The NFL, MLB and NASCAR Oppose Relaxing Flight Restrictions Around Stadiums

The FAA Reauthorization Bill now with the senate includes a provision relaxing temporary flight restrictions around stadiums/racetracks during events. Major professional sports bodies don’t want that.

The provision would shrink the zone for temporary flight restrictions (TFRs) over stadiums, racetracks and other sporting venues that hold over 30,000 spectators. The current restriction from the ground to 3,000 feet up and from the venue center to a ring out to three nautical miles would be reduced, allowing the FAA to grant flight waivers to within three-quarters of a mile of a stadium, racetrack, etc. during an event.

Last July, the NFL, Major League Baseball, NASCAR and the NCAA sent a letter to Congress affirming that they are “deeply concerned” about the proposed TFR alteration.

“If adopted, the language would establish a broad and complex waiver program that would permit countless aircraft to fly near and over stadiums during games, putting millions of fans at risk, and unnecessarily so,” the letter asserted.

Overflights and flyovers by law enforcement, air ambulance and military aircraft are exempt from the current restrictions but in dense urban and suburban environments near commercial and private airports, the restrictions often cause delays and headaches for air traffic controllers and pilots.

Congressman Sam Graves (R-Mo.), one of the few private pilots and general aviation advocates in the House or Senate supports the revised TFR. In response to a query from ESPN about the proposal he said, “It’s simply wrong to suggest that existing flight restrictions have any connection to preventing terrorism.”

Graves explained the waivers would be issued on a case-by-case basis with concurrent approval from the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice.

I asked Rep. Graves about his contention that existing flight restrictions have no connection to preventing terrorism. Does the congressman assume that terrorist-driven aerial threats would simply ignore TFRs and could likely penetrate sporting venue airspace before any response could be effected?

As of Friday afternoon, neither Rep. Graves nor his office had provided a response. There are likely valid arguments on both sides of the issue. Restricting low flying traffic overhead such venues can make it easier to detect aircraft or drones that enter the area for interrogation.

On the other hand, any serious threat actor will not be deterred by a TFR and would likely be aware of the countermeasures (anti-drone technology, counter-UAS systems) in place at such venues and their limits.

While RF and cyber countermeasures can be effective against drones, they take time to effect and would be of limited value against manned aircraft. Kinetic anti-drone or aircraft solutions can be quick and effective but threaten spectators and the populace below in the typically dense areas where such venues are located.

The professional and collegiate sports bodies nonetheless oppose any changes to the current TFR regime;

“Having devoted substantial resources to secure our stadiums on the ground, we regard the stadium flight restriction as essential to safeguarding the airspace overhead. Moreover, given the proliferation of UAS in our NAS, as well as the continuing need to remain vigilant to other current and emerging risks, the stadium flight restriction is as vital now as ever to our national security and public safety.”

The FAA Reauthorization Bill, along with numerous other pieces of legislation, is at risk of not being further debated and passed with parties in congress at loggerheads and a potential government shutdown on the cards.

That may temporarily make any changes to the stadium overflight restrictions moot as football season gets into high gear, the MLB playoffs commence and NASCAR winds up its Chase.