![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
US Military now wants more northern NY airspace to expand those MOAs | Peter R. | Piloting | 7 | June 14th 07 01:30 PM |
Bamford discusses 'A Clean Break'/war for Israel agenda on MSNBC's 'Countdown with Keith Olbermann': | [email protected] | Naval Aviation | 0 | August 8th 06 08:21 AM |
Gliders, transponders, and MOAs | Greg Arnold | Soaring | 2 | May 26th 06 05:13 PM |
There has _got_ to be a book that discusses 'practical welding' | Mike | Owning | 2 | April 16th 06 11:15 PM |
Mayor Daley discusses airport on Today Show 2/26 | Jenny Wrinkler | Piloting | 4 | February 28th 04 05:15 AM |