USAF F-16 Instructor Discusses Flying Into MOAs

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

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


I did not state my belief, I stated a fact. If you wish to limit responses
to an individual then send that person an email, don't post your message in
an open forum.

Gig 601Xl Builder writes:

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

None of the F-16 pilots has come forward. The Air Force has provided no
tapes.

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

Every description I've read indicates that they did indeed violate the FARs.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

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.


Ya think? Please explain how you determined 600 feet is 20% less than 500
feet. I wanna see your math.



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?


The fact that you believe six hundred feet is markedly less than 500 feet is
what diminishes the weight of your belief.



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.


Altitude is explicitly a distance upward, not laterally.

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:03:47 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

Please explain how you determined 600 feet is 20% less than 500
feet. I wanna see your math.


Oops! Thanks for pointing out my error.




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.


Altitude is explicitly a distance upward, not laterally.


Altitude isn't mentioned in that sentence. The word used is "closer."

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:53:57 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

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


I did not state my belief, I stated a fact. If you wish to limit responses
to an individual then send that person an email, don't post your message in
an open forum.


I'd still like to hear what Viperdoc had in mind when he instructed me
to lookup MARSA.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Gig 601Xl Builder writes:

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

Every description I've read indicates that they did indeed violate the FARs.

Then you haven't read enough.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
m...

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...



Altitude is explicitly a distance upward, not laterally.

Or in the case of a pilot, downward.



Least important a
The altitude above me
The runway behind me
The gas in the fuel truck
and 1 second ago...

Al G

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:50:04 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
:


"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.


Of course, you are correct.



Whatever way may be appropriate in a given situation.


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


I am not familiar with the local nor the airspace involved, so I'm not
able to answer that question. Even if I were, I'm not sure I'm
qualified to answer it. It would be a matter between the military and
the FAA.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
news

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.


Altitude is explicitly a distance upward, not laterally.


Altitude isn't mentioned in that sentence. The word used is "closer."


Larry, if you'd pull your head out of your ass and took a look at the title
of FAR 91.119 you'd find altitude mentioned there.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:53:57 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
. ..

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


I did not state my belief, I stated a fact. If you wish to limit
responses
to an individual then send that person an email, don't post your message
in
an open forum.


I'd still like to hear what Viperdoc had in mind when he instructed me
to lookup MARSA.


Does my response to your message preclude him from responding?