2 -v- 1 (close call with a Viper)

[JungleJett]

Looks like a grab for more military airspace:

http://www.aopa.org/flightplanning/articles/2008/080807powder.html

You get what you asked for. If you want the military to close the airspace it uses, then we will just take more and more. Or we can get along and respect each other...

 

[tankerswede]

“Because the proposed airspace will be accessible to nonparticipating VFR aircraft, there are increased risks associated with the release of chaff and flares that the USAF may not have identified,” said Melissa Rudinger, AOPA vice president of regulatory affairs. AOPA has submitted formal comments to the Air Force. “Because the flares burn in excess of 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit, and for at least 500 feet vertically, there is a risk of the flare embers coming into contact with non-participating aircraft.”


It is also possible that chaff, which must form a cloud of metallic fibers 30 meters in diameter, could come into contact with other aircraft and cover the windscreen, damage the engine or propeller, contaminate environmental systems, and interfere with navigation and communication equipment.



Oh look, more risks to worry about when flying through a hot MOA not talking to anyone. So the risk of a mid-air is an acceptable one, but the risk of flying through a cloud of metal fibers or falling flare embers is too much to take? Does not a collision between aircraft cover the windscreen, damage the engine or propeller, and interfere with navigation and communication equipment?

The military has to train somewhere - and while the Montana rancher who checks his cattle by air might be affected, where would AOPA propose that the training occur? It can't all happen in Nevada or the UTTR and even if it could it's a tremendous expenditure of taxpayer funds droning to and from those places from bases like Minot (ND) or Ellsworth (SD) which are right on the doorstep of the proposed range space.

 

[Sluggo_63]

Bag of bones, please put your husband on here, and quit posting on his screen name, at least he has some nads, if you didn't geld him on your honeymoon.

Show some evidence where YOU own that airspace.

Put up or shut up!

You can't do it, can you?

A couple of airplane drivers that read "Soldiers of Fortunes" when you were in puberty think that they own the sky...guess again.

Now the balls in your court (except old baggy cause he ain't got none), prove your point! Show some documentation. Just because a couple of beered up O-3's say its a bad idea does not carry any weight.

I don't ever remember reading any military pilot say that MOAs were military only. Every post I read (and I might have missed it) from a military pilot acknowledged the fact that, although they are Military Operating Areas, VFR, non-participating aircraft are allowed in. Everyone of them has said, that it is their belief that flying VFR in an active MOA is irresponsible.

In the posts above, and on the AOPA website (if you are a member) there are many articles detailing the fight AOPA is waging against more MOAs. The question is why? Why would AOPA fight a MOA if it has no effect on GA? If AOPA thought that it safe to transit active MOAs while flying VFR, they would encourage it, and not care where the military put a MOA. But the fact is, AOPA knows that flying through an active MOA is dangerous and irresponsible (albeit legal), and they are worried that their membership of safety conscious, responsible pilots will have to avoid them, thus creating a hardship for GA in general.

Not one civilian only pilot has come on here, with the exception of Rez (again, I may have missed a post or two. If so, my apologies) and acknowledged that the civilian pilot should have used better judgement. They were quick to crucify the military pilot for his actions (which I think were correct, in theory, but executed less than optimally), but held up the Pilatus pilot as some sort of Che Guevara of the airways.

Most guys posting who were civilian then military (myself included) have said now that they have seen first-hand what goes on in a MOA, avoid active ones like the plague. Shouldn't that say something about a plan that takes a non-participating VFR aircraft through an active MOA?

Lastly, I did some quick flight planning to put it all in perspective. I'm guessing The Pilatus (N121PH) is based in Orange County, CA (KSNA). I looked at a flight plan from Deer Valley (north of Phoenix) to John Wayne Airport. VFR direct at 16500ft would transit the heart of the Luke MOAs. Total distance: 288 NM direct. 1+10 hours and 406 lbs. of fuel. Then I planned the same flight DVT-SNA IFR on Victor Airways at 16000ft. The route avoided all airspace. Total distance: 294 NM, 1+14 hours and 429 lbs. of fuel. The difference being 4 minutes and 23 lbs of fuel (3.4 gallons).

