MOA's

[Kilo Charlie]

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/peoria/articles/0524gl-peoflight24Z2.html

Casey Lenox
Phoenix

[snoop]

Casey,

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. This reminds me of another
airspace grab, a few years ago, when Mike and I went to Philmont Scout
Camp, in Cimmaron, NM for a twelve day backpack trek.
At the time, the latest airspace grab by the Air Force, and widely
discussed in the local papers, was right over Philmont.
One day as we were hiking I heard that initial whistle of a jet
engine, and a couple of seconds later here comes, at tree top level,
going mighty fast, and loud, was an f-16, and a f-15. My first thought
was, why do they need this airspace, now, over this established land?
You guys stick with the fight Casey. I don't believe for a second that
the Academy guys pulled out in protest. They were probably told to pull
out.
You know why Asia needs pilots, from the west to fill their cockpits,
and train their pilots? Because the military controls all the airspace,
and thus there has never been any kind, of general aviation for the kid
sitting on the fence, to go to.

[[email protected]]

I thought that I left all of this unpleasant "grab for power" on the
other side of the pond but I think I was wrong....stick to your fight
guys.

Jacek
Washington State

[Eric Greenwell]

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.

The Region 8 contests have used MOA airspace every year for decades, for
both regional and national contests. In our area, the military's major
concern is conflicts on the low level routes, which are mostly outside
the MOA's, and we get a briefing on these before each contest.


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

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

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

[[email protected]]

What do you expect from someone who (reportedly) said "...they have to
go where the wind is."

We know where the REAL 'wind' is!

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> 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.
>
> The Region 8 contests have used MOA airspace every year for decades, for
> both regional and national contests. In our area, the military's major
> concern is conflicts on the low level routes, which are mostly outside
> the MOA's, and we get a briefing on these before each contest.
>
>
> --
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
>
> www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
> Operation"

[Mike the Strike]

It was unfortunate since we've had a good discussion going on between
ASA and Luke AFB for three months and the persons complaining didn't
bother to check with their own liaison personnel or us before firing
complaints off in every direction - to the FAA, local city managers and
the press.

For Region 9, we'd agreed to avoid tasking completely in one MOA and to
avoid one sector of another one and requested in return they keep
military aircraft above glider operating altitudes for the three hours
or so on the four days we'll be in potential conflict in the two
remaining segments. (For the last couple of days, top of the boundary
layer has been below the MOA floor of 7,000 feet) We'd also agreed to
use steering turns to move gliders further away from training and
approach areas.

Rewards for this cooperation are threats to close down our glider field
permanently and requests to the FAA to ban gliders from MOAs
completely.

No good deed goes unpunished!

Mike

[Gary Evans]

At 18:30 25 May 2006, Mike The Strike wrote:
>It was unfortunate since we've had a good discussion
>going on between
>ASA and Luke AFB for three months and the persons complaining
>didn't
>bother to check with their own liaison personnel or
>us before firing
>complaints off in every direction - to the FAA, local
>city managers and
>the press.
>
>For Region 9, we'd agreed to avoid tasking completely
>in one MOA and to
>avoid one sector of another one and requested in return
>they keep
>military aircraft above glider operating altitudes
>for the three hours
>or so on the four days we'll be in potential conflict
>in the two
>remaining segments. (For the last couple of days,
>top of the boundary
>layer has been below the MOA floor of 7,000 feet)
>We'd also agreed to
>use steering turns to move gliders further away from
>training and
>approach areas.
>
>Rewards for this cooperation are threats to close down
>our glider field
>permanently and requests to the FAA to ban gliders
>from MOAs
>completely.
>
>No good deed goes unpunished!
>
>Mike
>
>

I would keep AOPA advised of any airport and/or MOA
threats coming out of Luke AFB. AOPA has the clout
of numbers to get FAA's attention. A military recommendation
to close MOA’s to any civilian aircraft is a serious
matter.

