USAF F-16 Instructor Discusses Flying Into MOAs

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 13:18:46 -0700 (PDT), buttman
wrote:

On Apr 4, 11:17*am, Larry Dighera wrote:

While I can appreciate the AF's frustration at having their training
exercises interrupted, I doubt that that gives them license to violate
FAR 91.111(b) by flying in formation with a civilian aircraft without
prior arrangement.

The military doesn't have to obey the FARs. They have their own rules
they go by.

That is true. However AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 11-202 pretty much
parallels the FARs.

http://www.f-16.net/downloads_file25.html

It doesn't merely parallel the FARs, it _incorporates_ them:

"1.1.2. This AFI is a common source of flight directives that include:
1.1.2.1. Air Force-specific guidance.
1.1.2.2. Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs).
[...]
1.2.1. The PIC will ensure compliance with the following:
[...]
1.2.1.3. The FARs when operating within the United States including
the airspace overlying the waters out to 12 miles from the US
coast, unless the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has
excluded military operations."

On Apr 4, 2:28*pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
Larry Dighera wrote:

The military doesn't have to obey the FARs. They have their own rules
they go by.

That is true. *However AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 11-202 pretty much
parallels the FARs.


Perhaps the point though is that the FAA cannot take action against
the F-16 pilot. Perhaps if he has a civilian ticket they can suspend
it but he may not even care. In anycase, I just hope that the
visibility of this has been enough to discourage this type of incident
from happening in the future. I fly with my 2 young sons in the back.
I would be pretty upset if we were assulted in such a way.

-Robert

On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 16:28:02 -0500, Jim Logajan
wrote:

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 13:18:46 -0700 (PDT), buttman
wrote:

On Apr 4, 11:17*am, Larry Dighera wrote:

While I can appreciate the AF's frustration at having their training
exercises interrupted, I doubt that that gives them license to violate
FAR 91.111(b) by flying in formation with a civilian aircraft without
prior arrangement.

The military doesn't have to obey the FARs. They have their own rules
they go by.

That is true. However AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 11-202 pretty much
parallels the FARs.

http://www.f-16.net/downloads_file25.html

It doesn't merely parallel the FARs, it _incorporates_ them:

"1.1.2. This AFI is a common source of flight directives that include:
1.1.2.1. Air Force-specific guidance.
1.1.2.2. Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs).
[...]
1.2.1. The PIC will ensure compliance with the following:
[...]
1.2.1.3. The FARs when operating within the United States including
the airspace overlying the waters out to 12 miles from the US
coast, unless the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has
excluded military operations."

So it would appear that the F-16 pilot in this case violated
regulations when he formed up on the Pilatus.

The problem with military regulations violations is, that the military
doesn't discipline their ranks commensurate with the violation(s).
Consider flight-lead Parker who lead his wingman into a fatal MAC with
a Cessna 172 on November 16, 2000. He failed to comply with
regulations to brief the terminal airspace, failed to obtain the
required ATC clearance to enter congested Class B and C terminal
airspace, and a list of other violations, but he only received a
verbal reprimand. In another incident, an A4 on a MTR hit a glider,
and the Navy and NTH found the glider at fault despite its having the
right-of-way. And with the current administration, you can expect a
further decline in justice in our fair nation.

And with the current administration, you can expect a
further decline in justice in our fair nation.

With respect to illegal immigration, yes. In all other respects, you're way
better off than you'd be with any alternative administration.

Larry Dighera wrote:
And with the current administration, you can expect a
further decline in justice in our fair nation.

Larry, did you ever decide why, if the government would go to all the
trouble of setting up a big lie to get us into Iraq they wouldn't plant
the WMDs they lied about in the first place?

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 09:38:20 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:

Larry Dighera wrote:
And with the current administration, you can expect a
further decline in justice in our fair nation.

Larry, did you ever decide why, if the government would go to all the
trouble of setting up a big lie to get us into Iraq they wouldn't plant
the WMDs they lied about in the first place?

There was no need to find WMD; their objectives were accomplished when
the RNC and their spokes-puppet Bush under the direction of
Darth-Chenny conned us into engaging in the Iraq war for personal and
political gain.

Watch the 1st half of Frontline piece, and your questions will be
answered: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/ . Until
you've done that, you lack the proper perspective to discuss the
topic.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 09:38:20 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:

Larry Dighera wrote:
And with the current administration, you can expect a
further decline in justice in our fair nation.
Larry, did you ever decide why, if the government would go to all the
trouble of setting up a big lie to get us into Iraq they wouldn't plant
the WMDs they lied about in the first place?

There was no need to find WMD; their objectives were accomplished when
the RNC and their spokes-puppet Bush under the direction of
Darth-Chenny conned us into engaging in the Iraq war for personal and
political gain.

You have got to be kidding! If there had been evidence of WMD or better
yet a tank full of anthrax sitting next to a missile delivery system the
American people would still be 75% in support of any action that the
Bush administration has taken or might ever take in the Mid-East.



Watch the 1st half of Frontline piece, and your questions will be
answered: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/ . Until
you've done that, you lack the proper perspective to discuss the
topic.

Eat **** Larry. I don't get all my news and current events information
from a single source and anyone that does be it PBS or Fox News is an
idiot. I'm pretty sure if they had come up with some new information
that proves that the Bush administration intentionally lied about WMDs
I'd have heard about it. Probably from C-SPAN when the article of
impeachment were drawn up.

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 11:41:49 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 09:38:20 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:

Larry Dighera wrote:
And with the current administration, you can expect a
further decline in justice in our fair nation.
Larry, did you ever decide why, if the government would go to all the
trouble of setting up a big lie to get us into Iraq they wouldn't plant
the WMDs they lied about in the first place?

There was no need to find WMD; their objectives were accomplished when
the RNC and their spokes-puppet Bush under the direction of
Darth-Chenny conned us into engaging in the Iraq war for personal and
political gain.

You have got to be kidding! If there had been evidence of WMD or better
yet a tank full of anthrax sitting next to a missile delivery system the
American people would still be 75% in support of any action that the
Bush administration has taken or might ever take in the Mid-East.


Why would they need that?


Watch the 1st half of Frontline piece, and your questions will be
answered: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/ . Until
you've done that, you lack the proper perspective to discuss the
topic.

Eat **** Larry.

No thanks.

I don't get all my news and current events information
from a single source and anyone that does be it PBS or Fox News is an
idiot. I'm pretty sure if they had come up with some new information
that proves that the Bush administration intentionally lied about WMDs
I'd have heard about it. Probably from C-SPAN when the article of
impeachment were drawn up.

Who cares?

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 11:41:49 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 09:38:20 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:

Larry Dighera wrote:
And with the current administration, you can expect a
further decline in justice in our fair nation.
Larry, did you ever decide why, if the government would go to all the
trouble of setting up a big lie to get us into Iraq they wouldn't plant
the WMDs they lied about in the first place?
There was no need to find WMD; their objectives were accomplished when
the RNC and their spokes-puppet Bush under the direction of
Darth-Chenny conned us into engaging in the Iraq war for personal and
political gain.
You have got to be kidding! If there had been evidence of WMD or better
yet a tank full of anthrax sitting next to a missile delivery system the
American people would still be 75% in support of any action that the
Bush administration has taken or might ever take in the Mid-East.


Why would they need that?


So they could keep there profiteering as an ongoing enterprise for more
than 8 years? If it weren't for the war in Iraq the Dems wouldn't have a
chance in hell of winning in '08. Even with the war it isn't a sure thing.

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 11:41:49 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:

Eat **** Larry.

*plonk*
--
Kyla%b
now deleting entire thread