F16 - MOA Operations

Somehow flying VFR so close to the base of an MOA was not a real bright idea.

But, as someone else said, the TCAS alert is also a rule. You follow it. If it leads you into an MOA that's the way it goes.

What I thought the problem here was though is that the pilot was legally VFR, just under the MOA. The TCAS alert forced him up, not only into the MOA, but into Positive Control Airspace that the civilian controllers did not control at the time.

Sounds like this one is a bit complicated.

Jetwhine
 
Jetwhine said:
Somehow flying VFR so close to the base of an MOA was not a real bright idea.

But, as someone else said, the TCAS alert is also a rule. You follow it. If it leads you into an MOA that's the way it goes.

What I thought the problem here was though is that the pilot was legally VFR, just under the MOA. The TCAS alert forced him up, not only into the MOA, but into Positive Control Airspace that the civilian controllers did not control at the time.

Sounds like this one is a bit complicated.

Jetwhine
Click to expand...
Not really a problem. You can do anything, including violating Class A, B, restricted or prohibited airspaces if you're doing so in response to a TCAS II resolution advisory.
 
Jetwhine said:
Somehow flying VFR so close to the base of an MOA was not a real bright idea.

But, as someone else said, the TCAS alert is also a rule. You follow it. If it leads you into an MOA that's the way it goes.

What I thought the problem here was though is that the pilot was legally VFR, just under the MOA. The TCAS alert forced him up, not only into the MOA, but into Positive Control Airspace that the civilian controllers did not control at the time.
Click to expand...


Actually, I think the idea was that he was in the MOA, and the TCAS forced him up into the PCA.

Now, flying VFR in a MOA is perfectly legal. It's just not a great idea, if you can avoid it. At the very least, I think it would be prudent as a VFR pilot to try not to hang out in it. Try to fly the shortest route through that you can, and probably closer to the top or the bottom than right through the MIDDLE. Squawking on a transponder, and getting flight following are probably good ideas also, but at the very absolute least, know that it's there and clear aggressively as you transit.

If you don't squawk or talk to anyone, you could potentially be mistaken for a military aircraft or a target. Or you may wind up a conflict with an aerobatic maneuver that the military aircraft may not be able to terminate immediately. I'd hate to imagine what might happen to a guy that flies through the MOA that I operate in a few thousand feet below my altitude while I'm in the middle of a spin, or on the back side of a loop in loose formation.
 
I've alll ready had some spirited debates about this on some other boards, so I'll keep comments brief here.

Yep, it's perfectly legal for the Pilatus and the Premier to roll through GLAD/BAG MOA. Not very smart, and a real dick move which had a more significant impact on military training than they realize...but totally legal none the less.

The Viper driver had no reason to go actually intercept the two airplanes except to send them a message that "we're here!". I suspect the real reason is that on both occasions the F-16 guy was going to VID the tail number of the Pilatus and the Premier, but that's just speculation on my part. I've been similarly pissed when civil traffic has gone through a MOA I was working, and thought about doing that several times, but never acted on it. So long as he obeyed the "well clear" rules, he was legal to do it (regardless of what the TCAS RA "made" the Premier pilot do). If he was intentionally inside of "well clear", then he's clearly violating some rules and should be reprimanded.

The "10 feet" report from the Premier pilot is ridiculously unreliable. The radar data from both the ground radar and the F-16's on-board radar show otherwise. Besides, it is TOUGH to accurately tell distance while flying, and an angry/surprised/startled pilot who is not used to seeing other aircraft flying close to him would be highly susceptible to either exaggeration of the distance or misperception of the distance.

The F-16 driver knows exactly what 500 feet from another airplane looks like (it is an 11-214 Training Rule for air-air combat) and practices it often against many different types of aircraft. The F-16 driver also honors that 500-foot bubble religiously because of the legal implications of going inside it. I doubt with every bone in my body that the F-16 guy was inside of 500 feet. However, that doesn't mean it didn't happen. If evidence arises that he WAS inside 500 feet, then I'll be the first one to say that he was wrong.

