USAF F-16 Instructor Discusses Flying Into MOAs

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/archive...ll.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...WS_MAN_ITEMS=8




http://www.aviationbull.com/2008/apr...void-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/a...80409f-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/milita...craft/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/....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-...xperience.html



https://amsrvs.registry.faa.gov/airm...0045&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/aircraftinqu...umbertxt=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?podcast2008...ollowUpPodcast) with
a California pilot who was intercepted and shadowed

(http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news..._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/A...7 505-1.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.