USAF F-16 Instructor Discusses Flying Into MOAs

[Larry Dighera]

So the question becomes, is the military exempt from its equivalent to
CFR Title 14, Part 91, Section 91.111(b):

§ 91.111 Operating near other aircraft.

(a) No person may operate an aircraft so close to another aircraft
as to create a collision hazard.

(b) No person may operate an aircraft in formation flight except
by arrangement with the pilot in command of each aircraft in the
formation.


The answer will be interesting. Given the military's role in
intercepting errant aircraft, my guess is that they are probably
exempt from § 91.111(b), else how could they conduct those operations
without violating that regulation.

Also interesting is the FAA's assertion that the Pilatus pilot was not
receiving traffic advisories from ATC contrary to his indicating that
he was receiving flight following at the time. Who are you going to
believe, the FAA or the airman?


>>> Close Encounters

F-16/PILATUS INCIDENT: AIR FORCE SAYS NO CLOSER THAN 600 FEET
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1097-full.html#197689)
The U.S. Air Force says that an F-16 came no closer than 600 feet
to a Pilatus PC-12 [piloted by Patrick McCall*] it intercepted
while flying VFR in the Gladden MOA near Phoenix last month.

An investigation by our sister publication, Aviation Safety,
scheduled to appear in the May issue, reveals that the Air Force’s
account of the intercept contrasts with McCall’s report. Major
Miki Gilloon, Luke Air Force Base’s public information officer,
told Aviation Safety that the F-16’s radar, head-up display and
HSD display tapes showed that the F-16 approached the PC-12 on a
parallel or divergent heading and got no closer than 600 feet.

She also said the F-16 did not counter the PC-12’s TCAS evasive
maneuvers but approached to visually identify it “in order to
contact the civilian pilot and educate him about the risks of
transiting an active MOA.” The F-16’s data tapes aren’t releasable
to the general public, according to Gilloon. However, the
investigation results will be available under the Freedom of
Information Act on the Luke Air Force Base web site
<http://www.luke.af.mil/library/foia.asp>.

The incident occurred on March 21 when the PC-12, flying VFR at
16,500 feet on a westerly heading through the MOA, transited
airspace in which four F-16s were conducting a two-on-two air
combat exercise. The training exercise was halted and three of the
F-16s orbited in holds while the lead aircraft conducted “a
properly executed standard maneuver such as he might do to gain a
visual contact with his flight leader or an aerial refueling
tanker,” Gilloon said “This was a controlled maneuver to ensure
that neither aircraft was placed in any danger.” She said the F-16
was “fully within Air Force rules” to conduct the intercept.

Military controllers alerted the four-ship flight to the presence
of the PC-12, but neither they nor the F-16s were aware of its
identity. “The civilian traffic was identified by the military
controlling agency as stranger traffic, possibly military. The
civil aircraft entered the MOA near our local military entry point
at the altitude and airspeed comparable to an F-16 and without a
VFR IFF squawk,” Gilloon said.

The FAA says that the PC-12 was not receiving traffic advisories
from Albuquerque Center, which owns the local airspace, although
McCall told us he was receiving flight following. Once the PC-12
was identified, the F-16 flight raised its tactical floor to
20,000 feet and resumed its training.

When asked about FAR 91.111, which prohibits unplanned formation
flight, Major Gilloon said “Our ongoing investigation has revealed
no indication whatsoever that the F-16 pilot violated any existing
military practices or procedures for operating military aircraft
in a MOA.” While the Aeronautical Information Manual notes that
military aircraft are exempt from some FARs, it’s unclear—at least
to us—if 91.111 is among them. However, the Air Force considers
500 feet of separation “well clear,” while the civil definition of
formation flight is ambiguous.

Both the Air Force and the FAA are continuing their investigation
into the incident. McCall has filed a near miss report with FAA,
but Gilloon said “it is not USAF policy to file complaints against
civilian aircraft legally operating in a MOA.” For more in
Aviation Safety’s May report, see www.aviationsafety.com. The
article will appear on the site next week.


http://ftwtexas.com/index.php?module=phpwsrssfeeds&RSS_MAN_op=view&PHPWS_MAN_ITEMS=8




http://www.aviationbull.com/2008/apr/19/why-smart-pilots-avoid-moas-long
According to AvWeb, McCall claims he had flight following while
flying through that MOA. Either he must be mistaken or he was
ignoring it because ATC is constantly watching MOA operations and
is very good about letting military and civilian pilots know about
traffic conflicts. If McCall had been on an IFR flight plan or
using flight following, he would have known that there was an F-16
closing on his position, but long before that he could have made
his intentions known to ATC and could have coordinated his flight
through the MOA with a minimal impact on the training activities
taking place.



http://www.aopa.org/flightplanning/articles/2008/080409f-16.html
We have been in frequent contact with both the FAA and the
military in regard to these incidents, and they are being taken
very seriously at the highest levels,” said Pete Lehmann, AOPA
manager of air traffic services. “Everyone involved agrees that we
must work together to find ways to safely share airspace and
prevent similar incidents in the future.” ...



http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/u-28.htm
Military
# U-28A Specifications
# U-28A Pictures

U-28A

The U-28A utility aircraft provides intra-theater support for
special operations forces. The U-28A is the Air Force variant of
the Pilatus PC-12 and was selected for its versatile performance
characteristics and ability to operate from short and unimproved
runway surfaces. The U-28A is also certified to land on dirt and
grass strips. The aircraft is equipped with weather radar and a
suite of advanced communications and navigation gear. This
single-engine utility aircraft has a crew of two, but can be flown
by one pilot. ...



* http://members.calbar.ca.gov/search/member_detail.aspx?x=108826
Patrick Anthony McCall
This member is active and may practice law in California
Undergraduate School California St Univ Long Beach; CA
Law School Western State Univ; CA
Legal Specialist Family Law (State Bar of California)
6/6/1983 Admitted to The State Bar of California

http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/92868-ca-patrick-mccall-365980/experience.html



https://amsrvs.registry.faa.gov/airmeninquiry/Detail.aspx?uniqid=A1230045&certNum=1
Certificates
1 of 1
DOI: 6/19/2004
Certificate: COMMERCIAL PILOT
Rating(s):
COMMERCIAL PILOT
AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND
AIRPLANE MULTIENGINE LAND
INSTRUMENT AIRPLANE


http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/nnumsql.asp?NNumbertxt=121PH
N121PH
Aircraft Description

Serial Number 186 Type Registration Co-Owner
Manufacturer Name PILATUS Certificate Issue Date 02/24/2005
Model PC-12/45 Status Valid
Type Aircraft Fixed Wing Single-Engine
Type Engine Turbo-Prop
Date Change Authorized None Mode S Code 50054266
MFR Year 1997 Fractional Owner NO
Other Owner Names:
CONNEALY LEIGH ERIN
Temporary Certificate
Certificate Number T051133 Issue Date 02/24/2005
Expiration Date 03/26/2005

http://www.healthywealthyandwiseshow.com/Connealy.htm
Leigh Erin Connealy, MD, MPH - Nationally prominent Physician
appearing Mondays on Healthy, Wealthy and Wise Health Talk heard
each Weekday on XM Satellite Radio, Ch 170 from 1-2 pm Pacific/4-5
pm Eastern...

Dr. Connealy received her Masters in Public Health from The
University of Texas in Austin, followed by her medical degree from
the University of Chicago, with postgraduate training at
Harbor/UCLA Medical Center. From mentors and education she formed
her concept of "New Medicine" that led to the formation in 1992 of
the South Coast Medical Center for New Medicine located in Tustin
California. Dr. Connealy's continues studies in her other areas
of expertise including Homeopathy, Herbal Medicine, Acupuncture,
Anti-Aging Medicine and various additional Alternative Therapies.

http://www.perfectlyhealthy.net/



On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 17:17:45 GMT I wrote in
>:

>
>Here's an interesting subject:
>
> FLYING INTO MOAs: THE MILITARY PERSPECTIVE
> (http://www.avweb.com/alm?podcast20080404&kw=AVwebAudio)
> Monday's podcast
> (http://www.avweb.com/alm?podcast20080331&kw=FollowUpPodcast) with
> a California pilot who was intercepted and shadowed
>
>(http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/F16EncounterAngersPilots_197487-1.html)
> by an F-16 in a military operating area (MOA) ignited a firestorm
> of debate on our blog, the AVweb Insider
>
>(http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AVwebInsiderBlog_IfYouCantHandleMigs_F16s_MOAs_197 505-1.html).
> Lt. Col Fred Clifton, a retired F-16 pilot who now instructs at
> the Air Force's weapons school at Nellis Air Force Base in Las
> Vegas, joined the debate from the military pilot's perspective.
> AVweb's Russ Niles spoke with Clifton about why it's important
> that civilian pilots be aware of and avoid active MOAs.
>
> Plus, the original story and podcast about Pilatus pilot Patrick
> McCall's brush with an F-16 generated several listener comments
> that we'll share.
>
> Click here (http://www.avweb.com/podcast/files/2008-04-04.mp3) to
> listen. (10.6 MB, 11:35)
>
>Before I comment, let me assure you that I always contact FSS to learn
>the status of any MOAs along my planned route of flight. I always
>either avoid hot MOAs or coordinate transit with the controlling
>agency. I believe this is what a prudent pilot should do.
>
>However, in the case in point it would seem that the F-16's
>interception of the Pilatus may constitute a violation of CFR Title
>14, Part 91, Section 91.111:
>
>
> § 91.111 Operating near other aircraft.
>
> (a) No person may operate an aircraft so close to another aircraft
> as to create a collision hazard.
>
> (b) No person may operate an aircraft in formation flight except
> by arrangement with the pilot in command of each aircraft in the
> formation.
>
> (c) No person may operate an aircraft, carrying passengers for
> hire, in formation flight.
>
>
>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.
>

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> Also interesting is the FAA's assertion that the Pilatus pilot was not
> receiving traffic advisories from ATC contrary to his indicating that
> he was receiving flight following at the time. Who are you going to
> believe, the FAA or the airman?
>

Well if the FAA has a tape and the pilot doesn't I'd go with the FAA.

As far as 91.111 goes, again the AF has a tape that we must seems to
show that neither paragraph (a) or (b) were violated.

[Mxsmanic]

Larry Dighera writes:

> The answer will be interesting. Given the military's role in
> intercepting errant aircraft, my guess is that they are probably
> exempt from § 91.111(b), else how could they conduct those operations
> without violating that regulation.

They are not exempt when on peacetime missions.

> Also interesting is the FAA's assertion that the Pilatus pilot was not
> receiving traffic advisories from ATC contrary to his indicating that
> he was receiving flight following at the time. Who are you going to
> believe, the FAA or the airman?

This is why voice and data recorders in small aircraft might not be a bad
idea.

> An investigation by our sister publication, Aviation Safety,
> scheduled to appear in the May issue, reveals that the Air Force’s
> account of the intercept contrasts with McCall’s report. Major
> Miki Gilloon, Luke Air Force Base’s public information officer,
> told Aviation Safety that the F-16’s radar, head-up display and
> HSD display tapes showed that the F-16 approached the PC-12 on a
> parallel or divergent heading and got no closer than 600 feet.

Is 600 feet supposed to be reassuring? That's 1.7 seconds of separation at
190 knots.

> She also said the F-16 did not counter the PC-12’s TCAS evasive
> maneuvers but approached to visually identify it “in order to
> contact the civilian pilot and educate him about the risks of
> transiting an active MOA.�

Someone needs to educate the military pilot about the risks of threatening
civilian air traffic.

> The incident occurred on March 21 when the PC-12, flying VFR at
> 16,500 feet on a westerly heading through the MOA, transited
> airspace in which four F-16s were conducting a two-on-two air
> combat exercise. The training exercise was halted and three of the
> F-16s orbited in holds while the lead aircraft conducted “a
> properly executed standard maneuver such as he might do to gain a
> visual contact with his flight leader or an aerial refueling
> tanker,� Gilloon said “This was a controlled maneuver to ensure
> that neither aircraft was placed in any danger.� She said the F-16
> was “fully within Air Force rules� to conduct the intercept.

Air Force rules don't apply in a MOA in peacetime. The Air Force has to
follow the same FARs as everyone else. The "intercept" counts as formation
flying.

> When asked about FAR 91.111, which prohibits unplanned formation
> flight, Major Gilloon said “Our ongoing investigation has revealed
> no indication whatsoever that the F-16 pilot violated any existing
> military practices or procedures for operating military aircraft
> in a MOA.�

The aircraft are subject to the FARs, not just military practices.

> Patrick Anthony McCall

I see lots of information on the civilian pilot, but nothing on the military
pilot. Why is that?

