USAF F-16 Instructor Discusses Flying Into MOAs

"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.

Mxsmanic wrote:
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.

YOu have no way to know that.

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.

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.

"Viperdoc" wrote in message
...

Look up MARSA.


MARSA is irrelevant to the incidents under discussion.



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.


Tapes of combat operations have been released and televised. I am confident
that if the tape supported the USAF pilot's story it would be released.

Larry Dighera wrote:



Six hundred feet is markedly less than 500 feet:

OH MY GOD!!!! This may be the stupidest thing you have ever written in
your life and for you that is saying something.

Gig 601Xl Builder writes:

YOu have no way to know that.

I'm certain of it. Prove me wrong.

Mxsmanic wrote:
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.


1. If you don't have 20/20 vision find someone who does.

2. Go to an airport.

3. Find an airplane.

4. Walk up to airplane.

5. Walk 200 steps away from airplane.

6. Turn around face airplane.

7. Read registration.

"Viperdoc" wrote in message
...

MARSA is standard procedure for maneuvering and working in a MOA,
particularly in practicing air to air.


MARSA has no meaning where ATC has no responsibility for separation.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Gig 601Xl Builder writes:

YOu have no way to know that.

I'm certain of it. Prove me wrong.

The party making the claim has the burden of proof.

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?