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 Dupont 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 Dupont 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 Dupont 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 tom connor 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 tom connor 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 tom connor 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 Dupont 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[report abuse]

To Luke Viperpilot: I'll bet there's not a contributor on this thread that doesn't thank you and your compatriots every day for the risks to take and the sacrifices you make to protect us and our families from foreign terror in all its forms. I agree some statements might sound "antimilitary" on this thread, but I think that's not what is intended. Instead I suspect it reflects an intense desire to protect our own abililty to use GA aircraft for practical purposes as well as recreation. If all we wanted was to fly recreationally, we wouldn't need much airspace. But when I saddle up my 414 at 60 gph climb & 40 gal/hr cruise (all at $5.00/gal), it's for an important (to me, at least) purpose. And the money's coming straight out of my bank account. There's a natural tendency to wish I didn't have to deviate from my flight plan any more than absolutely necessary. So we all tend to suffer from Airspace Protection Syndrome. It's not a terminal disease (no pun intended) but does deserve attention from all sectors of the flying community. That said, I thank you most sincerely for your service and dedication. We couldn't do any of this aviating business without you.

posted by John Johnson on April 4, 2008[report abuse]

The military defines well clear as 500ft. The FAA does not specify a distance. So, as I stated earlier, this is an example of the military regs being more restrictive than the FARs.

posted by Charlie Guarino on April 4, 2008[report abuse]

Did it occur to anyone that a F-16 flying a safe distance from your wing in an MOA might be there for your own safety? If a military jet was cruising with me, I'd know all the other jets in the area would know that I am there and not do dangerous manoeuvers in my immediate area. Remember that it has yet to be proven that the military aircraft was flying about 10 to 20 feet from the GA aircraft.

posted by J Dupont on April 4, 2008[report abuse]

I simply can't fathom why these two guys in the Pilatus were so upset. They flew though an active MOA. WHat did they expect?

I'm a purely civilian pilot, but I've made the effort and taken the time to learn formation flying and aerobatics. That means I've had a grief taste of the sorts of things military pilots do for a living. I also know quite a few military pilots and deeply respect them all. The F-16s did what F-16s do. These guys are consummate professionals and Pilatus drivers were in less danger in the company of these F-16s than they are in a typical civil Class D airport pattern.

The Pilatus drivers need to get over it, get over themselves, and count themselves lucky to have had a view few of us ever get, all at the taxpayer's expense.

posted by Kim Elmore on April 4, 2008[report abuse]

I think Luke Viperpilot has the evidence that the F-16 never got closer than 600 ft. In my opinion, this whole thing has been caused by an exagerated story. Which is understandable. The Pilatus pilot was startled and is probably not accustomed to nor comfortable flying within a mile of other aircraft. Everyone needs to step back and look at the electrons that have been used on this subject. Most of what has been said is N/A because it didn't happen the way it was initially reported. At least according to Luke Viperpilot and I believe him, the hardware and the tape.

posted by Charlie Guarino on April 4, 2008[report abuse]

a) visually confirming the position of the GA aircraft would requuire no closer the 6000' b) flying a 2 v2 syllabus ride in a MOA is STUPID! That kind of a mission should be and normally is scheduled for a Restricted area. I say again, there was NO reason for the Viper to get that close, except to try an intimidate the GA pilot and passengers. Foolish.

posted by mark brightman on April 4, 2008[report abuse]

I guess I'm missing something here. Is there a limited number of lifties in a given volume of airspace. Is that why a Viper flying 600ft away from another airplane is dangerous. I'm begining to question the intelligence of some of the posters here. Also, what I get from Mark Brightman's post is that there needs to be more restricted airspace. There is a set level of training to be done and if you say you can't do it in a MOA then the military will need more restricted areas to get it done. Is that what you want? Don't sign my name to that petition.

posted by Charlie Guarino on April 4, 2008[report abuse]

Dont make assumptions about my posting. I think there is MORE then enough Restricted Areas. I can tell you from experience the military does a lousy job of effectively scheduling those areas. The Air Force force structure had been reduced by over 50% AND what is left is often deployed to SW Asia. In my opinion (yeah I will get reamed for this by some), there is WAY more then adequate airpspace for military training.

An F-16 600 ft away from a GA aircraft in and of itself is not dangerous......but the real question--Is it necessary? NO! By the way, I would suggest that most of us in GA have more then adequate experience flying within 6000 of another aircraft, whether in pattern work, with multiple aircraft vying for an IAF while doing VMC Instrument Approaches etc etc. I am thinking a Pilatus pilot was not afraid ...... Sorry to disagree with the Viper pilot but he was wrong, if not legally then certainly under the common sense rules of aviation

posted by mark brightman on April 4, 2008[report abuse]

Mark, A pilot should not feel intimidated by seeing a jet fly a safe distance from his plane in a MOA. Just like you don't have to feel intimidated by a patrol car cruising on the highway close enough to read your license plate. Sure your radar detector or TCAS might go beep but when you know your equipment limitations, you deal in a proper manner to the situation.

posted by J Dupont on April 4, 2008[report abuse]

JD, no one said that a pilot should be intimidated........I simply said it was unnecessary, hot dogging, and in spite of my earned respect for my fellow fighter brethren, there are hot doggers out there that are NOT disciplined enough to know when to say ENOUGH...and this guy was one of them.

OBTW, being in a MOA is not license for the Vioper pilot to play cop.....we all know the rules to a MOA and the GA guy had absolutely as much right to be there.

posted by mark brightman on April 4, 2008[report abuse]

You said the F-16 pilot was attempting intimidation. Exact quote from you 4 posts above:"I say again, there was NO reason for the Viper to get that close, except to try an intimidate the GA pilot and passengers. Foolish."

You have no proof of hot dogging, yet you say the F-16 pilot was one of them. If it turns out the viper pilot was indeed hot dogging (not a safe distance from the GA aircraft) then I'll agree with you.

posted by J Dupont on April 4, 2008[report abuse]

mark brightman: thank you for answering my question about what you would consider a reasonable approach distance. and I had not considered (being a non-pilot) that better scheduling would consider using a restricted area rather than a MOA for a 2 v 2 program. I appreciate your answers and your thoughts. As an enlisted superintendent I often had to choose between what is authorized versus what amount of risk to accept for the expected outcome. Of course as an enlisted man my decisions did not involve split second decisions at 300+ knots like yours did, but I do understand the principle.

posted by Craig Bondy on April 4, 2008[report abuse]

This is for the posters insisting there is no way for them to avoid active MOAs. Active is not the same as charted or scheduled. Some MOAs are in use more than others, but most are only active for a fraction of the times shown on the chart panel. Make a radio call and check. Stay out if it is already hot, get out if you're already in and it goes hot take the shortest way out. Common sense and common courtesy isn't that complicated. IFR traffic is gets routed around, under, or over active MOAs. You can avoid them when ACTIVE too.

posted by Michael Hartmann on April 4, 2008[report abuse]

"Stay well clear of all MOA's"? Ever try to traverse South Texas and stay well clear of all MOA's? There are civilian airports inside MOAs for cryin out loud. I enjoy spotting the jets flying around me (they ARE really cool), and i wouldnt really mind if they are "practicing" on my little cessna, but don't sidewinders have a pretty significant range? why cant they stay back a couple miles, or circle widely to ID us little guys? Getting 20 ft off my wing seems a little excessive. As a taxpayer, I own that F-16 and dont want some jet jock to break it or my cessna.

posted by eric nelson on April 4, 2008[report abuse]

I just listened to today's podcast (4-4-08) and I'd like to post my comments as a Phoenix area pilot.

First of all, it is difficult to fly most anywhere around here without passing through a MOA. Most of this area is a giant MOA with IFR corridors cut through. Many of the GA airports aren't even accessible without passing through, or under, a MOA. If you tried to avoid the MOAs you could easily double or triple your route.

It is perfectly legal to be VFR in a MOA. Is it prudent when they're hot, no, but that's not the issue. It is legal. And even passing under a MOA causes headaches as military aircraft often break through the floor. The military doesn't want civilians anywhere near the MOAs.

Also, no one has mentioned the military pilot's aggressive flying. Many MOAs are huge, several hundred square mile to several thousand. If the military pilots see a civilian passing through say 10 or 20 miles away why do they feel the need to dart over and harass the civilian? According to the rules of the MOA they're supposed avoid the civilians and / or cease operations until the VFR has cleared the MOA. NOT HARRASS.

If the military doesn't want to be bothered by civilian traffic they need expand their Restricted areas and operate there.

posted by Joe Williams on April 4, 2008[report abuse]

Viperpilot: can you tell us where you saw the evidence you cited? Is it available for us to view as well?

posted by Eric Gleason on April 4, 2008[report abuse]

As a retired fighter pilot I don't know what the big deal is. I have encountered light aircraft in MOA's frequently. I've had to ID them which is not easy to do in an F4 or F16. You have to get close enough to see the N-number and that means getting within a few hundred feet or closer. They do appear closer than you expect when the adrenalin is running. Since, retiring I fly light aircraft and tend to stay under or around the training areas because I know how tough it is to mix fighters with light aircraft. One thing I can assure you is that fighter pilots are not out to prove anything to a general aviation pilot by tweaking them in the MOA. The last thing we want to do is highlight ourselves like that. In fact, the military will generally roll over when there is a complaint from a civilian.

I was accused of a supersonic buzz on a pickup truck in Southern Arizona in an A7D in the 80s. Two problems with that accusation. 1. The A7D can't go supersonic with it's wings still attached and 2. I was at least 100 miles from that truck. The problem was I was the only jet in the air that afternoon so Obviously, it was me. The pass blew out the transmission in her truck so the AF bought her a new transmission. I kid you not!

posted by Ben Bosma on April 4, 2008[report abuse]

Luke Viperpilot, Thank you for the data showing what really happened. You can intercept me anytime, inside or outside the MOA. Really, which plane is more maneuverable? I'm sorry, has there been an instance of a Pilatus or any type Beech running down an F-16, or a Tweety Bird for that matter!! What a laugh. Whoa Nelly. GA pilots, come clean and get over it. What a bunch of whinners and cry babies. Given the data, there was NOTHING remotely dangerous that occured. Did it ever occur to LOOK out the window and try to SEE the traffic. And Mark Brightman, you must have really good eyes to read the N number much less even determine type at 6000'. Wow, that is better than a pronghorn. TCAS is another nice toy to use for someone who has "good judgement". Our GA pilots are the ones who should be investigated for your very poor judgement on distance and level of safety and wasting the time and tax money. Your story smells of the stuff I clean off the chicken house floor.

To our military friends: From the heart, as a veteran, thank you for your willingness, time, talent, and dedication. Charge on.

posted by Dan Andrew on April 4, 2008[report abuse]

So here's a summary:

Hey - I'm a GA pilot, and I have the legal right to fly through a MOA and disrupt military training anytime I want to. And I will, because I can. I may have a problem differentiating ten feet from 600 feet, but I'm still a great pilot. And all you fighter jocks are hotdogging, intimidating, suicidal ignorant liars who still don't understand - I have the legal right to fly through and active MOA and disrupt training, and I will 'cause I can!

Let's swap existing MOA's for a reduced area of additional restricted airspace - and pay for it through user fees!

My opinion - if it gets to the 1 v 1, military vs GA over special use airspace, even Phil and the AOPA machine won't be powerful enough to win that one.

posted by Paul Valovich on April 4, 2008[report abuse]

There is no legal or logical reason to read an "N" number unless that GA aircraft is suspected of having been hijacked, violated airspace or has an emergency which includes NORDO. I did not say it would not be fun.....I said it was against common sense, and quite frankly against the regulations. Which I confirmed today with a call to Air Combat Command. All your hurrah emails are great and the support to military pilots is warranted and appreciated. BUT, the skies over SW Arizona are not the skies over Bahgdad......and should not be treated as such. Some of the comments on here have gotten so far off the point, which is was it necessary, legal, common sense or good judgement for the Viper to fly so close to a GA aircraft in an authorized (MOA) piece of airpspace?? In spite of all the rhetoric, the answer is and will remain simple....NO!

posted by mark brightman on April 4, 2008[report abuse]

Well Joe, I hope you don't get your wish. The pilot part of me would say that we don't need new rules or more restricted airspace because pilots as a group are reasonably resonsible adults. The retired controller part of me knows better and would make MOAs restricted airspace just as you seem to advocate. It probably doesn't matter what we call it though - prohibited, restricted, warning, TFR, whatever - some "pilot" will figure out how to bust it. All I'm saying is that the current system of MOAs is the least restrictive option. Let's try to preserve that by avoiding these areas as much as possible when they're active. MOA users are no more likely to bust the vertical limits than the lateral limits. A spill-out is a spill-out either way, they'll have knocked-off, and will be more concerned with getting back in the airspace than playing games with civillians. UNDER is an excellent way for a VFR pilot to avoid an active MOA in those areas where the floor of the airspace and terrain permit.

posted by Michael Hartmann on April 4, 2008[report abuse]

Hartmann, I was being facetious. I'm not a supporter of more restricted airspace. They've got enough of that here too.