The military needs to keep in mind that it serves the civilian population, and
not the other way around. The pilot that intercepted this civilian aircraft
needs to find a new career, one that doesn't involve being in a cockpit.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601Xl Builder writes:

> As far as 91.111 goes, again the AF has a tape that we must seems to
> show that neither paragraph (a) or (b) were violated.

Has the AF released this tape?

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:13:33 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
> wrote in
>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>> Also interesting is the FAA's assertion that the Pilatus pilot was not
>> receiving traffic advisories from ATC contrary to his indicating that
>> he was receiving flight following at the time. Who are you going to
>> believe, the FAA or the airman?
>>
>
>Well if the FAA has a tape and the pilot doesn't I'd go with the FAA.
>

I haven't yet seen mention of an FAA tape. The Pilatus pilot is an
attorney, so you know he wouldn't lie. :-)

>As far as 91.111 goes, again the AF has a tape that we must seems to
>show that neither paragraph (a) or (b) were violated.

If the Air Force is anything like the Orange County, California
sheriff's department, the tape may be meaningless:


http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CA_INMATE_DEATH_CAOL-?SITE=CAANR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Apr 13, 10:30 AM EDT

Report: OC sheriff's staff hindered probe of fatal jail beating

SANTA ANA, Calif. (AP) -- Former Orange County Sheriff Michael
Carona and some of his employees reportedly hindered a special
grand jury's investigation into a 2006 fatal jail beating.

Carona refused to answer any questions from the grand jury, the
Los Angeles Times reported Sunday.

No criminal charges against any sheriff's personnel came about
from the probe. However, acting Sheriff Jack Anderson suspended
five employees last week after the release of the grand jury
transcripts.

Among those suspended was Deputy Kevin Taylor, who is accused of
watching television and sending text messages in a nearby guard
station as inmates beat John Chamberlain for up to 50 minutes at
the Theo Lacy jail on Oct. 5, 2006.

One inmate said Taylor told them Chamberlain was a child molester.
Rather, 41-year-old Chamberlain was being held on suspicion of
possessing child pornography.

Also suspended was Special Officer Phillip Le, who was on duty
with Taylor during the attack. Le told the grand jury that to
refresh his memory about the incident, he asked to review's
Taylor's report rather than review his own statements, the Times
reported.

--> Le also testified that he intentionally recorded over the first
nearly 10 minutes of a video used to document the scene after
Chamberlain was found, the Times reported. Le explained that he
realized the tape was running out and recorded over the beginning.
...

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> I haven't yet seen mention of an FAA tape. The Pilatus pilot is an
> attorney, so you know he wouldn't lie. :-)
>

All ATC communications are recorded.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 21, 9:00*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> So the question becomes, is the military exempt from its equivalent to
> CFR Title 14, Part 91, Section 91.111(b):
>
> * * § 91.111 * Operating near other aircraft.
>
> * * (a) No person may operate an aircraft so close to another aircraft
> * * as to create a collision hazard.
>
> * * (b) No person may operate an aircraft in formation flight except
> * * by arrangement with the pilot in command of each aircraft in the
> * * formation.
>
> The answer will be interesting. *Given the military's role in
> intercepting errant aircraft, my guess is that they are probably
> exempt from § 91.111(b), else how could they conduct those operations
> without violating that regulation.

In domestic airspace they are not exempt. Sadly, this entire situation
could have been avoided if the F-16 pilot had turned on his radio. He
choose to use intemidation rather than simply speak with the
controller working the area.
Those of us that live in the West part of the US understand avoiding
hot MOAs is impossible, the string of MOAs and restricted airspace is
larger that Eastern states. The solution is to coordinate with ATC
(which is what the civilian pilots did in this case). Sadly, the F-16
pilot did not.
However, we've already seen that even if a figher pilot busts into
class B airspace and runs down a C-182, killing all on board, the
military will not take any action.
-Robert

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 12:26:55 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>:

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I haven't yet seen mention of an FAA tape. The Pilatus pilot is an
>> attorney, so you know he wouldn't lie. :-)
>>
>
>All ATC communications are recorded.
>

The recordings are retained for 15 days, if I'm not mistaken. So the
recording in question may or may not still exist depending on when the
near-miss was filed, and how long it took the appropriate authority to
process it and obtain a copy of any tapes.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Larry Dither" > wrote in message
...
>
> The recordings are retained for 15 days, if I'm not mistaken.
>

Tapes are normally retained for 45 days.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Larry Dighera writes:
>
>> The answer will be interesting. Given the military's role in
>> intercepting errant aircraft, my guess is that they are probably
>> exempt from § 91.111(b), else how could they conduct those
>> operations without violating that regulation.
>
> They are not exempt when on peacetime missions.
>
>> Also interesting is the FAA's assertion that the Pilatus pilot was
>> not receiving traffic advisories from ATC contrary to his indicating
>> that he was receiving flight following at the time. Who are you
>> going to believe, the FAA or the airman?
>
> This is why voice and data recorders in small aircraft might not be a
> bad idea.
>
>> An investigation by our sister publication, Aviation Safety,
>> scheduled to appear in the May issue, reveals that the Air
>> Force’s account of the intercept contrasts with McCall’s
>> report. Major Miki Gilloon, Luke Air Force Base’s public
>> information officer, told Aviation Safety that the F-16’s
>> radar, head-up display and HSD display tapes showed that the F-16
>> approached the PC-12 on a parallel or divergent heading and got
>> no closer than 600 feet.
>
> Is 600 feet supposed to be reassuring? That's 1.7 seconds of
> separation at 190 knots.
>
>> She also said the F-16 did not counter the PC-12’s TCAS evasive
>> maneuvers but approached to visually identify it “in order to
>> contact the civilian pilot and educate him about the risks of
>> transiting an active MOA.�
>
> Someone needs to educate the military pilot about the risks of
> threatening civilian air traffic.
>
>> The incident occurred on March 21 when the PC-12, flying VFR at
>> 16,500 feet on a westerly heading through the MOA, transited
>> airspace in which four F-16s were conducting a two-on-two air
>> combat exercise. The training exercise was halted and three of
>> the F-16s orbited in holds while the lead aircraft conducted “a
>> properly executed standard maneuver such as he might do to gain a
>> visual contact with his flight leader or an aerial refueling
>> tanker,� Gilloon said “This was a controlled maneuver to
>> ensure that neither aircraft was placed in any danger.� She
>> said the F-16 was “fully within Air Force rules� to conduct
>> the intercept.
>
> Air Force rules don't apply in a MOA in peacetime. The Air Force has
> to follow the same FARs as everyone else. The "intercept" counts as
> formation flying.
>
>> When asked about FAR 91.111, which prohibits unplanned formation
>> flight, Major Gilloon said “Our ongoing investigation has
>> revealed no indication whatsoever that the F-16 pilot violated
>> any existing military practices or procedures for operating
>> military aircraft in a MOA.�
>
> The aircraft are subject to the FARs, not just military practices.
>
>> Patrick Anthony McCall
>
> I see lots of information on the civilian pilot, but nothing on the
> military pilot. Why is that?
>

What is it to you? You don't fly and you never will.


Bertie

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:12:26 -0500, "Viperdoc"
> wrote in
>:

>Typically, once cleared into the MOA, ATC will give the call MARSA (IIRC),
>which is military assumes responsibility for separation of aircraft. The FAA
>rules for spacing and formation flight no longer apply at this point.

Of course, in this case (or any case) no ATC clearance was required
for transit through the MOA; it's Joint Use airspace.

I do find it interesting that the Pilatus pilot claims to have been
receiving "Flight Following" (Usually that refers to radar traffic
advisory service.), but makes no mention of ATC informing him of the
hot status of the MOA.

>
>A rejoin can also be difficult, especially at night with NVG, or with big
>differences in AS.
>
>Usual military comm is also UHF, not VHF. In fact, I do not every recall a
>flight in a F-16 that I took where we did anything but uniform.

If I recall correctly from the AvWeb pod-casts, the F-16 was VHF
equipped. The Pilatus pilot didn't indicate if he was guarding 121.5
MHz.

>
>You can criticize the military all you want, but the reason they practice
>this is to protect our resources like cities. By making a visual ID on a
>plane, and get its attention, they might be able to discern the intent of a
>pilot who entered an airspace where they didn't belong.
>

That's not what happened in this instance.

>I personally would rather be intercepted than shot down.
>

I personally would prefer that ALL flights comply with the FARs.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:40:04 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>:

>
>"Larry Dither" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> The recordings are retained for 15 days, if I'm not mistaken.
>>
>
>Tapes are normally retained for 45 days.
>

Some are, and some aren't. In this case, if an en route facility
would be providing Radar Traffic Advisory Service, it appears that
paragraph b2 might apply:


http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/fac/Ch3/s0304.html
FAA Order 7210.3, Facility Operation and Administration
3-4-4. HANDLING RECORDER TAPES OR DATs

b. Retain the tapes or DATs for 45 days, except:

1. En route facility utilizing system analysis recording tapes as
their radar retention media (regardless of the type of voice
recorder system being used) shall retain voice recordings for 15
days.

--> 2. Those facilities utilizing an analog voice recorder system
shall retain voice recordings for 15 days.

3. The David J. Hurley Air Traffic Control System Command Center
shall retain voice recordings for 15 days.

4. Accidents: Retain the tapes or DATs in accordance with FAAO
8020.11, Aircraft Accident and Incident Notification,
Investigation and Reporting.

5. Incidents: Retain the tapes or DATs in accordance with FAAO
8020.11, Aircraft Accident and Incident Notification,
Investigation, and Reporting; and FAAO 1350.15, Records
Organization, Transfer, and Destruction Standards.

6. Hijacking: Retain all relevant tapes or DATs of hijackings from
the time communication commences with the aircraft until
communication has terminated. After 3 years, contact System Safety
and Procedures for the release of the tapes or DATs. In every
case, a release from System Safety and Procedures is required to
return hijack tapes or DATs to service.

3-4-5. VSCS DATA RETENTION [Voice Switching & Control System]

a. Retain the VSCS cassette, disc, and tape recordings and data
communications/console typewriter printouts for 15 days unless
they are related to an accident/incident as defined in accordance
with FAAO?1350.15, Records Organization, Transfer, and Destruction
Standards, Chapter 11, Section 8020.

b. If a request is received to retain the VSCS communications
traffic listings and the system configuration and/or mapping data
following an accident, the printout of the relative data will
suffice, and the VSCS cassette, disc, and/or tape may then be
returned to service through the normal rotational cycle. The
printout data are considered a permanent record and shall be
retained in accordance with aircraft accident/incident retention
requirements. Reduction of the VSCS cassette, disc, and tape
recordings to hard-copy format shall be made at the earliest time
convenient to the facility involved without derogating the ATC
function and without prematurely taking the VSCS out of ATC
service. Do not make these data and printouts a part of the
accident/incident package.

c. If a request is received to retain a specific data recording
and the data is available and contained on VSCS cassette, disc,
and/or tape, the VSCS cassette, disc, and/or tape shall be
retained in its entirety. If the data requested is contained on
several different media (e.g., VSCS cassette, disc, and/or tape
media), the facility may transfer all pertinent data to a common
media and label the media a Duplicate Original. After successful
transfer, the original VSCS cassette, disc, and/or tape may be
returned to service through the normal rotational cycle. However,
if a specific request is received to retain the original VSCS
cassette, disc, and/or tape, the original VSCS cassette, disc,
and/or tape shall be retained in its entirety.

d. Treat the VSCS cassette, disc, tape, duplicate originals, and
data communications/console typewriter printouts related to hijack
aircraft the same as voice recorder tapes. (See para?3-4-4,
Handling Recorder Tapes or DATs).

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
>
> Typically, once cleared into the MOA, ATC will give the call MARSA (IIRC),
> which is military assumes responsibility for separation of aircraft. The
> FAA rules for spacing and formation flight no longer apply at this point.
>
> A rejoin can also be difficult, especially at night with NVG, or with big
> differences in AS.
>
> Usual military comm is also UHF, not VHF. In fact, I do not every recall a
> flight in a F-16 that I took where we did anything but uniform.
>
> I have participated in the back seat of a 16 once when a C-210 violated a
> restricted area. We did several passes with a nearly 200k overtake speed
> to get his N number for ATC. Never heard what happened to the guy.
>
> You can criticize the military all you want, but the reason they practice
> this is to protect our resources like cities. By making a visual ID on a
> plane, and get its attention, they might be able to discern the intent of
> a pilot who entered an airspace where they didn't belong.
>
> I personally would rather be intercepted than shot down.

This incident occurred in a MOA, not in a Restricted Area. 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?

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:

>> You can criticize the military all you want, but the reason they practice
>> this is to protect our resources like cities. By making a visual ID on a
>> plane, and get its attention, they might be able to discern the intent of a
>> pilot who entered an airspace where they didn't belong.
>>
>
> That's not what happened in this instance.

