On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 10:32:10 -0700 (PDT), "Robert M. Gary"
wrote:

On Apr 4, 10:17*am, Larry Dighera wrote:
Here's an interesting subject:

Before I comment, let me assure you that I always contact FSS to learn
the status of any MOAs along my planned route of flight. *I always
either avoid hot MOAs or coordinate transit with the controlling
agency. *I believe this is what a prudent pilot should do.

I've found pilot's opinions and actions with regard to MOAs is very
regional. Those of us that fly in the SouthWest have learned that
flying through hot MOAs is necessary since most of the country is
either MOA or restricted.

That was the situation in this case. The flight to Corona KAJO to
originated at Scottsdale KSDL.

However, since MOA is specifically joint use
(VFR and military) pilots normally assume that by coordinating with
ATC you can avoid problems.

That would be a valid assumption in my opinion.

In this case the pilot was talking with ATC but the F-16 was not.

It would be interesting to know if the controller mentioned the
current active status of the MOA.

The F-16 choose to jump the pilot without informing ATC.

That would seem to be a violation of FARs, IMO.

Its a bit like a guy in a motorcycle swooping around a
guy on a bicycle.

There is one important difference; there is no Vehicle Code statute
prohibiting that (is there?).

I would like have been upset as well.

I, like the Pilatus pilot, would have been expecting the F-16 to
signal me to land or follow as part of an interception.

In the podcast, the F-16 instructor indicated that F-16s are equipped
with VHF radios. It would seem that the intercepting F-16 pilot did
not attempt to contact the Pilatus nor ATC, because there was nothing
for him to say, and it may have revealed his identity.

Again, I realize that pilots from the midwest and east coast will
see it differently because they can just avoid hot MOAs.

My experience has been, that MOA airspace is usually designed so that
flights to or from airports that lie virtually within the MOA can be
made without actually entering them.

In this case, the Pilatus was transiting the MOA at 16,500' en route
to Corona. There has been no mention of the ATC controller advising
the Pilatus of the status of the MOA or attempting to coordinate with
the MOA controlling authority. If the USAF is frustrated by civil
aircraft exercising their right to transit joint use airspace, it
would seem to me, that it is incumbent on them to suggest alternative
procedures/regulation to the FAA, not violate FARs.

AOPA should do that first, if GA wants to see their interests
considered. What do you think about an order mandating ATC to pass
the non-military flight to the military controller with authority over
the military operations occurring within the MOA, so that controller
can assist the civil flight in minimizing its impact on the military
maneuvers something like is done in TRSAs? If the military controller
were unreasonable in handling of the civil flight, its PIC could
decline participation, thus preserving the existing Joint Use aspect
of MOAs.