They just need to stop this "it's our airspace, keep out!" attitude. Better pilot training about the MOAs is a must, but the military has to understand that we're going to be there and they need to avoid us just as we avoid them. But they'll see us before we'll see them.

Where I'm based I am surrounded by militar VR routes, MOAs, Alert and Restriced airspace. There's only a couple of airports I can fly too without crossing a VR route. We had a couple controllers from Luke AFB come down and give us a presentation on these airspaces. Pretty much what they showed us what that we can't fly anywhere without crossing training routes.

Just because a MOA is hot doesn't shut down the airspace.

posted by Joe Williams on April 4, 2008[report abuse]

I listened to both podcasts, read posters comments and conclude: Maybe we should drop this one. GA VFR remain clear of MOAs, if you enter be careful. Aggressive maneuvering means "lets play." If you do play your training and background are suspect as to range estimations etc..

Military flights in MOAs (used to be one, now airline), lets exercise some air discipline and not scare the XXXX out of a legal but not smart guy.

At the end of the day it sounds like this attorney wants to win this hand. I suggest he fold.

posted by Howard Rhodes on April 4, 2008[report abuse]

Howard -- concur. Add one thing. Everyone play by the established rules and common sense when rules are not clear.

posted by mark brightman on April 4, 2008[report abuse]

Some of the comments would be funny if they didn't demonstrate a lack of knowlege in the regs. A MOA is a Military Operating Area. If you play in that area, you accept the consequences, particularly if you are not talking to anyone. Military pilots fly by their rules in the MOA and FAA rules outside the area.

posted by Chuck Miller on April 4, 2008[report abuse]

I think this equine has succumbed to the beating. The burden of proof is on the GA pilot and apparently no one here has seen any evidence to support his claim. Conversely, an officer has posted info citing physical evidence that disproves the GA pilots story. I think what we have here is a non-event. What disturbs me more is the attitudes exhibited by some of the posters. There are 4 groups here. 1. intelligent, open minded, fact based guys. 2. the pro military types. 3. ignorant but willing to listen and assimilate info to make informed decisions on their position and 4. These are the envious. They would give their left reproductive organ to fly a Viper but they are too tall, too short, too blind, too sick, too fat, too thin, too stupid or whatever to do it. Now they see an opportunity to attack a Viper pilot. The guy they want to be but can’t and they pounce like vultures. That viper pilot is professional and conscientious, and is risking his life everyday to provide them the freedom to slam him. If you don’t think training is dangerous just ask the pregnant widow of the young Lieutenant recently killed in that MOA. That is the dilemma of the soldier. He protects the rights of the people to say what they want about him. But that is the way it has to be or else we are not free. God Bless America! To the viper pilot and all the military folks, thanks and godspeed. To groups 1, 2 and 3, thanks for your inputs to this forum. To the group 4 whiners, grow up or STFU! I’m done.

posted by Charlie Guarino on April 4, 2008[report abuse]

For what it's worth, here's another perspective from an old attack pilot...

In 26 years of flying Hogs (A-10s) I never begrudged a GA airplane entering a MOA...I knew the rules too and just dealt with it, usually just calling a "Knock-it-off" for all members of the flight and either maneuvering the 2-ship or 4-ship away from the guy when low or holding high when high. That said, here are a couple of things to consider:

1) If I am in a turning fight with another airplane, I'm rarely scanning for traffic the way I normally do. Often, I'm looking opposite the direction of travel so I'm more vulnerable to a midair when an unexpected visitor is in the immediate vicinity. This also applies to maneuvering off target after a simulated attack--I am focused on not hitting the ground, not getting shot by defenses, reacquiring members of the formation, directing reattacks and egress actions and looking out for strangers as much as I can while doing the first four. And I do all this without radar so "see and avoid" is working both ways here. 2) Unlike my jet, the fast movers may not have VHF/AM capability. I had all three bands available and maintained my SA via listening watch on UHF, VHF/AM (the normal civil band) and VHF/FM. I could deconflict by listening (and even talk to you if I knew your freq--or on Victor GUARD, 121.5). But Eagles and Vipers may not be able to do that. BTW, I'm assuming the A-10C has TCAS but I'm not sure about the more numerous A-10As.

posted by John Rhoades on April 4, 2008[report abuse]

Hogdriver comments continued:

3) We're not always high. Frankly, I think the low altitude MOAs are the most problematic. So, it's in the low altitude environment that I really defer to (studiously avoid) my GA colleagues...I can maneuver much more quickly, have much more of the three dimensions with which to work and have excellent visibility. But keep scanning...please. 4) I have had only ONE situation where we felt we had to get a GA pilot's attention, and that was a futile effort--he flew right through our Restricted Area bombing range while we are dropping/shooting. We immediately ceased deliveries and safed up our systems and tried to get close enough to let him know he was in danger. Even at 1000' line abreast and wing rocks, he never acknowledged our presence. Pleasant outcome: nobody dead, hurt, or even scared except for my near-coronary when I spotted him. Probably an honest mistake and in retrospect I'm glad he DIDN'T see us, panic and do God knows what, which brings me to my point--modern fighters are a lot bigger than you think (the Hog is 53 ft long and 57 ft wide) so a "close encounter" may be anything but. As mentioned above, 500 ft is the no-s**t minimum "bubble" and at that range, a Hog is huge.

posted by John Rhoades on April 4, 2008[report abuse]

Hogdriver comments final:

Finally, let me apologize for anyone who acted unprofessionally in front of a taxpayer. Trust me, the rest of us (99.99%) resent it even more than the GA observer/victim does. Having flown GA airplanes myself (and MD-11s now), I know what it takes to be a good civilian pilot and I respect that a great deal. But the kids who are sharpening their air battle skills stateside need that opportunity so if we both exercise a little judgement we both win...in more ways than one.

posted by John Rhoades on April 4, 2008[report abuse]

Any claim by someone that they are a 'great pilot' (PV, today's date) is self-invalidating! Doing stuff which enhances risk just because you can tends to prove this statement. I can fly inverted, and I guess I could fly the pattern that way, rolling upright on short final, "cos I can" - but is it smart? OK, so my example breaks just a few rules based on altitude, proximity to persons and property, ... but you get my point. If you want to sleep in your own bed at night do things that help you make it home in one piece. Don't create risk, mitigate it. I think that goes for some of the decisions made by both pilots.

posted by Richard WILSHER on April 4, 2008[report abuse]

I was flying my first cross country flight nearly 20 years ago. The flight plan took me just south of Shaw Air Base enroute to Myrtle Beach. I was talking to Shaw (flight following) and was told that traffic would be crossing ahead of me. Two beautiful F16's passed 1000 yards at my 12:00! Golly damn, I'm up here with the big guys. This was flying for sure. I'll never forget that feeling no some 3000 hours later. Settle down and enjoy it.

posted by Mike Kinsella on April 4, 2008[report abuse]

Paul Valovich, aka the "Great Pilot". He was being facetious - he was imitating someone who has the right to fly through an MOA and does :-)........ Thanks WBJ, Hogdriver, Charlie G, Chuck Miller and the mysterious Luke Viperpilot and the rest for the input...... Most of us, when we make that decision to fly through an MOA, somewhat expect, someday, to be intercepted. Whether it was 10 feet, 20 feet or 600 feet separation remains to be proven..... but when verifiable facts actually become available, we can ask "what's acceptable separation in a Military Operations Area". Great discussion - Marc

posted by Marc Salvisberg on April 4, 2008[report abuse]

Howard, I agree with your statement regarding the attorneys. We loose, they have our money in the end if we can't learn to tolerate minor difference. Nobody is hurt. Upset yes. Perhaps this will provide a reminder and guidance to be a little more considerate of each other. Poor Richard (Ben Franklin) had a good line on tolerance in his talk to the Continental Congress just prior to the vote to approve the new Constitution. A timeless good read.

In the meantime Captain Viper, is there anyway one could "endure" a flying demonstration on the handling, flying qualities and capabilities of your flying machine to better understand how to avoid another incident?

posted by Dan Andrew on April 4, 2008[report abuse]

To clarify, the PC12 pilot identified himself as an attorney from CA. As a completely HUMOROUS aside, the F16 would get clubbed by a Raptor BVR. No need to even enter the MOA. Just autosort and shoot!

Translation: F22 shoots missle beyond visual range when on board computer autosorts the F16 threat. And if they hit the merge! Lights out baby.

Safety fallout of course is our PC12 friend never is in harms way from the 4 ship in the MOA. This was humor guys...may common sense prevail here.

posted by Howard Rhodes on April 4, 2008[report abuse]

Again, remind me what the military is not able to talk with ATC. Surely if the F-16 pilot has spoken with ATC the civilian pilot would have assisted as necessary.

posted by bob gary on April 4, 2008[report abuse]

I know the Gladden MOA is a busy place; I’ve flown through it a few times. I wish I could get more real time info about its status. If you call the listed authority or flight service, they will almost always say it is hot. It would be nice if I could call someone and they would tell me something like “We have a flight of four aircraft entering the MOA in 10 minutes who will be operating between 10 and 18 thousand feet and they are expected to leave in 45 minuets”. I know that somebody knows this; I also know that they would probably think it is a pain to keep this updated for public consumption. I also wish I could call center or somebody and say “I would like to fly through the MOA , my present position is XXX and my heading is XXX. Will this interfere with your operations?”, and get an answer other then “The MOA is hot”

posted by Richard Jones on April 4, 2008[report abuse]

Like my military brethern & controllers I always avoid MOA's hot or cold. From a combat veteran Huey doorgunner point of view I have had some very close encounters with high performance aircraft on a bombing run. Trust me the jet jockey will not see you until it is to late. If a Huey wasn't capable of of flaring at a right angle I would not be writing this comment.The bottom line is only a fool or a wannabe would enter a MOA that is hot! MOA's are training area's not play grounds. The safe thing to do is avoid the MOA. Otherwise your tombstone will read he was right legally but he had no common sense.

posted by Bill Crabbe on April 4, 2008[report abuse]

I still remember the answer to the MOA question on my private pilot written exam 25+ years ago: "EXERCISE EXTREME CAUTION" Probably still works...

posted by Steve Zeller on April 4, 2008[report abuse]

If you haven't listened to the podcast,you won't have a good understanding of what the Pilatus pilot when through. How would you like to look at your TCAS or TIS and see a yellow target at zero altitude right next to you and haven't visually seen it yet? It's probably a feeling of pure panic knowing a collision is eminent. The Pilatus pilot said the F-16 was 20ft away. Even if it were 50 or 100ft, it really doesn't matter. Just looking at that yellow target on the TCAS at zero altitude is enough to scare the you know what out of you. Also, the GA pilot said the wake from the F-16 pulling straight up gave him a good joult. The other plane, a Premier Jet had to violate airspace rules and climb up to about 20,000ft to avoid the F-16. He declared an emergency with ATC. This is not the type of risk you would expect in a MOA. If all of this is true, and time will tell, this was not accidental. Liston to the Podcast and put yourself in the GA pilot's place. DPA

posted by David Affinito on April 4, 2008[report abuse]

David TCAS works best using and assuming normal rates of ascent and descent. As an MD11 operator and instructor the RAs generated pretty much assume those "normal" rates. Tactical jets go off scale ascending and descending, the avionics in the PC12 aren't up to the task. To maneuver that airplane without a visual on your traffic and no resolution solutions from a CAWS aural system seems not wise to me. Seems like a lack of understanding of his avionics, their capabilities, and his appropriate reactions to a very dynamic intercept.

posted by Howard Rhodes on April 4, 2008[report abuse]

Instapilot makes some fine points. Charlie Guarino's classifications need a little work. How about #5. A pilot who is minding his business, and keeping clear of other traffic to the best of his abilities, and, rightly, expects other aircraft to do the same. The quick retort to this is being in an MOA negates the "minding your own business" part. But, as has been noted there are GA airfields smack in the middle of MOA's. Any fighter jock, and those are probably few, who cannot resist bad behaviour should be dealt with. Now high speed envy may be Mr. Guarino's issue, but don't try to saddle me with it. I AM whining, and I think, with good reason, and certainly not with envy. I got what I got, and I am good. Being messed with by someone in a multi-million dollar war machine, no so good.

posted by Martin Rey on April 4, 2008[report abuse]

RobertGrace said:

Mid-air collisions are statistically such an improbable event that worrying about them indicates a real lack of math skills.

posted by Mike Zippy on April 4, 2008[report abuse]

Exercise Extreme Caution: editorials published on April Fools day may contain some humor. This one is no exception. Not as much as an April Road & Track magazine review of a Mercedes garbage truck but still full of irony and a certain cocky flippancy. Saying “intercepted” instead of “jumped” may not have been as incendiary. Nobody likes to get jumped anytime or anywhere.

