What happened
The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.
(-23) Igl 1920010033 - on September 15, 2001 at approximately 1715 CDT, a VFR target was observed on radar by the champaign, IL ATCT. The target departed rantoul, IL and appeared to enter the traffic pattern at the vermillion county airport, Danville, IL. At the time of this occurrence, flight restrictions prohibiting VFR flight due to a national emergency were in effect. The vermillion county sheriff's dept. Was dispatched to the airport, radio contact was established with the aircraft, and the pilot was instructed to land. The pilot-in-command met with the deputy sheriff and was released. The aircraft was later repositioned in compliance with the temporary flight restrictions. The pilot-in-command stated he had checked the weather by computer and had noted the local NOTAMS but had not received fdc NOTAMS. He further stated he assumed the flight restriction on VFR flight had been removed because he saw other aircraft departing. He also assumed the fixed base operator would not rent him the aircraft if it were not legal for him to fly. This incident is closed with this report.
As the FAA filed it
(-23) IGL 1920010033 - ON SEPTEMBER 15, 2001 AT APPROXIMATELY 1715 CDT, A VFR TARGET WAS OBSERVED ON RADAR BY THE CHAMPAIGN, IL ATCT. THE TARGET DEPARTED RANTOUL, IL AND APPEARED TO ENTER THE TRAFFIC PATTERN AT THE VERMILLION COUNTY AIRPORT, DANVILLE, IL. AT THE TIME OF THIS OCCURRENCE, FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS PROHIBITING VFR FLIGHT DUE TO A NATIONAL EMERGENCY WERE IN EFFECT. THE VERMILLION COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT. WAS DISPATCHED TO THE AIRPORT, RADIO CONTACT WAS ESTABLISHED WITH THE AIRCRAFT, AND THE PILOT WAS INSTRUCTED TO LAND. THE PILOT-IN-COMMAND MET WITH THE DEPUTY SHERIFF AND WAS RELEASED. THE AIRCRAFT WAS LATER REPOSITIONED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE TEMPORARY FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS. THE PILOT-IN-COMMAND STATED HE HAD CHECKED THE WEATHER BY COMPUTER AND HAD NOTED THE LOCAL NOTAMS BUT HAD NOT RECEIVED FDC NOTAMS. HE FURTHER STATED HE ASSUMED THE FLIGHT RESTRICTION ON VFR FLIGHT HAD BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE HE SAW OTHER AIRCRAFT DEPARTING. HE ALSO ASSUMED THE FIXED BASE OPERATOR WOULD NOT RENT HIM THE AIRCRAFT IF IT WERE NOT LEGAL FOR HIM TO FLY. THIS INCIDENT IS CLOSED WITH THIS REPORT.
Other reports on N1198X · 1
Matched to the same aircraft by N-number and date.