USAF F-16 Instructor Discusses Flying Into MOAs

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

The lesson all involved can take from this incident is to comply with
the regulations and commonsense good-practices contained in the
appropriate aviation documents (AIM for civil). VFR civil flights
need to contact the MOA controlling authority to coordinate transition
through the MOA before departure as part of flight planning while on
the ground, and the military needs to comprehend the concept of
joint-use airspace.


There's nothing to coordinate, VFR aircraft are free to transit MOAs if they
so choose. Radar traffic advisories may be available and are certainly a
good idea, but that's true in or out of a MOA. ATC may not be in
communications with military aircraft in the MOA or have ready
communications with the using agency to make them aware of the presence of
VFR aircraft in the MOA.



If the military finds a VFR civil flight in the MOA with them, and
they feel that it unnecessarily hinders their training missions, they
need to work through the system to have the procedures, regulations or
airspace classification modified. The military should not use their
taxpayer funded hardware to audaciously intimidate the very citizen
taxpayers whom they serve, _legally_ (but perhaps imprudently)
operating within the NAS, least they bring dishonor upon themselves.


Have the airspace modified in what way?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

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


MARSA couldn't have been employed in this incident.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:18:04 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
news

Six hundred feet is markedly less than 500 feet:


Uhh, no it isn't. Six hundred feet is more than 500 feet.



§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may
operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet
above the surface, except over open water or sparsely
populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be
operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle,
or structure.


I fail to see the connection between minimum safe altitudes and lateral
separation between aircraft.


Perhaps you know of other separation criteria that may have applied in
the situation under discussion.


There are none. FAR 91.111(a) says only, "No person may operate an aircraft
so close to another aircraft as to create a collision hazard." FAR
91.111(b) says, "No person may operate an aircraft in formation flight
except by arrangement with the pilot in command of each aircraft in the
formation.", but to my knowledge there is no definition of "formation
flight" in 14 CFR Part 1.



Lacking that, I believe § 91.119 to be applicable in this case.


How do you interpret the intent of this sentence?

In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500
feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

I infer 'closer' to include laterally as well as vertically. If
that's not correct, then the word 'above' or 'over' would have been
used.


Yeah, but you also believe six hundred feet is markedly less than 500 feet,
so your beliefs carry little weight.

I infer it to mean there is a hemisphere of 500' radius centered on any
person, vessel, or structure on the surface within which an aircraft may not
be flown.

Gig 601Xl Builder writes:

The party making the claim has the burden of proof.

So why hasn't the Air Force provided the tapes that would prove its claims?

Mxsmanic wrote:
Gig 601Xl Builder writes:

You are doing exactly that. You are believing the civilian pilot because
of his position as NOT an Air Force officer.

No, I'm believing the civilian pilotS because there were two of them.

As far as evidence the civilian isn't offering any either.

Why would two different pilots make it up?


There were 4 F16s. That's 4 against 2 so by your logic they must be the
ones telling the truth.

I have no doubt the Platypus' and the Beech's TCAS were going ape ****
but that doesn't mean the F16s violated the regs.

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:42:10 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

The lesson all involved can take from this incident is to comply with
the regulations and commonsense good-practices contained in the
appropriate aviation documents (AIM for civil). VFR civil flights
need to contact the MOA controlling authority to coordinate transition
through the MOA before departure as part of flight planning while on
the ground, and the military needs to comprehend the concept of
joint-use airspace.


There's nothing to coordinate,

I have found, that when the MOA is scheduled to be active, that
alerting the military to the proposed time and route of your VFR
transition is prudent, courteous, and facilitates coordination of your
flight with their maneuvers. It often also provides you with a
frequency to use to contact the MOA military controller, so that he
can provide you with traffic advisories if he chooses.

VFR aircraft are free to transit MOAs if they so choose.

I completely understand that. However making an effort to facilitate
cooperaton is simple and makes for better relations if nothing else,
IMO.

Radar traffic advisories may be available and are certainly a
good idea, but that's true in or out of a MOA.

I couldn't agree more.

ATC may not be in communications with military aircraft in the MOA or
have ready communications with the using agency to make them aware of
the presence of VFR aircraft in the MOA.


Unfortunately, that is too true, and it is part of the reason for my
taking responsibility for the situation myself to the extent that I am
able.



If the military finds a VFR civil flight in the MOA with them, and
they feel that it unnecessarily hinders their training missions, they
need to work through the system to have the procedures, regulations or
airspace classification modified. The military should not use their
taxpayer funded hardware to audaciously intimidate the very citizen
taxpayers whom they serve, _legally_ (but perhaps imprudently)
operating within the NAS, least they bring dishonor upon themselves.


Have the airspace modified in what way?


Whatever way may be appropriate in a given situation.

The point is, that it's important to work THROUGH the system, not
bypass it with unilateral disregard for regulations/instructions.

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 10:05:21 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

[snip]


Lacking that, I believe § 91.119 to be applicable in this case.


How do you interpret the intent of this sentence?

In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500
feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

I infer 'closer' to include laterally as well as vertically. If
that's not correct, then the word 'above' or 'over' would have been
used.


Yeah, but you also believe six hundred feet is markedly less than 500 feet,
so your beliefs carry little weight.

I believe that 20% is a significant difference. In this case it
provides a cushion that arguably places the military aircraft far
enough beyond the 500 foot limit of 91.119(b), that there is little
chance of the AF incriminating themselves.

Why do you believe that 20% diminishes the weight of my belief? What
distance do you believe would be adequate to overcome your disregard
for my belief?


I infer it to mean there is a hemisphere of 500' radius centered on any
person, vessel, or structure on the surface within which an aircraft may not
be flown.


That is also a reasonable and non-contradictory interpretation. Your
inference may be implicit in the "In those cases, the aircraft may not
be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or
structure." wording of 91.119(b), but it's not explicit.

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:42:58 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

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


MARSA couldn't have been employed in this incident.


I didn't ask you for your belief. I wanted to hear what Viperdoc had
in mind when he brought up MARSA.

On 2008-04-23, Larry Dighera wrote:
I have found, that when the MOA is scheduled to be active, that
alerting the military to the proposed time and route of your VFR
transition is prudent, courteous, and facilitates coordination of your
flight with their maneuvers.

What method do you use to make sure the right military user gets the
information?
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

I have found, that when the MOA is scheduled to be active, that
alerting the military to the proposed time and route of your VFR
transition is prudent, courteous, and facilitates coordination of your
flight with their maneuvers. It often also provides you with a
frequency to use to contact the MOA military controller, so that he
can provide you with traffic advisories if he chooses.


That's fine, but you're using incorrect terminology. The military is not
the MOA "controlling authority". The military would be the using agency,
the controlling agency is typically an ARTCC. The controlling agency for
the Gladden 1 MOA is Albuquerque Center, the using agency is the 56thFW,
Luke AFB.



Whatever way may be appropriate in a given situation.


What way might be appropriate in the situation we're discussing?