The notice, NOTAM FDC 6/4375, prohibits unmanned aircraft systems from operating within 3,000 feet laterally and 1,000 feet vertically of DHS facilities and mobile assets, including ground vehicle convoys and their escorts. The restriction applies nationwide and continuously, rather than at fixed locations or during defined time windows.
It’s good that drone operators universally have ESP (extra-sensory perception) since:
Unlike traditional Temporary Flight Restrictions, the NOTAM does not provide geographic coordinates, activation times, or public notification when the restriction is in effect near a specific location. Instead, the restricted airspace moves with DHS assets, meaning the no-fly zone can appear wherever ICE or other DHS units operate….
That clarification has drawn attention from drone operators and civil liberties groups because it creates dynamic, invisible exclusion zones that may be impossible to identify in real time. The FAA does not publish public tracking of DHS or ICE movements, and the NOTAM does not include a mechanism for drone pilots to determine when covered assets are nearby. In practical terms, a drone operator flying legally in a public area could unknowingly enter restricted airspace if an ICE convoy passes within the protected radius. The FAA instructs operators to “exercise caution” when flying near DHS facilities and mobile assets, but offers no specific guidance on how to do so in environments where enforcement activity is not publicly disclosed.
I have a friend who owned one, and I got the chance to ride with him a couple of times. It was as good as it should have been - a first-rate aircraft.
But he wound up selling it in favor of a Citation III (also a treat to fly in). He found the TBM a bit lacking in range, and in its ability to fly above weather.
I don’t know much about the TBM, but I can tell you that metrics like service ceiling and max speeds are often marketing numbers, sometimes attained in unrealistic conditions.
The Lear 60 was my first jet and I remember the company’s materials said something like “45,000 feet in just 18 minutes!” Sure, with less than half fuel and no passengers on board. My current jet has a service ceiling of 51,000 feet and I literally don’t know any pilot who has had it that high. Under normal conditions, with passengers and enough fuel to actually go someplace, the plane cruises in the low 40s.
There are some jets which are regularly flown at max altitude, but many are not. I should also note that “service ceiling” has a specific definition for certification purposes, but again many planes are rarely flown to that height.
“It’s ‘three, two, one — now,’ and I pushed all four throttles fully forward in my left hand and I was just shoved back into my seat — an experience I could never describe, the acceleration as you shot off down the runway,” he says.
just caught this article on CNN and that’s exactly the feeling.
What a rush and then the delta wing fills with fog immediately as it rotates
It’s a good read and brings back good memories of flying in it.
Hehe …a very cool Bday present from my exwife.
We flew half way across the Atlantic, 2200 kph up on the bulkhead, very dark sky through the tiny windows and faintly the curve of the earth.
Well engraved memory lubricated by the generous drinks served. I was significantly tipsy on return. $850 Cdn…what a deal.
The take off rush and rotation were the physical thrill …2200 kph just hard to believe. There was something when he kicked in the after burners to break the sound barrier ( we had stay subsonic over land ) but don’t recall.
Did not feel as privileged then as I do recalling it now.
Local news media in Bangor, Maine still has nothing official about survivors or fatalities. Local facebook pages report all 8 deceased. Airport news conference “sometime this morning”.
As @Llama_Llogophile wisely said, service ceiling is not “routine cruise altitude”.
Back in the day I flew 727-200s. The Pig’s service ceiling was IIRC 39,000. The practical max cruise altitude was often 31,000 or 33,000. This was back in the day when even thousand altitudes were not used above 28,000. So if you could not make e.g. 35, you’d be stuck at 31 while the opposite direction traffic had their choice of 33 or 37.
Even at 31,000 (the TBM service ceiling) we were in amongst the weather a lot more than we were above it. When I transitioned to jets able to easily make 37, 38, & 39, the difference in degree of difficulty for weather dodging was astonishing. In addition to more extensive convective cloud cover, those lower altitudes have much more widely disseminated turbulence. So you spent far more time bouncing along in non-convective cloud that would be smooth above. If only you could get up there.
Lastly, below about 35,000 in most jets if you’re in IMC you’re running your engine anti-ice. Which costs range and dollars. If you can get higher = colder and spend less time in IMC you can dispense with the anti-ice. Of course in a double whammy, with anti-ice on your maximum altitude is lower. Many’s the time we’ve been cruising in the clag with the heat on when we can see the top is just a couple thousand above us but we can’t get up there until we find a long enough clear patch to turn off the anti-ice to make the climb.
A great write-up, thanks. I imagine that on a really long flight (3000+ nm?), if you had a step climb as you burned fuel, you might gain another flight level (perhaps two if trans-oceanic).
CNN reports that weather in Bangor was very bad as the big winter storm across the northeast was producing snow with low visibility and conditions requiring de-icing, which may have been a factor in the accident.
Back in the 2000’ increment days, step climbs had to be 4000’ over the USA and most populated land areas of the world. And yeah, for most jets of the era that meant once every 2000-ish miles. An exception was the North Atlantic Track System (NATS) airspace which was one way eastbound in the late afternoon through overnight and one way westbound from mid-morning to late afternoon. In that airspace you still needed 2000’ separation between plies, but all plies were available for whichever way you were going, so the steps were only 2000’.
Once we got improved altimetry and the vertical spacing was reduced to 1000’ (“RVSM” is the Google-term), now steps in bi-directional airspace were just 2000’ and could be done more like every 1000 miles. Big help.
Apparently the trip originated in Texas and stopped in Bangkor for refueling on its way to Paris. A law firm owned the jet. Social media speculation is that it may have been an icing problem.
Some good info on that Reddit link, thanks. Like the Alliegant jet that was leaving at around the same time and had been recently de-iced but aborted takeoff due to snow accumulation and came back for a second de-icing. Another pilot was reported to have cancelled his flight altogether because of the conditions. There’s a picture of the plane – holy crap, it’s not like the one that flipped while landing at Pearson a few years ago – there’s practically nothing left of it. It’s incredible that one crew member allegedly survived.
That’s also after the post-crash fire consumed a bunch of it. The time to get out is the brief interval after the motion stops and before the fire engulfs the fuselage.
From what we can see, the basic fuselage barrel is mostly intact; not crushed. If they ran off the runway at speed, or started to lift off then rolled inverted & slid, lotta ways for the whole thing to get to a stop in decent condition. Now the problem is egress and injuries in the 30-90 seconds before the post-crash fire renders the area unsurvivable.
In a little plane that’s going to crash it’s possible to crack open the door before impact so it doesn’t jam in the fuselage. It’s not much of an edge but it’s something.
There’s no scenario where that is going to happen with a commercial jet. It’s amazing anyone could survive an inverted crash at over 100 mph.
