Narrative:

Airport had been notamed closed due to proximity to a plant. We are 7 miles away and the temporary flight restr covered up to 10 miles. The NOTAM said that some exceptions at the discretion of the controlling authority/authorized could be issued to move aircraft. I noticed a cessna 421 departed the airport so I asked the airport manager how this happened. He said that he had called XXX approach on the phone and they told him they would let a few aircraft out of the area as long as they were commercial instrument pilots that could legally file IFR. They would do this by having the pilot file a 'tango november' flight plan. I asked if the manager would do the same for me. He again called XXX approach and they agreed to allow another 'tn' flight out. I knew this is normally used for part 135 (which I am not), but XXX said it was not necessary in this special case. I filed a flight plan (IFR) for xxxxx to xyz, to relocate the aircraft. On the ground XXX approach issued a departure with a discrete code and I moved the plane. I have since heard that the local FAA said that an approach facility did not have the power to allow this and I believe I was wrong. Never would I have done this flight if XXX approach had not authority/authorized it. I have been flying for 33 years and never had a violation. I fly the IFR system often and do not break the rules! Supplemental information from acn 528643: a tower specialist for the subject airport revealed the airport was closed to traffic for eight days. Two exceptions to the closure were, emergency/police flts and part 135 operations. A NOTAM was issued announcing the closure. On the fourth day of the closure a four hour 'flush' period was allowed for aircraft repositioning.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN SMT PLT CONCERNED ABOUT A POSSIBLE VIOLATION OF A PWR PLANT TFR.

Narrative: ARPT HAD BEEN NOTAMED CLOSED DUE TO PROX TO A PLANT. WE ARE 7 MILES AWAY AND THE TEMPORARY FLT RESTR COVERED UP TO 10 MILES. THE NOTAM SAID THAT SOME EXCEPTIONS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CONTROLLING AUTH COULD BE ISSUED TO MOVE ACFT. I NOTICED A CESSNA 421 DEPARTED THE ARPT SO I ASKED THE ARPT MGR HOW THIS HAPPENED. HE SAID THAT HE HAD CALLED XXX APCH ON THE PHONE AND THEY TOLD HIM THEY WOULD LET A FEW ACFT OUT OF THE AREA AS LONG AS THEY WERE COMMERCIAL INSTRUMENT PLTS THAT COULD LEGALLY FILE IFR. THEY WOULD DO THIS BY HAVING THE PLT FILE A 'TANGO NOVEMBER' FLT PLAN. I ASKED IF THE MGR WOULD DO THE SAME FOR ME. HE AGAIN CALLED XXX APCH AND THEY AGREED TO ALLOW ANOTHER 'TN' FLT OUT. I KNEW THIS IS NORMALLY USED FOR PART 135 (WHICH I AM NOT), BUT XXX SAID IT WAS NOT NECESSARY IN THIS SPECIAL CASE. I FILED A FLT PLAN (IFR) FOR XXXXX TO XYZ, TO RELOCATE THE ACFT. ON THE GND XXX APCH ISSUED A DEP WITH A DISCRETE CODE AND I MOVED THE PLANE. I HAVE SINCE HEARD THAT THE LOCAL FAA SAID THAT AN APCH FACILITY DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO ALLOW THIS AND I BELIEVE I WAS WRONG. NEVER WOULD I HAVE DONE THIS FLT IF XXX APCH HAD NOT AUTH IT. I HAVE BEEN FLYING FOR 33 YEARS AND NEVER HAD A VIOLATION. I FLY THE IFR SYSTEM OFTEN AND DO NOT BREAK THE RULES! SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 528643: A TOWER SPECIALIST FOR THE SUBJECT ARPT REVEALED THE ARPT WAS CLOSED TO TFC FOR EIGHT DAYS. TWO EXCEPTIONS TO THE CLOSURE WERE, EMER/POLICE FLTS AND PART 135 OPS. A NOTAM WAS ISSUED ANNOUNCING THE CLOSURE. ON THE FOURTH DAY OF THE CLOSURE A FOUR HOUR 'FLUSH' PERIOD WAS ALLOWED FOR ACFT REPOSITIONING.

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.