A DIFFERENCE IN THE INTERPRETATION OF THE NOTAMS CONCERNING A TEMPORARY FLT RESTR AREA.

Narrative

THIS NARRATIVE IS IN REFERENCE TO A 'POTENTIAL PLT DEVIATION' AS A RESULT OF MY ACFT FLYING THROUGH THE TFR SURROUNDING THE PWR PLANT. ON THE PREVIOUS AFTERNOON I BEGAN PLANNING MY VFR FLT IN AN AIR TAXI HELI FROM A CITY N OF ZZZ TO A DEST S OF ZZZ. IN CONSIDERING THE ROUTE OF FLT I REALIZED A PWR PLANT EXISTED NOT FAR FROM MY PLANNED ROUTE OF FLT. I REFERENCED NOTAM XXXX AND ITS UPDATE YYYY AND CONFIRMED THE PWR PLANT LOCATION AS DESCRIBED IN THE NOTAM AS SSW OF ZZZ; US; AND REFERENCED ITS LOCATION ON THE CURRENT EDITION OF ZZZ1 SECTIONAL. I NOTED THE PHRASEOLOGY OF THE NOTAM INDICATING ITS APPLICABILITY TO ALL 'GA' ACFT. THIS FLT WAS OPERATED UNDER OUR COMPANY'S PART 135 CERTIFICATE AND CONSEQUENTLY A 'TANGO NOVEMBER' (TN) CALL SIGN WAS USED. I DEPARTED ON MY FLT AND AT 12 MILES OUT OF ZZZ AT 2500 FT MSL I CALLED ZZZ APCH TO GAIN CLRNC THROUGH THEIR CLASS C ENROUTE TO MY DEST. I ASKED ZZZ APCH TO EITHER CLR ME THROUGH THE TFR OR GIVE US VECTORS AROUND IT; CERTAIN IN MY OWN UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS TFR DID NOT APPLY TO MY FLT. ZZZ APCH RESPONDED THAT I WAS TN SO I COULD FLY ON THROUGH. THIS STATEMENT CONFIRMED MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE NOTAM. I CONTINUED ON COURSE AND WAS EVENTUALLY HANDED OFF TO ZZZ2 APCH; THEN CLRED ON OWN NAVIGATION TO MY DEST. ON THE EVENING OF THE OCCURRENCE I DEPARTED FROM MY UNCONTROLLED ARPT S OF ZZZ FOR THE RETURN FLT. I CALLED ZZZ2 APCH TO GAIN FLT FOLLOWING AND VERIFY CLRNC THROUGH THE TFR. MY ROUTE OF FLT PLACED THE TFR SQUARELY IN MY PATH. I WAS CLIMBING TO 1500 FT MSL WHEN I CONTACTED ZZZ2; AND WAS CONFIRMED RADAR CONTACT WITH MY TN CALL SIGN. AT THIS TIME I OVERHEARD ANOTHER COMPANY ACFT; ALSO TN; ENROUTE ON A SIMILAR COURSE ALREADY IN CONTACT WITH ZZZ2 AND HAVING JUST DISCUSSED WITH ZZZ2 THE APPLICABILITY (OR INAPPLICABILITY AS IT WERE) OF THE TFR TO THE OPS AT HAND. I WOULD SPECULATE THAT THIS GAVE REASON TO THE ZZZ2 CTLR NOT TO MENTION THE TFR TO ME AS I QUICKLY APCHED THE BORDERS OF THE TFR. AT SOME POINT WITH ZZZ2 I WAS TRANSFERRED TO A SECOND ZZZ2 APCH FREQ AS I GOT CLOSER TO ZZZ. THEN I WAS QUERIED BY THIS CTLR AS TO OUR POSITION. I RESPONDED THAT I WAS ABOUT 4 TO 5 MILES S OF ZZZ3 . THE ARPT IS A COUPLE MILES FROM THE PWR PLANT AS MARKED ON THE SECTIONAL; ALREADY PLACING US WITHIN 10 MILES OF THE PWR PLANT. SHORTLY AFTER MY POSITION RPT; THE ZZZ2 CTLR DECLARED THAT WE WERE 'RADAR CONTACT