Interesting MOA encounter with Viper

[The_Russian]

Just because its legal to operate in a hot MOA does not make it a safe idea. As the PIC of a civy aircraft you are responsible for the safety of the aircraft, its occupants, and the return to earth. It is ignorant to believe entering a hot MOA is anything but unsafe when holding that responsibility. Just ask the CFI and student in the 172 who thought because it was legal, that it was OK to transverse Lake Placid. They aren't with us anymore after a Viper plowed into them while maneuvering at high speed.

Also, when you are IFR, ATC will not allow you to enter a hot MOA. Maybe they know something YOU don't.

VFR altitudes are perfectly safe and legal. Actually, they are quite a bit safer than anything under 10K because less planes are up there to run into. Most MOAs seem to operate high while others don't. Obviously the lateral position of this guys airplane did not matter to him, as he may have thought he could fly "above" the action. Personally, I don't touch the stuff....man.

Somehow I have a hard time believing that the TCAS gave him a warning. After hundreds of flights into NAS Key West, Homestead ARB, and Eglin, I have never had a military A/C even show up on my TCAS. As far as I know, most of them squawk a mode not recognized by civilian TCAS. (Correct me if I am wrong on this, its just my experience.)

Formation flying is illegal unless previously briefed. Someone already covered that.

The fact that the Viper pilot was in formation with the PC-12 at twenty feet separation is "alleged". Let the Viper pilot speak for himself before you castrate him. This is not on video or tape and may not have happened as the civy pilot may have been exaggerating.

 

[Occam's Razor]

"Legal"?

It's legal, on an IFR flight plan, to fly through a mature thunderstorm.

I tend to think it's a bad idea, however.

 

[ekuflyer]

Just because its legal to operate in a hot MOA does not make it a safe idea. As the PIC of a civy aircraft you are responsible for the safety of the aircraft, its occupants, and the return to earth. It is ignorant to believe entering a hot MOA is anything but unsafe when holding that responsibility. Just ask the CFI and student in the 172 who thought because it was legal, that it was OK to transverse Lake Placid. They aren't with us anymore after a Viper plowed into them while maneuvering at high speed.

Also, when you are IFR, ATC will not allow you to enter a hot MOA. Maybe they know something YOU don't.

VFR altitudes are perfectly safe and legal. Actually, they are quite a bit safer than anything under 10K because less planes are up there to run into. Most MOAs seem to operate high while others don't. Obviously the lateral position of this guys airplane did not matter to him, as he may have thought he could fly "above" the action. Personally, I don't touch the stuff....man.

Somehow I have a hard time believing that the TCAS gave him a warning. After hundreds of flights into NAS Key West, Homestead ARB, and Eglin, I have never had a military A/C even show up on my TCAS. As far as I know, most of them squawk a mode not recognized by civilian TCAS. (Correct me if I am wrong on this, its just my experience.)

Formation flying is illegal unless previously briefed. Someone already covered that.

The fact that the Viper pilot was in formation with the PC-12 at twenty feet separation is "alleged". Let the Viper pilot speak for himself before you castrate him. This is not on video or tape and may not have happened as the civy pilot may have been exaggerating.

Can't speak for the F-16's but every mil aircraft I've flown squawks just the same as a civil aircraft. We have TCAS in the Herk.

 

[stonewall]

If you're part of a 4 ship, it's not uncommon for ONLY #1 to be carrying the M3C. The rest of the 4 ship will be squawking other codes in accordance with the brief. No M3C, no TCAS.

Deuce, I'm well aware of the differences between warning areas, MOAs and ranges. The point was that joining up to get a tail number is no big deal. Getting his attention by joining on him (and, yes, I'm inclined to believe this pilot could not tell if an F-16 was 10 feet, 100 feet, or 1000 feet away) is simply a way of telling him "hey, we're here, you're in our way, please leave."

Having practiced this and done this as part of Noble Eagle, I realize people may be startled to look up and see a jet next to them. The intercept is supposed to be done in a non-threatening, slow and gentle manner, and you're supposed to only get close enough to get all the necessary information. I seriously doubt these guys were actually THAT close to the civ guys. It's not like they flew less than 500' in front of their noses popping flares.

