USAF F-16 Instructor Discusses Flying Into MOAs

The bottom line is simply this: the Pilatus was not damaged, and no one was
injured. The affronted pilot has no way of proving that he was in danger or
that an FAR was violated. With no damage or injury, the FAA has other issues
to pursue. Likewise, since there was no damage or injury, the Air Force has
no real interest in making this a big deal either. From a safety perspective
they may have the pilot review intercept procedures.

Endless speculation and righteous indignation by people who weren't there
and know nothing about the procedures is just a waste of time, and won't
affect the final outcome.

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 06:53:54 -0500, "Viperdoc"
wrote in
:

The bottom line is simply this: the Pilatus was not damaged, and no one was
injured. The affronted pilot has no way of proving that he was in danger or
that an FAR was violated. With no damage or injury, the FAA has other issues
to pursue. Likewise, since there was no damage or injury, the Air Force has
no real interest in making this a big deal either. From a safety perspective
they may have the pilot review intercept procedures.

Endless speculation and righteous indignation by people who weren't there
and know nothing about the procedures is just a waste of time, and won't
affect the final outcome.


Not only that, but there should be a feeling of brotherhood among all
airmen (military and civil alike), that is at least capable of
transcending this possibly imprudent incident.

But you've got to understand, that the Pilatus pilot is an attorney.
So he's accustomed to publicly voicing his point of view. And it
seems that a healthy dose of arrogance is a requisite ingredient of a
fighter jock.

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.

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.

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.

Viperdoc wrote:
Look up MARSA.

I am not defending or rationalizing the actions of the pilots involved- they
in fact may have been in error.

I doubt that anyone will see the HUD tapes since by definintion they are
classified, but I am confident that a variety of people will review them
within the wing. You suggested that the FAA and Air Force were somehow in
collusion in hiding the facts, but having personal experience in this, it
simply would not be the case.

You also implied that perhaps the flyers were on stimulants during this
episode, without evidence. Why create conjecture and innuendo that simply
fuels the fires of controversy? To what purpose does this serve?

If you're so suspicious of the government and its processes, try moving to a
third world country (where I just returned for the AF), where you'd be
thankful you had one solid meal a day (if any), and the government doesn't
mean anything.

I can categorically state that the Air Force and other military personnel
that I've had the privilege of working with through the years have been some
of the most dedicated and ethical people that I have ever met, and your
comments and suspicions demean their efforts and sacrifice.

Jim Ninomiya



While I have in this thread fully supported the USAF in this issue. I do
have to say that saying the HUD tapes can't be released because they are
classified bothers me somewhat. We see HUD tapes of REAL combat missions
all the time. I doubt that seeing this one from a training exercise
where there are FAA radar tapes of the incident would in any way effect
national security and it would certainly clear up the issue. And if
there is something on the tapes that shows some new gizmo that is a
secret blur it out.

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 00:15:48 GMT, "Mike Isaksen"
wrote in UcvPj.5998$kt1.1159@trndny06:

At 600 feet I doubt any reasonable pilot would win a claim of "formation flying".


Six hundred feet is markedly less 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.


And it's your word against mine. Nayh nayh.... Well it's two eye
witnesses against one. But nothing will come of it.






Hey. Did you see this?


Monday, Apr. 21, 2008
http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...733747,00.html
If Defense Secretary Robert Gates has his hands full fighting wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq, he didn't show it Monday morning when he fired a
volley at his own Air Force for doing too little in both war theaters.
Gates' comments ricocheted at supersonic speed around the Pentagon and
across broader defense networks, as officers — and contractors — tried
to parse their implications. His bottom line: The Air Force ought to
be less concerned with buying more $350 million F-22 fighters for use
in future wars that may never happen, and do more to deliver what is
needed to fight the wars currently under way "while their outcome may
still be in doubt."

Gates, himself a former Air Force officer (he served from 1967-69 in
the Strategic Air Command), told young officers at Maxwell Air Force
Base that the nation needs new ways of thinking about warfare. Gates
may still be smarting from the fact that when he was CIA chief in
1992, the Air Force refused to invest in a spy drone because it didn't
have a pilot. The same kinds of disputes, most notably in the Air
Force, persist today over Iraq and Afghanistan. "I've been wrestling
for months to get more intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
assets into the theater," he said at the Montgomery, Ala., base.
"Because people were stuck in old ways of doing business, it's been
like pulling teeth." ...

But the Air Force may have been its own worst enemy. A contract
awarded to Boeing for a new fleet of aerial tankers had to be rebid
after the corruption involved in the decision had been exposed; the
new bidding process was won by a European consortium. Twice in the
past year, the service seems to have misplaced sensitive nuclear
components, including nuclear-tipped missiles that flew across the
U.S. unbeknownst to the chain of command. Its chief of staff, General
Michael Moseley, was implicated last week in a bizarre plot to steer a
$50 million contract to friends to develop ground-based entertainment
for use during shows by the Air Force Thunderbirds precision-flying
team. Gates mentioned none of this in his speech at Maxwell. Instead,
he said he had "raised difficult questions with, perhaps, difficult
answers," and encouraged the young Air Force officers "to be part of
the solution and part of the future."

Gig 601Xl Builder writes:

While I have in this thread fully supported the USAF in this issue. I do
have to say that saying the HUD tapes can't be released because they are
classified bothers me somewhat. We see HUD tapes of REAL combat missions
all the time. I doubt that seeing this one from a training exercise
where there are FAA radar tapes of the incident would in any way effect
national security and it would certainly clear up the issue. And if
there is something on the tapes that shows some new gizmo that is a
secret blur it out.

The tapes are not being released because they prove that the civilian pilots
were right.

"Viperdoc" wrote in message
...

How's this?
"What's the purpose of making a visual ID on a plane, and getting its
attention, and
trying to discern the intent of a pilot who entered an airspace that he is
free to enter? "


Better to let your newsreader do it.



My answer remains the same. I wasn't there, so don't know why they tried
to do an intercept, especially in a MOA and not a restricted or prohibited
area.


So it doesn't matter if the pilots being intercepted are in airspace where
they don't belong or are in airspace where they have a right to be?



How can any of us guess at what someone else was thinking at a given
time or place?


Actually, guessing at what someone else was thinking at a given time or
place is easy. Knowing what someone else was thinking at a given time or
place is hard.



Maybe you can answer the question- can RAPCON or Center radar even resolve
600 feet (say versus 200 or 800) of two passing aircraft, assuming the
radar sweep paints them at the instant they are in closest proximity?


I don't know. 600 feet is just under a tenth of a mile, when incidents
where a loss of standard separation are investigated the actual lateral
separation is determined to tenths of a mile, as I recall. I've always
questioned the reliability of those measurements.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Mike Isaksen writes:

At 600 feet I doubt any reasonable pilot
would win a claim of "formation flying".

At 600 feet it's really hard to ID an aircraft, at least if you want the tail
number.

Are you on dope? Any one with good vision, and F-16 pilots generally
have better than average vision, should be able to read a tail number at
600 feet.

Gig 601Xl Builder writes:

Are you on dope? Any one with good vision, and F-16 pilots generally
have better than average vision, should be able to read a tail number at
600 feet.

Show me.

Mxsmanic wrote:


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.

I don't believe people based on credentials or position; I've learned the hard
way that it's very dangerous to do so. I prefer hard evidence, but for some
reason the AF isn't willing to provide it. "Trust us" doesn't work with me.

You are doing exactly that. You are believing the civilian pilot because
of his position as NOT an Air Force officer. As far as evidence the
civilian isn't offering any either.