Levity aside, there is lots to say about not taking unneeded risks. At 16, my crabby old instructor went on about “old pilots and bold pilots but no old bold pilots”. Now at 48, it sticks with me and makes me a better private pilot. We are all lucky we get to fly. I’m lucky that I get to choose when and where.

I do appreciate the risks taken my military pilots on our behalf. OK, they’ve got to enjoy part of the job but it still fraught with risk. As a student pilot, my local MOA (Boardman Bombing range) was something to stay clear of when active. Knowing some of the A-6’s coming down from Whidbey Island never made it home, I figured they were busy enough without me to worry about. Like others, I suspect, and hope, forth coming facts will characterize the F-15 pilot’s actions as doing their job as they are trained. No bull, no bullying, just doing their job.

posted by Rustin Brewer on April 4, 2008[report abuse]

There are many things you can do in an airplane that are unwise and unsafe but not in direct contradiction of s specific FAR. Flying VFR in a MOA is a perfect example. Not to mention that they are an added incremental danger to the military pilots working there. When such people talk about being safety concious perhaps they should "first cast the beam out of thine own eye"

posted by Christopher Marks on April 4, 2008[report abuse]

This has been an interesting and informative thread. As a 700 hour VFR pilot, my takeaways are: 1. If planning a flight always check the status of MOA's and avoid hot airspace if possible. 2. Military flight training time is at a premium and we should respect and allow fighter pilots to take full advantage without delay.

I actually am based at KGLR near restricted area 4201A/B. As a student pilot, returning from my long cross country in a C172 I was intercepted by 2 A10's as I was retuning to the airport. I was not in the restricted area - but it is close to KGLR - within about 3 miles. The fighters passed below me approx 500 feet and then pulled straight up once they were approx 1/2 mile ahead of me. There was no question in my mind that they knew I was there. I hit their wake and rocked around. Needless to say as an inexperienced student pilot it got my attention.

Takeaway #3. Spillover is real. I see these fighters outside the restricted area often. I have been living around this airspace for almost 40 years. Some fighter pilots do "hotdog" without any regard for the experience level of the GA pilot they are intercepting. Now as a more experienced pilot - I would just sit back and enjoy the view - but that was not the case the day as a student I was introduced to the wake of these aircraft.

posted by Mike Deerfield on April 4, 2008[report abuse]

Is the MOA ACTIVE? You'll know before you go if it is SCHEDULED by looking at the SUA panel of your sectional and checking NOTAMs. For simplicity and efficiency you might just plan to avoid most MOAs, regardless of status, by putting a few bends in your otherwise GPS direct route or adjusting your planned altitude. As you approach a MOA that is scheduled hot you can check the real-time status with the controlling agency, also thoughtfully provided on the SUA panel of your sectional. You would have noted that information and the appropriate frequency, found in the AFD, when planning the flight. The controller will know the current status of the MOA, or will be able to give you the correct frequency to use if the MOA is in some other sector. FSS will NOT normally know. It will normally be the center - the same controller you'd call for flight following in that area if you chose to use the service. If the MOA is ACTIVE/HOT you have a choice. Under, over, around, or through. As with every flight in VMC, any of those choices means looking out the windows with a very occasional short glance inside, TCAS or not. If you just HAVE to go through you might want to look extra hard - maybe even squint, not that it will do you any good. If you're lucky, one of the fighters will see you first, and might even appear out of "nowhere" and safely scare the poo out of you. Wow, how could we have avoided THAT, I wonder?

posted by Michael Hartmann on April 4, 2008[report abuse]

For Mike Zippy: Thanks for the video clip!

Here are two links in return. They show 8 fatal mid-airs in 2001 out of 20,200,000 departures.

posted by Robert Grace on April 4, 2008[report abuse]

One of which was an F-16CG collision with a Cessna 172. The Cessna lost.

CORRECTION: That was a 2000 accident, and you're talking 2001 stats, but still very illustrative.

I'd note that your 20.2 million departures number was based on commercial as well as GA accidents, and if memory serves, there were 5 fatals in that collection (4 9/11 plus Airbus that lost its tail). Given that, even with that tragic year, the GA rate was much higher, you might not want to find a number that better looks at GA, which sees accident rates in the 2-3 per 100,000 hours ( ), which I would assume leads to 20-60 accidents per 1,000,000 departures (assuming a conservative average flight duration of 1-2 hours). Your report shows 1.68 per million departures, so I assume that it is considerably skewed by scheduled airline traffic, which would never find itself in an active MOA.

posted by Mike Zippy on April 4, 2008[report abuse]

According to the NTSB database, there were 304 fatal general aviation accidents in 2001 in the US, and I will admit that it wasn't the primary cause of accidents (about 3-4% of fatals, based on 11 fatal midairs in 2000, according to your source). Still, I assume that you take precautions against most potential sources of fatal accidents. Your response implies that you rely solely on the ratio of your aircraft "absorbtion cross section" (to borrow a term from nuclear physics, a field that spends quite a bit of time doing the math you discuss, collision probabilities based on projectile and target size, based on density, speed, etc.) to the area of space around you. This seems a more risky assumption in an MOA, where aircraft are at possibly a higher density than general airspace averages, and operating at a higher speed, which increases the area that they sweep out per given period of time.

So, midairs are a small, but not inconsequential, percentage of GA fatals, and an MOA, one can assume, presents a somewhat-higher-than-normal probability of one occurring. So, are you just going to leave it up to chance?

posted by Mike Zippy on April 4, 2008[report abuse]

BTW, those who notice that I'm mixing 2000 and 2001 numbers, please note that the total GA fatal count in 2000 was 336, so the orders of magnitude should be about the same.

posted by Mike Zippy on April 4, 2008[report abuse]

One more correction - I notice that my BTS report was fatalities per 100,000 hours, not fatal accidents. Still, in 2007, GA had 1.51 fatal accidents per 100,000 hours, which was considered an unusually low number, so my numbers are in a generally correct scale.

posted by Mike Zippy on April 4, 2008[report abuse]

Sorry - that was 1997. My bad.

2007 had 7.5 accidents per 100,000 hours, and of the 1515 accidents, 303 were fatal (1/5), so fatal accident rate was still about 1.5 per 100,000 hours

posted by Mike Zippy on April 4, 2008[report abuse]

The airspace in this country is by-and-large civilian. MOAs are, by definition, used to separate IFR traffic from military training activities. Civilian VFR aircraft transitioning in-use MOA airspace during training exercises may cost the military a few tens of thousands of dollars, due to disrupted exercises and whatnot, but please consider the tens of millions of dollars additional cost footed every year by 91, 121 and 135 operations flying IFR around all our sundry MOAs and restricted areas, airspace that's supposedly ours anyway.

I'd like to make the point that while we've heard from someone reputed to be a "luke viperpilot", using fancy lingo referring to exotic, seldom-glipsed yet oft-fantisized equipment, there is simply no evidence that the F-16 pilot in question was not engaging in nefarious behavior. I appreciate that Mr. Luke Viperpilot is weighing in on this discussion, and has brought a refreshingly level-headed sense of dialogue into our message board, but I see nothing more than words on a screen; words I can make appear, same as anybody else.

posted by ian farmer on April 5, 2008[report abuse]

If there is a HUD recording or telemetry data, let's have it. Facts are, we have two pilots from two separate aircraft, both saying they were maneuvered on in two back-to-back events, BOTH pilots said (or so the article claims) that they were joined within 10 to 20 feet. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but the radar on an F-16 is forward-looking, right? So, if the F-16 was off the left wing of the PC-12, to name one particular circumstance, how would that ranging radar be recording anything? For that matter, how would there be any view whatsoever from the HUD camera?

Perhaps the PC-12 pilot is lying? Maybe. Can't say I much understand why. But, how would the PC-12 pilot know the aircraft was an F-16? PC-12's have poor rearward visibility. If the F-16 came no closer than 600', for that to be in the relatively narrow confines of the HUD camera, I'm just a little unclear how the PC-12 pilot would be able to get a visual confirmation of the intercepting aircraft type.

posted by ian farmer on April 5, 2008[report abuse]

It's also worth mentioning that our knowledge of the programming of TCAS-II helps us tailor our training programs that teach us proper procedures. These procedures state that when receiving an RA, pilots are to deviate from any rule necessary to meet the requirements of the Resolution Advisory. Seldom does looking outside to verify the conflicting aircraft have anything to do with this process :+P

posted by ian farmer on April 5, 2008[report abuse]

Good reasoning Mr. Farmer.

posted by David Affinito on April 5, 2008[report abuse]

Mr Farmer the point was the PC12 doesn't have an aural warning system to deliver a Resolution Advisory or RA. The flight director as well is not integrated for such guidance. (If I am incorrect please tell me.) This is a very expensive option on transport category airplanes. That is why I stated looking outside. His airplane lacks capability. Lets tone it down and realize he was not wise to be in the MOA. The F16 may or may not have been too zealous. Common sense and knowledge of your equipment and rules are the message. Agendas on who owns the airspace are meaningless. Lets drop the civilian vs military too, we are on the same team.

posted by Howard Rhodes on April 5, 2008[report abuse]

Mr. Farmer, I only wish it were so simple to provide data to the general public whenever an incident occurs involving the military. Unfortunately, whenever an incident occurs and an investigation is launched, the slow process often leads to a public perception that we're trying to hide something. The fact is that before official statements can be made and data released, lots of information has to be collected, interviews conducted, tapes reviewed, reports written. These reports then have to be reviewed by an enormous number of people before they will ever be released. Even then they usually won't contain visual data that will satisfy the public. It's highly unlikely that anyone on this board will ever see the tapes. Eventually you may see a statement making it clear that the F-16 pilot was acting IAW with established rules and procedures, but based on the tone of many of the posts here, I suspect that many of you will ultimately still have doubts. (continued)

posted by Luke Viperpilot on April 5, 2008[report abuse]

Obviously the public trust of your Air Force is not as high as it should be. If any of you honestly believe that an Air Force fighter pilot would intentionally endanger a civilian aircraft, or would exhibit the lack of flight discipline claimed by the California divorce lawyer, then we as An Air Force need to do a better job educating the public on who we are and what we do. If you see statements from former USAF (F-15) pilots, claiming that reckless behavior amongst USAF pilots is commonplace, or that intercept missions shouldn’t be scheduled in a MOA, then their credibility should immediately be questioned. For the rest of you who have been able to see through the BS from the first report, thanks for your support, and rest assured despite the personal anguish these false reports have caused for many of us, we will continue to train to fight so that the next time you see another fighter while airborne, it's a Viper and not a Fulcrum.

posted by Luke Viperpilot on April 5, 2008[report abuse]

Luke--

Isn't current HUD symbology (as displayed on a tactical ride) restricted data to some degree as well? Doesn't this also slow down public release while the tapes are sanitized?