Pretty damn close though. The F-16 pilot said he closed on the aircraft
to identify it.


>
>> I personally would rather be intercepted than shot down.
>>
>
> I personally would prefer that ALL flights comply with the FARs.
>

From what the AF has said and say they have tapes to back up there was
no violation of the FARs.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
m...
> Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>>> You can criticize the military all you want, but the reason they
>>> practice this is to protect our resources like cities. By making a
>>> visual ID on a plane, and get its attention, they might be able to
>>> discern the intent of a pilot who entered an airspace where they didn't
>>> belong.
>>>
>>
>> That's not what happened in this instance.
>
> Pretty damn close though. The F-16 pilot said he closed on the aircraft to
> identify it.
>

I believe Mr. Dighera's point was the pilot had not entered an airspace
where he didn't belong in this instance.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:40:04 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>
>>"Larry Dither" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> The recordings are retained for 15 days, if I'm not mistaken.
>>>
>>
>>Tapes are normally retained for 45 days.
>>
>
> Some are, and some aren't. In this case, if an en route facility
> would be providing Radar Traffic Advisory Service, it appears that
> paragraph b2 might apply:
>
>
> http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/fac/Ch3/s0304.html
> FAA Order 7210.3, Facility Operation and Administration
> 3-4-4. HANDLING RECORDER TAPES OR DATs
>
> b. Retain the tapes or DATs for 45 days, except:
>
> 1. En route facility utilizing system analysis recording tapes as
> their radar retention media (regardless of the type of voice
> recorder system being used) shall retain voice recordings for 15
> days.
>
> --> 2. Those facilities utilizing an analog voice recorder system
> shall retain voice recordings for 15 days.
>
> 3. The David J. Hurley Air Traffic Control System Command Center
> shall retain voice recordings for 15 days.
>
> 4. Accidents: Retain the tapes or DATs in accordance with FAAO
> 8020.11, Aircraft Accident and Incident Notification,
> Investigation and Reporting.
>
> 5. Incidents: Retain the tapes or DATs in accordance with FAAO
> 8020.11, Aircraft Accident and Incident Notification,
> Investigation, and Reporting; and FAAO 1350.15, Records
> Organization, Transfer, and Destruction Standards.
>
> 6. Hijacking: Retain all relevant tapes or DATs of hijackings from
> the time communication commences with the aircraft until
> communication has terminated. After 3 years, contact System Safety
> and Procedures for the release of the tapes or DATs. In every
> case, a release from System Safety and Procedures is required to
> return hijack tapes or DATs to service.
>
> 3-4-5. VSCS DATA RETENTION [Voice Switching & Control System]
>
> a. Retain the VSCS cassette, disc, and tape recordings and data
> communications/console typewriter printouts for 15 days unless
> they are related to an accident/incident as defined in accordance
> with FAAO?1350.15, Records Organization, Transfer, and Destruction
> Standards, Chapter 11, Section 8020.
>
> b. If a request is received to retain the VSCS communications
> traffic listings and the system configuration and/or mapping data
> following an accident, the printout of the relative data will
> suffice, and the VSCS cassette, disc, and/or tape may then be
> returned to service through the normal rotational cycle. The
> printout data are considered a permanent record and shall be
> retained in accordance with aircraft accident/incident retention
> requirements. Reduction of the VSCS cassette, disc, and tape
> recordings to hard-copy format shall be made at the earliest time
> convenient to the facility involved without derogating the ATC
> function and without prematurely taking the VSCS out of ATC
> service. Do not make these data and printouts a part of the
> accident/incident package.
>
> c. If a request is received to retain a specific data recording
> and the data is available and contained on VSCS cassette, disc,
> and/or tape, the VSCS cassette, disc, and/or tape shall be
> retained in its entirety. If the data requested is contained on
> several different media (e.g., VSCS cassette, disc, and/or tape
> media), the facility may transfer all pertinent data to a common
> media and label the media a Duplicate Original. After successful
> transfer, the original VSCS cassette, disc, and/or tape may be
> returned to service through the normal rotational cycle. However,
> if a specific request is received to retain the original VSCS
> cassette, disc, and/or tape, the original VSCS cassette, disc,
> and/or tape shall be retained in its entirety.
>
> d. Treat the VSCS cassette, disc, tape, duplicate originals, and
> data communications/console typewriter printouts related to hijack
> aircraft the same as voice recorder tapes. (See para?3-4-4,
> Handling Recorder Tapes or DATs).
>

In other words, tapes are normally retained for 45 days.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 08:51:23 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
> wrote in
>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>>> You can criticize the military all you want, but the reason they practice
>>> this is to protect our resources like cities. By making a visual ID on a
>>> plane, and get its attention, they might be able to discern the intent of a
>>> pilot who entered an airspace where they didn't belong.
>>>
>>
>> That's not what happened in this instance.
>
>Pretty damn close though. The F-16 pilot said he closed on the aircraft
>to identify it.
>

There was no need to identify it. It was in Joint Use Airspace. It
wasn't over a city. The Pilatus wasn't where it didn't belong.

>
>>
>>> I personally would rather be intercepted than shot down.
>>>
>>
>> I personally would prefer that ALL flights comply with the FARs.
>>
>
> From what the AF has said and say they have tapes to back up there was
>no violation of the FARs.

The Pilatus pilot disagrees. The investigation will reveal more.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:16:36 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>:

>
>In other words, tapes are normally retained for 45 days.
>

Would you expect the ATC tape(s) of the facility assigned to provide
"Flight Following" to the Pilatus pilot in this incident to be
retained for 15 days or 45 days?

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Would you expect the ATC tape(s) of the facility assigned to provide
> "Flight Following" to the Pilatus pilot in this incident to be
> retained for 15 days or 45 days?
>

I'd expect it to retain tapes for 45 days unless it's utilizing system
analysis recording tapes as their radar retention media or an analog voice
recorder system.

Since the complaints were filed less than fifteen days after the incidents
occurred I don't see why it matters.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:54:34 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>:

>Since the complaints were filed less than fifteen days after the incidents
>occurred I don't see why it matters.

Can you cite a source for that assertion?

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:54:34 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>Since the complaints were filed less than fifteen days after the incidents
>>occurred I don't see why it matters.
>
> Can you cite a source for that assertion?
>

Of course. My source is the AvWeb report on this incident that you made
users of this forum aware of when you posted the link on April 4th.

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/F16EncounterAngersPilots_197487-1.html

The AvWeb report is dated March 30th, it says the incidents occurred on
March 21st. Since the complaints were filed within nine days of the
incidents occurrence I fail to see why the facility's normal tape retention
period is fifteen days or 45 days makes any difference.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 11:13:34 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:54:34 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
>> > wrote in
>> >:
>>
>>>Since the complaints were filed less than fifteen days after the incidents
>>>occurred I don't see why it matters.
>>
>> Can you cite a source for that assertion?
>>
>
>Of course. My source is the AvWeb report on this incident that you made
>users of this forum aware of when you posted the link on April 4th.
>
>http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/F16EncounterAngersPilots_197487-1.html
>
>The AvWeb report is dated March 30th, it says the incidents occurred on
>March 21st. Since the complaints were filed within nine days of the
>incidents occurrence I fail to see why the facility's normal tape retention
>period is fifteen days or 45 days makes any difference.
>

Thanks. That's good news. That information should be releasable
under FOIA, unlike the USAF flight recorder data.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Thanks. That's good news. That information should be releasable
> under FOIA, unlike the USAF flight recorder data.
>

That's news to you? You posted the link to that article in the message that
started this thread. Perhaps you should read what you post.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 22, 8:39*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 08:51:23 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder

> > From what the AF has said and say they have tapes to back up there was
> >no violation of the FARs.
>
> The Pilatus pilot disagrees. *The investigation will reveal more.

It is interesting that two pilot reported the same thing from (I
assume) the same F-16. Maybe one pilot was dropping acid at the time
but not likely two.

-Robert

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 11:47:42 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>:

>Perhaps you should read what you post.

I read, and post, a lot of things. I don't always infer all the fine
points.

In the same vein, why did you state that the tapes are normally
retained for 45 days when you knew it was not pertinent to this
discussion?

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:56:16 -0700 (PDT), "Robert M. Gary"
> wrote in
>:

>On Apr 22, 8:39*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 08:51:23 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
>
>> > From what the AF has said and say they have tapes to back up there was
>> >no violation of the FARs.
>>
>> The Pilatus pilot disagrees. *The investigation will reveal more.
>
>It is interesting that two pilot reported the same thing from (I
>assume) the same F-16.

Yes. As I recall one of the GA pilots mentioned 10' separation, and
the other 20'. The AF has secret tapes, but I doubt they'll reveal
the separation distance. I wonder if the FAA radar tapes are able to
resolve 600' separation as the AF claims.

It will be interesting to see how the investigation plays out.

>Maybe one pilot was dropping acid at the time but not likely two.
>

More likely, the AF pilot(s) were high on government issued
amphetamines at the time. Perhaps colonel James "Viperdoc" Ninomiya
MD can shed some light on the likelihood of that.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 22, 10:38*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:56:16 -0700 (PDT), "Robert M. Gary"

> More likely, the AF pilot(s) were high on government issued
> amphetamines at the time. *Perhaps colonel James "Viperdoc" Ninomiya
> MD can shed some light on the likelihood of that.

In the Navy it as green "go" and red "stop" pills. Green before a long
late flight, red after you get back and need to sleep. The Navy has
publically defended these pills.

-Robert

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 11:47:42 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>Perhaps you should read what you post.
>
> I read, and post, a lot of things. I don't always infer all the fine
> points.
>
> In the same vein, why did you state that the tapes are normally
> retained for 45 days when you knew it was not pertinent to this
> discussion?
>

Because you said tapes were retained for 15 days. Had you read what you
posted you'd have known THAT was not pertinent to this discussion.

[Mxsmanic]

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.

[Mxsmanic]

Robert M. Gary writes:

> In the Navy it as green "go" and red "stop" pills. Green before a long
> late flight, red after you get back and need to sleep. The Navy has
> publically defended these pills.

I can understand them in wartime, but not peacetime.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:27:51 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>:

>
>> In the same vein, why did you state that the tapes are normally
>> retained for 45 days when you knew it was not pertinent to this
>> discussion?
>>
>
>Because you said tapes were retained for 15 days. Had you read what you
>posted you'd have known THAT was not pertinent to this discussion.
>

Oh, I believe the 15-day tape retention is pertinent. If it were
something less, the tapes wouldn't have been available to FAA
investigators.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:27:51 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>
>>> In the same vein, why did you state that the tapes are normally
>>> retained for 45 days when you knew it was not pertinent to this
>>> discussion?
>>>
>>
>>Because you said tapes were retained for 15 days. Had you read what you
>>posted you'd have known THAT was not pertinent to this discussion.
>>
>
> Oh, I believe the 15-day tape retention is pertinent. If it were
> something less, the tapes wouldn't have been available to FAA
> investigators.
>

What had you believed the tape retention period to be?

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

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.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 22, 12:43*pm, Gig 601Xl Builder >
wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:

> 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.

Plus the word of the Bizjet pilot. So two different pilots reported
the same situation to ATC.

-Robert

[WingFlaps]

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

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 12:56:54 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
> wrote in
>:

>Being an airforce pilot does not automatically imply honesty when his
>ass is on the line.

Oh, you mean like the US pilot(s) who suppressed evidence in the fatal
European funicular strike.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 12:48:52 -0700 (PDT), "Robert M. Gary"
> wrote in
>:

>On Apr 22, 12:43*pm, Gig 601Xl Builder >
>wrote:
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>Plus the word of the Bizjet pilot. So two different pilots reported
>the same situation to ATC.
>

I'm hoping the ATC radar tapes are of sufficient resolution to
conclusively prove that the distance between the F-16 and the GA
aircraft was closer than 600' as the USAF claims.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:43:20 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
> wrote in
>:

>the Platypus driver doesn't have any tapes to prove what he said.

Apparently the FAA has voice and radar tapes. Unfortunately they,
like the USAF, are both part of the same organization: US government.
But, not to worry. There won't be any conflict of interest. :-)

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
>
> I can't answer that since I wasn't there, but was simply making the point
> that the military is usually responsible for separation in a MOA, so FARs
> regarding spacing, proximity, etc. don't apply.
>

What is it you can't answer because you were not there?

If you include a bit of the message you're responding to your own message
might make some sense.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 22, 1:47*pm, "Viperdoc" > wrote:
> Larry:

> Are you also suggesting by bringing up the topic that the Air Force pilots
> were using amphetamines? Do you have some evidence to support this, or are
> you like Anthony in trying to stir the pot and get yourself some attention?

