F-16 Encounters in MOA

Admittedly, I didn't exhaust all search strings to find this topic
discussed in these forums, but I didn't see any hits, on my first few
attempts...

I am interested in hearing thoughts on the encounters that are linked
off of the AvWeb site:

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news..._198261-1.html


http://www.avweb.com/podcast/podcast/197492-1.html

My initial thoughts are that the military owns those airspaces, and
VFR pilots assume the responsibility for seeing and avoiding aircraft,
even while on flight following. However, it seems as though there
should be some documented rules of engagement (and perhaps there are),
so that pilots flying VFR through an MOA can know what they should
expect.

I have always "assumed" that if I had flight following, and was
traversing through an MOA, just as if I had been cleared to fly
through class Bravo, that there would be some communication or
understanding between ATC and the military controllers of my
intentions. I wouldn't expect to be engaged by an F-16, simply
because I was avoiding a 50+ mile detour to skirt around an MOA, when
I could simple fly through it with the assistance of ATC. I
understand that ATC is simply a courtesy service, but until hearing of
this incident I would have assumed that communicating with them to fly
through a MOA was similar to getting a clearance to fly through class
Bravo.

I'm reserving judgement on the right to fly through an active MOA
altogether, but if I clearly knew that, even while talking to ATC, a
military aircraft could have fun with me, to the point of me feeling
like I would have to take evasive actions, I would probably add the
extra time to my flight plan and just fly around the active MOA's.

Just curious on the thoughts of others?

Best Regards,
Todd

three-eight-hotel wrote:

Admittedly, I didn't exhaust all search strings to find this topic
discussed in these forums, but I didn't see any hits, on my first few
attempts...

I am interested in hearing thoughts on the encounters that are linked
off of the AvWeb site:

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news..._198261-1.html


http://www.avweb.com/podcast/podcast/197492-1.html

My initial thoughts are that the military owns those airspaces, and
VFR pilots assume the responsibility for seeing and avoiding aircraft,
even while on flight following. However, it seems as though there
should be some documented rules of engagement (and perhaps there are),
so that pilots flying VFR through an MOA can know what they should
expect.


The military doesn't own MOAs. MOAs are established to separate certain
military training activities from IFR traffic. They also serve to alert VFR
traffic of the activity but VFR aircraft are free to enter a MOA. Even
nonparticipating IFR traffic may be cleared through a MOA if IFR separation
can be provided by ATC.



I have always "assumed" that if I had flight following, and was
traversing through an MOA, just as if I had been cleared to fly
through class Bravo, that there would be some communication or
understanding between ATC and the military controllers of my
intentions.


There may not be any military controllers working the aircraft using the
MOA.



I wouldn't expect to be engaged by an F-16, simply
because I was avoiding a 50+ mile detour to skirt around an MOA, when
I could simple fly through it with the assistance of ATC. I
understand that ATC is simply a courtesy service, but until hearing of
this incident I would have assumed that communicating with them to fly
through a MOA was similar to getting a clearance to fly through class
Bravo.


Not so. In Class B airspace you're separated from other traffic. In a MOA
you're simply provided advisories of observed traffic.



I'm reserving judgement on the right to fly through an active MOA
altogether, but if I clearly knew that, even while talking to ATC, a
military aircraft could have fun with me, to the point of me feeling
like I would have to take evasive actions, I would probably add the
extra time to my flight plan and just fly around the active MOA's.


A military aircraft shouldn't be doing that.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
...
three-eight-hotel wrote:

Admittedly, I didn't exhaust all search strings to find this topic
discussed in these forums, but I didn't see any hits, on my first few
attempts...

I am interested in hearing thoughts on the encounters that are linked
off of the AvWeb site:

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news..._198261-1.html


http://www.avweb.com/podcast/podcast/197492-1.html

My initial thoughts are that the military owns those airspaces, and
VFR pilots assume the responsibility for seeing and avoiding aircraft,
even while on flight following. However, it seems as though there
should be some documented rules of engagement (and perhaps there are),
so that pilots flying VFR through an MOA can know what they should
expect.


The military doesn't own MOAs. MOAs are established to separate certain
military training activities from IFR traffic. They also serve to alert
VFR traffic of the activity but VFR aircraft are free to enter a MOA.
Even nonparticipating IFR traffic may be cleared through a MOA if IFR
separation can be provided by ATC.



I have always "assumed" that if I had flight following, and was
traversing through an MOA, just as if I had been cleared to fly
through class Bravo, that there would be some communication or
understanding between ATC and the military controllers of my
intentions.


There may not be any military controllers working the aircraft using the
MOA.



