Narrative:

Potential unintentional penetration of tfr airspace (10 NM power plant) by my aircraft. Not clear that any incursion ever occurred, no contact (as yet) by ATC other than per the following. Aircraft enroute VFR to ZZZ2 airport from ZZZ1 airport, following completion of avionics repair and new communication antenna installation. Preflight briefing was obtained via telephone from ZZZ3 FSS prior to the flight. ZZZ3 FSS asked re: familiarity with the tfr and I responded affirmatively, having downloaded and printed a color copy of a detailed tfr chart. ZZZ1 departure was normal and I was directed north of my preferred route by ZZZ1 departure due to WX and traffic. ZZZ1 departure called for a course correction to 280 degrees (from approximately 287) 'to avoid the tfr.' compliance was immediate and the new course and track confirmed by GPS onboard. No further messages were heard until handoff to ZZZ4 approach. It is possible that additional calls from ZZZ1 departure re: the tfr were not heard due to the squelch setting. Flight continued northwest normally, but was terminated prematurely when the #3 cylinder failed catastrophically, causing substantial power loss. As vibration was high and the aircraft unable to maintain altitude, ZZZ4 approach was informed, an emergency declared, and the aircraft ultimately radar vectored to a private strip, ZZZ5, where a safe landing was effected. Up to this point, there was still no indication of any tfr incursion issue. In the course of filing a routine report at the scene with law enforcement, I was told by the investigating trooper to contact mr X. I observed to the trooper that, in an emergency, the rules were different, he knew nothing more. As soon as the aircraft was secured I called mr X by cell phone telling him the fact that I had just made an emergency landing into ZZZ5 airport. While the cell connection was poor, I heard him respond 'that's all I need.' what is clear is that the commercial chart supplement on which I was relying was grossly in error, and the power plant location is not marked on the sectional. Power plants are not charted per southeast, although buildings may be. Thus there is apparently no fixed protocol in either charting such facilities or in deriving their correct locations. While it is clear that the ultimate responsibility is the PIC's, and that current times understandably are uncertain, it is equally apparent that there exists inadequate integrity in the process of issuing accurate facility-specific NOTAMS. This problem apparently exists also for stadiums and other open air assembly areas, which rarely are marked on charts, but are recently of key import to VFR pilots. PIC's cannot navigate accurately when critical information is missing or inaccurate. Power plants are difficult, if not often impossible to see at 10 NM distance, particularly with the haze now common in many areas. Towers are often the most obvious component of such plants, but the tower chart symbols used often lack appropriate legends and thus appear undistinguishable from other clustered towers. Charting conventions need to change to meet new conditions. Pilots are advised to contact FSS for the most recent data, but verbal transmission of what is clearly visual-intensive data, without coordinate detail, is simply ineffectual from a human factors perspective. First, I will learn how to re-program my communication squelch so that there is a reduced likelihood of missing ATC calls. Second, in the future I will triple check information. Third, I will not assume commercial charts, an FSS, or even ATC, have consistently accurate information where tfrs and similar changing sits are concerned.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SMA PRIVATE PLT INADVERTENTLY ENTERED A TEMPORARY RESTR AIRSPACE DURING A FERRY FLT AND SUBSEQUENTLY BEING VECTORED FOR AN EMER LNDG AT A PRIVATE AIR STRIP.

