HOME
REGISTER/LOGIN
FREE NEWSLETTER
XML|RSS
Advanced Search
PODCAST
VIDEO
AVWEB INSIDER
AVweb Insider

April 1, 2008

If You Can't Handle Migs, Don't Fly in Mig Alley (Applies Also to F-16s)

By Paul Bertorelli

Remember that classic line by Dan Aykroyd on Saturday Night Live 20 years ago? He aimed it at some hapless girlfriend passed out on the floor during a bout of wild partying. It could apply equally to the two civil pilots who got jumped by an F-16 in the Gladden MOA, near Phoenix recently. One of the pilots related the incident in this podcast.

I'm trying to be sympathetic here, but as a former F-16 and now airline pilot friend of mine says, if you play in the sandbox, expect to get sand in your shoes.

The rules of operating inside active MOAs are clearly stated in the Aeronautical Information Manual. I won't quote it chapter and verse here, but the upshot is you're permitted to use the airspace, but you do so at your own risk, unless you're under IFR. Military aircraft operating inside MOAs are exempt from the FARs prohibiting the rest of us from performing aerobatic flight in proximity to federal airways and, surprise, they tend to maneuver aggressively in all dimensions. If the MOA is cold, ATC may route you through it and will provide separation services under IFR. If it's hot, you can still enter VFR, but just because ATC approves that, you aren't guaranteed anything—no separation, no clearance and traffic advisories on a workload-permitting basis.

And given how military aircraft maneuver and that they might not have transponders active, expecting meaningful advisories is dubious at best.

Furthermore, if you have TCAS—as many airplanes now do—it may be a bad idea to venture into a MOA VFR at all. Here's why: In 1997, a 727 inbound to New York's JFK Airport from Puerto Rico was routed through an active warning area. The military dropped the ball in coordinating the flight's passage through the area with the controlling ARTCC. An F-16, which had evidently been in the area, was dispatched to intercept what was thought to be an unidentified aircraft. But of course, the airliner had TCAS and didn't want to be intercepted. This resulted in some spirited maneuvering by the airliner that put more than a few ripples on the Martinis in first class, while the F-16 pilot may have figured he had a live wire for a change. The fact that the incident occurred in solid IMC made it all the more interesting.

In the olden days, before Piper Archers and Bonanzas got TCAS, fighter pilots could sneak up in your six as you motored VFR through the MOA, center the pipper and roll away before you ever knew they were there. With the advent of TCAS, you're an active participant in the intercept problem, which is not necessarily a good thing.

Even if you operate near the edge of a MOA, you're at risk. "Spill outs" of highspeed military traffic beyond the confines of a MOA aren't uncommon and what's your TCAS going to do with a target descending vertically through your 12 o'clock at 10,000 FPM? The easy way not to have to find out is to avoid active MOAs in the first place—by a wide margin. Or, if you decide not to, accept the consequences. That's not an irrational tradeoff, but it does mean you sign up for the risk, however large or small. Or, if you happen to get jumped by an F-16, you could always substitute bravado for utter lack of defensive panache. You've still got your radio and since F-16s have VHF, key up and say something like: "Hey buddy, if I had 500 more knots, another bag of gas, hard points, a couple of Sidewinders and pulse-doppler radar, I'd teach you a lesson."

Not that any of this excuses the best and brightest flying around in rocket-powered recliners. No one could reasonably argue that it's a good idea for military aircraft to aggressively intercept civil airplanes pour le sport, but on the other hand, that's what fighter pilots do and in a MOA, you are on their turf.

If part of your safety matrix depends on military pilots following guidelines not to do this sort of thing or if you expect commanding officers to smack the knuckles of those who do, good luck. You're gonna need it. All others should follow Mr. Aykroyd's advice.


Comments

that is the worst comment I could ever expect to hear from a pilot. Im not going to cite the regs, of which a few were broken, right of way and wreckless operation. Im not even going to remind you about what an MOA is and what its purpose is. As a pilot paul you should know that. I dont care if your in anyone's "sandbox" that doesnt give you any right to throw sand in their eyes and try and chop off their arm with your shovel. In fact paul if I was an FAA inspector, youd get a ride. why? because your lack of knowlege for the CFR's is scary. In aviation we strive for safety. These pilots are lucky to be alive, the CFRs prohibit this kind of thing without pic approval for a reason. Formation flight is very dangerous. Shame on you paul, you should know the regs and have common sense if you plan on taking to the air. The fact that he is in an area designated for seperating ifr traffic from military traffic has no bearing on the wreckless endangerment of human life, and you should know better than that. I also suspect that you would be of less intelligence to have this view untill it happens to you. Once your life is put on the line like that, I suspect youd 180. since you obviously dont know the regs, you probably dont know pilot lingo either. that means change your view 180 degrees. I dont know who you are, but from what Ive read, I have no respect for you or your hazardous attitudes towards safety. and......SHAME ON YOU AVWEB, FOR LETTING THIS SMUT UP HERE!

posted by robert hasiak on April 1, 2008   (report abuse)

since im limited in what i can say, heres post number two. Since your a sack of knowlege, just about to overfill, lemme just add to it. Military aviation is expempt from the CFRs plain and simple, not in an moa, period. Civil aviation is bound by the regs, but not aircraft owned by the govt. ie airforce one, or military jets, and public owned aircraft which is also military jets. Now because they are not subject to the rules does that give them the license to do what ever the hell they want? NO. I dont care what the AIM says about moas, the cfrs, are the law of the land. So if you want to start quoting things, start there first. As a student of aviation safety, this was the start down a slippery sloap to an eventual headline story. and if that happens would you be the one to say its the pilatus pilots fault for flying in airspace he was ok to fly in? The aim cautions vfr traffic about moa operations due to the closure rates and collision avoidance which is accidental in nature. not because your playin in their sandbox. This....not accidental. Air disaters start in a chain of events much like this, and the dominoes fall until the worst has happened. this happened twice, we should all be lucky everyone is ok, not writing about how they deserved to almost die for operating in an area thats not restricted to them.

posted by robert hasiak on April 1, 2008   (report abuse)

I know your going to be the first to point this one out paul.. if military aircraft dont have to obey the regs, why did I bother to write about the regs in the first place. lemme answer that captain paul. because while they arent bound by the CFRs, they do follow them as a matter of SAFETY. and this unknown pilot just might be off the hook, because his superiors dont know who it was. but the CFRs are there for one thing, safety. The faa has but one mandate...safety. overall theme of this whole thing...safety. your entitled to your opinion paul, and i expect next that you might next right about how how the next airline accident. you might say something like its not the airlines fault, so the passengers families should not receive compensation for the loss of their loved ones, because.....aviation is dangerous and the passengers should know better, they are in that sandbox afterall as your logic applies anyway. so...next time you write about things like this, think about safety and how it might affect people. those pilots all have family and their lives were put in danger, for what? because they were in an moa? i dont buy it.

posted by robert hasiak on April 2, 2008   (report abuse)

Perhaps, if rhasiak would avail himself of the written language commonly known as English, someone might be inclined to concern himself with the point this fellow is attempting to make (or is it presumptuous of me even to assume as much?).

posted by Morten Boyd on April 2, 2008   (report abuse)

I don't think I object to the informational part of Paul's post but I have to say I do not like the tone. I am afraid of getting legitimately run over by a high speed jet in an active moa but I didn't realize that I would be hassled and have my poor fabric plane set alight by an afterburner. So thats good information. However I feel like Paul is suggesting that there are some grounds for the lucky bastards who get to fly jets acting like children. I know its a stretch but it reminds me of street racers who don't seem to understand that public streets are not there personal race track and that we don't live in their little drama world but in the real world where we just want to get to work, not die in a blaze of adolescent glory.

posted by robert miller on April 2, 2008   (report abuse)

Mr rhasiak may not know who "Paul" is, so I'll just use the old cut and past from AVwebs "Meet the Staff" page.

Paul Bertorelli (is) Editorial Director

of AVweb. Good writer and editor...who wrote an editorial.

