Environment, Free Speech, Media, Science

Whose Airspace Is It? When the media gets it wrong.

Submitted by Charlton Stanley, guest blogger
(Otteray Scribe)
ImageThis is my first post as a Guest Blogger. I am honored and humbled to be invited to post at one of the most respected legal opinion blogs on the ‘net. I will try to maintain the high standards already set by the heavy hitters already posting here. Thank you, Professor Turley, and all the other guest bloggers and regulars here. I have been posting here and on other blogs under the username Otteray Scribe. Otteray is the Cherokee name for the Blue Ridge Mountains where I live. When in the fourth grade, I learned about the scribes of old Europe. The idea of someone actually having a job writing things down for people who were illiterate fascinated me. My username combined two of my favorite words. Blue Ridge writer. That’s me.

Just a bit of background about me. I am a forensic psychologist with about 41 years of trying to get it right. I am passionate about my work, aviation, photography and my family. Other interests include law enforcement and corrections. In future stories, I plan to write about all those subjects. Hopefully, over the past four decades I learned a few things worth sharing.

For my first effort, I wanted to focus on how people who know little of aviation get a news story, and then mangle it into something that it is not. This is not new. There was a time not long ago when any kind of general aviation airplane crashed, it was described in the press as a, “Piper Cub.” Cubs are seldom seen these days, so that descriptor has evolved to a, “small Cessna.” Perhaps this story will set the record straight, and tamp down some of the ‘Hair-On-Fire’ hyperbole about flight restrictions over the oil spill in Arkansas. This environmental disaster is personal to me. At one time, I lived and worked only a few miles from Mayflower, and have flown in and out of the Conway airport many times.

Misinformation, hyperbole and conspiracy theories have been rampant about the flight restrictions around the oil spill at Mayflower, Arkansas. The problem started when local news media referred to Exxon-Mobil getting the FAA to establish a “no-fly” zone around the oil spill. To be clear, this is a completely different issue than what is happening on the ground. Links to some of those stories are at the end of this piece.

By way of background, Mayflower, Arkansas is a small town in the middle of the state, about halfway between Little Rock and Conway. It is just south of 6,700 acre Lake Conway. Some were claiming that local drinking water comes from the lake. It does not; this lake is not a reservoir for potable water. The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission built Lake Conway as a dedicated fishing and wildlife area in 1948. On March 29, the Exxon Pegasus pipeline ruptured at Mayflower, spilling thousands of gallons of oil into the south end of the lake and parts of Mayflower. The oil poses a major risk to wildlife and fish in and around the lake, as well as local residents. Not surprisingly, this became a major news story locally, and as the news spread, so did outrage. As the outrage grew, conspiracy theories grew almost exponentially.

Exxon-Mobil said they would take responsibility for the cleanup. That is normal practice. The state of Arkansas does not have the equipment, expertise or funds budgeted to tackle a major oil spill cleanup. The “Pottery Barn Rule” applies: You broke it, you buy it. As the cleanup crews arrived, the supervisor on the scene asked the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for a Temporary Flight Restriction (TFR) around the cleanup area. The situation in Mayflower warranted a TFR under the provisions of the law, so it was granted by the FAA.

That action fueled more conspiracy theory stories and blogs around the internet. How dare the FAA let Exxon-Mobil establish a “no-fly” zone over the spill so they could hide their misdeeds? Really? Part of the problem arose with the official FAA NOTAM (Notice to Airmen) shown below:

FDC 3/8699 ZME AR.. FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS MAYFLOWER, AR. EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE. PURSUANT TO 14 CFR SECTION 91.137(A)(1) TEMPORARY FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS ARE IN EFFECT FOR OIL PIPELINE RUPTURE ONLY RELIEF AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS UNDER DIRECTION OF TOM SUHRHOFF ARE AUTHORIZED IN THE AIRSPACE AT AND BELOW 1000 FEET AGL WITHIN A 5 NAUTICAL MILE RADIUS OF 345855N/0922642W OR THE LITTLE ROCK /LIT/ VORTAC 319 DEGREE RADIAL AT 22.4 NAUTICAL MILES TOM SUHRHOFF TELEPHONE 713-299-2572 ISIN CHARGE OF ON SCENE EMERGENCY RESPONSE ACTIVITY. MEMPHIS /ZME/ ARTCC TELEPHONE 901-368-8234 IS THE FAA COORDINATION FACILITY.