Yet again, this incident shows the massive ignorance the civil and military flying communities have toward each other. Many civil pilots seem to think that their "legal right" to fly through a MOA means they ignore when it's hot to save some time and bucks, and have a huge impact on military training. Many military pilots have little or no experience as civilian pilots, and think that they own the skies, neither desiring nor knowing how to play nice with others.
 
fish314 said:
Actually, I think the idea was that he was in the MOA, and the TCAS forced him up into the PCA.

Now, flying VFR in a MOA is perfectly legal. It's just not a great idea, if you can avoid it. At the very least, I think it would be prudent as a VFR pilot to try not to hang out in it. Try to fly the shortest route through that you can, and probably closer to the top or the bottom than right through the MIDDLE. Squawking on a transponder, and getting flight following are probably good ideas also, but at the very absolute least, know that it's there and clear aggressively as you transit.

If you don't squawk or talk to anyone, you could potentially be mistaken for a military aircraft or a target. Or you may wind up a conflict with an aerobatic maneuver that the military aircraft may not be able to terminate immediately. I'd hate to imagine what might happen to a guy that flies through the MOA that I operate in a few thousand feet below my altitude while I'm in the middle of a spin, or on the back side of a loop in loose formation.
Click to expand...

. . .Fish, what do you fly?
 
Hey Max,

I used to fly KC-135's (they're air-to-air refuelers based on a 707 airframe). About 2.5 years ago, I switched over to the T-37 Tweet, which is a fully aerobatic jet trainer. Basically it's the first airplane that USAF pilots train on (practically speaking-- they get about 20 hours in a C172 before entering training), and we did aerobatic, instrument, and basic formation training in it.

Then about a year ago, I switched over to something called the T-6 (not the same as the WWII T-6, just named after it). The T-6 is replacing the T-37, and does the same type of stuff. It does it with a single engine turboprop rather than a twin engine jet, though. Comperable performance, but MUCH less fuel burn.
 
Hacker15e said:
I've alll ready had some spirited debates about this on some other boards, so I'll keep comments brief here.

Yep, it's perfectly legal for the Pilatus and the Premier to roll through GLAD/BAG MOA. Not very smart, and a real dick move which had a more significant impact on military training than they realize...but totally legal none the less.

The Viper driver had no reason to go actually intercept the two airplanes except to send them a message that "we're here!". I suspect the real reason is that on both occasions the F-16 guy was going to VID the tail number of the Pilatus and the Premier, but that's just speculation on my part. I've been similarly pissed when civil traffic has gone through a MOA I was working, and thought about doing that several times, but never acted on it. So long as he obeyed the "well clear" rules, he was legal to do it (regardless of what the TCAS RA "made" the Premier pilot do). If he was intentionally inside of "well clear", then he's clearly violating some rules and should be reprimanded.

The "10 feet" report from the Premier pilot is ridiculously unreliable. The radar data from both the ground radar and the F-16's on-board radar show otherwise. Besides, it is TOUGH to accurately tell distance while flying, and an angry/surprised/startled pilot who is not used to seeing other aircraft flying close to him would be highly susceptible to either exaggeration of the distance or misperception of the distance.

The F-16 driver knows exactly what 500 feet from another airplane looks like (it is an 11-214 Training Rule for air-air combat) and practices it often against many different types of aircraft. The F-16 driver also honors that 500-foot bubble religiously because of the legal implications of going inside it. I doubt with every bone in my body that the F-16 guy was inside of 500 feet. However, that doesn't mean it didn't happen. If evidence arises that he WAS inside 500 feet, then I'll be the first one to say that he was wrong.

Yet again, this incident shows the massive ignorance the civil and military flying communities have toward each other. Many civil pilots seem to think that their "legal right" to fly through a MOA means they ignore when it's hot to save some time and bucks, and have a huge impact on military training. Many military pilots have little or no experience as civilian pilots, and think that they own the skies, neither desiring nor knowing how to play nice with others.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
I flew MAY flights entirely within that MOA, launching out of Glendale. I've seen Vipers many times. However, I never ventured into it without receiving VFR flight following services from Luke Approach Control. SOmetimes they were even so nice to clear me through their Luke Class D airspace.

