USAF F-16 Instructor Discusses Flying Into MOAs

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Robert M. Gary writes:

In the Navy it as green "go" and red "stop" pills. Green before a long
late flight, red after you get back and need to sleep. The Navy has
publically defended these pills.

I can understand them in wartime, but not peacetime.


Anthony, you're too stupid to understand the time of day!

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Gig 601Xl Builder writes:

From what the AF has said and say they have tapes to back up there was
no violation of the FARs.

I'll believe that when the AF releases the tapes.


What makes you think anybody gives a **** what you believe, Anthony.
You are a total moron who doesn't know **** from shinola about anything.

On Apr 23, 8:31*am, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 12:56:54 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
wrote in
:

Being an airforce pilot does not automatically imply honesty when his
ass is on the line.

Oh, you mean like the US pilot(s) who suppressed evidence in the fatal
European funicular strike.

What/when was that?

Cheers

On Apr 22, 2:54*pm, "Viperdoc" wrote:
"The policies concerning stimulants ultimately evolved into Air Force
Regulation (AFR) 161--33/TAC Supplement 1. *TAC sanctioned the use of
amphetamine"

The guidance on the go, no-go pills seems to be changing frequently, but
their use is very tightly controlled. There are also other choices than
amphetamines to help combat fatigue and its effects.

I thought you just claimed that there was no such usage...
"Are you also suggesting by bringing up the topic that the Air Force
pilots
were using amphetamines?"

-Robert

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:47:09 -0500, "Viperdoc"
wrote in
:

Larry:

Just out of curiosity, do you actually fly anything?

Look my record up in the FAA airmans database, and you'll see what I'm
rated to fly.

You send me personal emails lecturing that the goals of Usenet should be
to educate, and should not be for personal attacks.

I sent you personal e-mail to save you public embarrassment and public
disclosure of personal facts. I thought you would appreciate my
effort.

You might try living by what you preach.

I do.

I don't believe that I've made any personal attacks. If you believe
otherwise, please provide specific information that supports your
view.

In any event, please let me assure you that I mean you absolutely no
disrespect, as you are a very successful and accomplished individual
who serves our country with honor. But we are all capable of being
incorrect at times.

Otherwise it makes you look like a weak wannabe.

(Is that a personal attack?)

If you insist, perhaps I can educate you about Joint Use Airspace.

From your statement:

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:12:26 -0500, "Viperdoc"
wrote in
:

Typically, once cleared into the MOA, ATC will give the call MARSA
(IIRC), which is military assumes responsibility for separation of
aircraft. The FAA rules for spacing and formation flight no longer
apply at this point.

It apparent that you (or perhaps I) possess a fundamentally flawed
appreciation of the regulations governing VFR operations within
Military Training Area airspace. As I understand the subject
incident, it involved civil VFR operations within hot Military
Training Area airspace, not IFR operations nor VMC.

Below is what authoritative information I was able to find on the
subject:

From the Pilot/Controller Glossary definition of MOA airspace:

http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraff...pubs/PCG/S.HTM
SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE- Airspace of defined dimensions identified
by an area on the surface of the earth wherein activities must be
confined because of their nature and/or wherein limitations may
be imposed upon aircraft operations that are not a part of those
activities. Types of special use airspace a

c. Military Operations Area (MOA)- A MOA is airspace
established outside of Class A airspace area to separate or
segregate certain nonhazardous military activities from IFR
traffic and to identify for VFR traffic where these
activities are conducted.

(Refer to AIM.)


From the Aeronautical Information Manual:

http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraff...3/aim0304.html
3-4-5. Military Operations Areas

a. MOAs consist of airspace of defined vertical and lateral
limits established for the purpose of separating certain military
training activities from IFR traffic. Whenever a MOA is being
used, nonparticipating IFR traffic may be cleared through a MOA
if IFR separation can be provided by ATC. Otherwise, ATC will
reroute or restrict nonparticipating IFR traffic.

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 B, Class C*] 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 250knots below 10,000 feet MSL within
active MOAs.

c. Pilots operating under VFR should exercise extreme caution
while flying within a MOA when military activity is being
conducted. The activity status (active/inactive) of MOAs may
change frequently. Therefore, pilots should contact any FSS
within 100 miles of the area to obtain accurate real-time
information concerning the MOA hours of operation. Prior to
entering an active MOA, pilots should contact the controlling
agency for traffic advisories.

d. MOAs are depicted on sectional, VFR Terminal Area, and Enroute
Low Altitude charts.

