USAF F-16 Instructor Discusses Flying Into MOAs

Here's an interesting subject:

FLYING INTO MOAs: THE MILITARY PERSPECTIVE
(http://www.avweb.com/alm?podcast20080404&kw=AVwebAudio)
Monday's podcast
(http://www.avweb.com/alm?podcast2008...ollowUpPodcast) with
a California pilot who was intercepted and shadowed

(http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news..._197487-1.html)
by an F-16 in a military operating area (MOA) ignited a firestorm
of debate on our blog, the AVweb Insider

(http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/A...7 505-1.html).
Lt. Col Fred Clifton, a retired F-16 pilot who now instructs at
the Air Force's weapons school at Nellis Air Force Base in Las
Vegas, joined the debate from the military pilot's perspective.
AVweb's Russ Niles spoke with Clifton about why it's important
that civilian pilots be aware of and avoid active MOAs.

Plus, the original story and podcast about Pilatus pilot Patrick
McCall's brush with an F-16 generated several listener comments
that we'll share.

Click here (http://www.avweb.com/podcast/files/2008-04-04.mp3) to
listen. (10.6 MB, 11:35)

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.

However, in the case in point it would seem that the F-16's
interception of the Pilatus may constitute a violation of CFR Title
14, Part 91, Section 91.111:


§ 91.111 Operating near other aircraft.

(a) No person may operate an aircraft so close to another aircraft
as to create a collision hazard.

(b) No person may operate an aircraft in formation flight except
by arrangement with the pilot in command of each aircraft in the
formation.

(c) No person may operate an aircraft, carrying passengers for
hire, in formation flight.


While I can appreciate the AF's frustration at having their training
exercises interrupted, I doubt that that gives them license to violate
FAR 91.111(b) by flying in formation with a civilian aircraft without
prior arrangement.

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. However, since MOA is specifically joint use
(VFR and military) pilots normally assume that by coordinating with
ATC you can avoid problems. In this case the pilot was talking with
ATC but the F-16 was not. The F-16 choose to jump the pilot without
informing ATC. Its a bit like a guy in a motorcycle swooping around a
guy on a bicycle. I would like have been upset as well. Again, I
realize that pilots from the midwest and east coast will see it
differently because they can just avoid hot MOAs.

-Robert

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.

On Apr 4, 11:17*am, Larry Dighera wrote:

While I can appreciate the AF's frustration at having their training
exercises interrupted, I doubt that that gives them license to violate
FAR 91.111(b) by flying in formation with a civilian aircraft without
prior arrangement.

The military doesn't have to obey the FARs. They have their own rules
they go by.

buttman wrote:
On Apr 4, 11:17 am, Larry Dighera wrote:

While I can appreciate the AF's frustration at having their training
exercises interrupted, I doubt that that gives them license to
violate FAR 91.111(b) by flying in formation with a civilian aircraft
without prior arrangement.

The military doesn't have to obey the FARs. They have their own rules
they go by.

WRONG.

That is a common, but incorrect, belief. Here are the laws (you may
browse them starting from [1]) that grants FAA authority even over
military operations and the cases when the military may deviate from FAA
regulations (note (d)(4) and (d)(6)):

" TITLE 49--TRANSPORTATION

SUBTITLE VII--AVIATION PROGRAMS

PART A--AIR COMMERCE AND SAFETY

subpart i--general

CHAPTER 401--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 40101. Policy
[...]
(d) Safety Considerations in Public Interest.--In carrying out
subpart III of this part and those provisions of subpart IV applicable
in carrying out subpart III, the Administrator shall consider the
following matters, among others, as being in the public interest:
(1) assigning, maintaining, and enhancing safety and security as
the highest priorities in air commerce.
(2) regulating air commerce in a way that best promotes safety
and fulfills national defense requirements.
(3) encouraging and developing civil aeronautics, including new
aviation technology.
(4) controlling the use of the navigable airspace and regulating
civil and military operations in that airspace in the interest of
the safety and efficiency of both of those operations.
(5) consolidating research and development for air navigation
facilities and the installation and operation of those facilities.
(6) developing and operating a common system of air traffic
control and navigation for military and civil aircraft.
(7) providing assistance to law enforcement agencies in the
enforcement of laws related to regulation of controlled substances,
to the extent consistent with aviation safety." [2]

And here are the exceptions under which the military may deviate from
those regulations:

"Sec. 40106. Emergency powers

(a) Deviations From Regulations.--Appropriate military authority may
authorize aircraft of the armed forces of the United States to deviate
from air traffic regulations prescribed under section 40103(b)(1) and
(2) of this title when the authority decides the deviation is essential
to the national defense because of a military emergency or urgent
military necessity. The authority shall--
(1) give the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration prior notice of the deviation at the earliest
practicable time; and
(2) to the extent time and circumstances allow, make every
reasonable effort to consult with the Administrator and arrange for
the deviation in advance on a mutually agreeable basis." [3]

[1] http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/tit...titlevii_.html

[2] http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...:+49USC4010 1

[3] http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...:+49USC4010 6

On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 13:18:46 -0700 (PDT), buttman
wrote:

On Apr 4, 11:17*am, Larry Dighera wrote:

While I can appreciate the AF's frustration at having their training
exercises interrupted, I doubt that that gives them license to violate
FAR 91.111(b) by flying in formation with a civilian aircraft without
prior arrangement.