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj97/spr97/cornum.html

"The policies concerning stimulants ultimately evolved into Air Force
Regulation (AFR) 161--33/TAC Supplement 1. TAC sanctioned the use of
amphetamine because single--seat pilots are particularly susceptible
to the effects of boredom and fatigue during deployments overseas and
during extended combat air patrols. Maj David Caskey, an Air Force
F--15 pilot, reported using “go” pills routinely when flying from the
United States to Germany, Japan, or Thailand. He recounted that some
pilots refused to take them, saying they didn't need them; however, he
pointed out that one time, an entire flight diverted to a base in
England because some pilots simply couldn't stay awake en route to
their destination in Germany.13 "

-Robert

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Robert M. Gary writes:
>
>> In the Navy it as green "go" and red "stop" pills. Green before a long
>> late flight, red after you get back and need to sleep. The Navy has
>> publically defended these pills.
>
> I can understand them in wartime, but not peacetime.
>

Anthony, you're too stupid to understand the time of day!

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> 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.
>

What makes you think anybody gives a **** what you believe, Anthony.
You are a total moron who doesn't know **** from shinola about anything.

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 23, 8:31*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 12:56:54 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
> > wrote in
> >:
>
> >Being an airforce pilot does not automatically imply honesty when his
> >ass is on the line.
>
> Oh, you mean like the US pilot(s) who suppressed evidence in the fatal
> European funicular strike.

What/when was that?

Cheers

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 22, 2:54*pm, "Viperdoc" > wrote:
> "The policies concerning stimulants ultimately evolved into Air Force
> Regulation (AFR) 161--33/TAC Supplement 1. *TAC sanctioned the use of
> amphetamine"

> The guidance on the go, no-go pills seems to be changing frequently, but
> their use is very tightly controlled. There are also other choices than
> amphetamines to help combat fatigue and its effects.

I thought you just claimed that there was no such usage...
"Are you also suggesting by bringing up the topic that the Air Force
pilots
were using amphetamines?"

-Robert

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:47:09 -0500, "Viperdoc"
> wrote in
>:

>Larry:
>
>Just out of curiosity, do you actually fly anything?

Look my record up in the FAA airmans database, and you'll see what I'm
rated to fly.

>You send me personal emails lecturing that the goals of Usenet should be
>to educate, and should not be for personal attacks.
>
I sent you personal e-mail to save you public embarrassment and public
disclosure of personal facts. I thought you would appreciate my
effort.

>You might try living by what you preach.

I do.

I don't believe that I've made any personal attacks. If you believe
otherwise, please provide specific information that supports your
view.

In any event, please let me assure you that I mean you absolutely no
disrespect, as you are a very successful and accomplished individual
who serves our country with honor. But we are all capable of being
incorrect at times.

>Otherwise it makes you look like a weak wannabe.

(Is that a personal attack?)
>
If you insist, perhaps I can educate you about Joint Use Airspace.

From your statement:

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:12:26 -0500, "Viperdoc"
> wrote in
>:

Typically, once cleared into the MOA, ATC will give the call MARSA
(IIRC), which is military assumes responsibility for separation of
aircraft. The FAA rules for spacing and formation flight no longer
apply at this point.

It apparent that you (or perhaps I) possess a fundamentally flawed
appreciation of the regulations governing VFR operations within
Military Training Area airspace. As I understand the subject
incident, it involved civil VFR operations within hot Military
Training Area airspace, not IFR operations nor VMC.

Below is what authoritative information I was able to find on the
subject:

From the Pilot/Controller Glossary definition of MOA airspace:

http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/PCG/S.HTM
SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE- Airspace of defined dimensions identified
by an area on the surface of the earth wherein activities must be
confined because of their nature and/or wherein limitations may
be imposed upon aircraft operations that are not a part of those
activities. Types of special use airspace are:

c. Military Operations Area (MOA)- A MOA is airspace
established outside of Class A airspace area to separate or
segregate certain nonhazardous military activities from IFR
traffic and to identify for VFR traffic where these
activities are conducted.

(Refer to AIM.)


From the Aeronautical Information Manual:

http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/Chap3/aim0304.html
3-4-5. Military Operations Areas

a. MOAs consist of airspace of defined vertical and lateral
limits established for the purpose of separating certain military
training activities from IFR traffic. Whenever a MOA is being
used, nonparticipating IFR traffic may be cleared through a MOA
if IFR separation can be provided by ATC. Otherwise, ATC will
reroute or restrict nonparticipating IFR traffic.

b. Examples of activities conducted in MOAs include, but are not
limited to: air combat tactics, air intercepts, aerobatics,
formation training, and low-altitude tactics. Military pilots
flying in an active MOA are exempted from the provisions of 14
CFR Section 91.303(c) and (d) which prohibits aerobatic flight
within [Class B, Class C*] Class D and Class E surface areas, and
within Federal airways. Additionally, the Department of Defense
has been issued an authorization to operate aircraft at indicated
airspeeds in excess of 250knots below 10,000 feet MSL within
active MOAs.

c. Pilots operating under VFR should exercise extreme caution
while flying within a MOA when military activity is being
conducted. The activity status (active/inactive) of MOAs may
change frequently. Therefore, pilots should contact any FSS
within 100 miles of the area to obtain accurate real-time
information concerning the MOA hours of operation. Prior to
entering an active MOA, pilots should contact the controlling
agency for traffic advisories.

d. MOAs are depicted on sectional, VFR Terminal Area, and Enroute
Low Altitude charts.

*
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=965ffa21897f83d91c25043815286aa7&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10&idno=14#14:2.0.1.3.10.4.7.2


This document may also help define MOA airspace:

http://www.accplanning.org/documents/EAs/Holloman_Draft_EA_separated/20%20Appendix%20H.pdf
MOAs are considered “joint use” airspace. Non-participating
aircraft operating under VFR are permitted to enter a MOA, even
when the MOA is active for military use. Aircraft operating
under IFR must remain clear of an active MOA unless approved by
the responsible ARTCC.

Flight by both participating and VFR non-participating aircraft
is conducted under the “see-and-avoid” concept, which stipulates
that “when weather conditions permit, pilots operating
IFR or VFR are required to observe and maneuver to avoid other
aircraft. Right-of-way rules are contained in CFR Part 91” (P/CG
2004). The responsible ARTCC provides separation service for
aircraft operating under IFR and MOA participants. The
“see-and-avoid” procedures mean that if a MOA were active during
inclement weather, the general aviation pilot could not safely
access the MOA airspace.

(NB: The above seems to contradict your assertion made in Message-ID:
> quoted at the beginning of
this message.)


From the above citations, I infer that military pilots operating in
VMC within MOAs should expect to find civil flights within those
Military Operations Areas, and are required to see-and-avoid those
civil flights.

Further I see no mention above of a military exemption from CFR Title
14, Part 91, Section 91.111, or it's military equivalent regulation:

§ 91.111 Operating near other aircraft.

(a) No person may operate an aircraft so close to another aircraft
as to create a collision hazard.

(b) No person may operate an aircraft in formation flight except
by arrangement with the pilot in command of each aircraft in the
formation.


The military doesn't have exclusive use of MOA airspace at _any_ time
in VMC. The military shares MOA and MTR airspace with civil flights.
Over the years, I have become aware that many military pilots are not
truly aware that MOA and MTR airspace is shared with civil aircraft.
It seems to be a common, and occasionally lethal, mistake. (I am able
to cite several examples if you like.)

>Are you also suggesting by bringing up the topic that the Air Force pilots
>were using amphetamines?

Actually, it was the author of the followup article to whom I was
responding that first mentioned pilots using drugs in this message
thread:

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:56:16 -0700 (PDT), "Robert M. Gary"
> wrote in
>:

It is interesting that two pilot reported the same thing from (I
assume) the same F-16. Maybe one pilot was dropping acid at the
time but not likely two.

-Robert


It is my understanding that the military issues speed to soldiers.
Apparently the Wehrmacht traveled on it. I recall some mention of
this in conjunction with the mid-east war, where there were some long
distances involved. I could be wrong. It was a long time ago, and
just hearsay, of course.

You on the other hand, being a military medical officer, should be
able to provide firsthand information on that subject.

>Do you have some evidence to support this, or are you like Anthony
>in trying to stir the pot and get yourself some attention?

I was able to find this supporting evidence for military use of
psychostimulents with a quick on-line search:


http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj97/spr97/cornum.html
Published Airpower Journal - Spring 1997

DISTRIBUTION A:
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

Stimulant Use in Extended Flight Operations

LT COL RHONDA CORNUM, USA
DR. JOHN CALDWELL
LT COL KORY CORNUM, USAF

PSYCHOSTIMULANTS, particularly amphetamine, became available in
America for clinical use in 1937, and since then have been widely
prescribed. More recently, their beneficial effects have been
overshadowed by the recognition of a significant abuse potential.
Nevertheless, the military services, particularly the Air Force,
have recognized the value of psychostimulants under certain
conditions. Use of amphetamine, at the direction of the unit
commander and under the supervision of the flight surgeon, has
been sanctioned by some components of the Air Force since 1960
and by the tactical air forces until 1991. ...

The policies concerning stimulants ultimately evolved into Air
Force Regulation (AFR) 161--33/TAC Supplement 1. TAC sanctioned
the use of amphetamine because single--seat pilots are
particularly susceptible to the effects of boredom and fatigue
during deployments overseas and during extended combat air
patrols. Maj David Caskey, an Air Force F--15 pilot, reported
using “go” pills routinely when flying from the United States to
Germany, Japan, or Thailand. He recounted that some pilots
refused to take them, saying they didn't need them; however, he
pointed out that one time, an entire flight diverted to a base in
England because some pilots simply couldn't stay awake en route
to their destination in Germany.13 ...




http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2003/02/57434
The U.S. Military Needs Its Speed
Elliot Borin Email 02.10.03 | 2:00 AM

Recalling the American airborne invasion of Normandy during World
War II in his 1962 book Night Drop, Army colonel and combat
historian S.L.A. Marshall wrote: "The United States Army is
indifferent toward common-sense rules by which the energy of men
may be conserved in combat."

Pilots from the Air Force 183rd Fighter Wing felt the
reverberations of Marshall's assessment -- which is cited on page
3 of the Navy's official guide for managing fatigue -- last
April. According to reports published in Canada, they
misidentified a target during a bombing run over Iraq. Meeting
with their commanders, they complained they were exhausted, that
the "common-sense" rule of 12 hours of rest between missions was
being ignored.

In return they got two pieces of advice: Stop whining and visit
the flight surgeon for some "go/no-go" pills.

About a week later, two members of the 183rd, Majs. Harry Schmidt
and William Umbach, launched a laser-guided bomb on a Canadian
training force, killing four and injuring eight. ...



Again, I mean you no disrespect, Colonel Ninomiya. But I believe that
it is important for military flyers to understand that MOAs may
contain civil flights without violation of regulations.

[Mike Isaksen]

"Larry Dighera" wrote
> I'm hoping the ATC radar tapes are of sufficient resolution to
> conclusively prove that the distance between the F-16 and the
> GA aircraft was closer than 600' as the USAF claims.

They are not.

[Mike Isaksen]

"Viperdoc" wrote in
> 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?

No, not to that level.

Somewhere I read that the F16 was part of a two on two exercise. Likely the
engagement was halted for the civil traffic. The same article stated that
only one F16 went in for the VID, which seems unusual IMO.

And the AF released the statement of "never closer than 600 feet", which
seems to be the standard answer for "I kept visual separation at all times,
even while maneuvering for the ID". At 600 feet I doubt any reasonable pilot
would win a claim of "formation flying".

Unless the other 3 AF pilots file, the F16 jock will likely just get a
verbal dressdown only. Something like: "You f***ing idiot, next time turn
your f***ing transponder off".

[Jim Logajan]

"Mike Isaksen" > wrote:
> Unless the other 3 AF pilots file, the F16 jock will likely just get a
> verbal dressdown only. Something like: "You f***ing idiot, next time
> turn your f***ing transponder off".

With cameras (and other recording equipment) becoming more prevalent on
small aircraft that sort of so-called dressing-down may be self-defeating
for future encounters, as the likelyhood of incriminating evidence becomes
larger.

(And I presume actually turning the transponder off could be used to show
there was a clear intent to violate regs.)

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 18:37:53 -0500, "Viperdoc"
> wrote in
>:

>Look up MARSA.

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus?

Naw. You're referring to MARSA - Military Authority Assumes
Responsibility for Separation of Aircraft. That's when the military
relieves ATC of the responsibility for separation of aircraft as might
frequently happen during aerial refueling operations. I don't see how
MARSA is germane to the discussion of this incident.

Do you believe MARSA was, or should have been, employed in this
incident?

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> Look up MARSA.

MARSA applies to the military, not civilian flights.

> 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.

Unclassifying the tapes and releasing them would clear up any doubt.

> 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?

Either the pilots were incompetent or there was some other reason why they
were behaving incompetently. If they were high on stimulants, that might
provide an explanation. In this latter case, they need to stop taking the
speed; in the former case, they need to find a different line of work.