Chill and fly like me. I DO avoid where possible and always am aware that I am within known military turf while in MOAs.

Please note that I am very glad I wasn't onboard either of the two aircraft who were hunted. New underwear would have been necessary for me upon landing. I hope both pilots are OK.

posted by T M on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

Hi Paul. Avweb rocks, but your comments here are a shame on the site. What's worse, it demonstrates why some former F-16 pilots shouldn't be allowed to captain airliners. Your friend from the sandbox comment obviously has jet jockey fun on a higher priority than passenger safety. That should be a warning sign for any airliner employing ex-military. As for the MOA : yes, many civilian aircraft now have TCAS. Yes, that means the military should consider that when exercising in the MOA, and ensure better than ever communications with ATC. Perhaps the rules should be reviewed in light of the effects of this newly available equipment and related panic. Untill then, just because military pilots have the law at their side, doesn't mean they have a moral right to freak out (and perhaps kill) civilian passers by.

Also, bear in mind your attitude towards civilian safety when requesting a new MOA or expansions of existing one. With a total disregard for civilian safety, expect strong opposition from slow and safe fliers like me. Being a good sport in an MOA could ultimately be in the military's favour.

Enjoy the skies !

posted by Peter De Ceulaer on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

I'm sorry the pilots of those a/c received such an unwelcome wake up. The F-16's were just doing their job. Did ever occur to you that they were ID'ing you as part of their assignment. The Sqdn CO didn't tell them what kind of a/c they would be looking for in the first place, just that they were to intercept. Geesshhh! Personally, I think the DOD ought to go back to "NO FLY ZONES" to include all MOA's.

posted by Bub Blake on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

I am former Air Force (enlisted, never a pilot) and I believe the folks here with their panties in a twist because of this incident forget that the military has a different mission than a civilian pilot. I get the feeling we are seeing some of the prevelant baby boomer whining "it's all about me, I should never be inconvenienced by having to skirt an MOA, why can't the military stay out of my life until I decide I need protection someday?" Traversing an active MOA and assuming there are no additional risks is as stupid as running across an active Army artillery range screaming, "My taxes paid for this range so I can use it whenever I want!" while hearing shrapnel whistle past your ear. The military does dangerous things. Sometimes pushing the envelope teaches a military person something about themselves or their machine that can give them an edge in combat. Stay out of their play area while they risk their own lives to be ready to die for you. Playing in their area just makes you a distraction from their mission. And yes I am prejudiced, my youngest son is a Marine in Afghanistan.

posted by Craig Bondy on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

The only way for a GA aircraft to "shake off" an intercepting fighter is to slow to just above the stall speed. F16's can't fly at 70kts. Then take out your camera and make a video and post it on Youtube.

posted by Richard Ross on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

I'm finding this quite interesting- as I've also been intercepted, many years ago, by an F-111. I knew what they were doing, as I flew in that airspace regularly. ATC had actually told me something to the tune of I 'might see one quite close by shortly'. I remember just getting a big grin on my face, as he came up on my right wing, went around behind me, and then showed up on my left wing. I've worked with both GA and military pilots throughout the years in my career, and the military guys have always been incredibly professional. I honestly don't remember an exception to that- not a single guy. By the way- they make excellent airline pilots- I learned a lot from some of them when I was an FO for the regionals. It made for a very relaxed, professional, and safe cockpit. Perhaps in todays world, I'd think twice about if was being intercepted due to a mistake I made- but I certainly wouldn't blame the pilots. They're doing their job- even if they might be having a little fun at the same time. Perhaps the answer is for ATC to let you know it's going to happen, and let you opt out if you'd like. I agree- if you're in an MOA- you're on their turf. You can always go around if you'd like, and I certainly understand those who choose that route.

posted by Sheri Coons on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

The F-16's were wrong here. The GA pilots had a right to be where they were in the MOA at the time. This means that the military and GA are entitled to share the airspace. GA pilots enter MOA's knowing there is a risk that they may encounter military pilot's doing "their thing". But this does not give the military the right to purposely act reckless and thus endanger the lives of the GA pilots. If the military doesn't like this, then it should work with the FAA to change the rules. Until then, the military and GA must use due care for the safety of each other. Here, the F-16 pilots acted as if the GA pilots were flying over the White House. They were not. They were entitled to be where they were and were also entitled to expect reasonable conduct by the Air Force. The military failed the test in this case. DPA

posted by David Affinito on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

Some people here seem to assume that having an f-16 flying 30 feet from your aircraft puts you in some kind of danger. These pilots can fly formation with wings almost touching so, from their seat, you could be a mile away or 30 feet it's the same, there is no danger of collision. These encounters happen very often and are part of their assignments. These guys do care about safety, in fact, safety is the very reason why they exist. Yours, mine and the whole country's safety.

posted by J D on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

I would have paid to get that close to an F-16 in flight. What are these pilots complaining about? Keep the open minded columns coming. Paul you are one of the major reasons I buy Aviation Safety, IFR Magazine, and Aviation Consumer.

I am surprised that MOA's are open to the public as it is. If too many people complain about safety conflicts its likely that these areas will be closed to public travel.

posted by Brad Vaught on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

rasiak - your comment "..formation flight is very dangerous" and your obvious ignorance of what occurs in a MOA shows you are a ready, fire, aim pompous, marginally qualified pilot wannabe. I totally agree with Paul's comments. Put yourself in the fighter cockpit. A GA aircraft VFR in a MOA - sure, it's legal - but it's also disruptive to the training being done. Do you have any concept of SA - Situational Awareness - and the difficulty a single seat pilot has in maintaining complete SA in a large force exercise (with your obvious ignorance let me clarify - multiple aircraft involved in a common training objective; for example 4 v 8, 4 v unknown, etc.). Been there, done that - and in many cases, joined on the "unknown" to try to gauge what he was doing and estimate when he'd clear the area.

As for Peter - sounds like he's afraid of some more highly qualified fighter jock taking his job. Let's see - when it hits the fan in an airline cockpit, who do I, as Joe Passenger, want handling the problem: 1) A commercial flight school guy who is a simulator baby and never been really scared, or 2) A former jet jock who has made a career out of routinely escaping potentially life threatening situations? And don't giver me the story that all airline training is so standardized that individual pilot skills and experience are unimportant.

posted by Paul Valovich on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

Wow, there are a lot of upset folks here. Let me make a few points. Fighter pilots are extremely professional and not the rule and reg breaking renegades depicted in Top Gun. One major problem here is point of reference. Things fighter pilots do are considered crazy and reckless by a lot of non fighter pilots. But they are actually precise and calculated maneuvers. Standard wingtip clearance in close formation is 3 feet. Most GA pilots get nervous when another aircraft is within 1 mile of them. As for the MOAs the best thing is to stay out of them when they are active. If you had any idea of what is going on in there you would avoid them. In fact, F-16 pilots have a requirement to practice intercepts on a slow GA type aircraft. They usually use either CAP airplanes or contract a civilian operator to fly back and forth in the MOA while they locate, intercept and visually ID the aircraft. This usually requires getting the N-number. Ever think that maybe that is what was going on when that Pilatus was intercepted. How could the F-16 pilot know that it was not his intended target until he VIDed it? That explanation is much more plausible than them hot dogging and harassing a GA aircraft. Think about all the possible explanations. Don't just jump to an emotional conclusion. (contiued next post)

posted by Charlie Guarino on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

(continued from previous post) BTW, the military regs require pilots to follow the FARs. There are exceptions like speeds but in a lot of cases the military regs are more restrictive than the FARs. What is different is that the FAA doesn't have enforcement authority on a military pilot. If there is a suspected violation, they put together a package and forward it to the offending pilot's command. The command then investigates it, takes corrective or punitive action and then informs the FAA of the results. What I see here is a lot of folks speaking with authority about things they know little about. Remember you have to have some SA (situational awareness) to know that you have lost SA.

posted by Charlie Guarino on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