So, like I said before, you are legally able to fly through MOAs. Hot or cold. But sometimes it's not the smartest option. Please think twice about doing so. And be fair when arguing... maybe the Viper guy didn't use the best judgment... but neither did the two civilians. Admit it, and this would be a much more civil argument (no pun intended).

 

[bagasticks]

Bag of bones, please put your husband on here, and quit posting on his screen name, at least he has some nads, if you didn't geld him on your honeymoon.

Show some evidence where YOU own that airspace.

Put up or shut up!

You can't do it, can you?

A couple of airplane drivers that read "Soldiers of Fortunes" when you were in puberty think that they own the sky...guess again.

Now the balls in your court (except old baggy cause he ain't got none), prove your point! Show some documentation. Just because a couple of beered up O-3's say its a bad idea does not carry any weight.

I never claimed to "own" any airspace. I do however own the T-bag world record (hence your chaffed forehead from my regular touch and go's)

 

[voetsak]

Holy Crap....

you people still beating this thing?!?!

go outside and get some sun.

 

[taz1518]

Moa

This has gone on for quite awhile! I must say that erj-145mech has to be the biggest "tool" I have ever read posts from. erj-145mech why don't you make it your task to go fly through as many active military MOA's as you can? Since you seem to have the biggest mouth posting in the MILITARY area get out there and back up your mouth.

Seriuosly erj-145mech why are you trying to get the fighter guys all fired up whom have made many sacrafices for "The Red, White, & Blue"? You don't understand our flying, lifestyle, or whom we are. It was apparant to me how much of an idiot you actually were when you started throwing out "Top Gun" quotes.

I come in here to read about how life is for guys that were former military pilots or still are, and are now flying civil. I don't come here to read posts from an idiot bashing my fellow brothers in uniform!
erj-145mech if you don't have anything nice or constructive to say in the MILITARY section...STAY OUT...kinda like an Active MOA you s*** bag!

Angry Taz...well only angry with erj-145mech

 

[erj-145mech]

This has gone on for quite awhile! I must say that erj-145mech has to be the biggest "tool" I have ever read posts from. erj-145mech why don't you make it your task to go fly through as many active military MOA's as you can? Since you seem to have the biggest mouth posting in the MILITARY area get out there and back up your mouth.

Seriuosly erj-145mech why are you trying to get the fighter guys all fired up whom have made many sacrafices for "The Red, White, & Blue"? You don't understand our flying, lifestyle, or whom we are. It was apparant to me how much of an idiot you actually were when you started throwing out "Top Gun" quotes.

I come in here to read about how life is for guys that were former military pilots or still are, and are now flying civil. I don't come here to read posts from an idiot bashing my fellow brothers in uniform!
erj-145mech if you don't have anything nice or constructive to say in the MILITARY section...STAY OUT...kinda like an Active MOA you s*** bag!

Angry Taz...well only angry with erj-145mech

Military sacrifices have nothing to do with Lt Numbnuts Viper Driver intercepting not one but two civillian aircraft legally flying in public airspace. The fact still remains that the only unsafe flight operation was conducted by the military pilot on that day, in that area.

If you don't personally like it, or agree with it, you are entitled to your opinion. And opinions are like what?

If you don't like me, or anyone else posting in here, you are invited to not visit here any longer. Your one sided written crap won't be missed one bit. Maybe the Stars and Stripes has a board where only you may be happy ther?

And go back and read every post here, I didn't bash anyone who didn't start off by attacking me. But then, with your ADD, you can't do that either, can you?

 

[JungleJett]

Dave,

Seriously...stop while you are behind.

Both sides of this argument have legit points. Lessons learned.