I've had Vipers get pretty close to me (1 mile), and Luke Approach never said a word. Other times they would be ten thousand feet above me and Luke would tell me ten times.

Bottom line is that the MOA is used by about 4 different flight schools for flight training west of Lake Pleasant. Most of the time the only reason that MOA is hot is because the Vipers are jamming down to GIla Bend to drop some ordinance, then they come home and fly some crazy arrival pattern through that MOA when landing to the south at Luke.

I read something that said in the past couple years the F16s have had like 70 or so near mid-airs in the Northwest Valley i this MOA. Staggering. Can't remember where I read it.
 
Has the F-16 always had the "Viper" nickname? This is the first time I've heard it. I've always heard "Falcon" or "Fighting Falcon".
 
jwp_145 said:
Most of the time the only reason that MOA is hot is because the Vipers are jamming down to GIla Bend to drop some ordinance, then they come home and fly some crazy arrival pattern through that MOA when landing to the south at Luke.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's correct.

I'm not a Viper guy, but the times I've flown out there as an adversary for the FTU squadrons GLAD/BAG has been used for ACM and ACT training (ergo, air-to-air stuff).
 
fish314 said:
Hey Max,

I used to fly KC-135's (they're air-to-air refuelers based on a 707 airframe). About 2.5 years ago, I switched over to the T-37 Tweet, which is a fully aerobatic jet trainer. Basically it's the first airplane that USAF pilots train on (practically speaking-- they get about 20 hours in a C172 before entering training), and we did aerobatic, instrument, and basic formation training in it.

Then about a year ago, I switched over to something called the T-6 (not the same as the WWII T-6, just named after it). The T-6 is replacing the T-37, and does the same type of stuff. It does it with a single engine turboprop rather than a twin engine jet, though. Comperable performance, but MUCH less fuel burn.
Click to expand...

Cool. Sounds like you're in training. If I might ask, what airframe will you be ultimately switched to?

From the types of trainers that you're currently flying, sounds like maybe a fighter jet is in your future.
 
I had an RA a few months ago that was triggered by a few F-16's that were nearly 10 miles away at about 10 o'clock.
 
Maximillian_Jenius said:
Cool. Sounds like you're in training. If I might ask, what airframe will you be ultimately switched to?

From the types of trainers that you're currently flying, sounds like maybe a fighter jet is in your future.
Click to expand...

sounds to me like while he's in training, he may be the trainer.
 
Maximillian_Jenius said:
Cool. Sounds like you're in training. If I might ask, what airframe will you be ultimately switched to?

From the types of trainers that you're currently flying, sounds like maybe a fighter jet is in your future.
Click to expand...

Max, fish is a UPT Instructor Pilot. He'll end up probably going back to the tanker world when he finishes this AETC tour.
 
Hacker15e said:
I don't think that's correct.

I'm not a Viper guy, but the times I've flown out there as an adversary for the FTU squadrons GLAD/BAG has been used for ACM and ACT training (ergo, air-to-air stuff).
Click to expand...

You would know better than I, as I was simply going by whenever they issued me F16 traffic it was always somewhere over the Rainbow Valley inbound, but that was only about twice a week I went out into the MOA.

I did one time ask the Luke Controller after receiving clearance through his airspace, "No Vipers in the air tonight?"

His reply, "I cannot confirm or deny that information sir."

I just chuckled and went about my business.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

NewsBot
  • Locked
Air Traffic Control Station
Replies
0
Views
193
NewsBot
NewsBot
NewsBot
  • Locked
Range Air Traffic Controller C
Replies
0
Views
232
NewsBot
NewsBot
NewsBot
  • Locked
Air Traffic Control Station (Base Operations)
Replies
0
Views
305
NewsBot
NewsBot
NewsBot
  • Locked
Air Traffic Control Terminal
Replies
0
Views
280
NewsBot
NewsBot
NewsBot
  • Locked
Air Traffic Control Station
Replies
0
Views
375
NewsBot
NewsBot
Back
Top