Mr Bertorelli's comments are spot-on. MOAs are charted and a simple radio call will determine if the airspace is actually hot. If so, I can't think of a single reason for a VFR flight to go through, even if the regs allow it. You wouldn't be allowed in an active MOA IFR, why would you want to be there VFR? See and avoid is not effective agianst a gaggle of camaflaged aircraft operating at over 500kts, climbing and descending at over 10,000 FPM, and rapidly changing direction. Neither is TCAS. As a controller, when providing flight following I would always strongly suggest the VFR flight avoid the active MOA. Those few, and irrisponsible, in my view, pilots that insisted on penetrating the active MOA would get my standard disclaimer. There is simply no way to effectively call traffic on rapidly manuvering fighter aircraft involved in air combat training. Further, there is no way a GA aircraft is going to be able to see a potential conflict, much less be able to do anything about it. That there aren't more incidents speaks well of the vast majority of pilots being responsible enough to avoid active MOAs.

posted by Michael Hartmann on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

I've controlled a hell of a lot of intercepts in MOAs and what the military calls ITAs. If you're in my airspace, you're fair game. TCAS? Ah.... a new lesson. My next broadcast is, "Pappa Hotel zero six, target ten left thirty, squawk standby mode 3"

Without TCAS (or exterior side view mirrors aimed below you?) you will NEVER know my folks were there. The druggies buy the best automobile radar detectors and mount them in the cockpit hoping to get beeps from the interceptor's radar. If you have your shorts in a knot, go get one. But, there are many more sensors than AI radar.

And so, for all of you who were SO shocked and horrified: tough. ... stay out of a hot MOA.. and firing ranges, and turbid water full of sharks. There are places you should not go!

posted by Frank Derfler on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

Has anyone noticed that both the editorial and the comments seem to have ignored the facts of the case?

The complaints by the pilots involve the fact that the F-16s were within less than a wingspan of the civilian aircraft. This is both unnecessary and unsafe. The actions of the military pilots forced the civilian pilots to make evasive maneuvers (that's what you do when you get a TCAS alert), and then the F-16s put themselves in dangerously close proximity to the aircraft.

Endangering civilian lives is not what the military does. This is not "playing in the sandbox." The F-16 pilots should be grateful that the civilian pilots did not inadvertently make a maneuver that caused a collision.

If military pilots want to intercept a civilian aircraft, then they should follow their own intercept procedures. We civilian pilots have a published set of procedures to follow as well.

posted by Eric Gleason on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

I agree with David Affinito above. If the GA pilots were scud running on a path toward a military installation, the White House, the US border, a nuclear power plant or other TFR or other sensitive area, then the F-16 pilots MAY have reason to come so close to the aircraft. But let's face it, they could approach the aircraft in a non-threatening manner and from a distance from which they could visually identify the type aircraft and move in only if necessary. I support our military 110% and wish I was one of them, but they are expected to behave in a professional manner at all times. Our boys are humans, so we will always have the few bad apples that ruin the pot. Now, I must also reiterate that if evidence comes out that these GA aircraft were doing something suspicious, I will happily withdraw my comments and support the F-16 pilots.

posted by Jeff Zimmerman on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

Military pilots are not in a MOA just driving around or looking for GA aircraft to intercept. They are training and do not have much time due to fuel. The ROE (rules of engagement) for civilian aircraft entering a MOA is for the military to "knock it off" until the interloper has left. This is to prevent forgetting the GA is there and inadvertently running into him. So, what to do while waiting for the interloper to transit the MOA, something that may take the entire training period? What if this is your third attempt in as many days to complete a check ride and civilians keep clobbering your airspace? Your fangs come out and you want to gun the guy. But as a professional, you just intercept him and let him know you are there. Every civilian intrusion into an active MOA will usually stop the training in progress, or at least modify it. Clearly this is a waste of resources, requiring more fuel to be burned, more wear on an airframe, to accomplish a training requirement. It is the right of GA to intrude into a MOA, but if it is active remember the waste you are causing.

posted by bob goodman on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

Wow, a lot of people think they own the sky. I have been flying through the Gladden MOA for many years, I expect to see military jets, it’s where they fly. The only reason to fly through the MOA is that you don’t want to spend a few extra minuets flying around it.

The Air Force is constantly sending out letters urging the local pilots around here to avoid the MOAs when they are hot, which is almost every day. They come out to the safety meetings and warn us about flying in the MOAs. If pilots keep complaining about the military flying in their airspace, then the MOAs will be turned into restricted airspace and the argument will be settled. The AOPA is constantly fighting the military about restricting more airspace. This kind of whining will not help the cause.

On another note, I listened to the podcast, and at no time did the PC12 pilot say that he tried o make visual contact with the F16, while VFR you are supposed to separate your self from other traffic by looking out the window, not at a computer screen.

posted by Richard Jones on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

Thank you, military folks, for injecting some helpful facts into this discussion, and for doing your job.

posted by Frank Ch. Eigler on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

I have to also comment on Frank Derfler's post above. What an inmature post. Simply unbelievable, but if what he says is true, and the incident in question was an intercept, his comment of "you will NEVER know my folks are there" is certain proof that the incident was a "hot dog show" and not an intercept. I hope he's a RETIRED controller. Very scary post. Oh, and regarding sandboxes...how much sand do they need? Just look at a sectional chart. There are so many MOAs it becomes nearly impossible to avoid. Many airports are located within MOAs. Are we to utilize those airports for IFR only? We should all be talking and thinking about safety here...not turf.

posted by Jeff Zimmerman on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

Info right out of the AIM WARNING VFR pilots about MOA's para: 3-4-5 b. b. Examples of activities conducted in MOAs include, but are not limited to: air combat tactics, air intercepts, aerobatics, formation training, and low-altitude tactics. Military pilots flying in an active MOA are exempted from the provisions of 14 CFR Section 91.303(c) and (d) which prohibits aerobatic flight within Class D and Class E surface areas, and within Federal airways. Additionally, the Department of Defense has been issued an authorization to operate aircraft at indicated airspeeds in excess of 250 knots below 10,000 feet MSL within active MOAs. This guy has NO complaint. I now know I need to review MOA's when I administer FR's

posted by W. Darby on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

Just because you are a guest in my airplane does not give me the right to frighten you to the point of causing you to reflexively defend yourself. Just because you are a guest in my home does not authorize me to point a gun at you. Jet jocks... think about your responsibility and behave maturely. Civil pilots, beware of hot heads in jets. Sometimes they think it's "their" airspace. (It's not. It's ours. All ours. So is the rest of the country. They should remember that we let them use a little of it to practice.)

posted by George Horn on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

It’s generally accepted that the risk of a mid air collision, or in this case, a near miss increases when a pilot operates within an MOA. However, it's never been my understanding that civilian pilots are expected to be part of the training. There is a significant difference between being unknowingly trailed and flying close formation. When you throw TCAS into the mix things only get worse. Unknown, closing traffic on the box is an eye opener for any pilot. Training kicks in and you do what you do-evade. To assume this pilot did not understand TCAS and the actions of the civilian pilots is simply not reasonable. After all, he has been trained to fly one of the world’s best “interceptors”. Egos and Details aside, let’s look at the big picture. Like most things, the risk must be compared to the reward. Just my opinion but in this case I can’t imagine the “training” this pilot received playing with these two civilian aircraft comes anywhere close to justifying the increased risk to property and passengers. All that being said, if ATC told me to expect company I'd hold straight and level and I'm sure I would still be talking about what a GREAT flight I had experienced!

posted by Joe Allman on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

Uncle Sugar has hogged so much airspace foe MOAs that often it is impossible to get from here to there without flying through one. If my flight reqiures that I go through an MOA I just go, take my chances and hope this is not my unlucky day.

posted by Ken Smith on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

The evasive manoeuver by the civilian aircraft might have been done while both aircraft were still half a mile apart. The civilian aircraft saw a warning on his screen and changed altitude and course We're not talking about a civilian attempting dodging manoeuvers while being tailed by an F-16 that's withing gun range.