Military sacrifices have nothing to do with Lt Numbnuts Viper Driver intercepting not one but two civillian aircraft legally flying in public airspace. The fact still remains that the only unsafe flight operation was conducted by the military pilot on that day, in that area.

If you don't personally like it, or agree with it, you are entitled to your opinion. And opinions are like what?

If you don't like me, or anyone else posting in here, you are invited to not visit here any longer. Your one sided written crap won't be missed one bit. Maybe the Stars and Stripes has a board where only you may be happy ther?

And go back and read every post here, I didn't bash anyone who didn't start off by attacking me. But then, with your ADD, you can't do that either, can you?

 

[Kuma]

Just remember order of magnitude

Military and civilian pilots-

What do you think about the fact that a military tactical jet can easily climb/descend in excess of 10,000 ft/min and change airspeed from stall to 1.0 mach in relatively small distances. G-available for that jet will be in excess of 5Gs for any reasonable airspeed a pilot would choose to fly. "Closure" rates for a tactical aircraft are not used when calculating TCAS tolerances, so, any solution calculated from a TCAS is going to show gross closure and command aggressive corrections to "avoid a mid-air collision" .

If a civilian pilot chooses to fly through an active MOA, he should be prepared for TCAS readings that are off the scale for normal civil operations.

While the military pilot is flying well withing the operating envelope for his aircraft and certainly within his own comfort level, the civilian pilot is totally out of his element and may panic based on TCAS indications (like in this case).

If you don't have the comfort level to fly in the same airspace as military hardware, perhaps you should stay out of Military Operating Areas. If you fly within one, please expect to be shocked.

 

[cjdriver]

Just to get this back on track (I'm interested to see how long this thread goes on, and on, and on), the issue was the ridiculously bad decision of the fighter pilot to turn onto a civ aircraft and form up on him. I think everyone agrees about the risks of entering an active MOA, whether or not we may agree to accept that risk.

 

[Kuma]

disagreement

This is where we disagree. I don't think that it was a "ridiculously bad decision" on the part of the fighter pilot. Any maneuver that the fighter pilot might consider safe and well controlled would blow the logic circuit of the TCAS which is designed to help you deconflict from other civil traffic.

So my point, is that closing to a 1000 feet is a yawn (and ridiculously long range) for a fighter pilot but is considered a "ridiculously bad decision" by the civil pilot reacting to the TCAS.

If you fly trough an active MOA, do not be surprised and do not overreact. Your TCAS is out of its element.

 

[Deuce130]

This is where we disagree. I don't think that it was a "ridiculously bad decision" on the part of the fighter pilot. Any maneuver that the fighter pilot might consider safe and well controlled would blow the logic circuit of the TCAS which is designed to help you deconflict from other civil traffic.

So my point, is that closing to a 1000 feet is a yawn (and ridiculously long range) for a fighter pilot but is considered a "ridiculously bad decision" by the civil pilot reacting to the TCAS.

If you fly trough an active MOA, do not be surprised and do not overreact. Your TCAS is out of its element.

Being punched in the face by your sister is a yawn, being punched by Mike Tyson would hurt. Also depends on who's getting hit. I don't think a single person here disagrees that entering a MOA is a bad idea. I also am surprised by the number of people who don't think intentionally closing on a civilian aircraft is a bad idea. Serious lack of judgement, especially when it was unnecessary. Military pilots are supposed to be professionals, GA enthusiasts and private pilots are not. We have a higher standard to uphold and giving in to frustration, anger, or irritation while in command of one of America's airplanes is inexcusable, regardless of the reason.

 

[SIG600]

Military sacrifices have nothing to do with Lt Numbnuts Viper Driver intercepting not one but two civillian aircraft legally flying in public airspace. The fact still remains that the only unsafe flight operation was conducted by the military pilot on that day, in that area.

There it is... that's the argument here, and the issue of aviators more seasoned and experienced than you. Hell, my helmet bag has more experience.

