On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 17:03:37 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

What I've found to be particularly useful is contacting the military
ATC, and making them aware of my position and intended route, so they
can shield me from the military operations occurring in the MOA (by
alerting nearby participating military aircraft) and providing radar
traffic advisories.

Doesn't civilian communication with military controllers just make
good sense for VFR civil aircraft transiting a hot MOA?

It makes imminent good sense, but there are some flaws in your
rationale.

1.) the "military ATC" (an oxymoron at this point regarding MOAs)
operates on UHF, while you in your GA aircraft use VHF. While the
military RAPCON and tower may have VHF capability, they often don't
monitor beyond their primary frequency or you may not have access to
the one Victor freq. they do monitor.

2.) they aren't responsible for the MOA. The FAA is.

3.) they seldom have radar coverage of the MOA, since it isn't their
responsibility.

4.) Even if they did have radar, they did have Victor, and they
wouldn't be stepping on ATC's toes, they aren't going to deconflict
you if you are VFR.

5.) Once cleared to operate in the MOA by ATC, the military aircraft
are on a discrete UHF frequency. They don't maintain a vector long
enough for ATC to provide any sort of prediction of flight path and
they may be contactable by ATC only on Guard. The ATC controller has
the MOA discrete, but won't be listening to the in flight chatter
which may be secure anyway.

6.) It is a poorly understood concept of IFR that somehow someone "can
shield me"--you are only guaranteed separation from other traffic if
you a
a.) on an IFR flight plan
b.) in controlled airspace
c.) in IMC

If you fail to meeet any one of those three conditions, the
responsibility for safe separation returns to the basic principle of
VFR, "see-and-avoid".
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com