posted by J D on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

It is my opinion that the F-16s were never within a wingspan of the Pilatus. Unless that Pilatus pilot has military formation experience I consider his range estimations suspect. Having investigated HATRs and near midairs, I have found that pilots almost always think the aircraft were much closer (10x plus) than they actually were. Also, I didn't mean to imply that GA aircraft in a MOA become part of the training. The opposite is true. They inhibit training as long as they are a factor. What I was saying is that if the F-16s were doing slow intercept training, they could have mistaken the Pilatus for their intended target. That is just one possible explanation and it makes more sense than the F-16 pilots harrassing the GA aircraft.

posted by Charlie Guarino on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

I was intercepted twice flying blood just after 9/11. first in a climb to the first destination, the second at FL250 on the second leg. The F-15's lit up my TCAS and the speed of the target on the display was impressive. Knowing full well that the targets were military I enjoyed the show. Both broke off in the standard intercept angle and at no time did I feel I was in danger. I would not have that same warm and fuzzy in an MOA, but would anticipate being intercepted in a non-standard way due to the airspace I was flying in. I have a tremndous respect for the men and women who fly for our country and I personally avoid all hot MOA's so they can continue to train without me being in the way. I get a brief before every VFR flight that will transition an MOA prior to takeoff so I can plan to avoid it, regardless of the extra enroute time others in this post seem to complain about. It's just common sense.

posted by Michael Mann on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

I fly through "hot" MOAs often and have flown "diamond formation" more than once. Once center called, "Traffic, 12-oclock, opposite direction, flight of F-15s,..." At this point, one went over, one under, and one on each side of my Mooney. I replied, "Traffic in sight, NO FACTOR." Frankly, if they had come around and formed up on me, I would have had some good pictures to attach. It's a MOA! There are fighters in there! We don't need no more stinkin' "Restricted Airspace." If you can't accept the risk, fly around it.

posted by Wade Davis on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

I see some fault on both sides of this issue. The Pilatus pilot was inside an active MOA and should be prepared for some unusual sights that to military pilots are quite ordinary. If the Viper pilots were doing a standard Visual ID, they should have stopped their Mode 3/C squawk (to avoid getting TCAS excited) and got only close enough to ID the intruder, while remaining out of sight (to avoid getting the Pilatus pilot excited) Once it was determined the Pilatus was not a player in the exercise, prudence would dictate knocking it off and waiting for him to leave the airspace. Kinner (B-767 captain and former F-16 pilot)

posted by Alan Kinback on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

Those calling for "just avoid MOA" must have never flown in the western United States. Unless you like flying up and down the coast, you aren't going to go very far. Paul's editorial comment was about the stupidest I've heard in years. Perhaps his friends should just shoot a few tracers across the nose next time? Maybe they can flip somebody over with their wake vortex? If they're going to act like idiots, might as well go all the way. ID'ing is one thing, forming up feet off the wing tip is suicidally crazy.

posted by Steven Reynard on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

Excellent commentary, Eric. Everyone needs to take two very large steps back and look at what appear to be the facts. Were any of us there? No. What IS concerning is that there have been two recent reports of military aircraft operating extremely close to civilian aircraft that were otherwise minding their own business.

I don't care if the F-16 was twice the reported distance, that is still far too close for comfort and safety. It was illegal if passengers were carried and extremely dangerous given that the GA pilots weren't briefed or trained! 10-30' (if indeed it was) is an absolutley unacceptable distance for intercepting a non-threatening GA aircraft traversing a MOA.

Finally, as pilots we must all maintain a high degree of awareness in any airspace, MOA, terminal or otherwise. However, suggesting GA stay out of MOAs entirely simply does not make operation sense. Pull out a sectional for the central US and take a look at how many airports lie directly under or are surrounded by MOAs. Here in Kansas, a large percentage of the state is MOA airspace, without the ability to fly through them, you wouldn't be able to get where you are going! Fly safe everyone!

posted by Patrick Rinearson on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

It's practically impossible for a GA aircraft to turn and hit a F-16 flying 30' from his wingtip. By the time you've angled your wings 30degres he's already out of there. He'll know you will move towards him before you actually close the distance. He's got plenty of time to react.

posted by J D on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

Put an F-16 off my wing and I hope I have a camera within reach. Fantastic photo op. MOAs? Heck, I've got an airway I use that cuts through an R area within a few miles of the home drome. Got to know if it's hot before going. Spare me the drama. MOAs contain military aircraft. And, as JD noted, you're not going to out-manuver an F-16 in your GA plane.

posted by Ghery Pettit on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

Dear Paul,

Thanks for the heads up.

We really shouldn't be surprised to learn that civilian USA pilots flying over the USA are accorded the same rights granted by the Soviets to Korean Air 747s over Sakhalin Island. Just because harassment of civilians conforms with regulations, laws, and federal best practices doesn't mean that those with superior fire power really ought to do it. I offer special thanks to the elite for teaching us regular people this valuable lesson about life in the USA.

Does anybody feel better knowing this is the way it is?

Sincerely, Kirk

posted by Kirk Fowler on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

Responding to poster Kinner, I do live and fly in the west. The MOAs take up a lot of airspace and it is often the case that civilian pilots must make long detours to avoid them. I wish they were smaller and less intrusive. But until and unless that happens, I just fly around them when they're hot. I'm not about to expose my passengers to the risks of flying in military airspace and I'm not about to waste my tax dollars by needlessly interrupting military pilot training. With a bit of planning and forethought, the detours are not that long or that difficult.

Just because we have the right to be somewhere or to do something doesn't always mean it's smart to exercise those rights.

posted by Jack Ellis on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

I am all for the military having posted areas to train in: but hard combat maneuvers would be better suited to the restricted areas and formation flying or less full bore combat flying in the MOA's. It should not be an issue for the GA pilot when he transients an MOA when it is hot. His head should be scanning regardless of active or inactive. Sometimes the GA airplanes fly local and are always in a hot MOA. My perception is that sometimes the MOA is adjacent to the restricted airspace and the MOA is hot to allow for additional manuevering. no problem. ya gotta train.

posted by rene st. julien on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

Just a note on style and manners, friends.

I have a fairly thick skin and don't particularly mind being called an idiot or a moron. On some days I think I qualify for both. However, we don't want to give the impression that name calling or ad hominem attacks are the way to go in this forum. They aren't. So please refrain. Sorry to say two message have been removed for this reason.

Feel free to have at the idea, but not the person. Coming up this week, look for a podcast explaining the F-16 driver's point of view.

posted by Paul Bertorelli on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

Serving in the Military in 1992, my crew and I were flying in an MOA performing a mission in support of area law enforcement. Mounted in a trusty UH-1 "Huey" helicopter, we were cruising at 70 to 80 KTS and 1000' AGL, two F-15s flew past us, one to each side, at about 300 KTS, and 950' AGL, and 50 feet or so from our rotor tips. Needless to say, it took us by surprise. (Hueys don't have TCAS) Our mission was to spot a certain kind of plant. When observed, the spotter calls out, "Come Left!" (or right) Immediately, the pilot clears his turn, then turns and descends upon the area. The F-15 pilots, who thought they were in complete control, had no idea of our intentions. Had we turned and descended into one of their paths, there would have been no time to react. Resulting in a very expensive day for the American tax payer. Not to mention the families of 5 dead service members! All in the name of "Fun". In the Army, we fly some very dangerous missions, in peace time and in war, but safety is always first and foremost. We don't take risks that aren’t necessary. Hee Hawing in an MOA is an un-necessary risk. This mess about “Playing in their sandbox” is Crap! Protecting our country is serious business, that should be taken seriously by professional, mature acting adults, not kids “playing in a sandbox”! Now, Mr. Bertorelli, if you’d like to discuss whether an Army UH-1 should be flying in an MOA? I’m your Huckleberry!

posted by Andy Medley on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

Many of the comments here have focused on the professionalism and situtational awareness of military aviators who operate in MOAs. Another thing to consider is that, in some MOAs, the military jets operating there may be piloted by student pilots who may be on their first solo in a miltary jet EVER. If so, I gurantee they are not necessarily clearing their 12 o'clock particularly well. Or any other direction, for that matter. A T-38/T-45 class of trainer is small and hard to see, is far more maneuverable and faster and than most GA airplanes, has no radar or TCAS, and might be piloted by a student with less than 120 hours total time. Think about that next time you want to waltz through a MOA unannounced. Never mind the perfect legality of doing so.