The lesson to be learned here: Don't fly through active MOAs. Many of my wingmen could barely keep sight of me while working their radars...a PC-12 cowboying it through the MOA 'because he can' is a hazard to himself and others.

 

[Coool Hand Luke]

This isn't about formation flying. Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you should. Some of you are completely missing the point. And read my previous posts. I clearly state that IF the civs are telling the truth, then it's a problem. I'll ask you the same thing I asked Magnum - would you have done it? You think it's smart to join up on someone who doesn't know you're there? Especially if you didn't have to?[/quote]


I'd would have "Top Gunned" his a$$. You know, roll inverted from 15 feet above and given him the order of the rigid digit and then have my wingman take a picture of it.

 

[The_Russian]

You mean, "keeping up foreign relations"?

 

[Redmeat]

The two civies both apparently had TCAS.

That changes things a bit in my mind.

With that equipment, transitioning an MOA is not as 'irresponsible' as many are claiming.

In fact with TCAS the Falcon guy was actually creating a worse situation by continuing persuit... with the civy following the TCAS resolution commands.

If I were in the same situation (perfectly legal) and I'm yankin and bankin according to the TCAS and I look out and see some throttle jock formed up on me without my permission I'd be on the phone with the FAA too before I even put my airplane away.

 

[AdlerDriver]

The two civies both apparently had TCAS.

That changes things a bit in my mind.

With that equipment, transitioning an MOA is not as 'irresponsible' as many are claiming.

In fact with TCAS the Falcon guy was actually creating a worse situation by continuing persuit... with the civy following the TCAS resolution commands.

If I were in the same situation (perfectly legal) and I'm yankin and bankin according to the TCAS and I look out and see some throttle jock formed up on me without my permission I'd be on the phone with the FAA too before I even put my airplane away.

Oh boy, with that attitude, you'll live up to your username pretty quick.

TCAS was never designed to deal with the dynamics and closure rates created by some tool wandering into a BFM engagement. Transiting that MOA was absolutely irresponsible, TCAS or not.

You have no idea what's really going on in that MOA. One of those fighter pilots may spend the better part of a minute flying his aircraft at 250-500 knots with vertical speeds up to 20,000+ fpm while looking backward - with just an occasional glance forward for info like altitude or airspeed.

Meanwhile, this idiot is trying to get out of the way using 1000 fpm while listening to "climb, climb now - no... wait - descend, increase descent - uuuhhh - ?monitor vertical speed? - you're gonna die!!!!"

You're absolutely kidding yourself if you think TCAS would make any difference at all. Not to mention, the proximity of these fighters was most likely well outside the ranges these idiots claim.

?Yankin and bankin? Keep in mind, TCAS only relies on vertical speed changes to attempt to avoid conflict - not lateral changes. So, there should be no "bankin" as you flail around trying to get out of the way. Do yourself a favor and don't transit an active MOA thinking TCAS is going to keep you safe.

 

[SIG600]

The two civies both apparently had TCAS.

That changes things a bit in my mind.

With that equipment, transitioning an MOA is not as 'irresponsible' as many are claiming.

In fact with TCAS the Falcon guy was actually creating a worse situation by continuing persuit... with the civy following the TCAS resolution commands.

If I were in the same situation (perfectly legal) and I'm yankin and bankin according to the TCAS and I look out and see some throttle jock formed up on me without my permission I'd be on the phone with the FAA too before I even put my airplane away.

That's because you don't know any better. Like Russian said, ATC won't let you tranist IFR, why the hell would you do it VFR? They don't let you do it IFR because they can't assure safe separation. When I go from 18K' to 5K', at speeds between 500 knots and 90 knots, tangled up with three other jets in the middle of a furball, we are not (nor do we have the capacity) to look for your dumb a@@ trundling through "because it's legal." It's legal to plow through a thunderstorm. Go do that too and get back too me.

 

[stonewall]

The wingman might not be squawking M3C. If he's only squawking 1/2/4, no TCAS. The wingman might also be several miles from the dude actually carrying the M3 squawk. TCAS will not save you.

 

[Redmeat]

Oh boy, with that attitude, you'll live up to your username pretty quick.

TCAS was never designed to deal with the dynamics and closure rates created by some tool wandering into a BFM engagement. Transiting that MOA was absolutely irresponsible, TCAS or not.