> 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.

Third World countries are characterized in part by arrogant military
establishments that hide any evidence of wrongdoing and employ incompetent
personnel.

> 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.

So you haven't met the pilot involved in this incident?

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601Xl Builder writes:

> Not that I care what you believe but the Platypus driver doesn't have
> any tapes to prove what he said.

The AF tapes would suffice.

> 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.

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> I can't answer that since I wasn't there, but was simply making the point
> that the military is usually responsible for separation in a MOA, so FARs
> regarding spacing, proximity, etc. don't apply.

Separation among their own aircraft, _not_ civilian aircraft in the same
airspace.

> It is unlikely that the HUD tapes will ever be released, since they are
> classified.

They can be declassified. But that won't happen if they prove the AF was in
error.

[Mxsmanic]

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.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Either the pilots were incompetent or there was some other reason why they
> were behaving incompetently.

You don't know **** from shinola about pilot competence or anything else
in the real world.

Your sim world tunnel vision is blindingly oblivious to the nuances of
the real world and your thoughts are as valuable as a legal opinion from
Lionel Hutz.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Viperdoc writes:




>
>> I can't answer that since I wasn't there, but was simply making the
>> point that the military is usually responsible for separation in a
>> MOA, so FARs regarding spacing, proximity, etc. don't apply.
>
> Separation among their own aircraft, _not_ civilian aircraft in the
> same airspace.
>
>> It is unlikely that the HUD tapes will ever be released, since they
>> are classified.
>
> They can be declassified. But that won't happen if they prove the AF
> was in error.
>

You are an idiot.

Bertie

[[email protected]]

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.

Like you've ever been 600 feet from an aircraft in flight.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Like you've ever been 600 feet from an aircraft in flight.

Not necessary, as the limits are imposed by human physiology. At 600 feet,
you can resolve separations of about 1 inch in perfect conditions with perfect
vision. That makes it very hard to make out the tail number of an aircraft
600 feet away, especially in less than perfect conditions from a moving
aircraft with a moving target.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Like you've ever been 600 feet from an aircraft in flight.
>
> Not necessary, as the limits are imposed by human physiology. At 600
> feet, you can resolve separations of about 1 inch in perfect
> conditions with perfect vision. That makes it very hard to make out
> the tail number of an aircraft 600 feet away, especially in less than
> perfect conditions from a moving aircraft with a moving target.
>

The tail number has to be 12 inches unless its a very old aircraft which
hasn't been repainted in many, many years. Wrong again Anthony. You don't
know **** from shinola.

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> 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.

1,000' - near impossible - 600' - quite easy; 500' - piece of ****.

Where do you source your info from?

Me? I got reported, 18 or 20 years ago, I had just obtained my PPL and I
was doing a scenic - one I'd done several times before. Part of it
involved heading along some coastline at 500 AGL (gives the pax a great
sense of speed). It wasn't the best weather day for flying, 15kt
easterly. It's a local sea breeze. Along the beach that day were some
very low level clouds (about 2/8 ths cover). So I flew at exactly 600
indicated - rather than my planned 500. Someone (blind obviously)
reported me. Part of the description I heard back was that they could
clearly read my tail sign and hence ID me.

I was fully cleared of any wrong-doing, BTW. ATC confirmed my 600 AMSL
altitude and even commented on how accurate it was maintained along the
ten mile of beach we flew along (or was that sideways :)

--
Duncan

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-04-22, WingFlaps > wrote:
> On Apr 23, 8:31*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> Oh, you mean like the US pilot(s) who suppressed evidence in the fatal
>> European funicular strike.
>
> What/when was that?

It was a cable car, not a funicular railway, but:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/294086.stm

The aircraft wasn't even authorized to fly in that area. There were also
allegations of video evidence disappearing.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Viperdoc[_4_]]

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.

[Larry Dighera]

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.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

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.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

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.

[Larry Dighera]

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/article/0,8599,1733747,00.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."

[Mxsmanic]

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.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"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.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

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.

[Mxsmanic]

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.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

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.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> 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.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

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.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:18:04 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> 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.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"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.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

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.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601Xl Builder writes:

> YOu have no way to know that.

I'm certain of it. Prove me wrong.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

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.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"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.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

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.

[Mxsmanic]

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?

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> 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.
>

There's nothing to coordinate, VFR aircraft are free to transit MOAs if they
so choose. Radar traffic advisories may be available and are certainly a
good idea, but that's true in or out of a MOA. ATC may not be in
communications with military aircraft in the MOA or have ready
communications with the using agency to make them aware of the presence of
VFR aircraft in the MOA.


>
> 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.
>

Have the airspace modified in what way?

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Do you believe MARSA was, or should have been, employed in this
> incident?
>

MARSA couldn't have been employed in this incident.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:18:04 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>
>>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> 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.
>

There are none. FAR 91.111(a) says only, "No person may operate an aircraft
so close to another aircraft as to create a collision hazard." FAR
91.111(b) says, "No person may operate an aircraft in formation flight
except by arrangement with the pilot in command of each aircraft in the
formation.", but to my knowledge there is no definition of "formation
flight" in 14 CFR Part 1.


>
> 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.
>

Yeah, but you also believe six hundred feet is markedly less than 500 feet,
so your beliefs carry little weight.

I infer it to mean there is a hemisphere of 500' radius centered on any
person, vessel, or structure on the surface within which an aircraft may not
be flown.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601Xl Builder writes:

> The party making the claim has the burden of proof.

So why hasn't the Air Force provided the tapes that would prove its claims?

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> 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?


There were 4 F16s. That's 4 against 2 so by your logic they must be the
ones telling the truth.

I have no doubt the Platypus' and the Beech's TCAS were going ape ****
but that doesn't mean the F16s violated the regs.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:42:10 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
>There's nothing to coordinate,

I have found, that when the MOA is scheduled to be active, that
alerting the military to the proposed time and route of your VFR
transition is prudent, courteous, and facilitates coordination of your
flight with their maneuvers. It often also provides you with a
frequency to use to contact the MOA military controller, so that he
can provide you with traffic advisories if he chooses.

>VFR aircraft are free to transit MOAs if they so choose.

I completely understand that. However making an effort to facilitate
cooperaton is simple and makes for better relations if nothing else,
IMO.

>Radar traffic advisories may be available and are certainly a
>good idea, but that's true in or out of a MOA.

I couldn't agree more.

>ATC may not be in communications with military aircraft in the MOA or
>have ready communications with the using agency to make them aware of
>the presence of VFR aircraft in the MOA.
>

Unfortunately, that is too true, and it is part of the reason for my
taking responsibility for the situation myself to the extent that I am
able.

>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
>Have the airspace modified in what way?
>

Whatever way may be appropriate in a given situation.

The point is, that it's important to work THROUGH the system, not
bypass it with unilateral disregard for regulations/instructions.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 10:05:21 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...

[snip]

>>
>> 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.
>>
>
>Yeah, but you also believe six hundred feet is markedly less than 500 feet,
>so your beliefs carry little weight.

I believe that 20% is a significant difference. In this case it
provides a cushion that arguably places the military aircraft far
enough beyond the 500 foot limit of 91.119(b), that there is little
chance of the AF incriminating themselves.

Why do you believe that 20% diminishes the weight of my belief? What
distance do you believe would be adequate to overcome your disregard
for my belief?

>
>I infer it to mean there is a hemisphere of 500' radius centered on any
>person, vessel, or structure on the surface within which an aircraft may not
>be flown.
>

That is also a reasonable and non-contradictory interpretation. Your
inference may be implicit in the "In those cases, the aircraft may not
be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or
structure." wording of 91.119(b), but it's not explicit.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:42:58 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Do you believe MARSA was, or should have been, employed in this
>> incident?
>>
>
>MARSA couldn't have been employed in this incident.
>

I didn't ask you for your belief. I wanted to hear what Viperdoc had
in mind when he brought up MARSA.

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-04-23, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> I have found, that when the MOA is scheduled to be active, that
> alerting the military to the proposed time and route of your VFR
> transition is prudent, courteous, and facilitates coordination of your
> flight with their maneuvers.

What method do you use to make sure the right military user gets the
information?
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> I have found, that when the MOA is scheduled to be active, that
> alerting the military to the proposed time and route of your VFR
> transition is prudent, courteous, and facilitates coordination of your
> flight with their maneuvers. It often also provides you with a
> frequency to use to contact the MOA military controller, so that he
> can provide you with traffic advisories if he chooses.
>

That's fine, but you're using incorrect terminology. The military is not
the MOA "controlling authority". The military would be the using agency,
the controlling agency is typically an ARTCC. The controlling agency for
the Gladden 1 MOA is Albuquerque Center, the using agency is the 56thFW,
Luke AFB.


>
> Whatever way may be appropriate in a given situation.
>

What way might be appropriate in the situation we're discussing?

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> I didn't ask you for your belief. I wanted to hear what Viperdoc had
> in mind when he brought up MARSA.
>

I did not state my belief, I stated a fact. If you wish to limit responses
to an individual then send that person an email, don't post your message in
an open forum.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601Xl Builder writes:

> There were 4 F16s. That's 4 against 2 so by your logic they must be the
> ones telling the truth.

None of the F-16 pilots has come forward. The Air Force has provided no
tapes.

> I have no doubt the Platypus' and the Beech's TCAS were going ape ****
> but that doesn't mean the F16s violated the regs.

Every description I've read indicates that they did indeed violate the FARs.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> I believe that 20% is a significant difference. In this case it
> provides a cushion that arguably places the military aircraft far
> enough beyond the 500 foot limit of 91.119(b), that there is little
> chance of the AF incriminating themselves.
>

Ya think? Please explain how you determined 600 feet is 20% less than 500
feet. I wanna see your math.


>
> Why do you believe that 20% diminishes the weight of my belief? What
> distance do you believe would be adequate to overcome your disregard
> for my belief?
>

The fact that you believe six hundred feet is markedly less than 500 feet is
what diminishes the weight of your belief.


>
> That is also a reasonable and non-contradictory interpretation. Your
> inference may be implicit in the "In those cases, the aircraft may not
> be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or
> structure." wording of 91.119(b), but it's not explicit.
>

Altitude is explicitly a distance upward, not laterally.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:03:47 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...

>Please explain how you determined 600 feet is 20% less than 500
>feet. I wanna see your math.
>

Oops! Thanks for pointing out my error.

>
>
>>
>> That is also a reasonable and non-contradictory interpretation. Your
>> inference may be implicit in the "In those cases, the aircraft may not
>> be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or
>> structure." wording of 91.119(b), but it's not explicit.
>>
>
>Altitude is explicitly a distance upward, not laterally.
>

Altitude isn't mentioned in that sentence. The word used is "closer."

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:53:57 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>:

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I didn't ask you for your belief. I wanted to hear what Viperdoc had
>> in mind when he brought up MARSA.
>>
>
>I did not state my belief, I stated a fact. If you wish to limit responses
>to an individual then send that person an email, don't post your message in
>an open forum.
>

I'd still like to hear what Viperdoc had in mind when he instructed me
to lookup MARSA.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601Xl Builder writes:

>> I have no doubt the Platypus' and the Beech's TCAS were going ape ****
>> but that doesn't mean the F16s violated the regs.
>
> Every description I've read indicates that they did indeed violate the FARs.

Then you haven't read enough.

[Al G[_1_]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>
>
> Altitude is explicitly a distance upward, not laterally.

Or in the case of a pilot, downward.



Least important are:
The altitude above me
The runway behind me
The gas in the fuel truck
and 1 second ago...

Al G

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:50:04 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I have found, that when the MOA is scheduled to be active, that
>> alerting the military to the proposed time and route of your VFR
>> transition is prudent, courteous, and facilitates coordination of your
>> flight with their maneuvers. It often also provides you with a
>> frequency to use to contact the MOA military controller, so that he
>> can provide you with traffic advisories if he chooses.
>>
>
>That's fine, but you're using incorrect terminology. The military is not
>the MOA "controlling authority". The military would be the using agency,
>the controlling agency is typically an ARTCC. The controlling agency for
>the Gladden 1 MOA is Albuquerque Center, the using agency is the 56thFW,
>Luke AFB.
>

Of course, you are correct.

