USAF F-16 Instructor Discusses Flying Into MOAs

Gig 601Xl Builder wrote in
m:

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.

You're assuming that Anthony has sufficient intelligence to understand what
he reads. That's really going out on a limb.

On Apr 24, 1:22*am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
WingFlaps wrote:
On Apr 23, 7:43 am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
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.
Not that I care what you believe but the Platypus driver doesn't have
any tapes to prove what he said. So, given the word of an Air Force
Officer and the word of someone I have no idea who he is I'll go with
the AF.

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

Cheers

I never said it did. It does do so more than being unknown guy X. With
many in this group it does seem that being an Air Force officer
automatically implies that he is dishonest.- Hide quoted text -


Well if it never happened the civilian would be risking being
publically discredited and in this case losing his job as an attorney.
Why would any sane person do that? On the other hand a fighter jock
all full of arrogance and macho might well buzz the civilian plane
just to show he's "superior" (you know a top gun alpha male thang).

From my analysis I'd say that without hard data I'd take the civilians
story but not punish the fighter pilot. I would also make sure that
the military understands it does not own airspace.

Cheers

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:35:24 GMT, Jay Maynard
wrote in
:

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?

Yeah. It's not always easy to reach the correct military person for a
number of reasons. I have found, that if I am courteous, professional
and persistent, after several hand-offs it's usually possible to speak
to someone who knows what I'm talking about. If they just want to
take a message, that's not good enough. You need to reach a person
who is familiar with the terms you are using, and sounds concerned and
helpful, and willing to provide a plan for coordination of your
transition of the MOA.

First you need to contact FSS, and ask the briefer what the status of
the MOA will be at the time you plan to traverse it. Often the FSS
briefer is able to provide a telephone number of the military contact
from the NOTAM too. If not, you can then consult a chart or ask the
briefer to learn who the MOA controlling agency or contact facility
is. Or if you have Internet access at your then present location, you
can find that official information here from the FAA:
http://sua.faa.gov/sua/Welcome.do?selected=1&order=reset or here
unofficially from the Air National Guard:
http://www.seeandavoid.org/.*

Then you can look up the telephone number in the Airport/Facilities
Directory, and then inquire at that telephone number about how to
reach the correct military person. If that is unproductive, look up
the telephone number for the military facility you believe to be
scheduled to use the MOA, and telephone them, and start inquiring...

It can require a few calls before you get to the right person, but it
will be apparent you've reached the right person when you have.

There are vast aggregated MOAs out west, so this is the technique I
use. If you try to do this in-flight, it's often unproductive. FSS
may not have the status information, or be able to provide you with a
frequency to reach the military controller(s). At least this has been
my experience in the past. Now that FSS is privatized, the situation
may be better (or not). And Mr. McNicoll may have additional input. I
always feel better being in communication directly with the military
controller when within an active MOA, because I know s/he can see
his/her aircraft and mine on his/her scope to provide traffic
advisories, as well as control his/her aircraft to assist in
separating us. ARTCC is unable to do the latter.

It's just good CRM to use all the tools and facilities at your
disposal.

I wonder what information/techniques aviation author Bob Gardner might
have to offer on this subject.


*
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...5?dmode=source

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:05:35 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
:


"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.


Mr. McNicoll, if you're unable to keep a civil tongue in your head,
you'll force me to ignore you.

I am well aware of the title.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:05:35 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
:


"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.


Mr. McNicoll, if you're unable to keep a civil tongue in your head,
you'll force me to ignore you.


So ignore me.



I am well aware of the title.


Then clearly, you do not understand what it means.

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:15:57 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
:



I am well aware of the title.


Then clearly, you do not understand what it means.


I understand what § 91.119(c) says. An attorney will understand it
too.

§ 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.


It says that over open water or sparsely populated areas an aircraft
may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel,
vehicle, or structure. Implicit in that statement is the lack of any
lower altitude limit, with the exception of being in the proximity of
a person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. But there is some ambiguity.

The fact that the first sentence states that an aircraft may not be
operated below the following altitudes can not possibly apply to
operation laterally distant from a person, vessel, vehicle, or
structure, because a lateral distance is not an altitude. If the
wording had included 'person, vessel, vehicle, or structure LOCATED ON
THE GROUND', perhaps it's intent would have been clearer, but the
language as written fails to restrict the implied 500' lateral limit
from being applied at altitude, IMO.

In the subject case (presumably over a sparsely populated area) the
F-16 was alleged to have been operated in less than 500' lateral
proximity to a vehicle, another aircraft in this case. I would say
you are naïve if you believe, that the attorney pilot will fail to
read § 91.119(c) the way I have? Most judges are attorneys. ...

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

I understand what § 91.119(c) says. An attorney will understand it
too.


You only think that you understand it.



§ 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.


It says that over open water or sparsely populated areas an aircraft
may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel,
vehicle, or structure. Implicit in that statement is the lack of any
lower altitude limit, with the exception of being in the proximity of
a person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. But there is some ambiguity.


