Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Interesting MOA encounter with Viper

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

airspeed

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
166
[FONT=arial,helvetica,geneva]F-16 Encounter Angers Pilots[/FONT]


f16_luke-afb.jpg
The FAA says it will likely investigate the complaints of a couple of pilots who say they were intercepted and shadowed, at close range, by an F-16 over Arizona earlier this month. Pilatus PC-12 pilot Patrick McCall and Beech Premier pilot Scott Laromee have both filed near-collision reports with the agency after they say they were aggressively pursued by an F-16 on March 21 in the Gladden Military Operations Area, a training area used by pilots from Luke Air Force Base near Phoenix. The area is open for use by civilian aircraft. In a podcast interview with AVweb, McCall said that when his TCAS activated about 10 a.m. that day while he was cruising at 16,500 (VFR with flight following) he ended up having to dive his aircraft as the target kept closing on him. The target followed him in the dive and when McCall leveled at about 14,000 feet, he was amazed by the view from his side window. “I then looked to my left side of the aircraft and saw an F16 aircraft off of my left wing,” he said in a written report sent to the FAA. “The F16 was no more than 20 feet off of my left wing.” AVweb contacted the media relations department of Luke Air Force Base on Friday and provided copies of both McCall’s and Laromee’s complaints but military officials did not respond to our request for comment by our deadline on Sunday.


Laromee declined detailed comment on the incident but he did confirm that it occurred and that he is demanding answers. “There are a lot of people getting involved in this. It’s not going to get swept under,” he told AVweb. According to McCall, after pacing his aircraft for a few moments, the F-16 accelerated vertically. A few minutes later, he said, he heard another pilot on the radio reporting a TCAS alert and announcing he was starting the vertical climb commanded by the TCAS gear to avoid what appeared to be an imminent collision. McCall said the other pilot then reported an F-16 pacing him at a range of only about 10 feet. The two pilots exchanged contact information over the radio and both reported the incident to the FAA when they were back on the ground. FAA spokesman Ian Gregor said the reports haven’t made their way through the bureaucracy yet but, assuming they do, the agency will look into the complaints. “The FAA would certainly want to know about an alleged incident like this. We likely would do an investigation, although the FAA does not have the authority to take action against a military pilot,” Gregor said. “The most we could do would be to send our investigation package to the military and rely on them to take appropriate action.” McCall said he’s contacted the military and is not satisfied with the response he received.


Related Content:
Audio interview with Pilatus pilot Patrick McCall
 
well then I guess this dumba$$ shouldn't be flying in an active MOA....


Seriously? Just because a GA guy is a dumba** excuses a PROFESSIONAL pilot from being one too? We'll see how this pans out, but IF what these guys are saying is true, then the F-16 pilot was way out of line. Sounds like serious judgement issues.
 
I still wonder why these guys insist on doing this. He's a commercially rated instrument pilot who owns his own PC-12, and should know better. Maybe he trusts the ejection seat in his Pilatus.
 
The F16s in the LUF area wave their wings at me all of the time.

I think it's great.

I can't help but wonder if this guy wasn't flying in or near the TFR for the F16 crash from earlier this month.
 
Everytime I fly into the PHX area I am amazed at all the guys flying high performance turbine aircraft VFR at 17500, 16500, etc. I don't get it.

Seems to me that in this case they guy didn't want to be bothered with a vector around the MOA while on an IFR flight plan so he just goes VFR and blasts right through it, and then has the nerve to bitch about a visit from an F-16.

What a jacka$$.
 
I think too many of you seem enamored with Tom Cruise and the whole Mav persona a little too much. Doesn't matter what kind of day this particular fighter pilot was having, or what kind of idiots those two civ pilots were being. The fact that a USAF pilot thought it was a good idea to intercept and fly wingtip with two strangers when he didn't have to is the point here. Anyone who applauds this type of action is a moron, and probably shouldn't be flying. Plain and simple.
 
That's what Vipers do... intercept. If both are VFR was any aviation law broken? The Viper guy probably didn't think about the TCAS going off on a VFR aircraft. I used to practice intercepts on civilians and they never knew I was there.
 
Whoa Nellie

Lighten up Deuce. Any "professional" pilot that is dumb enough to plow through an active MOA shouldn't be surprised if he gets a "tail # check" from a fighter. F-16s do visual IDs on aircraft all the time in counter narcotic missions, Air Defense missions and basic intercept training. I've been in a MOA while in contact with a mil controller who asked me to ID an aircraft and get a tail # for their report. I'm also willing to bet that their 10 ft is probably more like 100 ft. or much more. I'm not applauding it nor justifying it, but I'm not going to Monday-morning-quarterback or condemn anything until I hear "the rest of the story." It's not always black and white.
 
I am a civilian pilot by trade and NEVER fly through active MOA's.

years ago when i was a boomer, we were out in colorado in an active moa AT NIGHT working with 2 4ships out of buckley (doing BFM crap) and some DUMBA** came cruising through VFR and nearly traded paint with a tanker w/ 4 chics in tow (we got an RA). . . If you fly into an active MOA vfr, I have no sympathy. . .
 
Moa

well then I guess this dumba$$ shouldn't be flying in an active MOA....
WOW, that was the most intelligent response so far!!! I am sorry i don't agree, if it was restriced airspace and they flew thru it then they were dumb and ignorant, but a MOA is NOT!!! Nothing stupid at all about flying VFR at 16.5 or 17.5.
 
WOW, that was the most intelligent response so far!!! I am sorry i don't agree, if it was restriced airspace and they flew thru it then they were dumb and ignorant, but a MOA is NOT!!! Nothing stupid at all about flying VFR at 16.5 or 17.5.