>
>>
>> Whatever way may be appropriate in a given situation.
>>
>
>What way might be appropriate in the situation we're discussing?
>

I am not familiar with the local nor the airspace involved, so I'm not
able to answer that question. Even if I were, I'm not sure I'm
qualified to answer it. It would be a matter between the military and
the FAA.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> That is also a reasonable and non-contradictory interpretation. Your
>>> inference may be implicit in the "In those cases, the aircraft may not
>>> be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or
>>> structure." wording of 91.119(b), but it's not explicit.
>>>
>>
>>Altitude is explicitly a distance upward, not laterally.
>>
>
> Altitude isn't mentioned in that sentence. The word used is "closer."
>

Larry, if you'd pull your head out of your ass and took a look at the title
of FAR 91.119 you'd find altitude mentioned there.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:53:57 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> I didn't ask you for your belief. I wanted to hear what Viperdoc had
>>> in mind when he brought up MARSA.
>>>
>>
>>I did not state my belief, I stated a fact. If you wish to limit
>>responses
>>to an individual then send that person an email, don't post your message
>>in
>>an open forum.
>>
>
> I'd still like to hear what Viperdoc had in mind when he instructed me
> to lookup MARSA.
>

Does my response to your message preclude him from responding?

[Benjamin Dover]

Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
m:

> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Gig 601Xl Builder writes:
>
>>> I have no doubt the Platypus' and the Beech's TCAS were going ape
>>> **** but that doesn't mean the F16s violated the regs.
>>
>> Every description I've read indicates that they did indeed violate
>> the FARs.
>
> Then you haven't read enough.

You're assuming that Anthony has sufficient intelligence to understand what
he reads. That's really going out on a limb.

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 24, 1:22*am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
wrote:
> 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.- Hide quoted text -
>

Well if it never happened the civilian would be risking being
publically discredited and in this case losing his job as an attorney.
Why would any sane person do that? On the other hand a fighter jock
all full of arrogance and macho might well buzz the civilian plane
just to show he's "superior" (you know a top gun alpha male thang).

From my analysis I'd say that without hard data I'd take the civilians
story but not punish the fighter pilot. I would also make sure that
the military understands it does not own airspace.

Cheers

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:35:24 GMT, Jay Maynard
> wrote in
>:

>On 2008-04-23, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> I have found, that when the MOA is scheduled to be active, that
>> alerting the military to the proposed time and route of your VFR
>> transition is prudent, courteous, and facilitates coordination of your
>> flight with their maneuvers.
>
>What method do you use to make sure the right military user gets the
>information?

Yeah. It's not always easy to reach the correct military person for a
number of reasons. I have found, that if I am courteous, professional
and persistent, after several hand-offs it's usually possible to speak
to someone who knows what I'm talking about. If they just want to
take a message, that's not good enough. You need to reach a person
who is familiar with the terms you are using, and sounds concerned and
helpful, and willing to provide a plan for coordination of your
transition of the MOA.

First you need to contact FSS, and ask the briefer what the status of
the MOA will be at the time you plan to traverse it. Often the FSS
briefer is able to provide a telephone number of the military contact
from the NOTAM too. If not, you can then consult a chart or ask the
briefer to learn who the MOA controlling agency or contact facility
is. Or if you have Internet access at your then present location, you
can find that official information here from the FAA:
<http://sua.faa.gov/sua/Welcome.do?selected=1&order=reset> or here
unofficially from the Air National Guard:
<http://www.seeandavoid.org/>.*

Then you can look up the telephone number in the Airport/Facilities
Directory, and then inquire at that telephone number about how to
reach the correct military person. If that is unproductive, look up
the telephone number for the military facility you believe to be
scheduled to use the MOA, and telephone them, and start inquiring...

It can require a few calls before you get to the right person, but it
will be apparent you've reached the right person when you have.

There are vast aggregated MOAs out west, so this is the technique I
use. If you try to do this in-flight, it's often unproductive. FSS
may not have the status information, or be able to provide you with a
frequency to reach the military controller(s). At least this has been
my experience in the past. Now that FSS is privatized, the situation
may be better (or not). And Mr. McNicoll may have additional input. I
always feel better being in communication directly with the military
controller when within an active MOA, because I know s/he can see
his/her aircraft and mine on his/her scope to provide traffic
advisories, as well as control his/her aircraft to assist in
separating us. ARTCC is unable to do the latter.

It's just good CRM to use all the tools and facilities at your
disposal.

I wonder what information/techniques aviation author Bob Gardner might
have to offer on this subject.


*
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting/msg/4fea182c2b706625?dmode=source

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:05:35 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>> That is also a reasonable and non-contradictory interpretation. Your
>>>> inference may be implicit in the "In those cases, the aircraft may not
>>>> be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or
>>>> structure." wording of 91.119(b), but it's not explicit.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Altitude is explicitly a distance upward, not laterally.
>>>
>>
>> Altitude isn't mentioned in that sentence. The word used is "closer."
>>
>
>Larry, if you'd pull your head out of your ass and took a look at the title
>of FAR 91.119 you'd find altitude mentioned there.
>

Mr. McNicoll, if you're unable to keep a civil tongue in your head,
you'll force me to ignore you.

I am well aware of the title.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:05:35 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>
>>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>> That is also a reasonable and non-contradictory interpretation. Your
>>>>> inference may be implicit in the "In those cases, the aircraft may not
>>>>> be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or
>>>>> structure." wording of 91.119(b), but it's not explicit.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Altitude is explicitly a distance upward, not laterally.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Altitude isn't mentioned in that sentence. The word used is "closer."
>>>
>>
>>Larry, if you'd pull your head out of your ass and took a look at the
>>title
>>of FAR 91.119 you'd find altitude mentioned there.
>>
>
> Mr. McNicoll, if you're unable to keep a civil tongue in your head,
> you'll force me to ignore you.
>

So ignore me.


>
> I am well aware of the title.
>

Then clearly, you do not understand what it means.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:15:57 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>:

>
>>
>> I am well aware of the title.
>>
>
>Then clearly, you do not understand what it means.
>

I understand what § 91.119(c) says. An attorney will understand it
too.

§ 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.


It says that over open water or sparsely populated areas an aircraft
may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel,
vehicle, or structure. Implicit in that statement is the lack of any
lower altitude limit, with the exception of being in the proximity of
a person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. But there is some ambiguity.

The fact that the first sentence states that an aircraft may not be
operated below the following altitudes can not possibly apply to
operation laterally distant from a person, vessel, vehicle, or
structure, because a lateral distance is not an altitude. If the
wording had included 'person, vessel, vehicle, or structure LOCATED ON
THE GROUND', perhaps it's intent would have been clearer, but the
language as written fails to restrict the implied 500' lateral limit
from being applied at altitude, IMO.

In the subject case (presumably over a sparsely populated area) the
F-16 was alleged to have been operated in less than 500' lateral
proximity to a vehicle, another aircraft in this case. I would say
you are naïve if you believe, that the attorney pilot will fail to
read § 91.119(c) the way I have? Most judges are attorneys. ...

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> I understand what § 91.119(c) says. An attorney will understand it
> too.
>

You only think that you understand it.


>
> § 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.
>
>
> It says that over open water or sparsely populated areas an aircraft
> may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel,
> vehicle, or structure. Implicit in that statement is the lack of any
> lower altitude limit, with the exception of being in the proximity of
> a person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. But there is some ambiguity.
>

The only ambiguity is in what constitutes a sparsely populated area.


>
> The fact that the first sentence states that an aircraft may not be
> operated below the following altitudes can not possibly apply to
> operation laterally distant from a person, vessel, vehicle, or
> structure, because a lateral distance is not an altitude. If the
> wording had included 'person, vessel, vehicle, or structure LOCATED ON
> THE GROUND', perhaps it's intent would have been clearer, but the
> language as written fails to restrict the implied 500' lateral limit
> from being applied at altitude, IMO.
>


"Fails to restrict the implied 500' lateral limit from being applied at
altitude" from what? A person that is not in an aircraft? An airborne
vessel? An airborne vehicle other than an aircraft? An airborne structure?

What type of vessels are operated on the GROUND?


>
> In the subject case (presumably over a sparsely populated area) the
> F-16 was alleged to have been operated in less than 500' lateral
> proximity to a vehicle, another aircraft in this case.
>

Ehhh? A lateral distance is not an altitude but an altitude is a lateral
distance?


>
> I would say
> you are naïve if you believe, that the attorney pilot will fail to
> read § 91.119(c) the way I have? Most judges are attorneys. ...
>

No intelligent person will read § 91.119(c) the way you have. That is not
an opinion.

[WingFlaps]

On May 2, 1:16*am, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > I understand what § 91.119(c) says. *An attorney will understand it
> > too.
>
> You only think that you understand it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > * *§ 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.
>
> > It says that over open water or sparsely populated areas an aircraft
> > may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel,
> > vehicle, or structure. *Implicit in that statement is the lack of any
> > lower altitude limit, with the exception of being in the proximity of
> > a person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. *But there is some ambiguity.
>
> The only ambiguity is in what constitutes a sparsely populated area.
>
>
>
> > The fact that the first sentence states that an aircraft may not be
> > operated below the following altitudes can not possibly apply to
> > operation laterally distant from a person, vessel, vehicle, or
> > structure, because a lateral distance is not an altitude. *If the
> > wording had included 'person, vessel, vehicle, or structure LOCATED ON
> > THE GROUND', perhaps it's intent would have been clearer, but the
> > language as written fails to restrict the implied 500' lateral limit
> > from being applied at altitude, IMO.
>
> "Fails to restrict the implied 500' lateral limit from being applied at
> altitude" from what? *A person that is not in an aircraft? *An airborne
> vessel? *An airborne vehicle other than an aircraft? *An airborne structure?
>
> What type of vessels are operated on the GROUND?
>
>
>
> > In the subject case (presumably over a sparsely populated area) the
> > F-16 was alleged to have been operated in less than 500' lateral
> > proximity to a vehicle, another aircraft in this case.
>
> Ehhh? *A lateral distance is not an altitude but an altitude is a lateral
> distance?
>
>
>
> > I would say
> > you are naïve if you believe, that the attorney pilot will fail to
> > read § 91.119(c) the way I have? *Most judges are attorneys. *...
>
> No intelligent person will read § 91.119(c) the way you have. *That is not
> an opinion.- Hide quoted text -
>

Sorry to interrupt, but aren't the relevant FARs 91.111a; 91.13a and
91.11 ?

Cheers

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"WingFlaps" > wrote in message
...
On May 2, 1:16 am, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:
>>
>> No intelligent person will read § 91.119(c) the way you have. That is not
>> an opinion.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
> Sorry to interrupt, but aren't the relevant FARs 91.111a; 91.13a and 91.11
> ?
>

91.11? Prohibition on interference with crewmembers.?

91.111 is clearly relevant to operating near other aircraft, 91.13 could
possibly be relevant, and 91.119 completely irrelevant.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I understand what § 91.119(c) says. An attorney will understand it
>> too.
>>
>
> You only think that you understand it.
>
>
>>
>> § 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.
>>
>>
>> It says that over open water or sparsely populated areas an aircraft
>> may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel,
>> vehicle, or structure. Implicit in that statement is the lack of any
>> lower altitude limit, with the exception of being in the proximity of
>> a person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. But there is some
>> ambiguity.
>
> The only ambiguity is in what constitutes a sparsely populated area.
>
>
>>
>> The fact that the first sentence states that an aircraft may not be
>> operated below the following altitudes can not possibly apply to
>> operation laterally distant from a person, vessel, vehicle, or
>> structure, because a lateral distance is not an altitude. If the
>> wording had included 'person, vessel, vehicle, or structure LOCATED
>> ON THE GROUND', perhaps it's intent would have been clearer, but the
>> language as written fails to restrict the implied 500' lateral limit
>> from being applied at altitude, IMO.
>>
>
>
> "Fails to restrict the implied 500' lateral limit from being applied
> at altitude" from what? A person that is not in an aircraft? An
> airborne vessel? An airborne vehicle other than an aircraft? An
> airborne structure?
> What type of vessels are operated on the GROUND?
>
>
>>
>> In the subject case (presumably over a sparsely populated area) the
>> F-16 was alleged to have been operated in less than 500' lateral
>> proximity to a vehicle, another aircraft in this case.
>>
>
> Ehhh? A lateral distance is not an altitude but an altitude is a
> lateral distance?
>
>
>>
>> I would say
>> you are naïve if you believe, that the attorney pilot will fail to
>> read § 91.119(c) the way I have? Most judges are attorneys. ...
>>
>
> No intelligent person will read § 91.119(c) the way you have. That
> is not an opinion.
>

Larry, it would seem that you are incapable of providing a reasoned
response to my statements. If you see fallacy in them, define it. If
you are incapable of that, perhaps it is because there is none.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I understand what § 91.119(c) says. An attorney will understand it
>> too.
>>
>
> You only think that you understand it.
>
>
>>
>> § 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.
>>
>>
>> It says that over open water or sparsely populated areas an aircraft
>> may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel,
>> vehicle, or structure. Implicit in that statement is the lack of any
>> lower altitude limit, with the exception of being in the proximity of
>> a person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. But there is some ambiguity.
>>
>
> The only ambiguity is in what constitutes a sparsely populated area.
>
>
>>
>> The fact that the first sentence states that an aircraft may not be
>> operated below the following altitudes can not possibly apply to
>> operation laterally distant from a person, vessel, vehicle, or
>> structure, because a lateral distance is not an altitude. If the
>> wording had included 'person, vessel, vehicle, or structure LOCATED ON
>> THE GROUND', perhaps it's intent would have been clearer, but the
>> language as written fails to restrict the implied 500' lateral limit
>> from being applied at altitude, IMO.
>>
>
>
> "Fails to restrict the implied 500' lateral limit from being applied at
> altitude" from what? A person that is not in an aircraft? An airborne
> vessel? An airborne vehicle other than an aircraft? An airborne
> structure?
>
> What type of vessels are operated on the GROUND?
>
>
>>
>> In the subject case (presumably over a sparsely populated area) the
>> F-16 was alleged to have been operated in less than 500' lateral
>> proximity to a vehicle, another aircraft in this case.
>>
>
> Ehhh? A lateral distance is not an altitude but an altitude is a lateral
> distance?
>
>
>>
>> I would say
>> you are naïve if you believe, that the attorney pilot will fail to
>> read § 91.119(c) the way I have? Most judges are attorneys. ...
>>
>
> No intelligent person will read § 91.119(c) the way you have. That is not
> an opinion.