The military doesn't have to obey the FARs. They have their own rules
they go by.

That is true. However AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 11-202 pretty much
parallels the FARs.

http://www.f-16.net/downloads_file25.html
5.3. Proximity of Aircraft. The PIC must not allow the aircraft to
be flown so close to another that it creates a collision hazard.
Use 500 ft. of separation (well clear) as an approximate guide
except for:

5.3.1. Authorized formation flights.

5.3.2. Emergency situations requiring assistance from another
aircraft.

NOTE: If an emergency requires visual checks of an aircraft in
distress, the PIC must exercise extreme care to ensure this
action does not increase the overall hazard. The capabilities of
the distressed aircraft and the intentions of the crews involved
must be considered before operating near another aircraft in
flight.

5.3.3. MAJCOM-approved maneuvers in which each participant is
fully aware of the nature of the maneuver and qualified to
conduct it safely (for example, interceptor attack training).

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 13:18:46 -0700 (PDT), buttman
wrote:

On Apr 4, 11:17*am, Larry Dighera wrote:

While I can appreciate the AF's frustration at having their training
exercises interrupted, I doubt that that gives them license to violate
FAR 91.111(b) by flying in formation with a civilian aircraft without
prior arrangement.

The military doesn't have to obey the FARs. They have their own rules
they go by.

That is true. However AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 11-202 pretty much
parallels the FARs.

http://www.f-16.net/downloads_file25.html

It doesn't merely parallel the FARs, it _incorporates_ them:

"1.1.2. This AFI is a common source of flight directives that include:
1.1.2.1. Air Force-specific guidance.
1.1.2.2. Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs).
[...]
1.2.1. The PIC will ensure compliance with the following:
[...]
1.2.1.3. The FARs when operating within the United States including
the airspace overlying the waters out to 12 miles from the US
coast, unless the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has
excluded military operations."

On Apr 4, 2:28*pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
Larry Dighera wrote:

The military doesn't have to obey the FARs. They have their own rules
they go by.

That is true. *However AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 11-202 pretty much
parallels the FARs.


Perhaps the point though is that the FAA cannot take action against
the F-16 pilot. Perhaps if he has a civilian ticket they can suspend
it but he may not even care. In anycase, I just hope that the
visibility of this has been enough to discourage this type of incident
from happening in the future. I fly with my 2 young sons in the back.
I would be pretty upset if we were assulted in such a way.

-Robert

On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 16:28:02 -0500, Jim Logajan
wrote:

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 13:18:46 -0700 (PDT), buttman
wrote:

On Apr 4, 11:17*am, Larry Dighera wrote:

While I can appreciate the AF's frustration at having their training
exercises interrupted, I doubt that that gives them license to violate
FAR 91.111(b) by flying in formation with a civilian aircraft without
prior arrangement.

The military doesn't have to obey the FARs. They have their own rules
they go by.

That is true. However AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 11-202 pretty much
parallels the FARs.

http://www.f-16.net/downloads_file25.html

It doesn't merely parallel the FARs, it _incorporates_ them:

"1.1.2. This AFI is a common source of flight directives that include:
1.1.2.1. Air Force-specific guidance.
1.1.2.2. Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs).
[...]
1.2.1. The PIC will ensure compliance with the following:
[...]
1.2.1.3. The FARs when operating within the United States including
the airspace overlying the waters out to 12 miles from the US
coast, unless the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has
excluded military operations."

So it would appear that the F-16 pilot in this case violated
regulations when he formed up on the Pilatus.

The problem with military regulations violations is, that the military
doesn't discipline their ranks commensurate with the violation(s).
Consider flight-lead Parker who lead his wingman into a fatal MAC with
a Cessna 172 on November 16, 2000. He failed to comply with
regulations to brief the terminal airspace, failed to obtain the
required ATC clearance to enter congested Class B and C terminal
airspace, and a list of other violations, but he only received a
verbal reprimand. In another incident, an A4 on a MTR hit a glider,
and the Navy and NTH found the glider at fault despite its having the
right-of-way. And with the current administration, you can expect a
further decline in justice in our fair nation.

And with the current administration, you can expect a
further decline in justice in our fair nation.

With respect to illegal immigration, yes. In all other respects, you're way
better off than you'd be with any alternative administration.