In any event, a lot of the discussion is like watching political pundits talking past each other on Fox or CNN...some you'll never convince.

posted by John Rhoades on April 5, 2008[report abuse]

Gee. I was a true believer in Viperpilot's technical description of gun camera confirmed, radar measured ACMI recorded metes and bounds between airplanes until he said that the investigation board might not see it. One of the tenents of science and law is to share the data. Otherwise it's just he-said-she-said. I hate to say it but Mr. Luke Viperpilot is beginning to sound a lot like a public information officer.

posted by tom connor on April 5, 2008[report abuse]

>>he said that the investigation board might not see it.

I believe the phrase "on this board" was referring to this forum or BBS, not the investigation board.

posted by Paul Bertorelli on April 5, 2008[report abuse]

The "board" I was referring to was indeed the users and posters of this forum. The investigators will most certainly be reviewing data from all sources. This does however clearly illustrate why the military is so cautious about releasing statements without an arduous review! Hopefully AVweb will follow up with all of this once the official releasable report is out. I've also heard that AOPA may be covering this topic sometime soon. As much as I hate to see so much misinformation flying around (no pun intended!)it's great to see that people are becoming more aware of something that should be of great concern to all of us. GA and the military need to cooperate for everyone's safety. Like I said before, many of us who fly fighters also fly in the civilian sector and have a solid understanding of both perspectives. As military fliers we need to continue to educate other airspace users so we can all work together. In the meantime, the best advice I can provide for all of our safety is to avoid active MOAs. The Gladden MOA starts at 7000' and stops at 17,999'. If you can stay below 7K, we'll all be safe. If you absolutely have to transit, try to at least stay below 10,000'. 16,500 is not good due to traffic density, and if you climb into the PCA (that's Class A for you youngsters) reacting to TCAS, ABQ Center is not going to be happy! (Reference Raytheon Premier pilot)

posted by Luke Viperpilot on April 5, 2008[report abuse]

Part 1 of 3 I said I was done but I guess I'm too weak to say out of it. First, Mr Rey, I'm ineligble for high speed envy. However, I would suggest that since you took offense to my comments, then it probably applies to you. Sit in quiet room and think about it. Second, Mr Farmer, you don’t really make any points about the HUD FOV, the radar or the geometry. First of all the HUD tape shows what the jet was doing and information about the GA aircraft. It would show bearing, aspect and closure. The Pilatus would not have to be in the HUD FOV for this. As for the radar, let’s say the APG-68 radar has a 120 degree limit (+/- 60 degrees), and do a little math. If both aircraft were on parallel flight paths with the Viper overtaking the GA, the radar breaks lock when the antenna hits 60 degrees. At the break lock the radar indicated 600 feet. A little trig shows that the Viper would pass no closer than 520 feet from the GA (sin60 x 600). This of course assumes both aircraft continue on parallel courses and the Viper moves to at least line abreast of the Pilatus. This would give the Pilatus pilot a perfect angle to ID the jet. I’ve never flown a Pilatus but I bet the pilot could see the Viper even back at 60 degrees (limit of the radar). I’m not saying this is how it happened, I’m just rebutting your flawed reasoning. You also said that all you have seen from the Air Force side is Viper Pilot’s words on a computer. (continued)

posted by Charlie Guarino on April 5, 2008[report abuse]

Part 2 of 3 I ask what have you seen from the Pilatus pilot? I’d also like to ask how often you see the evidence in a police or NTSB investigation? You don’t, you just accept it. Why can’t you accept that our US military pilots are the best and most professional pilots on the planet? I’d certainly believe an Air Force officer before I’d believe a lawyer. At least Luke Viper Pilot claims to have evidence. I even bet Luke Viper Pilot is taking a risk posting here. You should thank him for the info he is giving you. He is trying to dispel the apparently widespread idea that fighter pilots are hotdogs, and showboats without any flight discipline. The opposite is true. From what I have seen, there is much less flight discipline among GA pilots. Maybe because there are more GA pilots or the quality control is less, but I’ve seen many more heinous examples of buffoonery within the GA ranks than from the military. A few folks have cited a couple of instances of the military showboating but I challenge you to check the NTSB database and see how many GA accidents were the result of buzzing, showing off and low level acro. And remember that is only the ones that caused accidents. How many times a day does a GA pilot somewhere shine his butt? I have a RV-4 on a small airport and see examples of it regularly. How about the Cathay Pacific captain’s flyby a couple of months ago? (continued)

posted by Charlie Guarino on April 5, 2008[report abuse]

Part 3 of 3 I think that most military fighters fly in flights of two or more. This gives them little opportunity to screw around without their leadership finding out. Which of course would bring a quick and sudden end to their flying careers. What we need to do is knock off the assumption that the Viper pilot was acting any other way than absolutely professional. The focus needs to be on how to coexist with the military and their airspace. Yes, their airspace. They are responsible for the creation, charting, surveying, scheduling, NOTAMs etc. We need the defense provided by these warriors and it is our small price to pay for freedom. I suggest we pay it. It is worth it to me. I don’t like the alternatives.

posted by Charlie Guarino on April 5, 2008[report abuse]

......."These procedures state that when receiving an RA, pilots are to deviate from any rule necessary to meet the requirements of the Resolution Advisory. Seldom does looking outside to verify the conflicting aircraft have anything to do with this process :............"

Pretty scary statements. If this is where you're at in your flying, I would strongly recommend you stay out of MOA's and better yet, only file IFR.

Giving the military the benefit of the doubt in these discussions is also the right thing to do. Especially these days, the military is a lot more disciplined in these matters than in the past. Things we did in yesteryear :-), are simply not tolerated today.

I like the line about the Viper and not the Fulcrum. Amen.... and so please stop the whining, we're the good guys..... honest, we are.

posted by Jacob Mast on April 5, 2008[report abuse]

I've made a few comments here after listening to the Podcast two times. I was annoyed because if felt like the military pilots were acting like bored cops on a Saturday with nothing better to do than pull cars over and give drivers tickets. That being said, I have the most respect for your service men and women. And I must admit I am jealous that I never became a fight pilot. That is probably just a dream for most of us here. It's probably better that we wait for the final investigation to come out before we critize the F-16 pilots any further. But if it turns out that they were hotdogging and scared the c**p out of the GA pilots, then I will stand by my previous comments. If the military does not release their version of this event with proof of their defense, then I will assume the GA pilots were correct in their version of this story. Let's wait and see. DPA

posted by David Affinito on April 5, 2008[report abuse]

Mr Affinito, First of all, thanks. I feel like some of us on this board got through to you. But, I must as why would you assume that the GA pilots were correct if the military doesn't release evidence? I'm sure the HUD tapes and radar tapes contain classified info that we don't need to see. They will release a factual report with or without the evidence. I trust that they will do a through and honest job with the investigation. You don't see the evidence on all the folks in jail but you believe they are guilty. Why must you see the evidence here to believe the report? Just curious.

posted by Charlie Guarino on April 5, 2008[report abuse]

Dear Mr Guarino: First of all, many years ago while flying south along the New Jersey shore towards Atlantic City, two Delta Darts in formation came up on my seven o'clock at high speed and strafed me at two thousand feet. I was not in a MOA, but there was a National Guard field nearby. They were far enough away as not to put me in danger. I was young and thought it was cool that they used me for target practice. So, I know for a fact that military pilots do this. After listening to the podcast, I was annoyed that the GA pilots were put in fear of their lives. Even if the F-16 pilots had everything under control, that didn't take the fear of death away from the two GA pilots, one of whom had to declare an emergency. Because I was so annoyed, I was prejudiced into drawing a conclusion without hearing the fighter pilot's defense. That is not fair to the military pilots. I'm going to reserve my opinion until after the final report comes out. But frankly, if the GA pilot's version of this story has any merit, it will be hard for the military to justify what they did. I agree with you however, that, like a jury trial, we shouldn't deliberate until both sides have been heard. This is why I'm changing my tune. But I still think the military has a lot of explaining to do. Thank you. DPA

posted by David Affinito on April 5, 2008[report abuse]

Mr Affinito, That is all I can ask. Just remember the military is a lot different now than when they were flying F106s. That kind of stuff just isn't tolerated anymore. That is why some of the retired fighter pilots' comments here are outdated. Thanks.

posted by Charlie Guarino on April 5, 2008[report abuse]

Mr. Viperpilot, this is a Democracy. All the powers of Government and the Military are subject to the people. It is our right and duty as freedom loving Americans to speak out assertively regarding any possible misconduct by the Government or the Military. Understand this: We do not have to "take your word" about what happened. This is America. We have a right to know, not the right to "trust your word." The more you press the idea of "trust me or you hate the military", the more I am inclined to not believe you. There are no national secrets in the intercept information that would prevent it being shown to us. The military is charged with protecting America from external threats. The American people are charged with protecting themselves from the Government or Military overstepping their bounds. I say kudos to all who are doing just that.

posted by Martin Rey on April 5, 2008[report abuse]

Mr Rey, The HUD adn radar tapes do have classified information that is secret. Releasing it would jepordize our security. It's not about the intercept. It's about the capabilities of the F-16 and it's weapons that can be derived from the symbology on the tapes. We don't need to see it. It's not important enough to pay the price of giving our enemies any info.

posted by Charlie Guarino on April 5, 2008[report abuse]

Mr Rey, First of all the USA is a Republic not a democracy. How would you know if there were any military secrets in the intercept? That is why they are secrets! You are on a need to know basis! You don't have any right to know because you have not been vetted for classified information. As for your charge to protect us from the government and the military your fundamental lack of knowledge of the countries sructure makes you unqualified. Your sophistry and use of dialectic does not establish righteousness. It is only a poor attempt at being clever. By all means bloviate on it is your right to be wrong.

posted by Bill Crabbe on April 5, 2008[report abuse]

The HUD info can be edited to show pertinent information regarding the intercept information, and yes, it is a Republic. I realized that mistake after I submitted the post, but in this case, the distinction is merely semantic, the general point still stands.

posted by Martin Rey on April 5, 2008[report abuse]

Mr. Affinito- The F-106 Delta Dart does not have a gun, therefore they could not have possibly "strafed" you, and to the best of my knowledge, have never carried a gun pod- their armament (missiles)was carried in an internal bay. Check your facts, please, before blowing smoke out of your behind.

posted by Rich Robbins on April 5, 2008[report abuse]

Mike:

At the risk of turning this into an old fashioned interchange which is completely off-topic (why not?), I accept your data as to overall accident rates. The question of whether we use 2000 versus 2001 is irrelevant, and I already know that GA has a much higher accident and fatality rate than the air carriers. (I appreciate the link which you provided as I couldn't find one as good, even after twenty minutes of searching. Nicely done!)

But I stand by original statement: mid-air collisions are very low on the list of things likely to kill people who travel by air, whether they are flying in GA or on the flights where you have to take off your shoes prior to boarding.

They are probably more likely in GA, due to the nature of the environment, but still a very low risk. Your chances of being killed in automobile this year are something like 1 in 5,000. Compared to that number, your chances of dying in a mid-air colision are negligible, even if you spend a lot of time in the air, as I do. (continued)

posted by Robert Grace on April 5, 2008[report abuse]

I also dispute your allegation that MOAs represent a higher risk of midair collision: the highest risk of a mid-air ruining your day occurs in the vicinity of an airport, because that is where the airplanes are funneled into the same airspace. In all other areas, the risk is very low: the "big sky" theory works. A mid-air collision can kill you or me, sure, but the odds are very low. In a MOA, everyone involved is likely paying attention, and the military guys (and to an increasingly degree, GA pilots) have equipment and infrastructure to "see" the other guy. While GA's presence might occasionally compromise their trainging (clearly a bad thing), I do not accept that the chances of a mid-air are increased. And I further submit that the published data supports this contention: mid-airs in MOAs are not a serious cause of fatalities for air traffic.