The only ambiguity is in what constitutes a sparsely populated area.



The fact that the first sentence states that an aircraft may not be
operated below the following altitudes can not possibly apply to
operation laterally distant from a person, vessel, vehicle, or
structure, because a lateral distance is not an altitude. If the
wording had included 'person, vessel, vehicle, or structure LOCATED ON
THE GROUND', perhaps it's intent would have been clearer, but the
language as written fails to restrict the implied 500' lateral limit
from being applied at altitude, IMO.



"Fails to restrict the implied 500' lateral limit from being applied at
altitude" from what? A person that is not in an aircraft? An airborne
vessel? An airborne vehicle other than an aircraft? An airborne structure?

What type of vessels are operated on the GROUND?



In the subject case (presumably over a sparsely populated area) the
F-16 was alleged to have been operated in less than 500' lateral
proximity to a vehicle, another aircraft in this case.


Ehhh? A lateral distance is not an altitude but an altitude is a lateral
distance?



I would say
you are naïve if you believe, that the attorney pilot will fail to
read § 91.119(c) the way I have? Most judges are attorneys. ...


No intelligent person will read § 91.119(c) the way you have. That is not
an opinion.

On May 2, 1:16*am, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message

...



I understand what § 91.119(c) says. *An attorney will understand it
too.

You only think that you understand it.







* *§ 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.

It says that over open water or sparsely populated areas an aircraft
may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel,
vehicle, or structure. *Implicit in that statement is the lack of any
lower altitude limit, with the exception of being in the proximity of
a person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. *But there is some ambiguity.

The only ambiguity is in what constitutes a sparsely populated area.



The fact that the first sentence states that an aircraft may not be
operated below the following altitudes can not possibly apply to
operation laterally distant from a person, vessel, vehicle, or
structure, because a lateral distance is not an altitude. *If the
wording had included 'person, vessel, vehicle, or structure LOCATED ON
THE GROUND', perhaps it's intent would have been clearer, but the
language as written fails to restrict the implied 500' lateral limit
from being applied at altitude, IMO.

"Fails to restrict the implied 500' lateral limit from being applied at
altitude" from what? *A person that is not in an aircraft? *An airborne
vessel? *An airborne vehicle other than an aircraft? *An airborne structure?

What type of vessels are operated on the GROUND?



In the subject case (presumably over a sparsely populated area) the
F-16 was alleged to have been operated in less than 500' lateral
proximity to a vehicle, another aircraft in this case.

Ehhh? *A lateral distance is not an altitude but an altitude is a lateral
distance?



I would say
you are naïve if you believe, that the attorney pilot will fail to
read § 91.119(c) the way I have? *Most judges are attorneys. *...

No intelligent person will read § 91.119(c) the way you have. *That is not
an opinion.- Hide quoted text -


Sorry to interrupt, but aren't the relevant FARs 91.111a; 91.13a and
91.11 ?

Cheers

"WingFlaps" wrote in message
...
On May 2, 1:16 am, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

No intelligent person will read § 91.119(c) the way you have. That is not
an opinion.- Hide quoted text -


Sorry to interrupt, but aren't the relevant FARs 91.111a; 91.13a and 91.11
?


91.11? Prohibition on interference with crewmembers.?

91.111 is clearly relevant to operating near other aircraft, 91.13 could
possibly be relevant, and 91.119 completely irrelevant.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

I understand what § 91.119(c) says. An attorney will understand it
too.


You only think that you understand it.



§ 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.


It says that over open water or sparsely populated areas an aircraft
may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel,
vehicle, or structure. Implicit in that statement is the lack of any
lower altitude limit, with the exception of being in the proximity of
a person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. But there is some
ambiguity.

The only ambiguity is in what constitutes a sparsely populated area.



The fact that the first sentence states that an aircraft may not be
operated below the following altitudes can not possibly apply to
operation laterally distant from a person, vessel, vehicle, or
structure, because a lateral distance is not an altitude. If the
wording had included 'person, vessel, vehicle, or structure LOCATED
ON THE GROUND', perhaps it's intent would have been clearer, but the
language as written fails to restrict the implied 500' lateral limit
from being applied at altitude, IMO.



"Fails to restrict the implied 500' lateral limit from being applied
at altitude" from what? A person that is not in an aircraft? An
airborne vessel? An airborne vehicle other than an aircraft? An
airborne structure?
What type of vessels are operated on the GROUND?



In the subject case (presumably over a sparsely populated area) the
F-16 was alleged to have been operated in less than 500' lateral
proximity to a vehicle, another aircraft in this case.


Ehhh? A lateral distance is not an altitude but an altitude is a
lateral distance?



I would say
you are naïve if you believe, that the attorney pilot will fail to
read § 91.119(c) the way I have? Most judges are attorneys. ...


No intelligent person will read § 91.119(c) the way you have. That
is not an opinion.


Larry, it would seem that you are incapable of providing a reasoned
response to my statements. If you see fallacy in them, define it. If
you are incapable of that, perhaps it is because there is none.