You have no idea what's really going on in that MOA. One of those fighter pilots may spend the better part of a minute flying his aircraft at 250-500 knots with vertical speeds up to 20,000+ fpm while looking backward - with just an occasional glance forward for info like altitude or airspeed.

Meanwhile, this idiot is trying to get out of the way using 1000 fpm while listening to "climb, climb now - no... wait - descend, increase descent - uuuhhh - ?monitor vertical speed? - you're gonna die!!!!"

You're absolutely kidding yourself if you think TCAS would make any difference at all. Not to mention, the proximity of these fighters was most likely well outside the ranges these idiots claim.

?Yankin and bankin? Keep in mind, TCAS only relies on vertical speed changes to attempt to avoid conflict - not lateral changes. So, there should be no "bankin" as you flail around trying to get out of the way. Do yourself a favor and don't transit an active MOA thinking TCAS is going to keep you safe.

The 'bankin' would be rolling to the 90 to get going down hill fast.

 

[sqwkvfr]

I'm gonna ask this again because this happened around the same time as the TFR for the F16 crash in the GladBag MOA.

Does anyone know if one or both of these guys got close to or violated said TFR?

 

[Redmeat]

I understand an respect all of your responses.

I still think the constant pursuit and the form up was a bad idea in this situation...especially on two separate aircraft.

 

[Redmeat]

That's because you don't know any better. Like Russian said, ATC won't let you tranist IFR, why the hell would you do it VFR? They don't let you do it IFR because they can't assure safe separation. When I go from 18K' to 5K', at speeds between 500 knots and 90 knots, tangled up with three other jets in the middle of a furball, we are not (nor do we have the capacity) to look for your dumb a@@ trundling through "because it's legal." It's legal to plow through a thunderstorm. Go do that too and get back too me.

ATC won't let you transition IFR because they don't want the extra work load of separating.

My exception to your position is this wasn't a high closure rate situation...and nobody was 'tangled up'. This was a gradual merge that the civies TCAS COULD pick up and did...creating the situation.

I'm getting the feeling you guys didn't know chasing civies set their TCAS off?

Anyway this is obviously a problem and the old forming up to get tail#'s in an MOA is probably gonna create more problems...why do you get tail#'s in an MOA anyway? Civies are in there legally.

What I don't understand is why the military folks don't get a bona-fide Restricted area to practice in.

makes absolutely no sense.

 

[stonewall]

My exception to your position is this wasn't a high closure rate situation...and nobody was 'tangled up'. This was a gradual merge that the civies TCAS COULD pick up and did...creating the situation.

What I don't understand is why the military folks don't get a bona-fide Restricted area to practice in.

makes absolutely no sense.

Where to start on this one...

First, there was a high likelihood of a high closure situation. If someone is going to get joined on, it's because the "fight" (the tangled up portion) was already knocked off because someone picked up a civilian in the MOA on radar. It's a training rule...if an unbriefed flight enters the airspace you knock it off until you can find the guy. The dangerous situation was avoided when the fighters stopped tactical maneuvering prior to the rejoin.

The dangerous situation was created when our civilian friend entered a hot MOA.

Second, we do know that M3C sets off a TCAS. Many of us are airline pilots, remember? As stated earlier, there is a strong possibility that not all fighters in the MOA are squawking M3. You do realize that fighters can squawk other modes and do so on a regular basis?

Finally, WE CAN'T GET MORE BONA FIDE RESTRICTED AREAS BECAUSE ALL THE DAMN GA PILOTS AND THE FAA BITCH LIKE MAD WHEN WE ASK FOR MORE AIRSPACE!!

Clear enough on that final point?

 

[stonewall]

Sorry for the all caps, but if you understood the dogfight (pun intended) that it takes to just KEEP the restricted areas and ranges we haven't lost already, you'd see where I was coming from.

The idea of actually getting MORE airspace is a nice thought, but it ends there.