I wouldn't expect to be engaged by an F-16, simply
because I was avoiding a 50+ mile detour to skirt around an MOA, when
I could simple fly through it with the assistance of ATC. I
understand that ATC is simply a courtesy service, but until hearing of
this incident I would have assumed that communicating with them to fly
through a MOA was similar to getting a clearance to fly through class
Bravo.


Not so. In Class B airspace you're separated from other traffic. In a
MOA you're simply provided advisories of observed traffic.

Yes, but not really. Check the separation standards for small VFR aircraft
in class bravo. It's practically non-existent. You get half the IFR/IFR
separation, but only if the other aircraft is 19,000 lbs. For smaller
aircraft the standard is target resolution which means you could practically
reach out and touch one another. In ATC lingo it's called
"green-in-between".


I'm reserving judgement on the right to fly through an active MOA
altogether, but if I clearly knew that, even while talking to ATC, a
military aircraft could have fun with me, to the point of me feeling
like I would have to take evasive actions, I would probably add the
extra time to my flight plan and just fly around the active MOA's.


A military aircraft shouldn't be doing that.

They certainly shouldn't, but it does happen quite often. Military fly-boys
love to buzz other aircraft. Usually they get away with it because few
people complain and if the complaining aircraft isn't at least on flight
following, it's very difficult to track them down.

Mike wrote:

Not so. In Class B airspace you're separated from other traffic. In a
MOA you're simply provided advisories of observed traffic.


Yes, but not really. Check the separation standards for small VFR
aircraft in class bravo. It's practically non-existent. You get
half the IFR/IFR separation, but only if the other aircraft is
19,000 lbs. For smaller aircraft the standard is target resolution
which means you could practically reach out and touch one another. In ATC
lingo it's called "green-in-between".


Actually it's just "green between" in ATC lingo, but that's still
separation.

Let's all remember that the first guy that got bounced kept his mouth
shut until the second one, a lawyer, complained and said that he wanted
to file a complaint. Only then did the first pilot meekly chimed in that
he would also like to file a complaint.

If it wasn't for the people in the military, we wouldn't even have the
privilage or right to even be in the sky.

As long as there isn't a mid-air, fly the airplane and shut up.

"JS" == John Smith writes:

JS If it wasn't for the people in the military, we wouldn't even
JS have the privilage or right to even be in the sky.

JS As long as there isn't a mid-air, fly the airplane and shut
JS up.

A good Tory you would have been in 1776.

I would have been the first to complain. Patriots don't shut up and
they don't worship the military or any other damn thing.
--
If you are ever skydiving, and your parachute fails, and your
friends are all watching youu fall, I think a good gag would be
to pretend you're swimming.
- Jack Handey

On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 08:38:15 -0400, John Smith wrote:

Let's all remember that the first guy that got bounced kept his mouth
shut until the second one, a lawyer, complained and said that he wanted
to file a complaint.

If I remember the tape correctly, the one that wanted to file a complaint
said he was forced to violate airspace. The complaint would be a pretty
good tool to help him cover his ass.


--
Dallas

On Jul 12, 5:38*am, John Smith wrote:
Let's all remember that the first guy that got bounced kept his mouth
shut until the second one, a lawyer, complained and said that he wanted
to file a complaint. Only then did the first pilot meekly chimed in that
he would also like to file a complaint.

Are you suggesting the 2nd pilot knew the other guy was a lawyer. Did
you hear him anounce such on the recording? You can bet that if an
F-16 put my life and the lives of my kids in the back in danger I
would be on the phone with my congressman's office before I left the
airport. There are risks that military pilots necessarily take as part
of their missions. Civilian pilots do not sign up for that level of
risks.

-Robert

John Smith writes:

Let's all remember that the first guy that got bounced kept his mouth
shut until the second one, a lawyer, complained and said that he wanted
to file a complaint. Only then did the first pilot meekly chimed in that
he would also like to file a complaint.

The first guy was a coward, the second was not.

If it wasn't for the people in the military, we wouldn't even have the
privilage or right to even be in the sky.

The military serves civilians, not the other way around.

John Smith wrote:
Let's all remember that the first guy that got bounced kept his mouth
shut until the second one, a lawyer, complained and said that he wanted
to file a complaint. Only then did the first pilot meekly chimed in that
he would also like to file a complaint.

If it wasn't for the people in the military, we wouldn't even have the
privilage or right to even be in the sky.

As long as there isn't a mid-air, fly the airplane and shut up.

Bull ****. Then I suppose you won't mind if the Army sends a squad out
to do target practice with M-16s in your back yard as long as they don't
hit your house.