Narrative: POTENTIAL UNINTENTIONAL PENETRATION OF TFR AIRSPACE (10 NM PWR PLANT) BY MY ACFT. NOT CLR THAT ANY INCURSION EVER OCCURRED, NO CONTACT (AS YET) BY ATC OTHER THAN PER THE FOLLOWING. ACFT ENROUTE VFR TO ZZZ2 ARPT FROM ZZZ1 ARPT, FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF AVIONICS REPAIR AND NEW COM ANTENNA INSTALLATION. PREFLT BRIEFING WAS OBTAINED VIA TELEPHONE FROM ZZZ3 FSS PRIOR TO THE FLT. ZZZ3 FSS ASKED RE: FAMILIARITY WITH THE TFR AND I RESPONDED AFFIRMATIVELY, HAVING DOWNLOADED AND PRINTED A COLOR COPY OF A DETAILED TFR CHART. ZZZ1 DEP WAS NORMAL AND I WAS DIRECTED N OF MY PREFERRED ROUTE BY ZZZ1 DEP DUE TO WX AND TFC. ZZZ1 DEP CALLED FOR A COURSE CORRECTION TO 280 DEGREES (FROM APPROX 287) 'TO AVOID THE TFR.' COMPLIANCE WAS IMMEDIATE AND THE NEW COURSE AND TRACK CONFIRMED BY GPS ONBOARD. NO FURTHER MESSAGES WERE HEARD UNTIL HANDOFF TO ZZZ4 APCH. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT ADDITIONAL CALLS FROM ZZZ1 DEP RE: THE TFR WERE NOT HEARD DUE TO THE SQUELCH SETTING. FLT CONTINUED NW NORMALLY, BUT WAS TERMINATED PREMATURELY WHEN THE #3 CYLINDER FAILED CATASTROPHICALLY, CAUSING SUBSTANTIAL PWR LOSS. AS VIBRATION WAS HIGH AND THE ACFT UNABLE TO MAINTAIN ALTITUDE, ZZZ4 APCH WAS INFORMED, AN EMER DECLARED, AND THE ACFT ULTIMATELY RADAR VECTORED TO A PRIVATE STRIP, ZZZ5, WHERE A SAFE LNDG WAS EFFECTED. UP TO THIS POINT, THERE WAS STILL NO INDICATION OF ANY TFR INCURSION ISSUE. IN THE COURSE OF FILING A ROUTINE REPORT AT THE SCENE WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT, I WAS TOLD BY THE INVESTIGATING TROOPER TO CONTACT MR X. I OBSERVED TO THE TROOPER THAT, IN AN EMER, THE RULES WERE DIFFERENT, HE KNEW NOTHING MORE. AS SOON AS THE ACFT WAS SECURED I CALLED MR X BY CELL PHONE TELLING HIM THE FACT THAT I HAD JUST MADE AN EMER LNDG INTO ZZZ5 ARPT. WHILE THE CELL CONNECTION WAS POOR, I HEARD HIM RESPOND 'THAT'S ALL I NEED.' WHAT IS CLEAR IS THAT THE COMMERCIAL CHART SUPPLEMENT ON WHICH I WAS RELYING WAS GROSSLY IN ERROR, AND THE PWR PLANT LOCATION IS NOT MARKED ON THE SECTIONAL. PWR PLANTS ARE NOT CHARTED PER SE, ALTHOUGH BUILDINGS MAY BE. THUS THERE IS APPARENTLY NO FIXED PROTOCOL IN EITHER CHARTING SUCH FACILITIES OR IN DERIVING THEIR CORRECT LOCATIONS. WHILE IT IS CLR THAT THE ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY IS THE PIC'S, AND THAT CURRENT TIMES UNDERSTANDABLY ARE UNCERTAIN, IT IS EQUALLY APPARENT THAT THERE EXISTS INADEQUATE INTEGRITY IN THE PROCESS OF ISSUING ACCURATE FACILITY-SPECIFIC NOTAMS. THIS PROBLEM APPARENTLY EXISTS ALSO FOR STADIUMS AND OTHER OPEN AIR ASSEMBLY AREAS, WHICH RARELY ARE MARKED ON CHARTS, BUT ARE RECENTLY OF KEY IMPORT TO VFR PLTS. PIC'S CANNOT NAVIGATE ACCURATELY WHEN CRITICAL INFO IS MISSING OR INACCURATE. PWR PLANTS ARE DIFFICULT, IF NOT OFTEN IMPOSSIBLE TO SEE AT 10 NM DISTANCE, PARTICULARLY WITH THE HAZE NOW COMMON IN MANY AREAS. TOWERS ARE OFTEN THE MOST OBVIOUS COMPONENT OF SUCH PLANTS, BUT THE TWR CHART SYMBOLS USED OFTEN LACK APPROPRIATE LEGENDS AND THUS APPEAR UNDISTINGUISHABLE FROM OTHER CLUSTERED TWRS. CHARTING CONVENTIONS NEED TO CHANGE TO MEET NEW CONDITIONS. PLTS ARE ADVISED TO CONTACT FSS FOR THE MOST RECENT DATA, BUT VERBAL TRANSMISSION OF WHAT IS CLEARLY VISUAL-INTENSIVE DATA, WITHOUT COORDINATE DETAIL, IS SIMPLY INEFFECTUAL FROM A HUMAN FACTORS PERSPECTIVE. FIRST, I WILL LEARN HOW TO RE-PROGRAM MY COM SQUELCH SO THAT THERE IS A REDUCED LIKELIHOOD OF MISSING ATC CALLS. SECOND, IN THE FUTURE I WILL TRIPLE CHECK INFO. THIRD, I WILL NOT ASSUME COMMERCIAL CHARTS, AN FSS, OR EVEN ATC, HAVE CONSISTENTLY ACCURATE INFO WHERE TFRS AND SIMILAR CHANGING SITS ARE CONCERNED.

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.