Larry, are you unable to address the issues raised?

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 10 May 2008 07:30:42 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>:

>
>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
m...
>>
>> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> I understand what § 91.119(c) says. An attorney will understand it
>>> too.
>>>
>>
>> You only think that you understand it.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> § 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> It says that over open water or sparsely populated areas an aircraft
>>> may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel,
>>> vehicle, or structure. Implicit in that statement is the lack of any
>>> lower altitude limit, with the exception of being in the proximity of
>>> a person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. But there is some ambiguity.
>>>
>>
>> The only ambiguity is in what constitutes a sparsely populated area.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The fact that the first sentence states that an aircraft may not be
>>> operated below the following altitudes can not possibly apply to
>>> operation laterally distant from a person, vessel, vehicle, or
>>> structure, because a lateral distance is not an altitude. If the
>>> wording had included 'person, vessel, vehicle, or structure LOCATED ON
>>> THE GROUND', perhaps it's intent would have been clearer, but the
>>> language as written fails to restrict the implied 500' lateral limit
>>> from being applied at altitude, IMO.
>>>
>>
>>
>> "Fails to restrict the implied 500' lateral limit from being applied at
>> altitude" from what? A person that is not in an aircraft? An airborne
>> vessel? An airborne vehicle other than an aircraft? An airborne
>> structure?
>>
>> What type of vessels are operated on the GROUND?
>>
>>
>>>
>>> In the subject case (presumably over a sparsely populated area) the
>>> F-16 was alleged to have been operated in less than 500' lateral
>>> proximity to a vehicle, another aircraft in this case.
>>>
>>
>> Ehhh? A lateral distance is not an altitude but an altitude is a lateral
>> distance?
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I would say
>>> you are naïve if you believe, that the attorney pilot will fail to
>>> read § 91.119(c) the way I have? Most judges are attorneys. ...
>>>
>>
>> No intelligent person will read § 91.119(c) the way you have. That is not
>> an opinion.
>
>Larry, are you unable to address the issues raised?
>

To what issue do you refer?

Your interpretation of the FAR is not incorrect. Mine could be
reasonably expected to be employed by an attorney. Surely, you must
agree that there is room for differing interpretations among the FARS.

We've both expressed our views on this subject. I see no reason for
further discussion; nothing will change.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 07:30:42 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>
>>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
m...
>>>
>>> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> I understand what § 91.119(c) says. An attorney will understand it
>>>> too.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You only think that you understand it.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> § 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It says that over open water or sparsely populated areas an aircraft
>>>> may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel,
>>>> vehicle, or structure. Implicit in that statement is the lack of any
>>>> lower altitude limit, with the exception of being in the proximity of
>>>> a person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. But there is some ambiguity.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The only ambiguity is in what constitutes a sparsely populated area.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The fact that the first sentence states that an aircraft may not be
>>>> operated below the following altitudes can not possibly apply to
>>>> operation laterally distant from a person, vessel, vehicle, or
>>>> structure, because a lateral distance is not an altitude. If the
>>>> wording had included 'person, vessel, vehicle, or structure LOCATED ON
>>>> THE GROUND', perhaps it's intent would have been clearer, but the
>>>> language as written fails to restrict the implied 500' lateral limit
>>>> from being applied at altitude, IMO.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Fails to restrict the implied 500' lateral limit from being applied at
>>> altitude" from what? A person that is not in an aircraft? An airborne
>>> vessel? An airborne vehicle other than an aircraft? An airborne
>>> structure?
>>>
>>> What type of vessels are operated on the GROUND?
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> In the subject case (presumably over a sparsely populated area) the
>>>> F-16 was alleged to have been operated in less than 500' lateral
>>>> proximity to a vehicle, another aircraft in this case.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ehhh? A lateral distance is not an altitude but an altitude is a
>>> lateral
>>> distance?
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would say
>>>> you are naïve if you believe, that the attorney pilot will fail to
>>>> read § 91.119(c) the way I have? Most judges are attorneys. ...
>>>>
>>>
>>> No intelligent person will read § 91.119(c) the way you have. That is
>>> not
>>> an opinion.
>>
>>Larry, are you unable to address the issues raised?
>>
>
> To what issue do you refer?
>

The sentences above that end with a question mark.


>
> Your interpretation of the FAR is not incorrect. Mine could be
> reasonably expected to be employed by an attorney.
>

Your misinterpretation of the FAR could not reasonably be expected to be
employed by anyone regardless of profession.


>
> Surely, you must
> agree that there is room for differing interpretations among the FARS.
>

Among those discussed here there is room for interpretation only on what
constitutes a sparsely populated area. If you find another person that
shares your interpretation of altitude you have found a fellow idiot.


>
> We've both expressed our views on this subject. I see no reason for
> further discussion; nothing will change.
>

It's not a matter of opinion.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 10 May 2008 09:04:10 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 10 May 2008 07:30:42 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
>> > wrote in
>> >:
>>
>>>
>>>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
m...
>>>>
>>>> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> I understand what § 91.119(c) says. An attorney will understand it
>>>>> too.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You only think that you understand it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> § 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It says that over open water or sparsely populated areas an aircraft
>>>>> may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel,
>>>>> vehicle, or structure. Implicit in that statement is the lack of any
>>>>> lower altitude limit, with the exception of being in the proximity of
>>>>> a person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. But there is some ambiguity.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The only ambiguity is in what constitutes a sparsely populated area.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact that the first sentence states that an aircraft may not be
>>>>> operated below the following altitudes can not possibly apply to
>>>>> operation laterally distant from a person, vessel, vehicle, or
>>>>> structure, because a lateral distance is not an altitude. If the
>>>>> wording had included 'person, vessel, vehicle, or structure LOCATED ON
>>>>> THE GROUND', perhaps it's intent would have been clearer, but the
>>>>> language as written fails to restrict the implied 500' lateral limit
>>>>> from being applied at altitude, IMO.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Fails to restrict the implied 500' lateral limit from being applied at
>>>> altitude" from what? A person that is not in an aircraft? An airborne
>>>> vessel? An airborne vehicle other than an aircraft? An airborne
>>>> structure?
>>>>
>>>> What type of vessels are operated on the GROUND?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In the subject case (presumably over a sparsely populated area) the
>>>>> F-16 was alleged to have been operated in less than 500' lateral
>>>>> proximity to a vehicle, another aircraft in this case.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ehhh? A lateral distance is not an altitude but an altitude is a
>>>> lateral
>>>> distance?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I would say
>>>>> you are naïve if you believe, that the attorney pilot will fail to
>>>>> read § 91.119(c) the way I have? Most judges are attorneys. ...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No intelligent person will read § 91.119(c) the way you have. That is
>>>> not
>>>> an opinion.
>>>
>>>Larry, are you unable to address the issues raised?
>>>
>>
>> To what issue do you refer?
>>
>
>The sentences above that end with a question mark.
>
>
>>
>> Your interpretation of the FAR is not incorrect. Mine could be
>> reasonably expected to be employed by an attorney.
>>
>
>Your misinterpretation of the FAR could not reasonably be expected to be
>employed by anyone regardless of profession.
>
>
>>
>> Surely, you must
>> agree that there is room for differing interpretations among the FARS.
>>
>
>Among those discussed here there is room for interpretation only on what
>constitutes a sparsely populated area. If you find another person that
>shares your interpretation of altitude you have found a fellow idiot.
>
>
>>
>> We've both expressed our views on this subject. I see no reason for
>> further discussion; nothing will change.
>>
>
>It's not a matter of opinion.
>

How much experience have you had arguing cases in court?

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> How much experience have you had arguing cases in court?
>

None.

Please explain your conclusion that altitude is a lateral distance by
disclosing your analysis.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 10 May 2008 09:28:03 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> How much experience have you had arguing cases in court?
>>
>
>None.
>

That's why you don't understand my position.

>Please explain your conclusion that altitude is a lateral distance by
>disclosing your analysis.
>

Of course, that is your inference, not my conclusion.

If one regulation prohibits an aircraft from approaching closer than
500' to a person or structure located on the ground (that distance
includes laterally as well as vertically), why do you believe that
that distance would not be applicable to aircraft in flight? If the
FAA had grounds for the former, why wouldn't they be applicable in the
latter? Do the reasons for the prohibition against "getting too
close" to people or structures located on the ground not apply in
flight? If not, why not?



Just as an aside to provide an example of how the court and the NTSB's
interpretations may differ, I offer the court's recent decision (see
my article on that subject) in the Torrance helo crashes. The NTSB
found the pilot to be the cause of the mishap, but the court found the
controllers culpable. Who's right? Who's likely to collect damages
from whom? Courts can be capricious. A successful attorney knows
that, and uses it to his advantage.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 09:28:03 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>
>>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> How much experience have you had arguing cases in court?
>>>
>>
>>None.
>>
>
> That's why you don't understand my position.
>

How much experience have you had arguing cases in court?


>>
>>Please explain your conclusion that altitude is a lateral distance by
>>disclosing your analysis.
>>
>
> Of course, that is your inference, not my conclusion.
>
> If one regulation prohibits an aircraft from approaching closer than
> 500' to a person or structure located on the ground (that distance
> includes laterally as well as vertically), why do you believe that
> that distance would not be applicable to aircraft in flight?
>

Because the lateral distance between aircraft in flight is not an altitude
and is covered by another regulation.

Didn't you recently criticize someone for answering your question with
another question? Why don't you practice what you preach?


>
> If the FAA had grounds for the former, why wouldn't they be applicable in
> the latter?
>

Because the former applies to the surface and the latter applies in flight.

If you don't believe that the "person, vessel, vehicle, or structure" of FAR
91.119 is limited to persons, vessels, vehicles, and structures on the
surface, then please explain what persons that are not aboard aircraft,
airborne vessels, airborne vehicles other than aircraft, and airborne
structures that are covered by it.


>
> Do the reasons for the prohibition against "getting too close" to people
> or structures located
> on the ground not apply in flight?
>

No.


>
> Just as an aside to provide an example of how the court and the NTSB's
> interpretations may differ, I offer the court's recent decision (see
> my article on that subject) in the Torrance helo crashes. The NTSB
> found the pilot to be the cause of the mishap, but the court found the
> controllers culpable. Who's right? Who's likely to collect damages
> from whom? Courts can be capricious. A successful attorney knows
> that, and uses it to his advantage.
>

I didn't read it. If the aircraft were operating where ATC has
responsibility for separation the controllers were probably at fault. If
they were operating where the pilots were responsible for separation then at
least one of the pilots was probably at fault. Given that the NTSB tends to
have a better understanding of aviation than judges it's likely the NTSB's
finding is correct and the judge's is wrong.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>How much experience have you had arguing cases in court?
>>
>
> Over the years, I've argued more than a couple of dozen I'd reckon. I
> win about half of them.
>

You must have had a slam dunk case each time. Why do you have so much
trouble with the law?


>>
>>Because the lateral distance between aircraft in flight is not an altitude
>>
>
> But that FAR is not strictly limited to regulating altitude, as it
> specifies a hemispherical distance. After 45 degrees the 500'
> limitation is more lateral than vertical. Altitude is a vertical
> distance, not a lateral distance, but 91.119(c) also contains a
> lateral restriction by implication, so it is obviously not limited
> exclusively to governing altitude.
>

FAR 91.119 IS strictly limited to regulating altitude. FAR 91.119(c) simply
states that a pilot may not descend below 500 AGL if doing so would be
within 500 feet of a person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.


>>
>> and is covered by another regulation.
>>
>
> To which particular regulation(s) that addresses lateral distance
> between aircraft are you referring?
>

FAR 91.111.