Bloggers and reporters jumped on the fact that an Exxon-Mobil supervisor, Tom Suhrhoff, was placed in charge of operations and flights in and out of the TFR. None of the outraged bloggers and media seem to have bothered to look up the applicable FAA regulation under 14 CFR § 91.137:

 (b) When a NOTAM has been issued under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, no person may operate an aircraft within the designated area unless that aircraft is participating in the hazard relief activities and is being operated under the direction of the official in charge of on scene emergency response activities.

The graphic is part of an aerial navigation map called a Sectional. The FAA has marked the TFR onto the Sectional, represented by the red circle with an R in the center. That means “Restricted.” The yellow mass at the lower right of the map is the congested area of Little Rock. Conway is to the upper left.

Contrary to what the blogosphere and some in the media seem to think, a TFR request is common practice. It does not mean that somehow Exxon-Mobil has taken control of the FAA. Some have protested that the airways are “public.” Yes, and so are highways, but both airspace and highways are regulated. A pilot cannot just climb in an airplane and go anywhere at any time, any more than one can drive on the wrong side of the road. The FAA controls airspace and makes rules for its use. When a private organization requests a TFR, a coordinator at that location is required. Since Exxon-Mobil is doing the cleanup, they must provide someone to direct traffic inside the TFR zone. In this case, that supervisor is Tom Suhrhoff. Permitted air traffic is mostly survey aircraft and helicopters. It is not the FAA’s job to set up a control tower at Mayflower, Arkansas

The company manager on the ground has the responsibility to inform the FAA when they are finished with flight operations in the TSA. However, in the event of a situation such as described in 14 CFR Section 91.137(a)(3), the FAA may (and probably will) keep the TFR in place so there are not two dozen airplanes trying to occupy the small airspace at the same time. Aerial rubberneckers are just as much a hazard as those who ogle motor vehicle wrecks and don’t pay attention to where they are going. Here is what 14 CFR Section 91.137(a)(3) says:

3. Prevent an unsafe congestion of sightseeing aircraft above an incident or event which may generate a high degree of public interest (14 CFR Section 91.137(a)(3)).

Once the FAA determines it safe to do so, the TFR will be revoked.

This brings us to the second part of this story: The alleged “no-fly” zone. It is not a “no-fly” zone. Under the authority of Title 14 CFR § 91.137(a)(1), here is the TFR instruction to pilots:

NOTAM Number : FDC 3/8699
Issue Date : April 01, 2013 at 1412 UTC
Location : MAYFLOWER, Arkansas near LITTLE ROCK VORTAC (LIT)
Beginning Date and Time : Effective Immediately
Ending Date and Time : Until further notice
Reason for NOTAM : Temporary flight restrictions
Type : Hazards
Replaced NOTAM(s) : N/A
Pilots May Contact : MEMPHIS (ZME) Center, 901-368-8234
AIRSPACE DEFINITION:
Center: On the LITTLE ROCK VORTAC (LIT) 319 degree radial at 22.4 nautical miles.
(Latitude: 34º58’55″N, Longitude: 92º26’42″W)
Radius: 5 nautical miles
Altitude: From the surface up to and including 1000 feet AGL
Effective Date(s): From April 01, 2013 at 1412 UTC Until further notice
No pilots may operate an aircraft in the areas covered by this NOTAM (except as described).
AUTHORITY
ARTCC: ZME – Memphis Center
Title 14 CFR section 91.137(a)(1)

Under the heading “Airspace Definition,” the TFR is a ten nautical mile diameter circle (11.51 statute miles). Altitude restriction is from ground level up to and including 1,000 feet above ground level (AGL). The statement that no pilots may operate in the TFR “except as described,” refers to aircraft that have proper credentials and approval from the ground supervisor to enter the restricted airspace.

At the request of news media, the FAA is granting waivers for entering the TFR, provided they are credentialed, and coordinate their flights with the supervisor on the ground. That will keep congestion under control and maintain in-flight separation of aircraft, similar to that around any airport. Safety for everyone is paramount. No one wants to see a TV station aircraft have a mid-air collision with another media aircraft or helicopter full of cleanup workers.