 

[Bjammin]

Military pilots are supposed to be professionals, GA enthusiasts and private pilots are not. We have a higher standard to uphold and giving in to frustration, anger, or irritation while in command of one of America's airplanes is inexcusable, regardless of the reason.

I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Being in command of ANY airplane requires professionalism and responsibility, much more so then controlling any other type of vehicle.

I agree that if the F-16 pilot intentionally got inside of 500ft of the civilian aircraft then he was being reckless and way out of line.

However, it is the responsibility of ANY PIC to insure the safety of his aircraft and have situational awareness of his surroundings. I would argue that by flying into an active MOA without notifying the controlling agency you have compromised both of those.

To expect the military aircraft in the MOA to have situational awareness of you and rely on them to keep all involved safe is unrealisitic.

Please, let us know where, what altitude, and what time you will be going through the MOA and we will TRY to change OUR plans and keep all safe. Deal?

 

[Deuce130]

I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Being in command of ANY airplane requires professionalism and responsibility, much more so then controlling any other type of vehicle.

I agree that if the F-16 pilot intentionally got inside of 500ft of the civilian aircraft then he was being reckless and way out of line.

However, it is the responsibility of ANY PIC to insure the safety of his aircraft and have situational awareness of his surroundings. I would argue that by flying into an active MOA without notifying the controlling agency you have compromised both of those.

To expect the military aircraft in the MOA to have situational awareness of you and rely on them to keep all involved safe is unrealisitic.

Please, let us know where, what altitude, and what time you will be going through the MOA and we will TRY to change OUR plans and keep all safe. Deal?

Sorry, BJAMMIN, but I think you're wrong. I agree with most of what you've said so far, especially your points concerging notifitying controlling agencies, but you and everyone else who flies for Uncle Sam gets paid for just that - to be a professional aviator. You ARE held to a higher standard than Joe Schmoe flying around with more money than sense. To hold a lawyer with a PPL to the same standard as an F16 pilot diminishes the F16 pilot, and everyone else with military wings.

 

[Bjammin]

To hold a lawyer with a PPL to the same standard as an F16 pilot diminishes the F16 pilot, and everyone else with military wings.

An idiot that violates restricted airspace or transits through an approach path of a major airport can cause as much damage and death as an F-16 pilot with an AIM-9.

Yes, there are different levels of professional aviatiors, but you have to have a certain level of responsibility to be a PIC. That level MUST include the need to be inheirently safe and have respect of our surroundings.

I have known many civilian aviators with only a PPL that have more aviation professionalism then some of my military peers.

This is somewhat of a silly argument. Does a 747 pilot have more responsibilty then a P-3 commander? Does a T-37 instructor have to be more professional then a Citation owner? We all, as pilots, have the same responsibility, the safe operation of the aircraft we sign for. That's a BIG deal.

 

[SIG600]

You guys are both right, but I think you're both wrong as well. Proffessionalism is a frame of mind, not a function of hours. Everyone behind the controls of any aircraft has to understand that, or they are doomed to failure.

Having said that however... by in large the non-flying public (and I'm sure to a large extent aviators themselves) expect more from military aviators BECAUSE of our training, and the proffesionalism and skill it requires to operate the stuff we get to fly. I'm not talking stick and rudder skills either... any monkey can "fly" an F-18.

 

[Deuce130]

Does a T-37 instructor have to be more professional then a Citation owner? quote]

Without a doubt. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[Bjammin]

I think the crux of the discussion is this: Joe pilot in any aircraft needs to realize that he has great responsibilities.

Does farmer Joe flying a C-150 over his farm land in Nowhere Nebraska have the same responsibilities as Joe captain flying a 777 into LAX? No, but that does not absolve him from his duty to operate his craft safely, and that includes being aware of the airspace and aircraft around him.

Some in my flying communities, both airline and military, want to abolish VFR flying all together. I'm very much against that, but VFR pilots must underatand and respect the airspace around them and act in a cautious AND professional manner in order to keep the great freedom of flight awarded them.