*
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text... .1.3.10.4.7.2


This document may also help define MOA airspace:

http://www.accplanning.org/documents...pendix%20H.pdf
MOAs are considered “joint use” airspace. Non-participating
aircraft operating under VFR are permitted to enter a MOA, even
when the MOA is active for military use. Aircraft operating
under IFR must remain clear of an active MOA unless approved by
the responsible ARTCC.

Flight by both participating and VFR non-participating aircraft
is conducted under the “see-and-avoid” concept, which stipulates
that “when weather conditions permit, pilots operating
IFR or VFR are required to observe and maneuver to avoid other
aircraft. Right-of-way rules are contained in CFR Part 91” (P/CG
2004). The responsible ARTCC provides separation service for
aircraft operating under IFR and MOA participants. The
“see-and-avoid” procedures mean that if a MOA were active during
inclement weather, the general aviation pilot could not safely
access the MOA airspace.

(NB: The above seems to contradict your assertion made in Message-ID:
quoted at the beginning of
this message.)


From the above citations, I infer that military pilots operating in
VMC within MOAs should expect to find civil flights within those
Military Operations Areas, and are required to see-and-avoid those
civil flights.

Further I see no mention above of a military exemption from CFR Title
14, Part 91, Section 91.111, or it's military equivalent regulation:

§ 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.


The military doesn't have exclusive use of MOA airspace at _any_ time
in VMC. The military shares MOA and MTR airspace with civil flights.
Over the years, I have become aware that many military pilots are not
truly aware that MOA and MTR airspace is shared with civil aircraft.
It seems to be a common, and occasionally lethal, mistake. (I am able
to cite several examples if you like.)

Are you also suggesting by bringing up the topic that the Air Force pilots
were using amphetamines?

Actually, it was the author of the followup article to whom I was
responding that first mentioned pilots using drugs in this message
thread:

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:56:16 -0700 (PDT), "Robert M. Gary"
wrote in
:

It is interesting that two pilot reported the same thing from (I
assume) the same F-16. Maybe one pilot was dropping acid at the
time but not likely two.

-Robert


It is my understanding that the military issues speed to soldiers.
Apparently the Wehrmacht traveled on it. I recall some mention of
this in conjunction with the mid-east war, where there were some long
distances involved. I could be wrong. It was a long time ago, and
just hearsay, of course.

You on the other hand, being a military medical officer, should be
able to provide firsthand information on that subject.

Do you have some evidence to support this, or are you like Anthony
in trying to stir the pot and get yourself some attention?

I was able to find this supporting evidence for military use of
psychostimulents with a quick on-line search:


http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a...97/cornum.html
Published Airpower Journal - Spring 1997

DISTRIBUTION A:
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

Stimulant Use in Extended Flight Operations

LT COL RHONDA CORNUM, USA
DR. JOHN CALDWELL
LT COL KORY CORNUM, USAF

PSYCHOSTIMULANTS, particularly amphetamine, became available in
America for clinical use in 1937, and since then have been widely
prescribed. More recently, their beneficial effects have been
overshadowed by the recognition of a significant abuse potential.
Nevertheless, the military services, particularly the Air Force,
have recognized the value of psychostimulants under certain
conditions. Use of amphetamine, at the direction of the unit
commander and under the supervision of the flight surgeon, has
been sanctioned by some components of the Air Force since 1960
and by the tactical air forces until 1991. ...

The policies concerning stimulants ultimately evolved into Air
Force Regulation (AFR) 161--33/TAC Supplement 1. TAC sanctioned
the use of amphetamine because single--seat pilots are
particularly susceptible to the effects of boredom and fatigue
during deployments overseas and during extended combat air
patrols. Maj David Caskey, an Air Force F--15 pilot, reported
using “go” pills routinely when flying from the United States to
Germany, Japan, or Thailand. He recounted that some pilots
refused to take them, saying they didn't need them; however, he
pointed out that one time, an entire flight diverted to a base in
England because some pilots simply couldn't stay awake en route
to their destination in Germany.13 ...




http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2003/02/57434
The U.S. Military Needs Its Speed
Elliot Borin Email 02.10.03 | 2:00 AM

Recalling the American airborne invasion of Normandy during World
War II in his 1962 book Night Drop, Army colonel and combat
historian S.L.A. Marshall wrote: "The United States Army is
indifferent toward common-sense rules by which the energy of men
may be conserved in combat."

