Interesting MOA encounter with Viper

[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.

 

[NewmanF16]

I've almost had a midair with GA in twice in Gladden. Both times in the middle of a BFM set, while I was defensive teaching a stud offense.

Most GA guys are surprised to know those areas are uncontrolled, we get no warning from anyone that a civilian in entering the airspace, and we DO NOT have TCAS. No warning+no control+no TCAS=No SA. If we find someone during BFM it's pure luck, and hopefully we don't trade paint.

I agree it was poor judgement to rejoin on the idiots. I did find the appropriate time to demo flare jettison to my student after missing a Bonanza by 500', though. The Bo made for the border pretty quickly...

 

[milflyboy]

Don't know if US F-16s are allowed to do this, but in our Air Force we always select mode C off before intercepting Civilian aircraft in order not to set of a TCAS resolution advisory. Our GCI Controller has to know that we are doing it.

Also, the civilian will if he is in contact with any agency get notifed that we are doing it. If he has legal right to be there I wouldn't go within 1000' unless he lets me.

We do however sometimes set of TCAS on aircraft flying outside of our MOAs even though we are well established within. Especially during supersonic runs. We are aware of the problems associated with a TCAS res and try hard to avoid it.

 

[Doug Parker]

What are they cryin about???? I would have a rock hard chubby if a Viper joined up on my wing !!!!!!!! Prolly snap a few photos for posterity's sake...........


.

 

[414Flyer]

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.

I will agree, for the fact that unbriefed or at least unplanned formations, have resulted in numerous crashes.

While I am not going to automatically accept the 20 ft off his wing claim, would there have been a reason to join up on him? This thread has turned into the debate of going into MOAs, and not the original idea at hand. I had a Flanker once use me for intercept practice, but at least he did not park next to me.

 

[Caveman]

1. An MOA is shared airspace.
2. Both parties are entitled to be there.
3. Both parties have an obligation to see and avoid.
4. Neither party has the right to aggressively pursue the other one.
5. Neither party can legally fly in formation unless prior coordination is made.

If you're the one doing performance maneauvers it is your responsibility to make sure the area is clear. The guy flying straight and level has the responsibility to make sure where he's going is clear. It sounds like both parties did their part. The Viper called off whatever he was doing and the civilian was monitoring the area and his TCAS. Everything was good to go until the fighter stud decided to imitate Maverick. Bad call on his part. Sounds like his frustration turned into 'air rage'. Not good. I expect better judgement and a cooler head from someone charged with flying a multizillion dollar hotrod that could be loaded with all kinds of death and destruction.

 

[jetjock6]

Related Content:
Audio interview with Pilatus pilot Patrick McCall[/quote]

After listening to this interview, I'm a little confused. Was its purpose so some d-bag could complain about an encounter with a Viper in a place he shouldn't have been or so some d-bag lawyer could brag about the equipment in his Pilatus.

Maybe he just wishes he could close in on ambulances that fast.

 

[tumbleweed]

Isn't there a table on the Sectional Charts that lists the controlling agency, frequency, telephone number, and operating hours for the known MOAs? Or is that just Restricted Areas? Seems to me any prudent pilot (mil or civ) would take a couple easy steps before pointing their nose in airspace that may or may not be active. At least let someone know you're there!

That being said...I don't know anyone in any of the squadrons I've been in who would do as described (if indeed that is the way it happened). Usually when a stranger enters the airspace we set an altitude floor or ceiling to avoid them completely if possible. The airspace is designated a MOA for a reason...not just because we feel like it.

 

[ExAF]

Tool Lawyer

After listening to the podcast, he sounds even more clueless about what really goes on in a MOA and didn't even realize what he was doing. "I'm a lawyer and I can go wherever I want cause it's legal. They better stay out of my way and avoid me cause I'm straight and level." Also sounds like his avoidance maneuver was excessive since he didn't have the transgressor in sight. I doubt he was following TCAS guidance. "What would you like to see done as a result of this incident?" I think (and I know it will never happen) that all MOAs should be converted to Restricted Airspace so tools like this can only go there when they are inactive. Problem solved. Not the answer the layer would give. The AF pilot may have been wrong (if the story only has one side to it) in joining on the tool, but the whole problem could have been avoided if the tool had used better judgment and STAYED OUT OF THE ACTIVE MOA whether it is legal to go there or not. I sure would like to hear the other side of the story.

 

[SIG600]

For all you guys that have no tactical experience whatsoever and think see-and-avoid is possible, in MILTARY OPERATIONS AREAS (it's designated as such for a reason) while engaged... I have one thought for you....