posted by Charles Wyndham on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

amed: how quickly does a UH-1 cover a lateral distance of 50 ft when flying at 70-80kt? Are you sure that leaves "no time to react"?

posted by Frank Ch. Eigler on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

I find that the safety nazi's are usually the less talented individuals who insist others must be regulated to their level.

posted by Brad Vaught on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

Reference fche's question. Assuming 70 kts, 400' turn radius, and an instant roll and pull to 45 degrees of bank I think you would have about 1.5 to 2 seconds to react. That is a lot of time to a fighter pilot.

posted by Charlie Guarino on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

Ok - So, I've always been taught to expect the unexpected in any MOA, hot or cold, and haven't been surprised (intellectually, at least) when military equipment is around. I don't have the fancy TCAS, and don't have rear view mirrors, so, I may have been even theoretically "shot down", more than once - I'd never know. It's the pilot's right to cross an MOA - and by doing so, you accept the very clear rules that you are the #2 class pilot, there - the military is #1. And, I wish that I'd have had my camera when I was paced by a pair of jets, flaps down, 20 ft (just kidding, it was probably 200ft) to my left, when the leader rocked his wings and broke left, with wingman in tow. There is an issue of emotional "personal space" and legal separation. In an active MOA, there is no FAA legal separation, as far as I'm aware - but, I'm sure that this incident, with TCAS warnings and resulting evasive maneuvers will force changes in SOP military operations as relating to GA aircraft. After all the publicity, this week, I'm pretty sure that the recent military pilot involved won't be getting very close to a GA aircraft. FAA makes the rules - and every "outrage" (like this, for some) brings out some politician to champion the cause for a new regulation - All I see in this case is the eventual closure of MOA's to GA aircraft. Hopefully, the wisest heads prevail.

posted by Marc Salvisberg on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

yes it's legal to fly VFR through MOAs, I do it all the time as those who fly here in the western US pretty much accept. You have to realize the rules and caveats. Even so, if the fighters are making a game out of it THEY have to realize that, if the target (GA plane) isn't in on the plan then it's an emergency situation for him. And that could mean some maneuvering that catches our F-16 boys by surprise. And THAT is the possible problem that worries thinking pilots. Formation maneuvers are fine if all parties to it are working together, otherwise you're going to screw the pooch sometime. Let's be careful out there, as the TV used to say.

posted by Hans Ahlness on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

fche: Very quickly, especially at 70 to 80 KTS! Yes, I'm sure. I have three dead friends to prove it!

posted by Andy Medley on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

Couple of additonal thoughts: 1 degree of heading change at 230 KIAS (approximately .340 Mach) will creat 340 fpm or almost 6 fps of lateral course excursion. In formation with 30' separation, that's about five 5 seconds to collision if one aircraft drifts off heading 1 degree. If both drift off in closing directions, that's about 2-3 seconds until pieces fall off. An inexperienced or distracted pilot in close formation is a disaster in the making. Further, although the F-16 driver is a sharp stick and not a student, he or she may still be a 24 year old with all of 4-500 total flying hours...not exactly an experienced and mature aviator. (to be continued).

posted by John Johnson on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

(continued) As an active pilot/CFI/aircraft owner for 43 years, 600 hrs in T-37/38's (35 years ago), and an owner-operator of jet warbird for the past 14 years, I wouldn't dream of flying formation for 5 seconds with anyone whom I didn't have the opportunity of evaluating and fully briefing before the flight. Here's a question I can't answer: If I and my passengers are intercepted in my 414 by an F-16 which continues to formate on me for an unspecified time, and I don't attempt to break away from the fighter, am I quilty of flying formation with passengers? If I do attempt evasive maneuvers, am I not increasing the risk of unforseen collision? Finally, as pointed out by others, huge volumes of airspace in the midwest, midsouth, and western US are given over to MOA's. There are lots of times when thunderstorms are popping up all over, when mountainous terrain restricts your options, or your destination is buried in an MOA, when you just can't get there without traversing an MOA. Sure, you take a chance with a midair if you don't know where each other is, but it isn't necessary or appropriate to increase that risk by drafting a involuntary civilian into close formation practice. If all they want is to ID me, that can be done safely from a couple hundred feet away, especially by an eagle-eyed first leutenant looking through that big clear F-16 canopy. Any closer than that and it's just hot dogging, like I used to do when I was young and inexperienced.

posted by John Johnson on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

wbjohnson, could you tell us what your CO would have done to you had you gotten close enough to civilian aircraft (possibly with passengers) to cause such a stir?

posted by Eric Gleason on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

wb - good comments - I have question... :-) Would you rather be close to a 24 y/o, 500 hour F-16 pilot who was dirt bike riding every weekend before enlisting or a 50 y/o 1000 hour pilot who's finally made enough money to afford flying lessons? Mature? A couple years ago, on a calm day, I watched and listened to a doctor in a Bonanza and a lawyer in a Bonanza at DVO, one doing downwind RH traffic and one doing downwind LH traffic for the opposing runways - they ended up less than a couple hundred feet apart, before the wisest one (more mature at this moment in time?) broke off the downwind. Between "mature" (old) - I'd take the 500 hr. 24 y/o F-16 guy. You don't screw up in the military and fly F-16's. All pretty interesting comments - keeping in mind that the original subject was "Welcome, you're flying in military airspace, now".

posted by Marc Salvisberg on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

Good point Kirk.

It seems like we’re missing the point. This isn't merely an issue of "safety of flight" or "whose turf or airspace." This is a basic civil rights issue. The point is that we're supposed to be in America here! For the military to use civilians as sport and treat them as thrill toys is completely unacceptable under any circumstances and is directly contrary to the fundamental principles of liberty that we hold in this country. Of course flying through a hot MOA dramatically increases risk and interferes with necessary military training, and as such should be avoided if at all practical, even if it is legal. But that still gives the military no right to make jest and sport out of innocent civilians and irresponsibly expose them to risk when they have a lawful right to be where they are (even if they aren't very smart to be there). Would it be acceptable in any situation for Marines to start waving M16's at people or firing blanks at civilians just for fun? Of course our military is far above such a thing. So then why is it acceptable to do the same thing with a far more deadly F-16?! We need to respect our military and their needs to carry out their duties, making every reasonable effort to not interfere with those duties. In return, we expect them to respect our rights as civilians.

posted by Nathan Edison on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

so.... who WAS the F-16 pilot?? Let's ask him..... even a written description would be ok....... This reminds me of when some Russian guy was accused of selling gps jammers to the Saddam. It was all over TV for a week. It was all over the chat rooms.... I tracked him down on the internet. I emailed him and told him that I wanted to buy some gps jammers. He wrote back that he wanted to know what I'd be using them for. I wrote back and confessed that I wrote to him because he was all over our TV news programs, that he had sold jammers to the Iraqi's. He said that a friend had emailed him and told him that, too. He was a little frustrated in that, as he hadn't sold anything to the Iraqi's, he never saw any money from them, that it would be stupid to have cruise missiles that relied only on gps for guidance (and they don't rely solely on gps) and that you can get gps jammer plans all over the internet, so, why would anybody pay him for jammers? From memory, his name was Maximilion something or other..... All I'm saying is that it would be nice to have the other side of the story......

posted by Marc Salvisberg on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

I meant to point out, with the Russian gps jammer guy, that he hadn't been contacted by a single reporter -

posted by Marc Salvisberg on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