Part of the clamor in the blogosphere has been the claim of keeping news media so far away they cannot see what is going on. No one but pilots appear to understand just how low a thousand feet is. A thousand foot clearance is just high enough to keep the helicopter operations zone clear of rubberneckers. If one wants to understand this so-called “no fly” zone’s 1,000-foot limit, go to your nearest general aviation airport and watch planes in the traffic pattern. The standard recommended pattern is 1,000 feet. A ground observer watching a plane go over at a thousand feet will swear they can count the rivets.

Any competent photographer knows that with a zoom lens, a view from even two thousand feet tells you all you need to know. Furthermore, images shot from a higher altitude give better wide shots, aiding understanding the extent of the spill. Images from too low an altitude do not give the bigger picture. If a worker has a bald spot on his head, that’s not newsworthy.

On a related note, I read several blog comments proposing sending camera-equipped radio control aircraft into the TFR to get surveillance pictures. This is a bad idea on many levels. A remote control model must not operate over 400’ altitude, stay line of sight with the operator, and not interfere with other aerial traffic. I plan a future story about scofflaws using radio control models illegally. They are jeopardizing a popular hobby.

Lest someone think I am giving Exxon-Mobil a pass, think again. The situation on the ground at Mayflower is ugly. The Faulkner County Sheriff’s Department and Exxon-Mobil Security have allegedly threatened reporters with arrest. Reporters doing interviews on private property, with permission, say they were threatened with arrest if they did not leave. Another report here. This is a developing story.

103 thoughts on “Whose Airspace Is It? When the media gets it wrong.”

  1. rafflaw:

    Oil is a natural substance which has been leaking to the surface of our earth for millions of years. On land and in the oceans:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asphalt_volcano

    There are oil eating bacteria which occur naturally and feed on the oil.

    People should expect to have the environment cleaned and they should be compensated for any loss they suffer and it should be paid for by Exxon and not come from Washington although I guess we will pay in one form or another.

  2. This reminds me of a gas line explosion in NM in 2000. They had a monitoring station where the attendant noticed the pressure was low so he turned it up. Pressure went back down, he turned it up further. Family picnicing created a spark that caused an explosion that killed some of them. The pipes were rusted and the gas took the path of least resistance through the sandy soil. Lack of maintenance and attendant training => disaster. The investigation also found that there is no map of all the gas pipe lines.

  3. OS, Welcome as guest blogger. Great article. FAA did a good job in limiting the altitude of the TSA.

    Pipeliners Local Union blames rupture on negligence – Exxon Mobil Press conference. Pipeliner Local Union says pipes were outdated and could not withstand maximum pressure.

    The oil has reached the lake.

  5. OS, Congrats on your first at bat and look forward to many more.

  7. Bron,
    If you really want to know what Exxon and the rest of the industry has done to besmirch our environment, here is a link for you. http://www.vitter.senate.gov/newsroom/press/senate-approves-vitter-brown-amendment-to-end-too-big-to-fail-hand-out-for-mega-banks-
    You will note that the Exxon Valdez spill is still considered the worst spill, but the BP might surpass it. The effects of the Exxon spill in Alaska are still being felt by the environment in Alaska and they got off lightly when the Supreme Court reduced the damages award. Plus, we do not even know how bad this Arkansas spill is yet.

  8. ARE,
    Thanks for the kind words. The impetus for this story arose out of a pie fight over on Daily Kos the other day. A diarist wrote what was basically a conspiracy theroy diary. Several of us familiar with the regulations tried to explain the situation, but were shouted down by the echo chamber. On DKos, there is an aviation interest group (Kossack Air Force) made up of all kinds of airport bums. Members of that group range from a museum curator and air show coordinator/announcer, to B-52 and F-15 pilots. We made no headway whatsoever. Often wrong but never uncertain.

    One of the banes of my existence has been how media gets stories all wrong, half wrong, or half baked. This was a good example. Of course, that is a different story than the oil spill itself. That story will be writing itself for weeks, maybe years, to come. I saw a report a few days ago about Gulf beaches having a thick layer of oily goop just under the surface of the sand. I hate to think about the impact on Lake Conway, one of the best fishing lakes in the south.