I can not, nor will I devote the energy to look for you. I'm too busy trying to fight the guy 1000 feet away, and not hit him, while max performing my jet. IF YOU CRUISE THROUGH AND I HIT YOU... regardless whose at fault, I have an ejection seat. Enjoy the ride.

 

[Deuce130]

For all you guys that have no tactical experience whatsoever and think see-and-avoid is possible, in MILTARY OPERATIONS AREAS (it's designated as such for a reason) while engaged... I have one thought for you....

I can not, nor will I devote the energy to look for you. I'm too busy trying to fight the guy 1000 feet away, and not hit him, while max performing my jet. IF YOU CRUISE THROUGH AND I HIT YOU... regardless whose at fault, I have an ejection seat. Enjoy the ride.

Assuming you survive the collision. I'd rethink this position if I were you. Hopefully somone in your element or division is clearing if you're not going to. This is part of the deal when operating in a MOA isn't it?

 

[talondriver]

I would like to think a GA pilot flying through an active MOA is either "clue-do" or a life flight flying the shortest distance between two points. Sh*t happens.
But BAD on the GA pilot who decides to fly through a hot MOA to exercise his "freedoms" and prove a point.

 

[SIG600]

Assuming you survive the collision. I'd rethink this position if I were you. Hopefully somone in your element or division is clearing if you're not going to. This is part of the deal when operating in a MOA isn't it?

No, it's not. Hence why we have specifically designated area's to do it it.

You don't seem to get it, it takes every ounce of concentration and skill to max perform in an engagement. We're not just arcing around with time to spare to look for trolls. We're also on a truncated time table with which to train. I've got a finite amount of time and gas with which to maximize the utility for the tax payers dollar (about an hour). When we have to stop for 10 minutes, we lose the entire sortie. Figure that in at $5K to fill up a Hornet. Hence why we have MILITARY operation areas. For those that don't know how to pick up and read the AIM... let me help.

3-4-5. Military Operations Areas ​

a. MOAs consist of airspace of defined vertical and lateral limits established for the purpose of separating certain military training activities from IFR traffic. Whenever a MOA is being used, nonparticipating IFR traffic may be cleared through a MOA if IFR separation can be provided by ATC. Otherwise, ATC will reroute or restrict nonparticipating IFR traffic.
b. Examples of activities conducted in MOAs include, but are not limited to: air combat tactics, air intercepts, aerobatics, formation training, and low-altitude tactics. Military pilots flying in an active MOA are exempted from the provisions of 14 CFR Section 91.303(c) and (d) which prohibits aerobatic flight within Class D and Class E surface areas, and within Federal airways. Additionally, the Department of Defense has been issued an authorization to operate aircraft at indicated airspeeds in excess of 250 knots below 10,000 feet MSL within active MOAs.
c. Pilots operating under VFR should exercise extreme caution while flying within a MOA when military activity is being conducted. The activity status (active/inactive) of MOAs may change frequently. Therefore, pilots should contact any FSS within 100 miles of the area to obtain accurate real-time information concerning the MOA hours of operation. Prior to entering an active MOA, pilots should contact the controlling agency for traffic advisories.
d. MOAs are depicted on sectional, VFR Terminal Area, and Enroute Low Altitude charts.

 

[Deuce130]

No, it's not. Hence why we have specifically designated area's to do it it.

You don't seem to get it, it takes every ounce of concentration and skill to max perform in an engagement. We're not just arcing around with time to spare to look for trolls. We're also on a truncated time table with which to train. I've got a finite amount of time and gas with which to maximize the utility for the tax payers dollar (about an hour). When we have to stop for 10 minutes, we lose the entire sortie. Figure that in at $5K to fill up a Hornet. Hence why we have MILITARY operation areas. For those that don't know how to pick up and read the AIM... let me help.

Sig, I do get it. Though I don't fly fighters, I've done numerous low altitude 2 v 1 engagements with fighters in MOAs. I'm well aware of the concentration and skill it takes to effectively train in an engagement. I'm also aware of the possibility of GA clowns plowing through the area when I'm doing it. During my pre-brief, the possibility of unbriefed aircraft entering the area is discussed. I don't then dismiss that possibility once the fight's on. As I said before, if you ignore that possibility, you do so at your own peril.

I also agree with the fact that lost training opportunities suck. But if someone is flying through an active MOA, they're not thinking about you and your training - they're most likely not thinking at all. It's the military, however. Lost training opportunities are a fact of life. As are civilians flying through active MOAs.