 

[Deuce130]

How in the world did this thread get twisted into whether or not the civvies should've been in the MOA? Everyone agrees they should not have been. I just didn't realize that so many people would think the appropriate response from the mil side would be to join up on those particular aircraft. I've been in alot of MOAs myself, even had to KIO a few times for unbriefed aircraft in the area. I never once considered joining up on them as some kind of way to "flip 'em the bird" or show them what dumba**es they were. Mostly because I'm not a dumba** myself. However, I will caution anyone out there who thinks that joining up on civilian aircraft is a good idea, especially without orders to do so, that nothing good can come of it. It's your career, your wings. Have at it if you think you're justified in doing so. Just realize that only support you'll get is from the posters here at FI.com.

 

[AdlerDriver]

The 'bankin' would be rolling to the 90 to get going down hill fast.

Now why would you do that. I believe the initial response time required by any TCAS RA is 3 seconds using "normal control inputs".

Perhaps that is the special "holy sh--, I sure wish I didn't decide to transit this active MOA relying on my TCAS" response?

 

[MJG]

I have no dog in this fight but here are a couple thoughts:

With jetfuel at $4-$7/gallon these days, the mil guys better get used to this kind of thing.

The difference in the civilian world these days between flying a trip IFR vs. VFR can be several thousand dollars in fuel costs alone.

In this case if the flights in question were receiving flight following, why didn't the controller say anything? I realize that radar advisories are on a time and workload permitting basis, but two targets that appear to be merging above 10,000 ft., whether IFR or VFR, should get the controller's attention, especially when someone on the freq yells out that he's responding to an RA.

Lastly I would agree that flying through a known active MOA is not smart if you value your life, but sometimes the VFR guy is in there for a reason. Perfect example, I used to fly a crop survey for the government that in one area required me to be inside an MOA. What choice did I have? The same government that is paying to train its DOD pilots in that airspace is paying other pilots to survey the ground beneath that airspace. I couldn't wait till the MOA was cold, I had to go in when the weather was right, during the daylight hours and when I was told to do so. I would define that as being between a rock and a hard place.

Again I totally agree that there needs to be more airspace set aside for training, MOAs are a political compromise. Unfortunately the one thing they compromise the most is the safety of the aircraft that they were designed to serve in the first place.

 

[Scrapdog]

I have no dog in this fight but here are a couple thoughts:

With jetfuel at $4-$7/gallon these days, the mil guys better get used to this kind of thing.

The difference in the civilian world these days between flying a trip IFR vs. VFR can be several thousand dollars in fuel costs alone.

In this case if the flights in question were receiving flight following, why didn't the controller say anything? I realize that radar advisories are on a time and workload permitting basis, but two targets that appear to be merging above 10,000 ft., whether IFR or VFR, should get the controller's attention, especially when someone on the freq yells out that he's responding to an RA.

Lastly I would agree that flying through a known active MOA is not smart if you value your life, but sometimes the VFR guy is in there for a reason. Perfect example, I used to fly a crop survey for the government that in one area required me to be inside an MOA. What choice did I have? The same government that is paying to train its DOD pilots in that airspace is paying other pilots to survey the ground beneath that airspace. I couldn't wait till the MOA was cold, I had to go in when the weather was right, during the daylight hours and when I was told to do so. I would define that as being between a rock and a hard place.

Again I totally agree that there needs to be more airspace set aside for training, MOAs are a political compromise. Unfortunately the one thing they compromise the most is the safety of the aircraft that they were designed to serve in the first place.

Alright, I can't take it anymore...

1. Military fighter pilots are not going to "get used to" looking for civilian clowns in the middle of a hot MOA that are doing 200 knots while we're trying to lead a 4 ship of fighters doing 500 knots plus, whether gas is $4, $10, or $100 a gallon. When the MOA is hot, it's hot. There is a reason why we're there, i.e. we're in there training to ensure we keep this country free. I don't give a flying f*ck what gas costs you, but I'm sure you'd rather have us in there training than you speaking Chinese and having zero ability to buy gas freely at all.

2. You don't have a dog in this fight, you did get that part correct. You don't know the first thing about what we do, and in this case ignorance is not bliss.

3. And frankly you're right about it's not smart flying through a MOA if you do indeed value you're life. Reference bullet #1. I'm sure paying a little more in gas costs certainly outweighs you never flying again right?

Bottom line for all civilian guys out there - don't fly through a hot MOA (legal or not). It's just plain stupid. I grew up flying 172's long before I joined the military so I have all the respect for GA. And I also fly for the airlines. But don't be an idiot.