Dying in a mid-air is the sort of thing which attracts headlines and attention, but it is like being struck by lightning: impressive, but really not likely.

posted by Robert Grace on April 5, 2008[report abuse]

I'm not sure why so many GA users feel that their usage of airspace is a right, and that the military should have to share. Do you believe it is also your right to transit a military training area (such as the JRTC at Fort Polk) in your H3? Some of you will gripe and complain that the military uses too much airspace, and you have a right to fly through and interrupt training whenever you want, but you'll be the first to hide behind the two ship of Vipers intercepting a hijacked aircraft or a wall of Eagles stopping the next air to air threat (China, Iran, North Korea, take your pick). So which is it? Do you want the best trained military in the world, or is your GA adventure so much more important than the defense of our country and its interests that you can't avoid these areas? Don't kid yourself, either, you're not going to be safe with your TCAS and "60 degrees of bank and pushing forward" as the Pilatus driver assumed. At the speeds these aircraft fly tactically (400+ indicated at altitude), it's very difficult to see and avoid - especially when the focus is on radar mech, staying visual with #1, picking up tally on red air, and flying a good formation position. There aren't many brain bytes left to pick up that turboprop cruising along in the ground clutter or up in the sun until it's too late. It would be a shame to lose a warrior in training because some pompous aristocrat couldn't be inconvenienced to fly around or under the moa or just file IFR.

posted by Buddy Spiked on April 5, 2008[report abuse]

Mr Semantics aka Rey, do you believe the majoity of the people would vote for the social security fund to be transferred to the General Fund? Our elected reprsentatives have voted to allow it ever since LBJ's great socieity. There is a big difference between a Republic and a Democracy. Like I said you are not qualified to keep the Government or Military from overstepping their bounds. However you can apply for cheer leader ("I say kudos to all who are doing just that.")Although your cheer needs work! LOL Just stay out of the MOA's.

posted by Bill Crabbe on April 5, 2008[report abuse]

Also, for those interested in the Gladden/Baghdad moas specifically (I believe rajones asked for a better gouge of the use), there are no altitude blocks or times. The entire MOA, from 7000 MSL to FL280 is in use when training is going on, and during the week, the airspace is constantly scheduled (among all the tenant units on base). There are very few periods on a weekday where the airspace is not in use. Luke is a training base, so there will always be some squadrons doing air to air work out there.

posted by Buddy Spiked on April 5, 2008[report abuse]

Buddy,

Thanks for the info, but that’s what they always say about the MOA “it’s hot” from 7:00 AM until 4:00 PM every weekday. If the air force is loosing as much money as they say they are, why don’t they install a radar and radio outlet on a mountaintop somewhere that can see the whole MOA and put another position in at Luke approach to control the MOA. They have such capability at the Goldwater range. The MOA is plenty big to accommodate a few training flights and a GA flight as long as everybody knows what each other are doing. I have been to quite a few safety seminars where the Air Force has sent a safety officer to speak. They are never interested in discussing any way to work together, all they ever say is “stay away”.

posted by Richard Jones on April 6, 2008[report abuse]

Don't get me wrong : I enjoy the view of a personal military escort as much as most of the aviation fans in the air. Still, the advent of TCAS has made was before an inconspicuous "sneak up from behind" into an alarm raising and potentially nervewracking event. It's one thing to see a military pilot come alongside and kindly salute before shooting off, it's another to be coerced into a dive for your life.

posted by Peter De Ceulaer on April 6, 2008[report abuse]

Hey William Crabbe, considering our C student president, I did not think anyone would call me on my lack of qualifications. (grin) I would be pissed if I got buzzed. Just like some of my comments have pissed off some of those, who I believe, are current of ex-military. So, I guess I am one up on them. I won't get pissed on my first buzz. I will only get pissed the 2nd time, :)

posted by Martin Rey on April 6, 2008[report abuse]

Robert,

I agree that midairs are not a large proportion of fatal GA accidents (as mentioned earlier, 3-4%). Flying into weather not compatible with the pilot's/aircraft's ability is an order-of-magnitude larger killer. Still, the military themselves are not permitted to rely on the "big sky" theory to keep safe. Depending on their operations, they have to knock off what they are doing. So a VFR aircraft in an MOA does cause an operational limit to the military aircraft training. And I would agree, that's the real concern, not midairs.

posted by Mike Zippy on April 6, 2008[report abuse]

Part 1 of 2. I have comments for 3 folks. First, Mr.Affinito, I’m sorry tcchief attacked you on the F-106 deal. He is apparently a new poster here and didn’t notice your change in attitude. Don’t let that deter you. Second, Mr Rey, you don’t know or should know would could or could not be sanitized from the HUD and radar tapes. You don’t know what information our enemies can extract from those tapes. For example, I used the unclassified gimbal limit for the APG-68 radar in one of my calculations above. What if the real limit is 75 or 90 degrees? I don’t know if it is more than 60 but if it is the military won’t show that. They would just cut the tape off at 60 degrees. That would do nothing but raise allegations of a cover up. It is better to just not show it. Also, I don’t understand what is important about who is “current or ex-military”. What difference does it make? Do you discount a person’s opinion and points because they belong to one group or the other? We are all in this together with the same overall big picture objective. It takes only three things to make valid constructive posts here. 1) a brain, 2) the willingness and desire to use it and 3)an internet connection to gather data and type your post. I know you have number 1 and 2 although I can’t comment on the quality or quanity or 1. What I don’t think you have is number 2. You need to think before you post. You are writing based on emotion not logical thought.

posted by Charlie Guarino on April 6, 2008[report abuse]

Part 2 of 2. Third, Mr RAJones. It takes a lot of airspace to do Air to Air training. I’m just taking an educated guess here, but I assume the F-16s want to start a fight 40-50 miles apart. Then they need 10 miles or so on each end to marshal or set up their CAPs. That’s 50 to 70 miles. If they run a 30 degree intercept, the offset from centerline could be as much as 15 miles or more. So a 70 nm x 30 nm area is what it takes and that doesn’t allow for any buffer. Also, I’ve seen the VVI number of 10,000 fpm here a few times. I think 30,000 – 40,000 fpm is more typical. You don’t have to fly jets to do that math. I don’t see how they do it in 10k of vertical airspace. I bet they have an ATCAA on top of the MOA that lets them fly above 18k. BL, we need to think logically about this. Let’s get away from the us vs them mentality and accept some ideas or facts that you may not like. GA needs to fly, the military needs to train and we need to figure out how to do it safely. That is why they established MOAs. The best thing is to stay out unless you can be absolutely sure you can stay clear of the military training. Yes you can fly in there but we need to remember not everything is all about me.

posted by Charlie Guarino on April 6, 2008[report abuse]

reference my previous post. "I know you have number 1 and 2 although" should have read "I know you have numbers 1 and 3 although" Pleas excuse my fat fingers. Thanks.

posted by Charlie Guarino on April 6, 2008[report abuse]

Charlie,

The Raptor airspace requirements are even bigger than the Viper or Eagle, due to their sensor capabilities and training realism requirements for the Raptor jocks...but I'm sure the USAF and FAA have been, and are, continuing to resolve those issues.

posted by John Rhoades on April 6, 2008[report abuse]

I can't help myself. I must comment on this topic. The real issue for general aviation pilots, especially those on the West Coast, is air space. As I sit at my desk in the San Fracisco Bay Area and look East I see a wall of MOA's and Restricted airspace ranging from the Mexican Border to Idaho. If I wish to fly East and completely avoid flight through a MOA I must spend a great many more hours in the airplane and burn many gallons more fuel at $5.00 a gallon. I recognize the need to keep our military trained, my son is an SH60 pilot for the Navy, but to occupy most of the Western Airspace along the Coastal mountains and deserts and then suggest we have no business flying in a MOA is just not fair.

posted by Robert Eilers on April 6, 2008[report abuse]

Robert, Most MOAs I'm near have a floor that allows more than enough airspace to transit underneath, and a majority of them are cold on the weekends. In areas where MOAs extend from the surface to 18'000 (rare), you might have a legitimate argument. But from my brief research, I see that you can fly pretty much VFR direct anywhere you want underneath the MOAs during the week, and on the weekends they're not even a factor. Most of us can't fly above 10'000 anyway, and for those who have aircraft capable, first of all let me say I'm jealous, but second let me say that you could probable accept the increased fuel flow of staying low for the 50 or so miles. If your fying for profit, and can't afford the increased cost of flying low, see how much it costs you when your insurance company and passengers find out what your doing! Legal or not, it icreases risk and if passengers aren't aware of the increased risk you face a liabilty suit even if the only injury to them is being scared by a close pass.

posted by Bill Lieberman on April 6, 2008[report abuse]

As a follow up to my previous post, I took a look at the website mentioned above seeandavoid.org. The bay area is wide open! Sounds like you're just fanning the flames to me. Reagarding the mid air discussions above, that website is nice because it shows where near mid airs and actual mid airs have occured. I'm suprised I haven't seen this website before.

posted by Bill Lieberman on April 6, 2008[report abuse]

Dear Tchief: When I said above that I was "strafed" by two Delta Darts for target practice, and I thought it was "cool", did you actually think that I meant to say that they were actually shooting real bullits at me? I did say it was target "practice".

posted by David Affinito on April 6, 2008[report abuse]

Mr Affinito- I sincerely apologize. I should not have posted my reply. To say anything further about it would be compunding the damage. Thank you for your admonishment.

posted by Rich Robbins on April 6, 2008[report abuse]

No Problem Tchief. Have a good remainder of the weekend. DPA

posted by David Affinito on April 6, 2008[report abuse]

All, I've thought about my comment about the quantity and quality of Mr Rey's brain. That was a cheap shot and I should not have taken it. Usually on an aviation forum like this you can pretty much assume that everyone on it has a type A testosterone driven personality and they are of above average intelligence. Mr Rey, please accept my apology for that comment.

posted by Charlie Guarino on April 6, 2008[report abuse]

No sweat Charlie G. As I said in my previous post, I would be pissed if I got buzzed and my emotional state as I was making comments was based on "if that happened to me." I WILL avoid situations that could cause it, and try not to worry about it if it does. I have already vented here, so if I should get intercepted, I think I would be more likely to blow it off, and continue about my business. Cheers to all

posted by Martin Rey on April 6, 2008[report abuse]

I have a reality check for those who may not frequent the beautiful western desert skies. MOAs and SUAs take up much of the air around here. If I plan a direct route from my home in Boise, Idaho to Las Vegas (no wind) it would take about 4 hours and use 35 gallons for the 452 nm trip. This is about as long as I can comfortably (and safely) fly nonstop in my Cherokee 180. I have in fact flown this route and seen some air show quality dogfights en route. By the way, it is nearly impossible to see some of these military jets when they are closing at those speeds. The concept of spotting them and moving out of their way is humorous to me. They seem to appear out of nowhere almost instantly. If they can't see me then we are both out of luck. It is like asking a hot air ballon to watch out for your plane. Not very helpful. (continued)

posted by Kelley Dagley on April 6, 2008[report abuse]

If I were to do the sensible thing and avoid the military air I would pretty much have to follow the airways. Airways are in short supply out here (probably because of all the MOAs) so the flight would now take 5 hours and 45 gallons for the 559nm safe route. This is too far to make without a stop so now I have to land midway in Ely to get fuel. This will realistically add almost another hour to the total flight. I don't know why these pits stops seem to take so long, but if I plan for less I'm always wrong. To sum up, the safe route will take 10 gallons more fuel and 2 hours more time. That is $100 in extra fuel costs for the round trip. If a few thousand pilots divert like this each year I think it might actually cost more than the possibility of those occasionally delayed military exercises. The current law seems to reflect an attitude of cautious, respectful sharing of the airspace and I don't see a pattern of mid-air collisions in these remote areas. You seem much more likely to hit someone at your busy local field.

posted by Kelley Dagley on April 6, 2008[report abuse]

To me it boils down to, "Who you gonna believe". Me, I kinda like hud camera's and radar tapes better than irrate eyewitnesses. Just my opinion.

posted by Jerry Morris on April 6, 2008[report abuse]

Just a small technical correction. I flew the F-106 out of Atlantic City until we transitioned to the Viper in 1988. The "6" did have a gun, a 20 mm M61 Vulcan cannon mounted on the rack previously used by the Genie. Don't recall anyone ever using transient aircraft as targets, though.

posted by Alan Kinback on April 6, 2008[report abuse]

And my boyfriend worries and wonders why when I'm on the stick, my head is on a constant swivel while using the proper technique to scan the sky, no matter what or where I am flying...... If it were to happen to me, I'd first may be startled, but the fact I be looking around, especially in an active MOA, I would not be surprised to see something like that, even if it was in poor form or not. As a passenger I once flew down Yosemite Valley, in formation, and about 1000 ft below the top of Half Dome. Yes that was illegal, but I was with a couple of F-14 pilots and even though it concerned me at first, I figured if I was going to do that with anyone, then they would be the ones that would know best what they were doing, so I felt safe. It goes to show life is not black and white. Patty Haley

posted by Patty Haley on April 6, 2008[report abuse]