I think the key word here is "active". . . ie. fast airplanes manuevering all about. In most cases i've experienced if you are talking to atc, they strongly encourage you to avoid the area if active. Is it illegal? obviously not. Its not illegal to fly through a severe thunderstorm either, but you might get converted to grainular pink vapor. .
 
Ygtbsm

WOW, that was the most intelligent response so far!!! I am sorry i don't agree, if it was restriced airspace and they flew thru it then they were dumb and ignorant, but a MOA is NOT!!! Nothing stupid at all about flying VFR at 16.5 or 17.5.
OK...let's not call it dumb, stupid or ignorant. Let's just call it poor risk management and even poorer judgement. MOAs are there for a reason. It lets the general flying public know that it is an area of activity that poses an increased level of danger/risk to all involved. Civ aircraft and mil aircraft (doing what they do in a MOA) don't mix well. When VFR traffic (I specify VFR because IFR are not allowed in the MOA and will be kept out) goes tooling through an active MOA they are increasing the risk and danger to all, not just the civ aircraft. The mil A/C that are in the MOA for a reason usually have to stop what they are doing, find/ID the transgressor and patiently wait for him to kindly (and usually slowly) exit the area. That wastes valuable training time, fuel and taxpayer money. The whole idea of a MOA is to give the public flying a warning of areas they really should avoid. As far as flying through a restricted area, that isn't just dumb and ignorant, that is a violation.
 
Oh, yeah, heh heh...

Told my instructor: "Flying in this MOA makes me nervous." He shouted: "Idiot! You're in the military!" :rolleyes:
 
WOW, that was the most intelligent response so far!!! I am sorry i don't agree, if it was restriced airspace and they flew thru it then they were dumb and ignorant, but a MOA is NOT!!! Nothing stupid at all about flying VFR at 16.5 or 17.5.

I agree it is not illegal by any means but a little common sense goes a long way. Out west there are a lot of inactive MOAs, however, you should be aware when there is an alert area next to an Active MOA and next to an AFB to tell yourself well maybe there is some activity here that I cannot or most importantly do not want to deal with.

I wouldn't wanna be doing AR and then have guy in a 172 come buzzing by having to cause a breakaway. To be honest airspeed, I would be suprised you would back this gentleman up by any means since you more know than me how dangerous it can be when you are practicing BFM, etc in a MOA and have some VFR guy zip through....That could be a bad day for everyone.

I do appologize if I was unclear...

- Dave
 
It's unsafe to go through an active MOA with two to six fighters operating at all altitudes and airspeeds in excess of 450 Kts. They are actively engaged in training, and looking for YOU is not a priority.

Duece, you are wrong on this one...by a wide margin. If an aircraft comes in an active MOA, you have to knock off all the training and find the guy before you can get the fight back on. If you can't find him and ensure he's no factor, you pretty much have no option except to go home at bingo. There goes thousands of taxpayer dollars lost and a missed training opportunity for several pilots.

I had to VID a tail number on a moron that flew through R2914 at Eglin. It's not a big deal.

These two guys can get spun up all they want. While legal, what they were doing was clearly not smart. I'm surprised they actually want to highlight their stupidity in public by making an issue of this event.
 
It's unsafe to go through an active MOA with two to six fighters operating at all altitudes and airspeeds in excess of 450 Kts. They are actively engaged in training, and looking for YOU is not a priority.

Duece, you are wrong on this one...by a wide margin. If an aircraft comes in an active MOA, you have to knock off all the training and find the guy before you can get the fight back on. If you can't find him and ensure he's no factor, you pretty much have no option except to go home at bingo. There goes thousands of taxpayer dollars lost and a missed training opportunity for several pilots.

I had to VID a tail number on a moron that flew through R2914 at Eglin. It's not a big deal.

These two guys can get spun up all they want. While legal, what they were doing was clearly not smart. I'm surprised they actually want to highlight their stupidity in public by making an issue of this event.

R2914 is a restricted area. A MOA is not. What part of 11-214 requires you to intercept a civilian aircraft after a KIO call? What reason do you have to join up on any aircraft not part of your briefed formation? Like I said in my previous post, just because those guys were being morons doesn't mean you have to follow them down the same path. It probably cost that guy more in gas to get within fingertip than it would have to simply VID him from a safe distance and insure he's not a factor. Would YOU have joined up on his wing if you didn't have to? IF what those guys is saying is true, who is in the wrong? Sounds like both of them to me. I'm surprised you would think joining up on their wing is a smart idea.
 
It probably cost that guy more in gas to get within fingertip than it would have to simply VID him from a safe distance and insure he's not a factor. Would YOU have joined up on his wing if you didn't have to? IF what those guys is saying is true, who is in the wrong? Sounds like both of them to me. I'm surprised you would think joining up on their wing is a smart idea.


Deuce...simmer down pal. You make formation flying sound like some sort of EP. I am fairly sure it was not 10 feet like the bugsmasher claims. While I agree this could have been handled differently, you seem to have some notion that civilian pilots, making poor ORM decisions such as flying through an active MOA, deserve all the benefit of the doubt here.
 
Deuce...simmer down pal. You make formation flying sound like some sort of EP. I am fairly sure it was not 10 feet like the bugsmasher claims. While I agree this could have been handled differently, you seem to have some notion that civilian pilots, making poor ORM decisions such as flying through an active MOA, deserve all the benefit of the doubt here.

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?
 
Last edited:

Latest resources

Back
Top