MOA's

Don't forget your elected representatives.

Even consideration of closing MOA's to VFR civilian aircraft is not in
the spirit nor intent of the establishment of MOA's. Restricted areas
are quite something else. Someone might want to educate that commander
and the elected officials and the media of the difference. Local FSDO
might be a good place to start.
http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/AIR/air2501.html

Frank Whiteley

Frank Whiteley wrote:
Don't forget your elected representatives.

Even consideration of closing MOA's to VFR civilian aircraft is not in
the spirit nor intent of the establishment of MOA's. Restricted areas
are quite something else. Someone might want to educate that commander
and the elected officials and the media of the difference. Local FSDO
might be a good place to start.
http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/AIR/air2501.html

The Navy is in the midst of trying to get a huge MOA centered around NAS
Lemoore, which just happens to encompass pretty much the entire task
area for contests and general flying out of the Avenal, California
gliderport. Not to be outdone, the Air Force is trying to get another
large MOA over White Pine County, Nevada, which covers a big part of the
task area out of Ely, Nevada. Beyond that, there are now unescorted
UAVs and cruise missiles transiting public (non-MOA) airspace in eastern
Nevada. We're going to lose safe access to much of the airspace over
sparsely (and not so sparsely) populated areas of California and Nevada,
if we don't act now...

Marc

I can verify for everyone that the soaring program at the Air Force
Academy had nothing to do with their pulling out of the contest. Their
OIC called me last night from Moriarty where they've been training for
the last week, and he was mortified about what has happened. His staff
and cadets were really looking forward to the contest, and now they've
been screwed by their chain of command. A real shame that they got used
as a political football in this way.

~ted/2NO

This probably wouldn't be an issue if we all flew with transponders...

Ramy

Kilo Charlie wrote:
It may be of interest to some to watch the happenings of what is going on
wrt Luke AFB in Arizona and their impression of our holding a contest here
for 6 days that will involve traversing some MOA's. It seems that their
commander pretty much feels that we really don't belong there and are a
clear safety threat to their pilots and aircraft and are creating a large
burden on their ability to train their pilots.

Considering MOA's are a substantial portion of our states airspace it
results in a perceived if not certain conflict of interest between the
government and cross country pilots. Several other contests that I have
been a part of included MOA's e.g. Littlefield and Hobbs.

Our local Phoenix newspaper has interviewed the Luke commander and he has
been anything but kind in his evaluation of the matter:
http://www.azcentral.com/community/p...light24Z2.html

Casey Lenox
Phoenix

Ramy wrote:
This probably wouldn't be an issue if we all flew with transponders...

Wrong. This is not the time to grind that axe, Ramy.

Once some Colonel gets his shorts in a knot about an issue like this,
the only thing that will cool him off is a higher authority who does
have the big picture.

AOPA/SSA will know how to handle it and it won't be by bending over for
more expensive and ineffective schemes.

Transponders are a good thing to have, but a very bad mandate.


Jack

Transonders? Wrong. There is no air traffic control in the MOAs and
the military aircraft have no electronic equipment that enable them to
see or respond to other traffic with transponders.

Military aircraft are involved mostly in visual dogfight training and
not using instruments.

I asked this question specifically and was told transponders would not
help.

Mike the Strike wrote:
Transonders? Wrong. There is no air traffic control in the MOAs and
the military aircraft have no electronic equipment that enable them to
see or respond to other traffic with transponders.

Military aircraft are involved mostly in visual dogfight training and
not using instruments.

This is hard to imagine in an age when air-to-air fighting means firing
missiles, but I don't have any direct knowledge.


I asked this question specifically and was told transponders would not
help.

In our area, the C-17 transports are being equipped with TCAS units. The
percentage of the fleet so equipped was about 20% three years ago, but I
don't know what it is now. In addition, they are in contact with ATC
when they are "high" (they spend a lot of time "low"), which is around
2000' agl or higher, so ATC can and does give them transponder locations.

I don't know about the fighters in our area, but my understanding is a
fighter has the electronics to "see" transponders.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
Operation"

Eric Greenwell wrote:
Mike the Strike wrote:
Transonders? Wrong. There is no air traffic control in the MOAs and
the military aircraft have no electronic equipment that enable them to
see or respond to other traffic with transponders.

Military aircraft are involved mostly in visual dogfight training and
not using instruments.

This is hard to imagine in an age when air-to-air fighting means firing
missiles, but I don't have any direct knowledge.

I suspect that they have a lot of electronics onboard to identify other
aircraft, but it mostly locates a heat source.


I asked this question specifically and was told transponders would not
help.

In our area, the C-17 transports are being equipped with TCAS units. The
percentage of the fleet so equipped was about 20% three years ago, but I
don't know what it is now. In addition, they are in contact with ATC
when they are "high" (they spend a lot of time "low"), which is around
2000' agl or higher, so ATC can and does give them transponder locations.

I don't know about the fighters in our area, but my understanding is a
fighter has the electronics to "see" transponders.

Maybe, though an F18 pilot told me the opposite about 5 years ago. I
wonder if the ability to locate a transponder would be of much value to
a fighter.

My comment was based on James Mitchell comment "What makes it
particularly worrisome is gliders usually don't have radios or
transponders, which makes it easier to see on radar."
If indeed military aircrafts can not detect transponders than it is a
larger issue, but at least this would void their argument.

Ramy

This may have already been attempted, but if not, might be worth a try..

Call the Luke commander, say "Say, I think we're actually a lot closer
to being on the same page than it seems, would you have time for lunch
one day this week?"



Kilo Charlie wrote:
It may be of interest to some to watch the happenings of what is going on
wrt Luke AFB in Arizona and their impression of our holding a contest here
for 6 days that will involve traversing some MOA's. It seems that their
commander pretty much feels that we really don't belong there and are a
clear safety threat to their pilots and aircraft and are creating a large
burden on their ability to train their pilots.

Considering MOA's are a substantial portion of our states airspace it
results in a perceived if not certain conflict of interest between the
government and cross country pilots. Several other contests that I have
been a part of included MOA's e.g. Littlefield and Hobbs.

Our local Phoenix newspaper has interviewed the Luke commander and he has
been anything but kind in his evaluation of the matter:
http://www.azcentral.com/community/p...light24Z2.html

Casey Lenox
Phoenix