>>
>>Didn't you recently criticize someone for answering your question with
>>another question? Why don't you practice what you preach?
>>
>
> My question was more socratic than literal.
>
> Further, in the above instance you requested my explanation; you did
> not ask a question; notice the lack of a question mark at the end of
> your sentence.
>

So a sentence in an interrogative form, addressed to someone in order to get
information in reply, is not a question unless it ends with a question mark?

You've ignored many interrogatives that DID end with question marks in this
thread.


>
> If you truly desire to debate the issue, I will continue to indulge
> you. But if your desire is to attack me personally, or attempt to
> feign a sincere interest in the subject as a thinly masked veil to
> conceal your attempt to establish your superiority, or some other
> nonsense, you will not find my future responses forthcoming.
>

Indulge me, I have no desire to attack anyone personally. I don't have time
for such nonsense.


>>
>>Because the former applies to the surface and the latter applies in
>>flight.
>>
>
> So you believe the grounds for the hemispherical distance restriction
> imposed by FAA regulation are not valid nor applicable to lateral
> distance restriction?
>

The hemispherical distance restriction of FAR 91.119(c) applies between an
aircraft and a person, vessel, vehicle, or structure on the surface. It
does not apply between aircraft and persons, vessels, vehicles, or
structures at altitude.


>
> If not, why not?
>

Because the anti-gravity technology necessary to support these things at
altitude has yet to be invented.


>
> Clearly, 91.229(c) implies a lateral distance, does it not?
>

There is no FAR 91.229.


>>
>>If you don't believe that the "person, vessel, vehicle, or structure" of
>>FAR
>>91.119 is limited to persons, vessels, vehicles, and structures on the
>>surface, then please explain what persons that are not aboard aircraft,
>>airborne vessels, airborne vehicles other than aircraft, and airborne
>>structures that are covered by it.
>>
>
> Huh?
>

Amnesia? On 4/23/2008 you posted:

>
> I understand what § 91.119(c) says. An attorney will understand it
> too.
>
> § 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.
>
>
> It says that over open water or sparsely populated areas an aircraft
> may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel,
> vehicle, or structure. Implicit in that statement is the lack of any
> lower altitude limit, with the exception of being in the proximity of
> a person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. But there is some ambiguity.
>
> The fact that the first sentence states that an aircraft may not be
> operated below the following altitudes can not possibly apply to
> operation laterally distant from a person, vessel, vehicle, or
> structure, because a lateral distance is not an altitude. If the
> wording had included 'person, vessel, vehicle, or structure LOCATED ON
> THE GROUND', perhaps it's intent would have been clearer, but the
> language as written fails to restrict the implied 500' lateral limit
> from being applied at altitude, IMO.
>
> In the subject case (presumably over a sparsely populated area) the
> F-16 was alleged to have been operated in less than 500' lateral
> proximity to a vehicle, another aircraft in this case. I would say
> you are naïve if you believe, that the attorney pilot will fail to
> read § 91.119(c) the way I have? Most judges are attorneys. ...
>

And I responded with:

>
> I understand what § 91.119(c) says. An attorney will understand it too.
>

You only think that you understand it.


>
> § 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.
>
>
> It says that over open water or sparsely populated areas an aircraft
> may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel,
> vehicle, or structure. Implicit in that statement is the lack of any
> lower altitude limit, with the exception of being in the proximity of
> a person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. But there is some ambiguity.
>

The only ambiguity is in what constitutes a sparsely populated area.


>
> The fact that the first sentence states that an aircraft may not be
> operated below the following altitudes can not possibly apply to
> operation laterally distant from a person, vessel, vehicle, or
> structure, because a lateral distance is not an altitude. If the
> wording had included 'person, vessel, vehicle, or structure LOCATED ON
> THE GROUND', perhaps it's intent would have been clearer, but the
> language as written fails to restrict the implied 500' lateral limit
> from being applied at altitude, IMO.
>

"Fails to restrict the implied 500' lateral limit from being applied at
altitude" from what? A person that is not in an aircraft? An airborne
vessel? An airborne vehicle other than an aircraft? An airborne structure?

What type of vessels are operated on the GROUND?


>
> In the subject case (presumably over a sparsely populated area) the
> F-16 was alleged to have been operated in less than 500' lateral
> proximity to a vehicle, another aircraft in this case.
>

Ehhh? A lateral distance is not an altitude but an altitude is a lateral
distance?


>
> I would say
> you are naïve if you believe, that the attorney pilot will fail to
> read § 91.119(c) the way I have? Most judges are attorneys. ...
>

No intelligent person will read § 91.119(c) the way you have. That is not
an opinion.


>>>
>>> Do the reasons for the prohibition against "getting too close" to people
>>> or structures located on the ground not apply in flight?
>>>
>>
>>No.
>>
>
> For reference, here is 91.119(c):
>
> (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.
>
> Clearly, the last sentence of (c) implies a lateral component, as
> there is no altitude restriction over open water and sparsely
> populated areas, and a pilot may fly as low as he pleases there.
>

As long as he is not within 500' of any person, vessel, vehicle, or
structure, yes.


>
> Presumably there was a reason the FAA chose to implement a 500'
> proximity limit in 91.119(c). But you believe that that reason or
> justification for that restriction is inapplicable to two aircraft in
> flight?
>

I don't believe I said anything about any reason or justification for
anything.


>
> I'm not referring to the jurisdiction of FAR 91,119(c); I'm
> referring to the _justification_ for the distance limitation contained
> in it.
>

What of it?

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>
>>>How much experience have you had arguing cases in court?
>>>
>>
>> Over the years, I've argued more than a couple of dozen I'd reckon. I
>> win about half of them.
>>
>
> You must have had a slam dunk case each time. Why do you have so much
> trouble with the law?
>
>
>>>
>>>Because the lateral distance between aircraft in flight is not an
>>>altitude
>>>
>>
>> But that FAR is not strictly limited to regulating altitude, as it
>> specifies a hemispherical distance. After 45 degrees the 500'
>> limitation is more lateral than vertical. Altitude is a vertical
>> distance, not a lateral distance, but 91.119(c) also contains a
>> lateral restriction by implication, so it is obviously not limited
>> exclusively to governing altitude.
>>
>
> FAR 91.119 IS strictly limited to regulating altitude. FAR 91.119(c)
> simply states that a pilot may not descend below 500 AGL if doing so would
> be within 500 feet of a person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
>
>
>>>
>>> and is covered by another regulation.
>>>
>>
>> To which particular regulation(s) that addresses lateral distance
>> between aircraft are you referring?
>>
>
> FAR 91.111.
>
>
>>>
>>>Didn't you recently criticize someone for answering your question with
>>>another question? Why don't you practice what you preach?
>>>
>>
>> My question was more socratic than literal.
>>
>> Further, in the above instance you requested my explanation; you did
>> not ask a question; notice the lack of a question mark at the end of
>> your sentence.
>>
>
> So a sentence in an interrogative form, addressed to someone in order to
> get information in reply, is not a question unless it ends with a question
> mark?
>
> You've ignored many interrogatives that DID end with question marks in
> this thread.
>
>
>>
>> If you truly desire to debate the issue, I will continue to indulge
>> you. But if your desire is to attack me personally, or attempt to
>> feign a sincere interest in the subject as a thinly masked veil to
>> conceal your attempt to establish your superiority, or some other
>> nonsense, you will not find my future responses forthcoming.
>>
>
> Indulge me, I have no desire to attack anyone personally. I don't have
> time for such nonsense.
>
>
>>>
>>>Because the former applies to the surface and the latter applies in
>>>flight.
>>>
>>
>> So you believe the grounds for the hemispherical distance restriction
>> imposed by FAA regulation are not valid nor applicable to lateral
>> distance restriction?
>>
>
> The hemispherical distance restriction of FAR 91.119(c) applies between an
> aircraft and a person, vessel, vehicle, or structure on the surface. It
> does not apply between aircraft and persons, vessels, vehicles, or
> structures at altitude.
>
>
>>
>> If not, why not?
>>
>
> Because the anti-gravity technology necessary to support these things at
> altitude has yet to be invented.
>
>
>>
>> Clearly, 91.229(c) implies a lateral distance, does it not?
>>
>
> There is no FAR 91.229.
>
>
>>>
>>>If you don't believe that the "person, vessel, vehicle, or structure" of
>>>FAR
>>>91.119 is limited to persons, vessels, vehicles, and structures on the
>>>surface, then please explain what persons that are not aboard aircraft,
>>>airborne vessels, airborne vehicles other than aircraft, and airborne
>>>structures that are covered by it.
>>>
>>
>> Huh?
>>
>
> Amnesia? On 4/23/2008 you posted:
>
>>
>> I understand what § 91.119(c) says. An attorney will understand it
>> too.
>>
>> § 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.
>>
>>
>> It says that over open water or sparsely populated areas an aircraft
>> may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel,
>> vehicle, or structure. Implicit in that statement is the lack of any
>> lower altitude limit, with the exception of being in the proximity of
>> a person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. But there is some ambiguity.
>>
>> The fact that the first sentence states that an aircraft may not be
>> operated below the following altitudes can not possibly apply to
>> operation laterally distant from a person, vessel, vehicle, or
>> structure, because a lateral distance is not an altitude. If the
>> wording had included 'person, vessel, vehicle, or structure LOCATED ON
>> THE GROUND', perhaps it's intent would have been clearer, but the
>> language as written fails to restrict the implied 500' lateral limit
>> from being applied at altitude, IMO.
>>
>> In the subject case (presumably over a sparsely populated area) the
>> F-16 was alleged to have been operated in less than 500' lateral
>> proximity to a vehicle, another aircraft in this case. I would say
>> you are naïve if you believe, that the attorney pilot will fail to
>> read § 91.119(c) the way I have? Most judges are attorneys. ...
>>
>
> And I responded with:
>
>>
>> I understand what § 91.119(c) says. An attorney will understand it too.
>>
>
> You only think that you understand it.
>
>
>>
>> § 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.
>>
>>
>> It says that over open water or sparsely populated areas an aircraft
>> may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel,
>> vehicle, or structure. Implicit in that statement is the lack of any
>> lower altitude limit, with the exception of being in the proximity of
>> a person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. But there is some ambiguity.
>>
>
> The only ambiguity is in what constitutes a sparsely populated area.
>
>
>>
>> The fact that the first sentence states that an aircraft may not be
>> operated below the following altitudes can not possibly apply to
>> operation laterally distant from a person, vessel, vehicle, or
>> structure, because a lateral distance is not an altitude. If the
>> wording had included 'person, vessel, vehicle, or structure LOCATED ON
>> THE GROUND', perhaps it's intent would have been clearer, but the
>> language as written fails to restrict the implied 500' lateral limit
>> from being applied at altitude, IMO.
>>
>
> "Fails to restrict the implied 500' lateral limit from being applied at
> altitude" from what? A person that is not in an aircraft? An airborne
> vessel? An airborne vehicle other than an aircraft? An airborne
> structure?
>
> What type of vessels are operated on the GROUND?
>
>
>>
>> In the subject case (presumably over a sparsely populated area) the
>> F-16 was alleged to have been operated in less than 500' lateral
>> proximity to a vehicle, another aircraft in this case.
>>
>
> Ehhh? A lateral distance is not an altitude but an altitude is a lateral
> distance?
>
>
>>
>> I would say
>> you are naïve if you believe, that the attorney pilot will fail to
>> read § 91.119(c) the way I have? Most judges are attorneys. ...
>>
>
> No intelligent person will read § 91.119(c) the way you have. That is not
> an opinion.
>
>
>>>>
>>>> Do the reasons for the prohibition against "getting too close" to
>>>> people
>>>> or structures located on the ground not apply in flight?
>>>>
>>>
>>>No.
>>>
>>
>> For reference, here is 91.119(c):
>>
>> (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.
>>
>> Clearly, the last sentence of (c) implies a lateral component, as
>> there is no altitude restriction over open water and sparsely
>> populated areas, and a pilot may fly as low as he pleases there.
>>
>
> As long as he is not within 500' of any person, vessel, vehicle, or
> structure, yes.
>
>
>>
>> Presumably there was a reason the FAA chose to implement a 500'
>> proximity limit in 91.119(c). But you believe that that reason or
>> justification for that restriction is inapplicable to two aircraft in
>> flight?
>>
>
> I don't believe I said anything about any reason or justification for
> anything.
>
>
>>
>> I'm not referring to the jurisdiction of FAR 91,119(c); I'm
>> referring to the _justification_ for the distance limitation contained
>> in it.
>>
>
> What of it?

Larry, if you find these questions are too difficult please say so. I'll
try to rephrase them using smaller words.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> Larry, if you find these questions are too difficult please say so. I'll
> try to rephrase them using smaller words.
>
>

I think something shiny must have caught his eye.