    1. OS Thanks for the info about the Kossack Air Force. I gave up on Dkos because they have a large number of tin foil hats on it and it was not worth my time. At least here, we have only a couple, but they are so few that it is no problem.

      According to Palast they have the same problem in the Valdez spill with a large layer of oil still just beneath the surface. The same problem exists on Padre Island when former Guv. Bill Clements company SEDCO, now part of the company that caused the Global Gulf spill did the same on the Pemex spill in Mexico’s Gulf waters Texas taxpayers picked up the bill for that oil “clean-up” when all the oil washed up on Texas shores. Clements was Guv at the time and needless to say, Texas taxpayers got to pay for that one. So there is still a layer of oil beneath the surface sand. The only good thing is that such a layer has minimal toxicity since all the aromatics and carcinogens are long gone. It is more like old chewing gum, nasty and unpleasant and hard to get off your shoe, but other than that relatively harmless. I have no idea what the impact having that layer has on the flora and fauna even if it has little toxic properties..

  9. OS Congrats! Your first post is great and about aviation too! Surprise!
    I, like most, eagerly await your further contributions.

    When I was flying traffic watch in Houston many years ago, I recall that we had a discreet frequency that all low level operators, such as helicopters, traffic watch planes, and police monitored and reported on while using approach as well. This really helped out in letting each of us know where the others were. In this case, if I were flying in that area, I would be monitoring the local unicom frequency of the near airport to find out where other aircraft were too.

    As for Bron’s comments on executives of Exxon not liking oil spills either, I agree that no rational person likes that. Since I took early retirement from ARCO which built the Alyeska pipeline and ran it for many years. I am rather familiar with the oil business. When ARCO built that pipeline ARCO was very cognizant of the environment and worked with the Sierra Club and others to design and contruct it to minimize the problems. In fact ARCO was very pleased that they won an award for doing such a good job. The problems came after BP was allowed to swallow up ARCO. From what I have read from Palast and other sources, BP decided to not run the pigs as often as needed to save on time and money. The oil companies do not make decisions to intentionally cause oil spills, but they DO make decisions to cut corners, try and sweeze as much money and profit as possible out of their assets. It is like the Ford Pinto decision to not fix a problem because to do so would cost more money than simply paying out lawsuit damages.

    So I am quite skeptical of Exxon and its efforts in this regard. They will do whatever they have to do to make sure Exxon has the least monetary damages and PR damages possible and they will do whatever is needed to accomplish that. They will do as they did in the Valdez spill and stall and fight every inch of the way, and hope that most of the litigants die before they have to disburse the cash and have the SCOTUS cut the awards to an obscenely low level.

  10. I fully agree that in a situation such as a pipeline spill, FAA should NOT issue access authority to the fox at the henhouse gate. Either FAA should keep the authority, or call the situation serious enough to compel the pipeline operator to fund an on-site, objective, third-party authority. Not necessarily a tower even; in fact, given the smallish size of the Mayflower site, an advisory service would work just fine. Also, media DOES retain access rights into a TFR via FAA, as per 14 CFR 91.137(c)(5) [and, yes, please accept my apologies for this cite, and a reminder of how onerous media access rights can become!]

    TFR’s are more commonly used to protect movement of the President, or block unnecessary air traffic near a big event like the Super Bowl. The thing is, though, those events do not include a substantial public interest in fact-gathering, as obviously happens at a spill site. So, a TFR for a spill needs to balance the right (and need) to independently sample air quality, against the desire of the emergency respondents to manage public awareness. In answer to Raff’s question, he is correct: in the absence of a TFR, FAA is responsible for aviation activities. All other political entities (EPA, state, county, city, etc.) routinely defers that authority to FAA.

    Also, as for radar coverage and actions against those who might violate this TFR … this location is 21-miles northwest of LIT airport. At low altitudes, it is likely they do not have reliable hits, thus ‘enforcement’ would not be possible.

  12. rafflaw:

    other than the tanker spill in Alaska back in the late 80’s what else have they done?