[Paul M. Cordell]

Gary Evans wrote:
> At 18:30 25 May 2006, Mike The Strike wrote:
>
>>It was unfortunate since we've had a good discussion
>>going on between
>>ASA and Luke AFB for three months and the persons complaining
>>didn't
>>bother to check with their own liaison personnel or
>>us before firing
>>complaints off in every direction - to the FAA, local
>>city managers and
>>the press.
>>
>>For Region 9, we'd agreed to avoid tasking completely
>>in one MOA and to
>>avoid one sector of another one and requested in return
>>they keep
>>military aircraft above glider operating altitudes
>>for the three hours
>>or so on the four days we'll be in potential conflict
>>in the two
>>remaining segments. (For the last couple of days,
>>top of the boundary
>>layer has been below the MOA floor of 7,000 feet)
>>We'd also agreed to
>>use steering turns to move gliders further away from
>>training and
>>approach areas.
>>
>>Rewards for this cooperation are threats to close down
>>our glider field
>>permanently and requests to the FAA to ban gliders
>
>>from MOAs
>
>>completely.
>>
>>No good deed goes unpunished!
>>
>>Mike
>>
>>
>
>
> I would keep AOPA advised of any airport and/or MOA
> threats coming out of Luke AFB. AOPA has the clout
> of numbers to get FAA's attention. A military recommendation
> to close MOA’s to any civilian aircraft is a serious
> matter.
>
>
>
The regional AOPA rep has been CC'd on all discussions and corespondence.

[Mike the Strike]

Even though glider pilots represent a small part of AOPA's membership,
they have been very pro-active in our area in helping to ward off some
proposed airspace restrictions. Our local AOPA rep is great and
understands glider operations.

Mike

[[email protected]]

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

[Ramy]

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/peoria/articles/0524gl-peoflight24Z2.html
>
> Casey Lenox
> Phoenix

[Frank Whiteley]

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

[Jack]

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

[Marc Ramsey]

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

[Mike the Strike]

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.

[Eric Greenwell]

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"

[Ramy]

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

[Greg Arnold]

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.

[BTIZ]

they cannot restrict one category or class of aircraft with restricting all
and they cannot treat one MOA any differently than another
BT

"Mike the Strike" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> It was unfortunate since we've had a good discussion going on between
> ASA and Luke AFB for three months and the persons complaining didn't
> bother to check with their own liaison personnel or us before firing
> complaints off in every direction - to the FAA, local city managers and
> the press.
>
> For Region 9, we'd agreed to avoid tasking completely in one MOA and to
> avoid one sector of another one and requested in return they keep
> military aircraft above glider operating altitudes for the three hours
> or so on the four days we'll be in potential conflict in the two
> remaining segments. (For the last couple of days, top of the boundary
> layer has been below the MOA floor of 7,000 feet) We'd also agreed to
> use steering turns to move gliders further away from training and
> approach areas.
>
> Rewards for this cooperation are threats to close down our glider field
> permanently and requests to the FAA to ban gliders from MOAs
> completely.
>
> No good deed goes unpunished!
>
> Mike
>

[Gary Emerson]

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/peoria/articles/0524gl-peoflight24Z2.html
>
> Casey Lenox
> Phoenix
>
>

[Ian Cant]

At 11:24 26 May 2006, Gary Emerson wrote:
>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?'
>

Or better still, offer him a ride in a Duo during the
contest ?

Ian

[[email protected]]

Luke AFB decided this afternoon to suspend training in all MOAs
starting at 1300 hours next week. No doubt they're going to turn around
and use that as ammunition to lobby the FAA for reclassification of
those MOAs as restricted airspace.

I sure hope that SSA and the AOPA will be heavily involved in this
battle. I for one plan on making more than a little crunching sound
when that big foot starts to come down from on high!

~ted/2NO

[Gary Evans]

At 23:06 26 May 2006, wrote:
>Luke AFB decided this afternoon to suspend training
>in all MOAs
>starting at 1300 hours next week. No doubt they're
>going to turn around
>and use that as ammunition to lobby the FAA for reclassification
>of
>those MOAs as restricted airspace.
>
>I sure hope that SSA and the AOPA will be heavily involved
>in this
>battle. I for one plan on making more than a little
>crunching sound
>when that big foot starts to come down from on high!
>
>~ted/2NO
>
>

OK that’s one less thing to worry about in the air.
So I guess push now has come to shove with the local
Military. I went out today and flew through an MOA
just because I can and will continue to do so since
regs permit it. The person at Luke making this bad
call may be biting off more than they can chew.
Would he be happy if all airspace around Phoenix was
reserved for their training flights? What they need
to recommend is that all of this airspce is changed
from MOA's to restricted. Good luck!

