOTAMS for the arrival and departure aerodromes, but had no NOTAMS for vr-1353. We checked on the route with reno FSS on 255.4 MHZ prior to entering with our planned entry and exit times. Monitored 255.4 and guard for the entire route, except to call juniper MOA at point 'Q' on 272.15 MHZ. We flew higher and slower than route specifications. When we arrived at roberts airport in redmond, or, we were informed by our squadron mates who flew the route earlier that vr-1353 was closed for a temporary flight restr on aug/xx/99. They found this out after they received a call from ZSE at roberts field. We later learned that the people of NAS whidbey island tried to contact us at our military dsn number but were unable to get through. Tfr was for a forest fire fighting operation. We did not overfly or see any forest fires or any other aircraft on the entire route. Supplemental information from acn 447733: I feel that this incident could have been easily averted. There were multiple times that I could have been alerted by various agencies: NAS whidbey schedules could have called information and got a commercial phone number for our duty officer. NAS whidbey operations could have alerted me when I called from reno. NAS whidbey could have NOTAM'ed the route closed. Reno FSS could have told me on the phone on 3 different occasions that we spoke with them. FSS could have told me by radio when I checked on the route airborne. 2 different ATC controllers could have told me when I was airborne. The reason I submit this information to the NASA program is because I really feel that the tenant operator of a military training route (MTR) should be responsible for real time management of that route. In my case I feel like I was needing information that many other people in the aviation system could have given me, yet I couldn't get it. Many military units require a real time phone brief be given just prior to takeoff on an MTR. NAS whidbey for example, maintains a 24 hours/7 days base operations center. There is no reason why MTR management should not be assumed by base operations when other scheduling personnel are unavailable. Also, it should be mandatory for MTR mgrs to issue NOTAMS anytime a route structure is affected. (Perhaps it would be even easier to add MTR's to the NOTAM system, making it very easy for FSS to check.) I believe the rule should be that an MTR should not be allowed to be scheduled unless you can call someone on the phone and get a route brief before flying it. That standard is a big step up in procedure for MTR's, but I feel it is necessary after flying many MTR's over the last 8 yrs. Airspace pressure has evolved to a point where the old standard is often falling short. I am sure there have been countless incidents similar to this one that would support my opinion.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MIL PLTS FIND THEY HAVE ENTERED TEMPORARY FLT RESTR AREA AFTER MAKING EVERY EFFORT TO GET INFO ABOUT THEIR RTE.

Narrative: A SINGLE T45, FLEW VR-1353 ON AUG/SAT/99, AT APPROX XC00. WE WERE ORIGINALLY SCHEDULED FOR THE RTE AT XA30 THAT DAY, AND TRIED TO RESCHEDULE IT AUG/FRI/99, BUT WERE UNABLE TO REACH SOMEONE. WE GOT A MESSAGE MACHINE THAT STATED THAT NO ONE WOULD BE IN UNTIL THE FOLLOWING MONDAY. WE FILED AN IFR/VFR FLT PLAN WITH THE RENO FSS OUT OF RENO INTL ARPT. THE BRIEFER WAS ABLE TO READ NOTAMS FOR THE ARR AND DEP AERODROMES, BUT HAD NO NOTAMS FOR VR-1353. WE CHKED ON THE RTE WITH RENO FSS ON 255.4 MHZ PRIOR TO ENTERING WITH OUR PLANNED ENTRY AND EXIT TIMES. MONITORED 255.4 AND GUARD FOR THE ENTIRE RTE, EXCEPT TO CALL JUNIPER MOA AT POINT 'Q' ON 272.15 MHZ. WE FLEW HIGHER AND SLOWER THAN RTE SPECS. WHEN WE ARRIVED AT ROBERTS ARPT IN REDMOND, OR, WE WERE INFORMED BY OUR SQUADRON MATES WHO FLEW THE RTE EARLIER THAT VR-1353 WAS CLOSED FOR A TEMPORARY FLT RESTR ON AUG/XX/99. THEY FOUND THIS OUT AFTER THEY RECEIVED A CALL FROM ZSE AT ROBERTS FIELD. WE LATER LEARNED THAT THE PEOPLE OF NAS WHIDBEY ISLAND TRIED TO CONTACT US AT OUR MIL DSN NUMBER BUT WERE UNABLE TO GET THROUGH. TFR WAS FOR A FOREST FIRE FIGHTING OP. WE DID NOT OVERFLY OR SEE ANY FOREST FIRES OR ANY OTHER ACFT ON THE ENTIRE RTE. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 447733: I FEEL THAT THIS INCIDENT COULD HAVE BEEN EASILY AVERTED. THERE WERE MULTIPLE TIMES THAT I COULD HAVE BEEN ALERTED BY VARIOUS AGENCIES: NAS WHIDBEY SCHEDULES COULD HAVE CALLED INFO AND GOT A COMMERCIAL PHONE NUMBER FOR OUR DUTY OFFICER. NAS WHIDBEY OPS COULD HAVE ALERTED ME WHEN I CALLED FROM RENO. NAS WHIDBEY COULD HAVE NOTAM'ED THE RTE CLOSED. RENO FSS COULD HAVE TOLD ME ON THE PHONE ON 3 DIFFERENT OCCASIONS THAT WE SPOKE WITH THEM. FSS COULD HAVE TOLD ME BY RADIO WHEN I CHKED ON THE RTE AIRBORNE. 2 DIFFERENT ATC CTLRS COULD HAVE TOLD ME WHEN I WAS AIRBORNE. THE REASON I SUBMIT THIS INFO TO THE NASA PROGRAM IS BECAUSE I REALLY FEEL THAT THE TENANT OPERATOR OF A MIL TRAINING RTE (MTR) SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR REAL TIME MGMNT OF THAT RTE. IN MY CASE I FEEL LIKE I WAS NEEDING INFO THAT MANY OTHER PEOPLE IN THE AVIATION SYS COULD HAVE GIVEN ME, YET I COULDN'T GET IT. MANY MIL UNITS REQUIRE A REAL TIME PHONE BRIEF BE GIVEN JUST PRIOR TO TKOF ON AN MTR. NAS WHIDBEY FOR EXAMPLE, MAINTAINS A 24 HRS/7 DAYS BASE OPS CTR. THERE IS NO REASON WHY MTR MGMNT SHOULD NOT BE ASSUMED BY BASE OPS WHEN OTHER SCHEDULING PERSONNEL ARE UNAVAILABLE. ALSO, IT SHOULD BE MANDATORY FOR MTR MGRS TO ISSUE NOTAMS ANYTIME A RTE STRUCTURE IS AFFECTED. (PERHAPS IT WOULD BE EVEN EASIER TO ADD MTR'S TO THE NOTAM SYS, MAKING IT VERY EASY FOR FSS TO CHK.) I BELIEVE THE RULE SHOULD BE THAT AN MTR SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE SCHEDULED UNLESS YOU CAN CALL SOMEONE ON THE PHONE AND GET A RTE BRIEF BEFORE FLYING IT. THAT STANDARD IS A BIG STEP UP IN PROC FOR MTR'S, BUT I FEEL IT IS NECESSARY AFTER FLYING MANY MTR'S OVER THE LAST 8 YRS. AIRSPACE PRESSURE HAS EVOLVED TO A POINT WHERE THE OLD STANDARD IS OFTEN FALLING SHORT. I AM SURE THERE HAVE BEEN COUNTLESS INCIDENTS SIMILAR TO THIS ONE THAT WOULD SUPPORT MY OPINION.

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.