    I live near the headquarters and know a couple of the executives; they are against spillage probably more than you are. For one thing it costs them a good deal of money to clean up those spills, it is bad publicity and they lose a good deal of money through the loss of oil. No one wins with a spill and I am pretty sure they try very hard to prevent spills.

    I know I would if owned an oil company for those 3 reasons and the fact that I like to fish and would be very upset if my favorite trout stream or bass lake/pond were ever polluted. I would imagine I am not the only one who has a favorite trout stream or bass pond.

  13. raff,
    Short answer is no regarding TSAs for other reasons than an oil spill. Glad new user reformfaanow has weighed in. Perhaps he can give you a better answer than I can.

  14. As always, cogent, precise and a delight to read. Thank you OS.
    As an aside, the concept of a TFR is well-accepted in the UK, where airspace is much more tightly controlled than in the US – it is much more crowded!

  15. reformfaanow,
    Thanks for the update and added information. I had thought the diameter of the TFR was a bit wide, but since I am not on the ground there any more, I had no way of knowing how much helicopter traffic was going in and out. As for a smaller diameter, as you know, simple geometry tells us that a smaller circumference means more media and sightseeing aircraft in a smaller area. I am not sure what to think of that.

    I wonder if any local residents took air samples? If you clicked the EPA link you can see what it looks like at street level. If it had been my neighborhood, you can bet I would be out there collecting as many different samples as I could. The residents have already met with lawyers, and my guess is they are going to be told how to gather samples.

    1. OS:

      I would like to think I also would quickly sample (assuming I was not sent away from my home, by the sheriff!), but likely would not actually get it done, for lack of funds, expertise and/or equipment. The handy thing for ExxonMobil is these diluents will evaporate quickly, decreasing the probability that one prepared citizen (one of us boy scout types?) will actually collect data showing how bad the air became.

      The most studied incident similar to Mayflower is the Kalamazoo River Enbridge dilbit spill of 7/25/10. Here is a link to the NTSB page with a short summary; there is a PDF link to a 9Mb copy of NTSB’s 164-pg report, completed a year later: http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/summary/PAR1201.html

      This Kalamazoo incident also produced some ground surveys showing very high benzene concentrations in air samples. Contamination forced closure of water supplies to livestock, a ban on fish consumption, etc., … all the consequences we would expect when neurotoxins like benzene start to become available for ingestion into our fragile (bio) systems.

      BTW, the Kalamazoo incident was reported ‘cleaned up’ by both EPA and Enbridge, within a few months. BUT, one person, a whistleblower in that cleanup process, spoke up and revealed they had completely ignored that bitumen was settling into the mud and out of view (under the water surface). This points toward a very substantial need for review (perhaps by a new NTSB investigation at Mayflower?) of pipeline accidents and sufficiency of the dilbit cleanup protocol. Booms and napkins just do not get the job done, when dealing with a spill where diluent and bitumen are rapidly separating.

      I know the Mayflower area well, too. While I was attending Tulane University in the late 70’s, our orienteering club raced at a meet just east of the contaminated arm. We drove on Hwy 89, over the outlet pipe, to get to the meet, and I remember lots of people were fishing along the stretch of road.

  16. OS,
    I understand the principle, but I cannot trust a mass polluter like Exxon to responsibly clean up the mess and I cannot trust them to not try to hide what is going on. The FAA should have a disinterested third party in control of the air space if they are unable to handle it themselves. If there was not an environmental spill at this location, wouldn’t the FAA be responsible for taking care of that air space?

  17. OS:

    very interesting post. Thank you for introducing me to some flying “lingo”.

    I eagerly await your next post.

  18. Justice Holmes,
    I agree that the people responsible want to keep this as opaque as possible. I have no idea what kind of TFR they initially asked for, but what the FAA gave them was just about the minimum needed for safe helicopter operations. That is for air traffic only, and the TFR seems reasonable to me. However, the ground game is an entirely different matter and is divorced from the realities of air traffic management.

    Be sure to click the links at the end of the story. If you can do that and keep your blood pressure under control, you are a better person than I.

  19. Hi OS:

    Glad to see you posting this, and lots of good info and perspective, too.

    Your 40+ years in forensic psychology is more than my 22+ years as an air traffic controller, but I can add a bit to your good work.