 

[Bjammin]

1. An MOA is shared airspace.
2. Both parties are entitled to be there.
3. Both parties have an obligation to see and avoid.
4. Neither party has the right to aggressively pursue the other one.
5. Neither party can legally fly in formation unless prior coordination is made.

If you're the one doing performance maneauvers it is your responsibility to make sure the area is clear. The guy flying straight and level has the responsibility to make sure where he's going is clear. It sounds like both parties did their part. The Viper called off whatever he was doing and the civilian was monitoring the area and his TCAS. Everything was good to go until the fighter stud decided to imitate Maverick. Bad call on his part. Sounds like his frustration turned into 'air rage'. Not good. I expect better judgement and a cooler head from someone charged with flying a multizillion dollar hotrod that could be loaded with all kinds of death and destruction.

You have GOT to be kidding me! This argument has been had time and time again and the bottom line is, YOU ARE RISKING OUR LIVES BY FLYING THROUGH AN ACTIVE MOA!!!

At 400+ kts with a formation my ability to see and avoid is in the matter of seconds and with restricted ability to manuever becomes almost impossible. If someone enters the MOA I have to stop and try to VID the guy. We have tracked down tail numbers and sent letters to civies saying that they almost died because they wandered into a practice dogfight.

I think all MOA's should become restricted areas, but that will never happen, so I offer a solution. If a MOA is active try your best not to fly through it. If you have to for operational reasons like pipline survey or something similar then call the squadrons that use it at let them know you'll be there, what altitude, track, and times. I have no problem using another MOA if availiable or restricting myself to a certain corner if able.

Chances are civies won't do this, why? Because they still want to prove their RIGHT to be there and are too lazy to make it safe for all of us.

Safety is the number one priority. I'm willing to make help out, are you?

 

[Deuce130]

At 400+ kts with a formation my ability to see and avoid is in the matter of seconds and with restricted ability to manuever becomes almost impossible.

Then I recommend you never fly VFR.

 

[Bjammin]

Then I recommend you never fly VFR.

I'm on an IFR clearance in the MOA.

Are you willing to call the squadrons when you are going to penetate the MOA? If not, then I assume you are are not commited to safety enough to be anywhere near me.

 

[Deuce130]

I'm on an IFR clearance in the MOA.

Are you willing to call the squadrons when you are going to penetate the MOA? If not, then I assume you are are not commited to safety enough to be anywhere near me.

How about on MTRs? VRs? You never fly VFR? Most fighter type aircraft fly VFR at some point. And they fly at 400+ knots and they have to be able to see and avoid and manuever if necessary. You seemed to indicate that you weren't able to do that very well.

 

[SIG600]

How about on MTRs? VRs? You never fly VFR? Most fighter type aircraft fly VFR at some point. And they fly at 400+ knots and they have to be able to see and avoid and manuever if necessary. You seemed to indicate that you weren't able to do that very well.

And we file VR routes under IFR control on an IFR flight plan. You need to go back and relearn just what exactly the difference is between an IR and VR route, not what rules you're under when you're on it.

You know nothing about tactical aviation, so why are you arguing?

 

[Bjammin]

MTR's should be avoided as well, much easier to do then a MOA. I'm looking for obsticles while flying at 400+ kts on MTR's so the see and avoid is easier. In a MOA while doing tactical work or formation, where I have to divide my attention between inside and my possibly solo wingman and have very limited ability to manuever, seeing a 172 and having time to avoid him becomes alot more difficult and less safe for everybody.

Again, are you willing to call the squadrons and tell us you are going to be there so we CAN brief properly and avoid being anywhere near you if at all possible?


Hey sig!!

 

[SIG600]

1. An MOA is shared airspace.
2. Both parties are entitled to be there.
3. Both parties have an obligation to see and avoid.
4. Neither party has the right to aggressively pursue the other one.
5. Neither party can legally fly in formation unless prior coordination is made.

If you're the one doing performance maneauvers it is your responsibility to make sure the area is clear. The guy flying straight and level has the responsibility to make sure where he's going is clear. It sounds like both parties did their part. The Viper called off whatever he was doing and the civilian was monitoring the area and his TCAS. Everything was good to go until the fighter stud decided to imitate Maverick. Bad call on his part. Sounds like his frustration turned into 'air rage'. Not good. I expect better judgement and a cooler head from someone charged with flying a multizillion dollar hotrod that could be loaded with all kinds of death and destruction.

Congrats, you've made the dumbest comment on in this thread. If thats the case, why the fvck do we have MILITARY OPERATIONS AREA'S.

It's all in the name.