Pilots from the Air Force 183rd Fighter Wing felt the
reverberations of Marshall's assessment -- which is cited on page
3 of the Navy's official guide for managing fatigue -- last
April. According to reports published in Canada, they
misidentified a target during a bombing run over Iraq. Meeting
with their commanders, they complained they were exhausted, that
the "common-sense" rule of 12 hours of rest between missions was
being ignored.

In return they got two pieces of advice: Stop whining and visit
the flight surgeon for some "go/no-go" pills.

About a week later, two members of the 183rd, Majs. Harry Schmidt
and William Umbach, launched a laser-guided bomb on a Canadian
training force, killing four and injuring eight. ...



Again, I mean you no disrespect, Colonel Ninomiya. But I believe that
it is important for military flyers to understand that MOAs may
contain civil flights without violation of regulations.

"Larry Dighera" wrote
I'm hoping the ATC radar tapes are of sufficient resolution to
conclusively prove that the distance between the F-16 and the
GA aircraft was closer than 600' as the USAF claims.

They are not.

"Viperdoc" wrote in
Maybe you can answer the question- can RAPCON or Center
radar even resolve 600 feet (say versus 200 or 800) of two
passing aircraft, assuming the radar sweep paints them at the
instant they are in closest proximity?

No, not to that level.

Somewhere I read that the F16 was part of a two on two exercise. Likely the
engagement was halted for the civil traffic. The same article stated that
only one F16 went in for the VID, which seems unusual IMO.

And the AF released the statement of "never closer than 600 feet", which
seems to be the standard answer for "I kept visual separation at all times,
even while maneuvering for the ID". At 600 feet I doubt any reasonable pilot
would win a claim of "formation flying".

Unless the other 3 AF pilots file, the F16 jock will likely just get a
verbal dressdown only. Something like: "You f***ing idiot, next time turn
your f***ing transponder off".

"Mike Isaksen" wrote:
Unless the other 3 AF pilots file, the F16 jock will likely just get a
verbal dressdown only. Something like: "You f***ing idiot, next time
turn your f***ing transponder off".

With cameras (and other recording equipment) becoming more prevalent on
small aircraft that sort of so-called dressing-down may be self-defeating
for future encounters, as the likelyhood of incriminating evidence becomes
larger.

(And I presume actually turning the transponder off could be used to show
there was a clear intent to violate regs.)

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 18:37:53 -0500, "Viperdoc"
wrote in
:

Look up MARSA.

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus?

Naw. You're referring to MARSA - Military Authority Assumes
Responsibility for Separation of Aircraft. That's when the military
relieves ATC of the responsibility for separation of aircraft as might
frequently happen during aerial refueling operations. I don't see how
MARSA is germane to the discussion of this incident.

Do you believe MARSA was, or should have been, employed in this
incident?

Viperdoc writes:

Look up MARSA.

MARSA applies to the military, not civilian flights.

I doubt that anyone will see the HUD tapes since by definintion they are
classified, but I am confident that a variety of people will review them
within the wing. You suggested that the FAA and Air Force were somehow in
collusion in hiding the facts, but having personal experience in this, it
simply would not be the case.

Unclassifying the tapes and releasing them would clear up any doubt.

You also implied that perhaps the flyers were on stimulants during this
episode, without evidence. Why create conjecture and innuendo that simply
fuels the fires of controversy? To what purpose does this serve?

Either the pilots were incompetent or there was some other reason why they
were behaving incompetently. If they were high on stimulants, that might
provide an explanation. In this latter case, they need to stop taking the
speed; in the former case, they need to find a different line of work.

If you're so suspicious of the government and its processes, try moving to a
third world country (where I just returned for the AF), where you'd be
thankful you had one solid meal a day (if any), and the government doesn't
mean anything.

Third World countries are characterized in part by arrogant military
establishments that hide any evidence of wrongdoing and employ incompetent
personnel.

I can categorically state that the Air Force and other military personnel
that I've had the privilege of working with through the years have been some
of the most dedicated and ethical people that I have ever met, and your
comments and suspicions demean their efforts and sacrifice.

So you haven't met the pilot involved in this incident?