Dear Kinner: In response to you above, I would say it was somewhere around 1971-1976 (sometime in there)I was about two thousand feet and maybe 25 mi. north or so of Bader Field. I happened to looking toward my left and saw two delta winged airplanes (I assume Darts but I'm not sure). They came from my 7:O'clock toward me in an arc at high speed and flew away toward my 11 O'clock. The closest they got was maybe a half mile from me. Maybe one of them was you,LOL. They appeared to be using me as target practice. At the time, I was entertained by this and thought it was "cool". I was jealous that I was not flying one of those jets. Does this sound to you like I was being used as a target for practice? BTW, I don't have anything against this as long as they don't scare the pilot or put him/her at risk. DPA

posted by David Affinito on April 7, 2008[report abuse]

I suggest that we all leave our egos checked at the door. This really is sounding like the aerial version of road rage. What part of military operational area are we having trouble understanding? I am a retired Army Cargo Helicopter Pilot, and believe me I think twice of entering a MOA with a 100 knot helicopter. I also avoid those areas marked on the VFR Charts as Glider Areas, skydiving areas, and student training areas because it is safer to avoid them than exercise my right to fly through them. Transiting a MOA in a 100 knot aircraft, where folks are dog-fighting in 500 plus knot aircraft, most likely in the vertical, is just asking to be a mid-air statistic. If you have to travel through a MOA, at least call to find out if it is hot, then when you transit, at least the controlling agency knows that you are there. Communication is always a two way street. Be safe out there!

posted by Edward Covill on April 7, 2008[report abuse]

Wow, there are a lot of aviation anarchists on this board. You don't need a radio to operate out of a non-towered field, but would you do so if the airport has a high number of training operations and a popular restaurant?

While it's not always easy to avoid a MOA, finding out if it's hot is. Oh, I forgot, you don't have to use your radio...

posted by Jerry Plante on April 7, 2008[report abuse]

David: I guess this was a little before my time. The 119FS transitioned to the F-106 in 1973, but I didn't join the squadron until 1981. If the two jets remained in formation as they flew by, it seems as if they were just passing by on their way somewhere. They were probably on an IFR flight plan to or from one of the warning areas. Thirty years ago, though, who knows.

posted by Alan Kinback on April 7, 2008[report abuse]

Many valid comments and opinions. But some that show significant immaturity and lack of personal responsibility. Anyone that accuses people of being a safety nazi thinks they know better than everyone else, always a risky proposition . . . NO ONE should be exposed to additional risk or possibly die because someone is overconfident of their ability or excercises poor judgement.

My only MOA complaint to existing practice is not making the area COLD when not scheduled for use. Pilots I think would be less inclined to utilize a MOA if they knew it was indeed HOT rather than only potentially active. Dime store HOT hours with no one in the store wastes a precious resource for all involved, mil and civ.

posted by Jonathon Blair on April 7, 2008[report abuse]

I live out here in the west where it is just about impossible to fly without crossing a MOA. They are just everywhere. And if my exercising my right to access a public airspace gets the military into a twist. Well tough cookies. I still remember the time I was running a class III river rapid out in Eastern Oregon when two fighter jets flew about 100 feet overhead, nearly causing me to capsize due to the incredible noise. The military has much of the west closed off to private flying through restricted areas and uses much of the rest for practice. If my flying out there causes them problems, well they can live with it. And if they fly 10 ft off my wing (assuming they can fly that slow) they can expect that they are going to see a serious complaint. A MOA is not "their" airspace, it is public airspace shared by military and private aircraft. A little courtesy will go a long ways, and that includes the military keeping their distance from my aircraft.

posted by Alan Cossitt on April 7, 2008[report abuse]

"airspace established outside Class A airspace to separate or segregate certain nonhazardous military activities from IFR Traffic and to identify for VFR traffic where these activities are conducted." (14 CFR §1.1)

If the military is doing something hazardous they should be doing so in a restricted area not a MOA. Hazardous is up for interpretation but what these pilots did is in my opinion hazardous. I suggest that pilots that observe hazardous activity notify their federal representatives in congress. There are pilots based at airports that are located within MOA's per the suggestions of some these guys would never fly. I am based within the Washington FRZ and feel as though I am up to my eyeballs in restricted airspace. If the rules allow me to fly though I will do so. Hot or not as far as MOA's are concerned if the military doesn't want me there then I suggest they contact their congressman and lobby for a restricted area until then they can count on me coming on through.

posted by William Judge on April 7, 2008[report abuse]

Ima99... are we related?? marc99

posted by Marc Salvisberg on April 7, 2008[report abuse]

An us VS them seems to be the issue now, not merits of VFR MOA flying. Remember the CA attorney is the one upset and stomping his feet, not the military. When I flew in MOAs at warp 9 I viewed VFR transits as the cost of doing business. Reality check: I now fly MD11s Bejing to Almaty on L-888. Lots of military airspace in China. Any votes on what will happen if I go in to their MOA VFR? Thats what I thought too. Bang.

posted by Howard Rhodes on April 7, 2008[report abuse]

I also noted with interest that some commenters state that military regulations say that military training must stop when a non-military aircraft enters a MOA. Considering the size of the some of the MOAs out here in the west, that is just crazy. If I'm following a road (the lowest and safest route) through a MOA which is a 100 or 1000 or 10,000 square miles in size, why can't the military use and area far away from the road, especially since 90% of the GA traffic will be following the road? And why doesn't the military just exclude a 5-mile corridor along the road from the MOA? The military has been growing the size of MOAs throughout the west for years now. Where there aren't MOAs there are military routes (IFR and VFR) where fast moving aircraft can be flying a hundred feet off the ground. And where there aren't military routes or MOAs there are restricted and prohibited areas. Perhaps it is time for the military to start thinking about this whole issue in a smarter fashion that allows all of us to use the skys w/o conflict.

posted by Alan Cossitt on April 7, 2008[report abuse]

Wow! What a bunch of redneck communists!!! These guys are protecting our a** as well as our right to fly!!! I personally apologized to Clover Control for ALL of G.A. when I flew through Lucin, Gandy and Sevier MOA's this weekend. They can check out my Comanche anytime!!! Just for the practice!!!

posted by Tim Jeneson on April 7, 2008[report abuse]

I'm reassured by Mr. Rhodes remarks. I try to avoid hot MOAs when possible (and it is not always possible). The military guys just go have fun several miles away from me if I have to putt across a hot MOA at my blazing 80 mph. Everybody is happy.

posted by Alan Cossitt on April 7, 2008[report abuse]

P.S. I can't recall any mid-airs between G.A. and Military aircraft in MOA ever!?!? And I know they have been checking us out way before 9/11. Keep up the good work boys!!!

posted by Tim Jeneson on April 7, 2008[report abuse]

Hazardous means bullets, bombs and missles. That is why air to ground ranges are restricted areas. The same applies to the Army shooting arty. The military does also do some of this in Warning Areas but they are outside of the 12 mile limit. Air to air training does not meet the definition of hazardous.

posted by Charlie Guarino on April 7, 2008[report abuse]

We need to buy these F-16 pilots VHF handheld radios. Calling up the local ATC is a much safer way of asking civilians to move out of the way then to attempt to nearly collide with them.

posted by bob gary on April 7, 2008[report abuse]

To bob gary: I enjoyed reading your idea of VHF handheld radios in an F-16 cockpit...I get this funny picture in my head of the flight leader yelling at his wingman, "HEY GET OFF THAT RADIO AND PAY ATTENTION TO FORMATION DISCIPLINE. WHADDYA THINK YOU'RE DOING, CHATTING ON A CELL PHONE ON INTERSTATE 75?"

posted by Craig Bondy on April 7, 2008[report abuse]

Mr Cossit I understand your view, I built an F1 Rocket and occasionally fly VFR through MOAs. I like my hard won civil aviation privileges. I know it is not the wisest course to fly VFR in a MOA. I once did a loop around a King Air in a MOA at 500 knots when I flew in the Air Force. That wasn't too bright on my part. In the pre-TCAS days he was fat, dumb and happy. All of us have to remember aviation is a privilege earned, military and civilian, every time we fly using knowledge, common sense and courtesy. I have tried to improve as I age.

posted by Howard Rhodes on April 7, 2008[report abuse]

Bob, I hope you are joking because that is the most ignorant and stupid idea I've heard yet. Did you think about that at all before you hit Submit. How would you expect a fighter pilot to use a handheld while engaged in a BFM fight? Where is he going to put it when not using it? How does he integrate it into his helmet headset? Can radio waves get out of a Viper cockpit? Anyway the Viper has a VHF radio that can operate on any VHF ATC freq. A quick search of the big book of knowledge (aka the internet) will confirm this. As for nearly colliding, I'd would trust and have trusted an F-16 pilot 3 feet off my wing. Flying close isn't nearly colliding. It is all about frame of reference. Flying 10 or 20 feet away from another aircraft seems dangerous to you, but it is a basic core competency for the fighter pilot. He does it every time he flies. Additionally, we still have no evidence that the Viper was inside of 600 feet. I really doubt that he was anywhere close to 20 feet away. Maybe 25 times that far is probably a better bet.

posted by Charlie Guarino on April 7, 2008[report abuse]

Ronald Pogatchnik, I think you fit into group 4 from many posts ago. No one wants all that airspace to be restricted. We should be happy that we have the option of flying through a MOA VFR. We just need to be smart about it and not get upset when we see a fighter jet. It should be expected. BTW, I think fighter pilots pay taxes too. That means they are paying their own salary. Think about that. Also, I don't think you have earned the privilege to call Lt Col Clifton a "Lite" colonel. Particularly in a degrading manner. He is Colonel when you address him just like you are Mr. to him. Show some respect.

posted by Charlie Guarino on April 7, 2008[report abuse]

Charlie Guarino, I do not get upset when I fly through a MOA. I enjoy seeing military aircraft doing their thing. In so far as fitting into "group 4 from many posts ago" Whatever (yawn). However, You make my point!

posted by Ronald Pogatchnik on April 7, 2008[report abuse]

Mr.Pogatchnik I will remember to tell my USAF pilot training roomate's widow he was a non-producer. He died the first night of the Gulf War in an EF-111. Since he is dead you won't have to worry about reviewing his resume.

posted by Howard Rhodes on April 7, 2008[report abuse]

Talk about corporate pilots – We have a runway that has been closed for decades and is overgrown with weeds. Last week a Pitts buzzed the airport like an angry hornet, with no semblance of a traffic pattern and landed on the closed runway. He disregarded the two good runways. He then taxed up and down the runway at a high rate of speed trying to find his way to the ramp and spent several minutes before he found an exit.

He then taxied up to the tie down area at a high rate of speed. I cannot remember when I have seen an aircraft taxi that fast. I informed him that he had landed on a closed runway and he responded with I am corporate chief pilot and I fly a King Air. Hay - I was impressed.

posted by Vernon Childers on April 7, 2008[report abuse]

Dear Oprah:

You were wondering why it costs the taxpayers $100 for the military to buy a screwdriver. Read the above messages for a clue why that is so.

posted by Dave Morris on April 7, 2008[report abuse]

marc99, Well we tend to think the same. :-)

posted by Patty Haley on April 7, 2008[report abuse]

Both extremes of this argument are equally childish. The PC-12 pilot sounds like a lawyer citing the letter of the rule with no inkling of common sense or or thought of anybody but himself. Equally, the F-16 pilot knows the rules and VFR traffic is allowed. I've flown my Cessna and my F-15 in the Gladden MOA and you can guess when I did each. Yes, general aviation traffic in MOAs disrupts training and wastes taxpayer dollars and I understand the F-16 pilot's desire to dust him off but that doesn't justify his action. No it wasn't dangerous. We're taught to fly formation with cooperative leaders and non-cooperative targets. The PC-12 was a target.

posted by Rich Martindell on April 7, 2008[report abuse]

As a student pilot (in college for commercial rating) I think I would have used this incident as an opportunity to practice the response to being intercepted. And as military training goes, how close do you think they get to a target aircraft if it is in a "no-fly" zone (Washington, D.C. ADIZ)?

posted by Glenn Thompson on April 7, 2008[report abuse]

Hey, what happened to that pompous post by Ronald Pogatchnik? Where did it go? Also, I guess i'm slow but I don't see how any of this explains a $100 screwdriver.

posted by Charlie Guarino on April 7, 2008[report abuse]

Charlie, Apparently his remarks infuriated more than you. My response to him was also eliminated. Success? It is a shame that on a forum for pilots discussing safety it has to get so personal and juvenille. B Crabbe

posted by Bill Crabbe on April 7, 2008[report abuse]

So much of this country -- and the overwater areas just offshore are restricted military airspace it's ridiculous. When you add in the amount of MOA it's hard not to think about the unbelievable cost to US taxpayers to maintain this.