Paul,

You're argument that "if you have TCAS... it may be a bad idea to venture into a MOA VFR at all," doesn't seem to make much sense. Following this logic, it would be unwise to use TCAS in any situation in which one might be intercepted. The problem with this, is that intercepts typically occur where and when a pilot least expects them. That would almost seem to suggest that we should do away with TCAS altogether, and for that matter, we should forget about ADS-B as well, because we never no when some fighter pilot is going to intercept us and scare us half out of our wits. The chances of being aggresively intercepted in an MOA shouldn't be much if any higher than anywhere else. However, the risk of collision is inevitably much higher. With that in mind, wouldn't we rather at least be able to see what's going on around us, even though TCAS probably wouldn't give much warning anyway? I don't like the tone and implications of this statement. It almost sounds as if we're supposed to just close our eyes believing that we're better off left in ignorance, and just let the government look after everything and do whatever they want, because after all, they know what's best. That doesn't sound like a responsible attitude for a citizen or pilot in command to me.

posted by Nathan Edison on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

The comments here mostly show why GA has such a bad rap. GA pilots are very quick to get on a soapbox about what the regs allow them to do and what their "rights" are. We all know GA pilots have "the right" to fly through a hot MOA VFR. The problem is it is NOT a smart thing to do. Forget this particular "intercept" scenario and just keep in mind that typically a hot MOA means multiple aircraft are maneuvering at high speeds while practicing combat tactics. That leaves a lot less time to concentrate solely on see and avoid. "rhasiak" should worry less about someone on this board trying to defend the military pilots who are in the MOA because they are required to be there and more about GA pilots who are putting themselves and others at risk exercising their "rights" in a MOA when the prudent course of action is to stay out. The only way GA is going to survive is if pilots act responsibly and use good judgement not just legally.

posted by Patrick Welch on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

ha:"Even so, if the fighters are making a game out of it THEY have to realize that, if the target (GA plane) isn't in on the plan then it's an emergency situation for him. And that could mean some maneuvering that catches our F-16 boys by surprise." First of all, the fighters aren't "making a game of it". If they are, it will be a quick end to someone's military career, and if they're doing their job, there won't be any maneuver that can catch them by surprise.

posted by Alan Kinback on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

Possibly standard operating procedure (SOP) within MOAs for TCAS equipped AC should be to set the TCAS range at maximum for greatest awareness, put your head on a swivel, calmly react and process ALL available data and then act accordingly. If you don't know you're in a MOA, you did not flight plan.

The best reaction might just be to "wind your watch" and take a few seconds to calmly perform threat assessment. That is what my primary CFI (a retired USAF combat fighter jock) taught me, as a student pilot years ago.

Cockpit Resource Management (CRM) demands that we as pilots use all cockpit tools in a professional manner to protect our passengers and each other in the calm, intelligent performance of our duties as PIC.

SEL VFR rated, but well-taught by retired military, both Bird Colonels.

Plan and Pray on the ground. Hope has no place in the cockpit.

posted by T M on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

There are a lot of folks here not listening. A Viper driver would not willfully place civilians in danger. They do not use GA aircraft as "thrill toys". Additionally, there is a huge assumption here that the Viper was really that close to the GA aircraft. I need pictures or a confession to believe it. If he really did it then his CC needs to deal with him, but I seriously doubt that he rejioned to close on a random civilan aircraft. There is a better explanation than that. I'm with marc99. I'd like to here the Viper driver's POV. BTW, the risk is actually pretty low that you could do anything short of pulling right into him to make him hit you. I bet if he really was in close, he had some nose tail or altitude separation. Bottom line, military pilots are not hot dogs preying on the american public. If you think they are you probably also see black helicopters chasing you.

posted by Charlie Guarino on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

Formation flight - there's a lead and a wingman - or wingmen. In this case the F-16 was flying as wing and would react to the leads (civ) movements. I fail to see the danger created by this.

Tactical wing vs parade formation: 99.9% of the time a military pilot will fly tactical wing - to enable both flight and individual maneuvering. Tac wing distances vary, but are measured in multiple plane lengths at a minimum.

For all you who feel violated - remember now, we're talking about a Military Operating Area - how much separation would be required to achieve your comfort level?

You enter an active MOA VFR, seems to me ya'gotta expect to see some military operations

For those of you who

posted by Paul Valovich on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

The AIM says that when you intrude into the military's sandbox keep your head on a swivel. And like it or not, when the area is hot, you could become part of some fighter jock's training scenario. That's why it's charted. Like some writers, I question the claimed proximity of the target and fighter without photographic evidence or paint chips. And I'd like to hear the other side of the story before drawing any conclusions. People like to embellish a story. Pilots more so. And there is always a willing audience for the ridiculous. It has been interesting to read the comments to Paul's article and look at how they start with emotional name calling and segue toward more thoughtful comments.

I don't know if some of the whiners have been paying attention, but DEA and now Border patrol have broader scope than the military and can really make your day miserable all the way to the ground.

posted by t c on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

n the 1980s I ran a surveillance and tracking team on the USAF and NATO AWACS. Both the controllers and pilots had a lot of training events to accomplish to stay current. Part of that list for both the controller and pilot was intercepts of various geometry (remember, F15s and 16s with good radar were just coming on line then, so everyone had to practice intercept geometries required by the non-radar equipped jets). I'm sure the rules have changed, but the weapons section pined for 'targets of opportunity' upon whom they could vectored fighters so they could record a 'hack'. Such a target was usually restricted to other military aircraft. Identifying and tracking all aircraft in our area of responsibility was my team's job, which we did by matching up about six different factors for each target. we'd occasionally screw up and a civilian target got tagged as military. (I'm told the ID function has improved since then). IIRC, those intercepts were initially done so that the pilot of the target had no clue any of this was going on. If it was not a 'player', ie, non-military, they'd back out, report the results and get vectors to another.

posted by t c on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

At that time the jets traveled in packs of two: A looker and a shooter. I'd be surprised if that has changed. One stayed in trail with the fire control radar in standby and a looker moved close enough to the target to get a vis ID and take pictures. Getting the target aircraft pilot's attention and establish relations was optional but most felt it part of the drill. If it was a Warsaw Pact aircraft in the ADIZ the cultural exchanges were often noteworthy, but I digress.

Target aircraft equipped with Radar Warning Receivers (think fuzzbusters for fighters) and now TCAS would certainly make it more interesting, so I suspect intercept tactics have changed to ensure the pilot of the target aircraft knows it was an intercept and not a random intruder. 'Strangling the parrot' (fighter mode 3 in standby so TCAS is blinded) makes it more stealthy but often blinded GCI, so it was a mixed bag. In some ways, by making himself apparent to the target aircraft's pilot the fighter guy is also fessin' up for the weapons and surveillance section that we screwed up.

Buried in my diatribe is this: Fighters were rarely autonomous back then, which means they were controlled by somebody. Sooo, if the event in question was in the SW, Arizona Pete was the ARTCC to ask. If they weren't in control, then an AWACS, ground TACS or Center were at least monitoring the activity. I doubt that has changed.

posted by t c on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

1. To perpetuate the beach metaphor, the regulations allow both military and civilian aircraft to operate in MOA’s, Alert Areas, Warning Areas, CFA’s and MTR’s, so that makes it both our turfs. Think of it as a public beach and as long as that is the case, both will continue to use it. 2. It would seem to me the military gets enough practice intercepting aircraft which stray into Restricted areas, Prohibited areas and TFR’s that they shouldn’t need to willfully intercept civilian aircraft in MOA’s. The last time the President was in my home town was evidence enough of that. 3. TCAS is a safety device for which credit for lives saved can never be measured. It calculates potential collision course and reacts defensively to threats and some can issue an RA (Resolution Advisory). The military needs to understand that a defensive maneuver prompted by the TCAS could instead cause the collision instead of preventing it, as we have seen over Germany with the collision of a DHL B757 and a Bashkirian Airlines TU154. Also, for the record, it was not a matter of that NY bound 727 not wanting to be intercepted. Airline pilots are not allowed to ignore an RA. 4. How many years did it take before someone had the bright idea to publish an air-to-air frequency for busy flight training practice areas on TAC charts. Announcing position and intentions might alert military pilots to the presence of a civilian aircraft and then you could have your discussion about Sidewinders.

