The Latest Military Airspace Grab: 700 Square Miles!

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 07:55:51 GMT, Mike Williamson
wrote in
. net::


Additionally, good training,
particularly for fighter/attack types, require a pretty good
proportion of clear weather, which makes New Mexico, Arizona,
etc., prime training grounds.


What is your feeling about the likely success or failure of the use of
see-and-avoid to separate 5,000' AGL supersonic military aircraft from
VFR civil aircraft within joint-use MOA airspace?


As I see it, VFR traffic is never *required* to fly through the MOA,
and I'd certainly recommend against it. If you don't feel that those
that would fly through it aren't capable of exercising the required
caution, then by all means campaign to have all the MOAs turned into
restricted areas...

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 14:06:19 GMT, Mike Williamson
wrote in
et::

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 07:55:51 GMT, Mike Williamson
wrote in
. net::

What is your feeling about the likely success or failure of the use of
see-and-avoid to separate 5,000' AGL supersonic military aircraft from
VFR civil aircraft within joint-use MOA airspace?


As I see it, VFR traffic is never *required* to fly through the MOA,
and I'd certainly recommend against it.

Then you are more safety conscious than those who drafted the EIS for
the USAF who specifically mention VFR transition of the proposed MOA
expansion for supersonic operations.

If you don't feel that those that would fly through it aren't capable
of exercising the required caution,

In the case of VFR transition through a MOA with ongoing supersonic
operations, it's not so much a matter of being capable; it's more
about the physical limitations of spotting the frontal profile of a
gray fighter aircraft against a gray sky in time to identify it as a
threat, making the desired control inputs, and having your aircraft
respond quickly enough to avoid the supersonic threat.

then by all means campaign to have all the MOAs turned into restricted areas...

Well, of course, that's not necessary. There is not supersonic
training occurring in _all_ the MOAs.

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?

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

Ed Rasimus wrote:

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.


Exactly. Flying out here in the West it's not uncommon to transit
several MOAs in the course of a long XC. I just contact Center on the
local frequency and get advisories. They will steer you away from any
military activity if the MOA is hot.

There are some locations that have a dedicated advisory frequency for
operations in high traffic MOAs. I'm not sure whether its a military
or civilian agency that is providing the advisory service, but I really
don't care. As I recall, one such area is north of Nellis/Las Vegas.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 10:30:44 -0700, Ed Rasimus
wrote in
::

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.

In my case, Center handed me off to the military controller on a VHF
frequency.

I was northbound out of Mormon Mesa VORTAC to Lincoln, County Airport
(1L1) in Nevada, which is about 30 miles west of the eastern border of
the Desert MOA (floor 100' AGL). There's a note on the Las Vegas
sectional chart advising pilots to "contact Nellis Control on 126.65
or nearest FSS prior to entering MOA." So I suppose they are
expecting to provide some assistance to VFR flights.

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

As I was VFR, no one but me was taking _responsibility_ for my flight.

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

This military controller apparently had me on radar.

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.

As I stated initially, the military controller wasn't providing
separation. He was just alerting nearby participating military
aircraft and providing radar traffic advisories for me.

The military controller was aware of my position, and although I
couldn't hear his communications with the military aircraft, he seemed
to be attempting to keep us separated.

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

In Class G airspace, IFR flights are not separated by ATC.

b.) in controlled airspace

Actually, VFR flights in Class C controlled airspace are not separated
by ATC.

c.) in IMC

That seems redundant with 'a' above. If you're in IMC without benefit
of an IFR clearance, you've got bigger issues than separation from
other traffic.


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".

Actually, if you are in VMC at any time, you are _required_ to
see-and-avoid. But military pilots on VR MTRs don't seem to
appreciate that fact:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...13X33340&key=1


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

"Mike Williamson" wrote in message
ink.net...


There is less airspace used by the military than there used to be.


Don't know what it looked like before, but there is sure a lot potentially tied up:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1942408A

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 12:52:57 GMT, "Blueskies"
wrote in
::


"Mike Williamson" wrote in message
link.net...


There is less airspace used by the military than there used to be.


Don't know what it looked like before, but there is sure a lot potentially tied up:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1942408A



That's an interesting link. Thanks.

Unfortunately, the depiction of Special Use Airspace is incomplete.
It fails to show Military Training Routes. That spider web of routes
ensnares most of the west. Finding the current status of MTRs
continues to be a problem for pilots.

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 07:55:51 GMT, Mike Williamson
wrote:

Blueskies wrote:
"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message ...


Airspace is airspace. There are no comments about anyone not wanting our pilots to be properly trained. There should be
a big chunk set aside, say, out over the pacific or something, for all the air to air training. They would be able to
turn and burn and go mach whatever without worrying too much (oh, they do that already?). If the folks need to do the
air to ground work, there is already plenty of space out in Nevada and Calif set aside for that. Why all the airspace
grabs these days?

Please edit your post more carefully. The above quote was not said by
me and the attribution line refers to my specific refutation of the
absurd suggestion.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

" Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

Sounds like a good book, Ed. I look forward to reading it some day....

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 16:56:49 GMT, "Blueskies"
wrote:


" Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

Sounds like a good book, Ed. I look forward to reading it some day....


Ask your local library or buy the paperback:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com