I think the military budget needs to be reduced from 30 times that of our biggest enemy's to a mere 5 or 6 times with a commensurate reduction in military restricted and MOA airspaces.

Moreover, it is legal and correct for a civilian aircraft in VFR flight to operate in a MOA. If an F-16 pilot thinks it's funny to endanger a US citizen's life with unsafe and unplanned formation flight then he should be kicked out of the service. His duty is to make Americans safer, not the opposite.

posted by Joe Harris on April 8, 2008[report abuse]

AVweb, please lock this thread! I'm getting the distinct impression that this discussion has degenerated into a political debate and recent posts are nothing more than flame bait likely written by non-pilots. Some of the statements being made, like the ones made in recently removed post are slanderous and unfounded as is the comment above regarding the F-16 pilot. There is no evidence as of yet for wrongdoing on the part of the military, let's fight these political agendas elsewhere please!

posted by Bill Lieberman on April 8, 2008[report abuse]

Please DO NOT LOCK the thread.

Yes.... there are definitely some knuckleheads posting less than professional comments and there are a few pilots I don't want airborne when I'm aloft. But, this is also one of the more informative discussions (overall) that i've come across in quite a while.

It's an opportunity to learn for many. Let us hope readers comprehend what they have the opportunity to read and take the time to possibly learn how to be a better pilot.

posted by T M on April 8, 2008[report abuse]

Mr. Rhodes,

I apologize for having disrespected the memory of your training room mate who lost his life in the Gulf War. My remark about non-producers was insensitive and worng. Forgive me.

posted by Ronald Pogatchnik on April 8, 2008[report abuse]

I was flying between Buckeye AZ and Las Vegas at 10,500 last Feburary 28 when two military jets flew formation off my left wingtip. I did not have a tape measure but ny wife could clearly see the pilot's face of the closest. Now I have no objection to flying formation with the military but, since I was on flight following, I should have been advised. To say that control was too usy to talk to me is pure BS; you staff up to get the job done, period. How high tech would it be to patch the jets through to my flight following frequency? If they can't figure this out I will show them how to do it. This way the jets can advise me of their intentions and, if they are as good as they think they are, they can easily avoid me. Fifteen minutes later an F-16 started flying circles around me.

In flying Arizona for almost 60 years this is the first time something like this has ever happened so it must have been planned. And to staying out of MOAs you effete Easterners do not seem to understand that nearly all of Arizone is either a restricted are or a MOA.

posted by ARTHUR THOMPSON on April 8, 2008[report abuse]

I too am done with this thread. I have tried to offer adult pilot comments. I hope and pray they were appropriate and may enhance just one pilot and perhaps his/her family's safety. The political slant that is permeating all areas of our life now is unacceptable. I refuse to stoop to that level on this professional blog. There are a bunch of super good pilots out there better than me, I hope to hook up and chat in person one day. Best to all, out.

posted by Howard Rhodes on April 8, 2008[report abuse]

Joe Harris, you say it is legal and CORRECT for GA to operate in a MOA. I think that is an overstatement. It is legal but correct? I fly in a MOA (Warrior) regularly but it is well controlled and if there is a chance that I'll be a conflict with military aircraft, I go around the MOA. There is a correct way to transit a MOA but I'm not sure it valid to say that it is correct to fly in an active MOA. Also, I’m not sure why you are saying the F-16 pilot endangered anyone. Two or more airplanes can fly within a mile of each other without it being dangerous. What was dangerous was blundering into the middle of the military’s air to air training with no situational awareness. I would think a the chances of a F-16 pilot hitting someone while he is looking over his shoulder (as in air to air training) would be tremendously greater than the chance of him hitting an aircraft he is aware of (as in this case). As for the rest of your post, you are clueless but none the less entitled to your invalid opinion.

posted by Charlie Guarino on April 8, 2008[report abuse]

It's correct to fly in MOA when needed. However, you must know it's diffrent then civil airspace. Jets can trigger TCAS from as much as 6 nautical miles away, you have to interpret it correctly. You can get buffet effects in the wake of jets that are already 30 over miles away, and you don't have to go right through their path to feel it, the wake is wide and deep. Jets may fly a safe distance from your wing to protect you from other jets doing high speed manoeuvers in close vicinity. etc.

If however you believe military pilots fly recklessly in MOA, bring a video camera. I know media people would jump on a tape showing a F-16 flying 10-20 feet from a GA aircraft to scare people out of MOA. And it would stop the reckless actions if they really happen.

posted by J Dupont on April 8, 2008[report abuse]

Good point JD. The lawyer pilot obviously doesn't know what the limitations of his TCAS are, and he contributed to his own safety risk. "Know thy plane"

posted by Patty Haley on April 8, 2008[report abuse]

"Know thy plane" is one of those rules that will probably kill you someday if you ignore it long enough. Many years ago while riding right seat (not flying, as I am a non-pilot) we were shooting an approach to test the autopilot I had repaired. The aircraft owner was in the left seat of the King Air. Contrary to my instructions (and the POH), he decided to let the autopilot make the descent past MDA, down to a few feet above touchdown. Upon reaching a point about 25 feet above the runway, to test the go-around function he pressed the go-around button...and put his hands in his lap. He didn't know (although he knew a split second later after I yelled) that while the go-around function on his aircraft displayed on the flight director...it also (as required by its certification on that model) DISCONNECTED the autopilot. He did not "Know thy airplane".

posted by Craig Bondy on April 8, 2008[report abuse]

The problem I have is with the way MOAs are established and handled. I have been at pilots meetings where the military (requesting a new/expanded MOA) said empathically thet an MOA was "shared" airspace. The miltary seems to want MOAs because they are easier to obtain but yet actually desires the airspace for their exclusive use. Fair enough - make it a restricted area. When I contact FSS (a joke) as taught in all pilot training for MOA status they just read me what I can find on the back of my sectional(eg. SR-SS Mon-Fri). I agree, stay away if it's active but civilians a true picture of whether it is actually active.

posted by Stan Blanton on April 8, 2008[report abuse]

Reading about all these problems, it sounds like Warrior MOA should be the model. When the military fighters check in they are given a freq work. Polk App can talk to them at anytime. When a GA aircraft shows up, all he has to do is ask the MOA status and Polk will tell him if the MOA and each restricted area is hot or not. If it is hot, Polk will tell you where the military jets are working and recommend a vector to avoid them if necessary. Polk Approach has this figured out. BTW, I think Polk Approach is manned by military controllers. I know Alexandria tower is manned by the La Air National Guard. They are a near perfect example of the military and civilians coexisting.

posted by Charlie Guarino on April 8, 2008[report abuse]

A couple of members have asked about two or three posts that were pulled. Sorry to say these were removed because they reverted to name calling and personal attacks. As I said before, all ideas are on the table for discussion, but we'll remove any messages that constitute personal attacks or libelous intent. To be honest, the thread has had very little of that so...onward.

posted by Paul Bertorelli on April 8, 2008[report abuse]

snowmass : "And to staying out of MOAs you effete Easterners do not seem to understand that nearly all of Arizona is either a restricted are or a MOA." What does this say about your opinion of your brother aviators in the rest of the country? I've flown in Arizona in a Cessna 172, an F-16, and a Boeing 767 on numerous occasions and find it no worse than my home state of Florida. Have you looked at a Jacksonville sectional recently? It's almost impossible to cross the center of the state without flying through Class B, Restricted or Military Operating Areas, but somehow we manage.

posted by Alan Kinback on April 8, 2008[report abuse]

Florida is the SOUTH.

posted by ARTHUR THOMPSON on April 8, 2008[report abuse]

Aw, you deleted the best one.

posted by Charlie Guarino on April 9, 2008[report abuse]

You have the west coast...the east coast...and the Florida coast, which some will tell you is a world unto itself. And the Florida coast is sub-divided into the Atlantic coast, and the Gulf coast. I have heard that some Floridians refer to the Gulf and the Atlantic coasts as the best (west) coast and the least (east) coast, but having lived on the Florida east coast years ago I liked it just fine. As for flying, is there any airspace left in Florida where you can shoehorn in something about the size of a Pitts or a Bonanza?

posted by Craig Bondy on April 9, 2008[report abuse]

I thought this thread was dead, but sure I'll take the bait... So here's what I've discovered through my own internet research: Pilatus pilot, Patrick McCall, www.patrickmccall.com Premier pilot, Scott Lamoree, www.corporateimageaviation.com take a look at the "our fleet" link. Seems these guys might have a connection other than the "incident" in question. Based on the original article, seems that Mr. Lamoree might be fighting and FAA violation for climbing into Class A airspace without clearance due to his "emergency". Who better to corroborate the story than the "disinterested" PC-12 pilot. Nice job guys! Let's discredit the whole Air Force due to your personal agendas. I hope the Air Force releases the tapes, because I bet when the truth finally comes out the new company name will be Tarnished Image Aviation!

posted by Bill Lieberman on April 11, 2008[report abuse]

And another thing, if any of you government/military haters thinks this this type of attention to the GA community is helpful, your way off! If you put this question "who should have the right to operate in a "MILITARY OPERATING AREA" the military, or the individual pilot in his personal airplane?", Joe Public will vote on the military becasue they could care less about your "right" to own and operate an airplane. It would be like complaning about the police "harassing" you for exercising your "right" to speed in your Ferrari. And if you think flying an airplane is a "right", suggest you check the constitution. It's a privilege that we'll lose if knuckleheads can't share airspace responsibly. Thanks again guys!

posted by Bill Lieberman on April 11, 2008[report abuse]

I think the issue is pretty clear Mr. Lamoree, and thanks for your participation in the discussion.

posted by Bill Lieberman on April 12, 2008[report abuse]

Glad to see the thread is alive again! So Mr. Ump, if you’re neither Mr. Lamoree or Mr. McCall, explain how "hotdog jet jockey messing with pilots minding their own business" and "This hotdog and any others doing the same thing should be permanently grounded.(Tar and feathers and a good old-fashioned whipping would not be bad ideas, either." are any less absurd than my comments. The fact that Patrick McCall would seek this type of media attention is unbelievable unless there's something for him to gain. So, Mr. Ump, what's the (your) motive? To educate me and my fellow private pilots to fly through military airspace? To push an agenda to get the rules changed to make it safer for all of us? To make a few bucks out of a frivolous lawsuit? To help get his business associate out of an FAA violation? Explain this Mr. Ump, unless of course you'd like to hit me with "strike 4" or some similar non-substantive remark.

posted by Bill Lieberman on April 14, 2008[report abuse]

Hey "The Ump", you obviously know nothing about the military. So why make a post like you did? You seem to be a pretty cocky guy. So I tell you straight. YOU ARE WRONG. Why don't you do some real research and get the facts straight before you open your pie hole. I'm really frustrated with the people on this thread that say things they nothing about. Also, I think you can find many examples where the AF publicly punished a pilot that did wrong.

posted by Charlie Guarino on April 14, 2008[report abuse]

I have enjoyed and learned a lot from this thread. May I suggest, however, that it is now dead and should be given a respectful burial?

posted by Craig Bondy on April 14, 2008[report abuse]

I respectfully second the motion of "debodine" (I am not sure if this is a proper name.) As a practical matter for Mr. Bertorelli, how do you permanently de-select the "E-mail me when new comments are posted in this thread?" box? I have tried without success in windows and safari. Do you have to make a comment and then de-select?

posted by Howard Rhodes on April 15, 2008[report abuse]

