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.

Its simple really. Rogue F-16 pilot decided to play with some civilian
pilots. F-16 pilot was reported to have been punished for breaking
both FAA and military rules. Military says its taken steps to ensure
it doesn't happen again. I assume F-16 pilots now know where the xmit
button is in their plane and can use that to ask pilots if they'd like
to smell Jet-A exhaust rather than just jump them. BTW: I know a lot
of East coast pilots will ask why anyone would want to fly in a hot
MOA. If you haven't flown in the SW you don't know. If 90% of the East
coast was MOA and restricted airspace you'd feel different.

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in news:30bb7f75-97ae-47e2-a6c4-
:

Its simple really. Rogue F-16 pilot decided to play with some civilian
pilots. F-16 pilot was reported to have been punished for breaking
both FAA and military rules. Military says its taken steps to ensure
it doesn't happen again. I assume F-16 pilots now know where the xmit
button is in their plane and can use that to ask pilots if they'd like
to smell Jet-A exhaust rather than just jump them. BTW: I know a lot
of East coast pilots will ask why anyone would want to fly in a hot
MOA. If you haven't flown in the SW you don't know. If 90% of the East
coast was MOA and restricted airspace you'd feel different.

-Robert


Do all F-16's now have VHF radios? At a Wings safety seminar sevaral
years ago I was told that most only have UHF and thus can't directly
communicate with GA aircraft.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

Marty Shapiro writes:

Do all F-16's now have VHF radios? At a Wings safety seminar sevaral
years ago I was told that most only have UHF and thus can't directly
communicate with GA aircraft.

If they cannot communicate with GA aircraft, that's all the more reason not to
harass GA aircraft.

On Jul 11, 3:41*pm, Marty Shapiro
wrote:

Do all F-16's now have VHF radios? *At a Wings safety seminar sevaral
years ago I was told that most only have UHF and thus can't directly
communicate with GA aircraft.

ATC has freq for both VHF and UHF. The civilian pilots were in contact
with ATC, the F-16 pilot elected to not be in contact with ATC.

-Robert

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Marty Shapiro writes:

Do all F-16's now have VHF radios? At a Wings safety seminar sevaral
years ago I was told that most only have UHF and thus can't directly
communicate with GA aircraft.

If they cannot communicate with GA aircraft, that's all the more
reason not to harass GA aircraft.


Your a ****ing moron

"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.

Robert M. Gary writes:

ATC has freq for both VHF and UHF. The civilian pilots were in contact
with ATC, the F-16 pilot elected to not be in contact with ATC.

Maybe the Air Force should elect to retire that pilot.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Robert M. Gary writes:

ATC has freq for both VHF and UHF. The civilian pilots were in contact
with ATC, the F-16 pilot elected to not be in contact with ATC.

Maybe the Air Force should elect to retire that pilot.


You are a fukcing moron. Maybe the Air Force should use you for bombing
practice. That will both put you out of your misery and significantly
increse the total IQ of the human race.