    First, FAA cancelled the TFR NOTAM (temporary flight restriction, notice to airmen) on Friday, 4/5. I spent two hours yesterday morning navigating through a maze of phone numbers and handoffs to other FAA officials before I could finally locate the proof, a cancellation NOTAM. I blogged the details on a website I started last Fall to shine a light on the need to reform FAA and other parts of aviation. It is all on the website homepage, at aiREFORM.com.

    In recent months, I have been studying this issue of media coverage of aviation matters. I am finding that much of this reactive exaggeration is easily identified and not a big deal. It seems fair to say, it is no less impactful or annoying than positive spin put onto a story by ‘pro-aviation’ corporate or regulatory interests. In fact, it appears this quick reaction phenomenon is really just an indicator of how very frustrated and outraged many citizens have become, in this modern world which increasingly feels like an out-of-control propaganda machine. Frustrating because we have a resource in the internet that enables us all to have solid, factual information, yet we are being inundated with noise and misinformation. We want to be good democratic participants; we cannot accomplish that goal, if we lack real, factual data.

    What factual data is needed? Really, most of the key Mayflower data was obtained in the first three days, before the Monday TFR. The Greenpeace aerial photos are excellent, as are some imagery created by local residents. But imagery is not the only data needed. This pipeline was carrying diluent, with a large amount of benzene and known carcinogens, all of which will quickly evaporate and become the air we all breathe. People needed to also have accurate air sampling. Unsafe air samples (if they exist) are going to be found within the 5-mile radius and under 1,000′ TFR airspace cylinder. And there is no denying, a pipeline owner who has a ‘boo-boo’, will want to keep private interests from collecting this unsafe air sample evidence.

    This pipeline burst on Friday. Most of the work to contain the damage and clean up the bitumen was done by the end of Saturday. FAA did not issue the TFR NOTAM until Monday. This is a relatively small spill area, just a mile in length. It is all fully accessible via regular streets, to support cleanup workers, etc. If helicopters are useful on this scene, it is only to hop small groups of workers (and lightweight supplies) from one point to another. So, in total, FAA approved a TFR with a very excessive horizontal extent (it should have been a one- or two-mile radius), to protect one cleanup helicopter from the occasional gaggle of two or three media helicopters. The cleanup helicopter likely flew exclusively at or under 500′. I would suggest that, at the time the TFR was issued (9:12AM local time on Monday), FAA was not really thinking about the backlash that would come. So, a couple days later, an FAA spokesperson told Wall Street Journal that the TFR would be rewritten to ensure media access. Then, instead, FAA just outright cancelled the TFR on Friday. A good move by FAA, after a week of fumbling.

    One last detail: FAA has to be very mindful when they impose restrictions. Time and again, it has been apparent that restrictions have the unfortunate consequence of concentrating air traffic just outside the restricted airspace. Thus, the places where midair collisions are most probable tend to be adjacent to boundaries. In this case, three media helicopters without a TFR might be safely operating at 600′, 800′ and 1,000′. With imposition of the TFR, those three media helicopters are going to tend to do their work as low as possible, at 1,000′ or 1,001′ nominally, whatever it takes to be legal.

    Again, FAA did cancel this TFR; that was a good move. Your blog helps illuminate this problem, and thanks for that. Hopefully, with more such blogs, we can get past the reaction and propaganda, and help restore an informed citizenry, engaged within a trusted decision process.

  20. First and for most welcome to the newest guest blogger. Thanks for the information. Now for my comment. We all know that EXXON is a very powerful corporation. Because of that most of us believe and I think rightly so that if EXXON wanted to keep journalists away from the spill the government would do whatever it took to make that happen. As a result, you don’t have to be a conspiracy nut to think a NO FLY zone would be put in place if EXXON but asked.

    EXXON will do the clean up and get significant tax benefits for doing so. As a result, I give them no credit for stepping up. As to secrecy, the BP spill was a study in exactly what the government allows oil companies and companies in general to hide with regard to their misconduct. Even though non BP experts were shut out of the data related to the spill, BP is now advertising that the clean up and the research regarding it was transparent. Where are the fact checkers when you need them? Millions for ads, thank you BP.

    Again welcome. I look forward to many more of your guest blogs.

Comments are closed.