So..... how different is flying in an active MOA and getting intercepted - as compared to the three guys climbing up a fence and taunting a tiger at the San Francisco Zoo and the tiger jumping the fence in a frenzy? Well, now there's only 66.7% of the guys left who taunted the tiger and 100% of McCall. Ok - so there' a 33.3% difference......

posted by Marc Salvisberg on April 16, 2008[report abuse]

Personally I believe active MOA's should be avoided whenever possible - convenience and civil rights are not relevant issues. VFR flight through an active MOA reduces safety and interferes with the very expensive and essential training of those who defend us all. That said I disagree with the attitude of Mr. Bertorelli and others of his ilk to the point of being completely unable to trust their judgement on any issue. Sadly I must consider them all to be very poor representatives for aviation in general and their fellow pilots in particular.

posted by G Webster on April 18, 2008[report abuse]

Slowflier, your opinion is the same as 78% of AOPA memmbers who were surveyed on this very issue. In Paul's defense though, I'm quite sure it was his intention to stir things up a bit to get some participation from the AVweb community. The article by Gary Rolf on the other hand I found to be totally useless. It cites a lot of irrelevant references, places the blame on the F-16 pilot without any substantiating evidence against him other than the testimony of a frightened pilot who could have taken his eyes off the MFD and looked out the window, and makes it sound as if we GA pilots should fly through MOAs whenever we want because we can. According to him, the words Military Operations Area, apparently mean nothing. It must mean something or the Air Force wouldn't be putting up websites trying to encourage us to avoid the airspace, and MOAs wouldn't exist to begin with. He actually sounds a little bitter. So what was your first choice Mr.Rolf? My gut feeling is that eventually the US will go the way of Europe and VFR traffic will be severely limited or totally eliminated in "core" airspace. Based on what I've read so far, I'm starting to think getting rid of some VFR pilots might not be such a bad idea...

posted by Bill Lieberman on April 18, 2008[report abuse]

Just listened to the tape of a really scared civil pilot that maneuvered for a TA before it became an RA. He did know he was in a MOA. I believe the only real solution to this is to restrict all civil aircraft from a MOA when hot. Now the civil pilot can fly around without further training and the new military pilots can get on with their training without having to learn the civil side lives in a different world. I have lived in both and an understanding of safety between 100% of the two groups will never be possible.

posted by Ray Winslow on July 9, 2008[report abuse]

Has anyone ever tried to calculate the volume of an MOA...are you telling me that aircraft just cant co-exist in hundreds or thousands of cubic miles? Ive read alot about waisted taxpayer money in this blog...how much money is being waisted in intercepts? Im not a military pilot...but I am a military enthusiast..and have logged more time watchin programs and documentaries than some of the current jet jockey have in their jets...why do you need to intercept aircraft like that...honestly? do you they not have anything better to do? or use JP5 on? GA and Military jets can share the space just fine...theres a they are in our turf mentality that is gumming up the works....Do these advanced jets not have radar...did they stop installing them or something? If you see an aircraft thats not going five hundred knots and is continuing in a straight line and not maneuvering wildly...is it that hard to just leave it be? MOAs work in three dimensions...why cant we use all three dimensions for spacing....I dont get why everyone has to be hating on eachother about this...

posted by robert hasiak on July 10, 2008[report abuse]

Ive also read about busted airspace....and Im pretty sure that your allowed to bust regs to follow an RA..so its not like this pilot is trying to cover himself..he followed his TCAS RA and busted airspace...exactly what he should have done....It happens..but he did the right thing...Im not sayin its right to just go blasing through MOAs whenever you like..but if you decide to through an MOA why not get flight following if able? or Why not fly low and leave the higher altitudes for the jets? Or if flying a premier jet or PC-12 why not fly above the MOA if possible??? The key thing here is COOPERATION, not well he shouldnt be there because im here, or its my right to be there and by god im going to fly through it...Every day we share airspace above VORs and in the traffic pattern above airports...why cant we try and work with the military, and the military try to work with us? No need to knock off training, jets stay high...GA stays low...share and everyone is happy.. then when GA leaves go lower if you so choose, the airspace of an MOA is large enough to accomodate both...it really is...

posted by robert hasiak on July 10, 2008[report abuse]

Legal or not, what kind of pilot knowingly flies through an active MOA? For these two guys to accuse the F-16 pilot of flying in an unsafe manner with respect to their aircraft is to do nothing more than try to shift the blame and thereby dodge their own culpability. This takes a lot of gall. How could flying through an active MOA, especially one dedicated to student fighter pilot training, often with foreign students at that, possibly be regarded as safe and being intercepted by pilot highly trained in formation flying somehow viewed as less safe in comparison? What AM I missing here? If this wasn't a purposeful intercept, but instead a true conflict with a rate of closure no RA is going to resolve, then is the Premier pilot finally the unsafe party in the event, or, would he now blame the controllers, somebody else, anybody, to avoid taking the blame and accepting responsibility? At least at the memorial service for him and his passengers it could be said that he was "legal".

posted by Philip Brown on July 10, 2008[report abuse]

It is noteworthy that the new radar video does not indicate a measurement of the actual minimum distance between the F16 and the PC12, so there is little new information in that, except for the agitated voices of the MOA-transiting pilots.

posted by Frank Ch. Eigler on July 10, 2008[report abuse]

Most pilots that criticize other pilots are probably those that have little need to fly through a MOA. I did have a couple of F-16s fly a surprise formation with me a while back in this very MOA. I am quite happy (even excited) to fly formation with any military plane (including Airforce One) but I would appreciate being warned. I was on flight following but received no warning.

To say that we are inhibiting necessary training is pure BS. Arizona is almost blanketed with MOAs and restricted areas. I have flown over 7000 hours and 60 years here and cross through a restricted area or a MOA on virtually flight (not to mention the border restrictions) but this is the FIRST time I have ever had a military plane even come close. Why? And there is even less Airforce activity now. Many bases have been closed or nearly so (e.g. Williams, Davis Monthan , Marana training facility).

posted by ARTHUR THOMPSON on July 10, 2008[report abuse]

People who fly through hot MOA's and encounter military aircraft are exactly like smokers who get sick. In both cases, the probable outcome of their behavior is very clearly printed on the wrapper. In both cases, they ignore the warnings and are surprised at the consequences!

posted by Ron Moore on July 10, 2008[report abuse]

Arthur Thompson stated that many bases have been closed in AZ including Davis Monthan. Just off the top of my head I know that DM has 3 squadrons of A-10s. The two schoolhouse squadrons have 27 to 30 jets each and do about 75% of all the A-10 training. Additionally, there is a HC-130 squadron, two HH-60 squadrons and two EC-130 squadrons based at DM. Doesn't sound closed to me. Across town, the AZANG at Tucson IAP run the Foreign Military Sales training for F-16s. There is also a test center there. That is a lot of jets just in Tucson. I can easily see the need for a lot of MOAs in AZ. Frank Ch. Eigler mentioned that the radar didn't show the distance between jets. I don't think that the ATC radar is capable of discerning the difference between 20 feet and 2000 feet at that range. I think the term is "resolution cell". It is dependent on the frequency and design of the radar but I bet it is measured in miles not feet.

posted by Charlie Guarino on July 10, 2008[report abuse]

Chrlie, I din't have a copy of DMs flight records. So this was based on my recollection of past ativity. I seem to recall far more Tucson overflights 30 or 40 years ago than now. Do you have records of flights for the past 40 years.

But in any case so what? Why is this the very FIRST time in 60 years that I EVER had a military plane come close. What is the size of our Airforce now compared to the last 60 years?

posted by ARTHUR THOMPSON on July 10, 2008[report abuse]

Arthur, you've flown 7000 hours and 60 years in Arizona? So you're like what 75 years old? You also claim you "cross through a retricted area or MOA on virtually every flight"? Tell us all how you've managed to fly through restricted areas all these years? By the way, it's Air Force, not Airforce. Is there anybody on this forum with any legitimate sense whatsoever other than Charlie? If your not smart enough to stay out of an active MOA, your not smart enough to be flying....period. I really can't believe the number of dumb asses who post on this forum!

posted by Bill Lieberman on July 10, 2008[report abuse]

Quick review of the posting rules per the editor: We're not interested in flame wars, thanks. If you are, there are plenty of newsgroups to pick from.

Please keep it civil. Save the name-calling and insults for private e-mail or newsgroups.

Please keep it on topic. Focus on the topic at hand; this isn't an open forum for everything under the sun.

Someone let this thread pass on to thread heaven.

posted by Howard Rhodes on July 10, 2008[report abuse]

It's very simple Bill; you call the restricted area controlling facility and they guide you thru. I am next to the large restricted area at Fort Huachuca, Arizona and I have NEVER been denied a cross through. Apparently, in spite of the fact that you are a genius (since almost everybody else is dumb) you can't seem to grasp that a MOA is NOT a restricted area nd it is meant to be shared. If it were NOT meant to be shared it would BE restricted area.

But, once again why is this the first and only time I have had a military plane come at all close in 60 years? I don't mind at all, great photo op, but I could have been advised that I was going to fly formation with 2 F-16s.

posted by ARTHUR THOMPSON on July 10, 2008[report abuse]

Not to try to get back to the story, but I don't think that the intercept in and of itself is the issue.

Listening to the tapes and watching the ZAB radar data, it seems that the Premier was being actively tailed in the climb as he was trying to see and avoid. So much so that he violated Class A.

As soon as the F16 pilot saw the Premier start the wicked rate of climb, he should have backed off and not continued the pursuit in the climb.

The Pilatus seemed to shrug it off initially until the second guy was intercepted. Then he got involved because it showed a pattern with the fighter jets.

I'm not claiming to be an expert. This is just my humble opinion.

posted by Micah Maziar on July 12, 2008[report abuse]

I'd like to know how many people on this forum beleive they can or will receive flight following while in an active MOA. Also, for those who think they can receive flight following in an active MOA, does anyone think that the controlling agency will actually provide advisories on military aircraft operating within that MOA? I love the tone of ABQ center on the tape. The controller is very professional, but yet you can tell if he would have said what was on his mind he would have said "Your in a MOA dumbass, what do you expect...this is why we told you the MOA was active in the first place..." By the way, the only "rule" for VFR military aircraft to follow is to remain "well clear" of other VFR traffic. That's defined as 500'. If you don't want a jet within 500' of you, don't go into the MOA. Another thing, I'd suspect that half of the idiots on this forum who think they "go through the MOA on ever flight" don't even know where the MOA is or when it's active. Many start well above the altitudes that most of us fly, so you may think your in it, but actually under it. Does anyone wonder why IFR traffic is not allowed into the MOA (when it's active)?

posted by Bill Lieberman on July 12, 2008[report abuse]

Nothing is more insufferable than righous indignation, and even more so when it is misplaced. Accept the results like a man; you flew into a high threat area and then experienced the advertised threat. Blame only yourself.

posted by Burns Moore on July 12, 2008[report abuse]


Post a Comment
Already Registered?

E-mail Address:


Password:


Forgot your password?



Commenting Rules

AVweb welcomes responses to our blog postings. However, we ask that you follow some simple rules. We're not interested in flame wars, thanks. If you are, there are plenty of newsgroups to pick from.

Please keep it civil. Save the name-calling and insults for private e-mail or newsgroups.

No anonymous responses, please. If you feel compelled to comment on a blog, use your real name as registered with AVweb. (If your name isn't already associated with your account, see the blog section of our "Help" page for instructions on how to add it.) You can always keep your name out of the public conversation by sending us an e-mail instead of commenting.

Please keep it on topic. Focus on the topic at hand; this isn't an open forum for everything under the sun. (We have a letters column for that, and you're welcome to contact us there with any topic you like.)

 
New to AVweb? Register for Free!

* First Name:


* Last Name:


* E-mail Address:


* Password:
 (4-16 characters)

* Confirm Password:


 Subscribe to AVwebFlash

Yes!
Please e-mail me AVwebFlash every Monday and Thursday morning.

Subscribe to Avweb Biz

Yes!
Please e-mail me AVweb Biz twice a month (every other Wednesday morning).

Check this box to receive e-mail notifications when new comments are posted to this page. (E-mails contain a link to discontinue notifications.)
* Comments:



JavaScript Menus and DHTML Menus Powered by Milonic

Copyright Aviation Publishing Group. All rights reserved | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Contact Us | XMLRSS | Site Map | Top