[Jack]

Is this something like flying R/C above 400' within 4 miles of the
airport? The rules say the airport manager has to be NOTIFIED. It does
NOT say that he has to grant permission. We got into that once flying
R/C Sailplanes when the local airport manager came ranting that even
though we had posted on his bulliten board and sent him a registered
letter, that he had not APPROVED it. We showed him the ruile and asked
him to show us where it said he had to. We never heard from him again,
and flew there for years after the airport had been made into a housing
addition. MOA airspace belongs to the public, not the government.
There's way too much of it to lose. I, too, hope the SSA and AOPA step
in on this one.

Jack Womack

[Eric Greenwell]

Jack wrote:
> Is this something like flying R/C above 400' within 4 miles of the
> airport? The rules say the airport manager has to be NOTIFIED. It does
> NOT say that he has to grant permission. We got into that once flying
> R/C Sailplanes when the local airport manager came ranting that even
> though we had posted on his bulliten board and sent him a registered
> letter, that he had not APPROVED it. We showed him the ruile and asked
> him to show us where it said he had to. We never heard from him again,
> and flew there for years after the airport had been made into a housing
> addition. MOA airspace belongs to the public, not the government.
> There's way too much of it to lose. I, too, hope the SSA and AOPA step
> in on this one.

We should be careful not to lump the FAA into the same "government" as
the military on this one. Our experience in Washington State (and I
think elsewhere) is that the FAA is not keen to have public airspace
transformed into military airspace. It doesn't make their job any easier.

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

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

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

[Mike the Strike]

Again, MOAs are shared airspace that have military activity. Other
aircraft have free unfettered access and don't have to either ask
permission or inform military authorities.

Our contest coordination was a courtesy to inform others of potential
conflict and to find a mutually acceptable way to address it.

In 40+ years of flying in the area, including at least two earlier
contests in the same area, we have had no reported conflict between
military aircraft and gliders. Previous coordination has worked
successfully with no major impact on either the miltary or the contest.

However, there have been conflicts between military traffic and general
aviation that have led to the request for more restrictions. The
glider contest appears to be a convenient weapon for the military to
argue for further restricted airspace.

Mike

[Gary Emerson]

wrote:
> Luke AFB decided this afternoon to suspend training in all MOAs
> starting at 1300 hours next week. No doubt they're going to turn around
> and use that as ammunition to lobby the FAA for reclassification of
> those MOAs as restricted airspace.
>
> I sure hope that SSA and the AOPA will be heavily involved in this
> battle. I for one plan on making more than a little crunching sound
> when that big foot starts to come down from on high!
>
> ~ted/2NO
>

Here is an opportunity to lay some positive groundwork no only for this
location, but for everyone in soaring.

Not being familiar with the site location details, but let's say that
you expect weather to keep cloudbase (and therefore gliders) below say
10k ft. (pick whatever altitude is realistic, yet conservative)

Call up the base commander, say "Hey, we heard you canceled all your
operations for next week. We're highly confident that we're not going
to exceed 10k ft (or whatever the number is). If you simply keep
everyone above 10k, we're going to be able to co-exist and you'll be
able to keep training on schedule."

The ride in a Duo is a great idea as well...

This is only a suggestion, but you see where it's headed - maybe there
are other ways to soften this impact on the folks at Luke and we all
benefit later..

[Mike the Strike]

Gary Emerson wrote:
> wrote:
> > Luke AFB decided this afternoon to suspend training in all MOAs
> > starting at 1300 hours next week. No doubt they're going to turn around
> > and use that as ammunition to lobby the FAA for reclassification of
> > those MOAs as restricted airspace.
> >
> > I sure hope that SSA and the AOPA will be heavily involved in this
> > battle. I for one plan on making more than a little crunching sound
> > when that big foot starts to come down from on high!
> >
> > ~ted/2NO
> >
>
> Here is an opportunity to lay some positive groundwork no only for this
> location, but for everyone in soaring.
>
> Not being familiar with the site location details, but let's say that
> you expect weather to keep cloudbase (and therefore gliders) below say
> 10k ft. (pick whatever altitude is realistic, yet conservative)
>

That was exactly our approach - I was chosen as the liaison guy 'cos I
forecast the weather. We also agreed to stay out of one MOA completely
and one sector of a second one.

Mike


> Call up the base commander, say "Hey, we heard you canceled all your
> operations for next week. We're highly confident that we're not going
> to exceed 10k ft (or whatever the number is). If you simply keep
> everyone above 10k, we're going to be able to co-exist and you'll be
> able to keep training on schedule."
>
> The ride in a Duo is a great idea as well...
>
> This is only a suggestion, but you see where it's headed - maybe there
> are other ways to soften this impact on the folks at Luke and we all
> benefit later..