posted by Kevin Brown on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

5. SUA’s pose a risk, so civilian pilots should mitigate risk to the extent possible if they decide to use it. Monitor guard (121.5), go to www.seeandavoid.org, get radar advisories, etc. 6. Regardless of the mission, both military and civilian pilots have a job to do, which is to get their collective keisters home in one piece. We’re on the same side, after all. If that makes me a safety nazi, then so be it. Beats the alternative.

posted by Kevin Brown on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

Paul, Thank you for initiating a lively and hopefully illuminating debate. I speak to pilots on frequency daily who simply aren't aware of the implications of flying VFR in an active MOA. Just because it the FAA allows it doesn't mean that it is always advisable. As with everything else in aviation, it must be paired with good judgement and a degree of flexibility.

posted by Jennifer Carr on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

2 years ago, I sat in the Base commanders’ office at Luke Air Force Base. I listened as the Air Force explained that they don’t want anybody in “Their” Airspace (referring to All MOA’s). I then listened to a Group Commander tell us that he “makes a close pass on any GA aircraft in the MOA(Gladden) and drops Flares on them.” There were more than a half a dozen of us GA pilots in the room at the time. The Attitude of the Military was one of complete recklessness and impunity. It’s about time that this attitude become public.

posted by Paul Cordell on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

They don't drop flares at GA aircrafts. In these days of digital cameras and picture taking cell phones we'd have seen pics of it all over the internet. If Military pilots did have reckless conducts around GA aircraft, there would be a ton of videos on youtube about it.

posted by J D on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

I LOVE the righteous indignation of the self-anointed aviation safety nazi's. Feels good doesn't it ! Make you feel all powerful and stuff. Lesson: controlling behavior is often a manifestation of a persons own fear of not being in control of themselves. Does this sound like you ?

Also, be careful what you wish for. If GA folks get all righteous with the military about how the military acts in MOA's the most likely result is for MOA's to become CLOSED to GA traffic while active. Is that what you want ?

posted by Kerry Stevens on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

Never had flares dropped on me or anybody I know at Maxwell MOA...... But I have been guilty of making bombing runs with leftover Easter Peeps in an MOA.

posted by Marc Salvisberg on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

I LOVE the righteous indignation of the self appointed aviation psychobabilists.

Be careful what YOU wish for. Restricted areas belong solely to the military and we can’t go there when hot. In other SUA’s they simply have to respect the fact they we operate there too. Or should we all just resolve ourselves to avoid MOA’s entirely. In which case, does it really matter if it’s closed to civilian aircraft or not? Is that what you want?

It is possible to safely co-exist in MOA’s provided we understand each other.

posted by Kevin Brown on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

Paul:

As I get it, you are merely asking us to follow the admonitions of Dan Aykroyd, which is surely sage advice, and you get all of this flak in return?! That doesn't seem fair to me.

To the rest of the forum, I fly in MOAs all of the time, because going around them in this part of the world would take a lot of extra flying. I almost never see anyone else flying around in them, military or otherwise, and when I do, it doesn't worry me. Mid-air collisions are statistically such an improbable event that worrying about them indicates a real lack of math skills.

This is really a tempest in teapot. If you want to worry, worry about colon cancer or heart disease: those are things that actually kill a significant number of people every year.

posted by Robert Grace on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

Let me clear up a few things about this incident.

1. The Pilatus and Raytheon Premier both flew through the middle of a 2 v 2 Tactical Intercept Mission 2. The Pilatus pilot flew right through the Blue Air CAP, leading to the first "intercept". The F-16 came no closer than 1000' to the Pilatus verified by the F-16 HUD tape (with radar lock), ACMI track, and civil radar recording. 3. The "intercept" on the Corporate Image Aviation Jet (Raytheon Premier) ocurred as a result of a fast mover (320 KIAS) in the middle of the fight at 16,500. This happened to be the middle of the Red Air altitude block (5-9s). The F-16 came no closer than 600', verified by HUD tape (with radar lock), ACMI track, and civil radar recording. 4. The accounts by both civil pilots of aggressive maneuvering and 10' and 20' spacing by the F-16 pilot we're verified as false by HUD tape and recorded ACMI data. 5. Thankfully the civilian aircraft were seen prior to becoming a further factor to the F-16 training. The F-16 training was terminated as a result of the traffic. Total cost to taxpayer at ~ $8000 per flying hour x 4 F-16s x 1.3 = $41,600 lost + cost of bad press received due to civilians flying through the MOA closest to the world's largest F-16 base + cost of investigation ($ amount yet determined).

For everyone's safety, please don't fly through active MOA's. If we end up with a mid air, we all lose! www.seeandavoid.org

posted by Luke Viperpilot on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

Replies to Eric Gleason and Marc99: Eric, I don't know what my CO would have done, but it wouldn't have been pleasant: Such behavior was expressly forbidden on training missions, and safety was everything. Marc99: Guess I didn't make myself clear - My point was I don't want either of those pilots close to me, If we don't know each other and haven't pre-briefed formation. And if you think military pilots don't screw around in F-16's (or any other aircraft) sometimes, you obviously didn'tfly in the same military I did. I'm not saying this particular incident represented misbehavior of the F-16 pilot - none of us has enough information to make that judgement. But my commanding general (George Simler) killed himself and his IP by trying to do a good-by take off roll for his golfing buddies (I was on the accident investigation team) when he was promoted to Commanding General of MAC in 1973. More recently, some US military guys hot dogging through an Austrian valley flew through a ski lift cable and killed a bunch of civvies. Fighter pilots are selected in part for their agressiveness and I assure you, some of these testoserone-laden boys will "screw around." In general, I wouldn't want it any other way. "Maturity" doesn't mean "old" - it means living through enough incidents to develop judgment and restraint.

posted by John Johnson on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

Boy, has this column generated some heat! I'm a OLD VFR pilot and still flying after 35 years and lots of hours. I would like to remind everyone of a few facts. Midairs hurt every one involved. Most GA aircraft are like B1RDs to most Fast Movers. Some military areas are hot because of things like artillery. Even when you see it coming (by the way, you can), it's difficult to avoid. With the flight planning tools that we have today, It's easy to get the hours, altitudes and center frequency of the MOA. If it's hot, just go around, under or over it. If you gotta go into a hot MOA, at least be aware of what your doing and the risks involved. In aviation, you can be just as dead, "Dead Right", as the "Dead Wrong " guy who blew it.

posted by Sid Love on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

Just as I submitted my previous comment, Luke Viperpilot's entry appeared. If he's for real, and it sure sounds convincing to me, at least we know enough now to absolve the F-16 pilot(s). I would quibble with his cost accounting, as I doubt the entire 5.2 Viper hours flown were of zero use to the training pilots, but presumably some of the syllabus boxes didn't get checked that day. I concur that you should avoid hot MOA's whenever possible, but there will be times when it is so impractical as to be functionally impossible. One last point: Military pilots are almost without exception safety-conscious professionals who are no more interested in getting killed than are we. We will, from time to time, find ourselves sharing the same airspace with vastly different mission profiles, and we simply have to recognize the risks that engenders and do everything reasonable to minimize that risk. I see 2-ship F-16's fly through the traffic pattern of our residential airpark, at pattern altitude and 400+ kts, on low level training every couple of weeks. It's thrilling to watch and I don't begrudge them that at all. I trust they're looking outside when they go by. When I need to fly through a hot MOA, I keep my head on a swivel, all the lights on, and try to get flight following. Different missions, same airspace. Gotta be willing to share, or general aviation in the US will go the way of GA in Europe.

posted by John Johnson on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

wbjohnson - Well said - logical and clear. Share the sky with ya any day - M

posted by Marc Salvisberg on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

In an earlier post it was stated, "The military needs to understand that a defensive maneuver prompted by the TCAS could instead cause the collision instead of preventing it, as we have seen over Germany with the collision of a DHL B757 and a Bashkirian Airlines TU154." My memory is not that great, so please correct me if I am wrong...but wasn't the cause one of the crews ignoring their TCAS RA and following a controller's instruction instead? Just asking for a clarification...

