For many years 14 CFR Part 91.141 has been used to separate airborne traffic from the President and the Vice President as they travel around the country. §91.141 states, “No person may operate an aircraft over or in the vicinity of any area to be visited or traveled by the President, the Vice President, or other public figures contrary to the restrictions established by the Administrator and published in a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM). In the past this regulation primarily affected manned aviation and created a buffer area (bubble) around Air Force One. I’m sure most everyone remembers the hullabaloo created in May 1993 when President Clinton decided to get a haircut while Air Force One sat on the tarmac at LAX.
Though a bit dated, the following link provides access to an article on TFRs published in the Nov/Dec 2003 issue of Aviation News (Safety Briefing)…
TFR – Airspace Obstacles and TFR Trivia
Since 9/11 security concerns relating to VIP movements have increased substantially and there are now other federal laws involved in the restrictions and prohibitions we’re seeing in the current VIP Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs). For example, 49 USC 40103(b) gives the Administrator (FAA) the authority to classify airspace as “National Defense Airspace” allowing for the prohibition of aircraft activity that the FAA “cannot identify, locate, and control with available facilities in those areas”. Further, federal law allows the government to pursue criminal charges against those who violate the airspace restrictions and provides the authority to use deadly force against airborne aircraft determined to pose an imminent security threat.
AMA certainly does not believe model airplanes pose a threat to our national security and the welfare of our heads of state, and I don’t believe the FAA or the Secret Service believes this. However, the recent advancements in unmanned aircraft technology and the advent of UAS operations have significantly clouded the issue. Many of the UAS platforms appear very similar to what we otherwise think of as model aircraft and without going into a lot of detail, it’s easy to imagine an unmanned aircraft designed to be harmful, disruptive and even lethal.
AMA believes there are alternative means available for reaching the desired level of security without prohibiting MA operations in the current manner. We are currently working with FAA’s System Operations Support Center (SOSC) along with the National Aeronautic Association (NAA) and the other sport aviation groups in an effort to obtain relief for our members and the aero sport community in general.
AMA’s approach is to first gain protection for our high-profile sanctioned events. If we are successful here, we then want to address waivers or exceptions for established (AMA) flying sites, and ultimately to exempt model aviation from the TFRs altogether.
Recently we were successful in clarifying the intent and scope of the restrictions as it pertains to model aircraft. Previously the NOTAMs spoke to prohibiting “model aircraft” operations within the TFR. This left unclear whether this included control line and free flight operations. It certainly seemed unlikely that CL and FF would present the same concerns as radio controlled models, so AMA sought clarification from the SOSC. Ultimately we were able to get this issued resolved and the language in the NOTAMs changed. The language in recent TFRs now refers to “radio control model aircraft”, a small concession but certainly a step in the right direction.
Unfortunately, when it comes to the federal government and especially national security the wheels turn very slowly and this is proving to be a long painstaking process. I suspect it will be some time before we see any significant relief, and it’s likely we won’t see any real change until there is a change for the better in the global political environment.
Rich Hanson
AMA Government and Regulatory Affairs