LOST; SQUAWK VFR; AND TRY ZZZ APCH ON SUCH AND SUCH FREQ; BUT I DOUBT THEY CAN PICK YOU UP YET.' I WAS WELL WITHIN THE TFR WHEN ZZZ2 TURNED ME LOOSE INSIDE OF IT. I DECIDED TO INITIATE A CLIMB TO 2000 FT TO INSURE ZZZ WOULD HAVE NO TROUBLE PICKING ME UP. I REACHED 2000 FT AND CALLED ZZZ APCH ABOUT 20 TO 25 MILES OFF THE VORTAC; AGAIN NOT FAR FROM THE PWR PLANT. RADAR CONTACT WAS ESTABLISHED WITH MY CORRECT N NUMBER. I WAS VECTORED W AND ASKED TO CLIMB TO 2500 FT TO SKIRT THE APCH OPS TO THE RWY. I WAS THEN QUERIED AS TO MY PREFERRED ALTITUDE AND CLRED TO DESCEND TO 2000 FT. I WAS TRANSFERRED TO ONE OR TWO MORE ZZZ APCH FREQ'S DURING WHICH ON CTLR ASKED ME TO PHONE THE ZZZ TRACON WHEN I REACHED MY DEST AND GAVE ME THE PHONE NUMBER. I THEN CALLED UP THE ZZZ TRACON AND DISCOVERED THEIR GRIEVANCE THAT I HAD PENETRATED THE TFR WITH A VFR SQUAWK WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION AND THAT A 'POTENTIAL PLT DEVIATION' WAS BEING FILED. THE TRACON SUPVR ADMITTED THEY WERE IN A LEARNING CURVE AND INSISTED THAT THINGS WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT HAD WE BEEN IN RADIO COM WITH THEM. HOWEVER; I WAS IN COM WITH ZZZ2 APCH WHEN THEY DROPPED ME OFF INSIDE THE TFR. THE APPLICABILITY OF THE NOTAM REFERS TO GA; NOT AIR CARRIERS. NO COMMUNICATION REQUIREMENTS ARE MENTIONED IN THE NOTAM FOR THOSE WHOM THE TFR DOES NOT APPLY. YET IT WAS MY INTENT TO BE IN COM AND RADAR CONTACT WITH ZZZ WHICH PROMPTED MY CLIMB FROM 1500 FT TO 2000 FT; FOLLOWED BY MY RADIO CALL. THE TRACON SUPVR STATED THAT AS HE FILED THIS POSSIBLE PLT DEVIATION HE HOPED CLARIFICATION OR AN ADDENDUM OF THE NOTAM WOULD RESULT. THIS STRONGLY SUGGESTS THIS INDIVIDUAL HAD AN AGENDA TO PUSH AND WAS WILLING TO PUSH IT AT MY EXPENSE. GIVEN THE INFO I HAD AVAILABLE TO ME AT THE TIME OF FLT PLANNING AND THE DECISION MAKING DURING THE FLT; I CANNOT THINK OF ANYTHING THAT WOULD HAVE PROMPTED ME TO PLAN AND PERFORM THE FLT ANY DIFFERENT THAN I HAD. MY PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS OF THE INCIDENT AND HOW IT COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED INCLUDE A BETTER WRITING OF THE NOTAM SO AS TO MAKE IT CLR TO ALL PARTIES; FSS OPS; PLTS; AND ATC AS TO WHO THE NOTAM APPLIES TO. THE NOTAM SHOULD BE MORE PRECISE AS TO THE BOUNDARIES OF THE TFR'S; AS ON FURTHER REVIEW THERE APPEARS TO BE A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE 'XY MILES SSW OF ZZZ' STATED IN THE NOTAM AS COMPARED TO LAT/LONG COORDINATES DISSEMINATED IN A PUBLICATION SEPARATE FROM THE NOTAM.