posted by Craig Bondy on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

Mr. Johnson, It's fair to question my accounting, particularly since the cost per flying hour number can be calculated many different ways and is obviously impacted by fuel prices, etc. My point however is that hundreds of thousands of tax dollars are wasted every year due to lost training in MOAs nationwide, and this is verifiable and no exaggeration. I'm suprised to see the negative attitude toward military aviation in this thread, as I have been priveleged to work with extremely professional and highly disciplined pilots/patriots throughout my career. I have personally never seen the behavior claimed by many posters here. I suspect that accusations such as those made in these forums tend to lend credibility to false claims. BTW, the timing of this incident couldn't have been worse. A week to the day prior to this, a young fighter pilot died during a training mission in the very MOA we speak of. Flying military aircraft is a dangerous business. We don't do it to act reckless, or harass those we are sworn to defend. We understand the need for GA to occasionally transit a MOA, we only hope that pilots act responsibly for all of our safety. For everyone's info, most of us here at Luke also fly GA, many of us own airplanes, and many of us are full time airline pilots (SWA,United, UPS,FEDEX, American)/part time military. Ask any one of us if we would take our private airplane through an active MOA, the answer would be no way!

posted by Luke Viperpilot on April 3, 2008   (report abuse)

To clarify for Debodine. Both airplanes were assigned the same altitude and the busy controller didn’t notice the conflict and the conflict alerter was down for maintenance. About the time the TCAS devices were issuing their RA (they talk to each other), the controller realized his mistake and cleared the Russians to descend. The Russians would have received an RA to climb, but at that time Russians were not mandated to follow an RA and they elected to follow the controllers instructions. The DHL pilots on the other hand were mandated to follow an RA and also descended. A new software version will now reverse the direction of the RA if one aircraft disobeys the RA.

posted by Kevin Brown on April 4, 2008   (report abuse)

I believe Luke Viperpilot’s testimony and it sounds like those guys went smokin right through a military exercise. I wasn’t advocating blowing through the teapot when there is a tempest in it, just because I can. Nor was I suggesting that the Military should have to drop what they’re doing every time GA wants to come thru on a whim and isn’t talking to the controlling agency. I think a part of this debate is the fact that there is a difference between ‘active’ and ‘in use’. We all know the military allocates a lot of airspace it may or may not be using. I’ve been ‘worked’ hundreds of times through active MOA’s and cleared through hot Restricted areas (while delivering GA airplanes on contract to military bases) simply because the military wasn’t using it at the time. I think the tone got set because Paul seemed to suggest that whether you’re a VFR Bonanza or an airliner on a bad vector that you don’t belong in an MOA and you’re subject to an intercept as a reminder that you’re on the losing end of a turf war.

posted by Kevin Brown on April 4, 2008   (report abuse)

I would just like to say that I believe that the author of the article is stating that it IS BEST to steer clear of MOAs. "The easy way not to have to find out is to AVOID ACTIVE MOAs IN THE FIRST PLACE —by a wide margin." (straight from the article) No where in the article does he say go stir up an F-16 just because you can.

posted by Justin Hess on April 4, 2008   (report abuse)

I agree with what you are saying. Just like when a woman walks down her street late and night and is attacked, or a child on a playground is kidnapped. If you don't want sand in your shoes!

We aren't talking about GA pilots who were well within the regs flying through an area and a cocky military pilot engages in potentially dangerous and irresponsible flying. We can't expect our tax money to go to highly training professional pilots!

Clearly the victim here is the F-16 pilot. It isn't as if there were other avenues of legal, responsible action that could have been taken, such as working to change the rules or help clear up flawed ideas of flying into MOAs. The best way to educate pilots on the dangers of flying in a MOA is to harass and taunt pilots in a manner that could be dangerous to all involved. Especially those that are well with in current regulations.

posted by ian farmer on April 4, 2008   (report abuse)

Where are the folks so quick to condemn and blame the military pilot? How about an eye exam for the lawyer who flew the PC-12-seems he can't judge distance very well-I sure wouldn't want to be flying anywhere near him.

posted by Rich Robbins on April 4, 2008   (report abuse)

OK, lets examine Paul's tone. Stay out of all MOA's. Go around all MOA's by a WIDE margin. And if you don't, tough. I guess that makes it tough if you live and fly out of Lake Havasu City. I take exception to Luke Viperpilots' accusation that there is a negative attitude to the military. It is just that it IS the military that have access to aircraft that is wildly more capable than GA aircraft, and as one honest ex-military commented, they sometimes do things they shouldn't. Paul's message is, because they can, expect them to. The opposing view is don't do it "just because you can". As for Viperpilot's point by point, can you prove any of that?

posted by Martin Rey on April 4, 2008   (report abuse)

Former F-15 Pilot comment: Maneuvering to locate and ID a GA aircraft flying through a MOA is not uncommon. We have to terminate our maneuvering until the GA aircraft is clear. Flying close formation with a GA aircraft is another thing....which is stupid and hot dogging it. Whether you like the experience or not.....whether it is legal or not is not a smart thing for the military pilot to do it. And if I was his CO or DO, I would have had a long discussion on how close he got and why he got that close. Close formation with ANYONE unbriefed is not allowed. That is an FAA and a military rule. Bottom line, the F-16 pilot was wrong.

posted by mark brightman on April 4, 2008   (report abuse)

Thanks to Kevin Brown for explaining in greater detail the collision of a DHL B757 and a Bashkirian Airlines TU154 accident. Your clarification helped me understand your original point more clearly. I read a synopsis of the accident a long time ago, but had forgotten the details and I appreciate Kevin filling in the blanks in my memory.

posted by Craig Bondy on April 4, 2008   (report abuse)

I believe Luke Viperpilot's story. Matches my info and is much more believable than the other stuff I've been reading here. Why should we not believe him. He cited a radar lock range on a HUD tape. That is something that everyone can review at 1 g and zero knots. The other side of the story comes from a pilot that is not trained in visual ranging, was startled and seems to have a chip on his shoulder. Which is the logical one to believe? I'll take the APG-68 answer over the Pilatus pilot's eyeball evereytime. Think about what ya'll are saying. Remove the emotion and look at this objectively. That is a sign of maturity.

posted by Charlie Guarino on April 4, 2008   (report abuse)

A question to mark brightman: If Luke Viperpilot's testimony is true and he has seen the HUD info, the ACMI track and the radar track and the closest approach at any time throughout the incidents in question was 600 feet, would you still consider that formation flying? As a former F-15 pilot if you were in the same situation, how close would you have considered a safe approach? As I mentioned in my original post I am former Air Force but I was enlisted and never a pilot. I was also in heavy bombers and transports but I have very little experience with fighters, so I truly have no idea what would be considered an appropriate stand-off distance during an intercept. Would the stand-off distances differ because of A/C type (F-15 vs F16)? Would the stand-off distances depend on local command established procedures or would they be Air Force wide? Looking forward to your answers because I have a soft spot in my heart for ALL the folks who have worn Air Force blue.

posted by Craig Bondy on April 4, 2008   (report abuse)

USCG H-60 pilot comment: If you think MOAs are bad, try offshore warning areas. Yes, VFR aircraft can fly into "whiskey" areas withthe same freedom that they can enter "romeo" areas. The difference is that in warning areas, the scheduled military users of that airspace csn launch real MISSLES, drop live BOMBS, & fire real BULLETS! In addition, they can fly UAVs that are as capable of dynamic collision avoidance as that blind pilot & just read about. I just listened to LT Col Clifton's interview. What a refreshing and accurate perspective he provides. Although Mr. Patrick McCall and PC-12 N121PH were technichally able to operate in the MOA, I suggest that he consider the national airspace system is ours to share. That includes sharing it with those who are charged with protecting the freedoms we enjoy and often take for granted. God Bless America.

posted by Nelson Brandt on April 4, 2008   (report abuse)

test comment

posted by Kelly Biedny on April 4, 2008   (report abuse)

test comment

posted by Kellyb Biedny2 on April 4, 2008   (report abuse)

a final test comment

posted by Kellyb Biedny2 on April 4, 2008&nbs