FAA releases radar tape of F-16 and GA incident.

[JordanD]

I hadn't heard of this until I got the AOPA email with the story. Just ridiculous. Another reason I don't want to fly through MOA's unless I absolutely have to. And even then not without flight following if I can get it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPFhiafftCk

This kind of crap pisses me off. What the hell was the F-16 pilot thinking?

[Gabriel]

What the hell was the F-16 pilot thinking?

"Target!"

[Leftseat86]

That is ridiculous. Even more ridiculous are the retards attempting to defend such recklessness on youtube comments.

[NickN]

According to the transmission the F-16 came within 10 feet of the Cessna! Thats insanity.

[Crunk415balla]

That is ridiculous. Even more ridiculous are the retards attempting to defend such recklessness on youtube comments.

Youtube comments are some of the most ignorant things posted on the web.

I have to fly through an MOA Wednesday, really no way around it if you go from here to the Wine Country. While this MOA is busy, its always full of tankers and C-5As and what not, not fighters, so those shouldn't be too hard to spot. But I'm going to be very nervous about wake turbulence.

[JordanD]

Youtube comments are some of the most ignorant things posted on the web.

I have to fly through an MOA Wednesday, really no way around it if you go from here to the Wine Country. While this MOA is busy, its always full of tankers and C-5As and what not, not fighters, so those shouldn't be too hard to spot. But I'm going to be very nervous about wake turbulence.

Try to get flight following. I try with the MOA's just north of here. The problem is that once you get within like 6 inches of entering the MOA you leave SDF's radar control and you're too far from IND's, so they just drop you.

[contrail_25]

I think the whole purpose of a MOA is sorely missed by those who argue the "shared airspace" of a MOA.

MOAs exist so the flying population knows where the military conducts it's training. In fact, and with a few exceptions, just about everywhere we train is charted. MOAs, restricted airspace, IR routes, SR routes, MTRs, ect. All of this is done with the purpose of safety through situational awareness. The military does not dogfight, drop bombs, refuel, ect outside of charted areas, training routes, refueling tracks, and so forth. Take a minute to think about how dangerous and just downright deadly it would be if these training areas were not charted and you had no idea of where such activities were taking place.

Now the military understands that such airspaces take up a lot of space. By allowing open access through MOAs to VFR a/c, the military is in it's own regards being a rather friendly neighbor. Just be glad that MOAs are not restricted airspace.

On the other side of the coin, yes you may exercise your right to fly through a MOA. But do so knowing that the military may or may not be operating in that MOA. For an example I use a local MOA that is active 5 days a week. This MOA is subdivided into six different "areas" each with a high and low area for a grand total of 12 areas. This subdivision is not charted on any FAA pubs, and many MOAs are divided up as such. So in this single MOA, you can have up to 12 different aircraft at varying altitudes, maneuvering rather agressively in both the vertical and horizontal. Would you want to fly through that? Not me. Yet people still choose to do so!

There is more than enough material out there to help pilots in determining if a MOA is active or not. The plain and simple fact is that many pilots choose not to use the references available to them and go forth blindly.

I can relate to all this as I've been on both sides. First as a civilian pilot, and now as a military pilot. As a civilian, I was an aerial surveyor. I've been all over the country and have seen my fair share of various airspaces. Due to the nature of our flying in that line of work, we became very familiar with any airspace, MOA, restricted area, ect in the region we would be mapping. And by region I mean anything from counties to entire states, 2000 ft AGL up to FL280. We checked before each flight for the status of local MOAs. If they were active, we flew another portion of the job area and came back later, usually on weekends, to finish the area within the MOA. There was no reason to mix it up with lord knows what in those MOAs. No reason at all.

Now on the military side of things, we train in MOAs 5 days a weeks, sometimes more. Our standard breif is to 'knock it off' anytime someone enters our MOA. We get separation, and also yes we try to get a visual on traffic. No this does not mean we come fly fingertip formation with you, but rather I'm perched up high somewhere watching your making sure the flight is clear of you and you can pass through none the wiser. Does it make us mad? Sure. You interrupt our training and it's a pain in the butt. But more so it really makes me wonder why, do people decide to fly through them? Is the few extra minutes gained really worth the risk of a midair? I know it's your right to fly through there, but is your life worth it? My crews life? I don't think so.

Was this F-16 pilot wrong in doing what he did? If he got closer than 1000 ft, then yes. Chances of him hitting that PC-12 or Premier are rather slim. Those guys are very well trained in flying close formation. However, it was a poor decision to 'intercept' those aircraft like that. Dangerous, yeah I'd say so, but more so because the Viper driver can't predict how the other guy will react.

The more dangerous decision was for the two pilots to fly through a MOA active with F-16 training. The speeds at which the F-16s operate, both horizontally and vertically, should be more than enough reason to bypass that MOA.

So yes, you may have the legal right to fly through an active MOA. But I challenge anyone out there to present a good reason why you should take that chance to do so. I have yet to hear one that justifies the endangerment of life.

[Leftseat86]

I agree with the sentiment that overall it is preferable to avoid MOAs, but that seems highly unfair to civilian pilots considering many airports lie within MOA's, and many MOAs cover very very vast expanses of airspace that would make flying around them highly impractical. Specifically in the west of the US, going around them could add hours to flight time.

In this incident, saying the decision to fly within the MOA was more dangerous than that of the F-16 jock to intercept them in that manner is ridiculous.

[E-Diddy!]

So yes, you may have the legal right to fly through an active MOA. But I challenge anyone out there to present a good reason why you should take that chance to do so. I have yet to hear one that justifies the endangerment of life.

That argument only flies assuming one of two things are correct: MOAs are very small (they aren't), and that every aircraft can quickly navigate around an active MOA to their destination (not possible).

For example, DVL-JMS passes through the Devils Lake East MOA. To avoid the MOA on that route, your route distance would have to triple. Are you telling me that, as a private pilot in your Cessna paying your own dime, or as a commercial pilot in a Learjet with your passenger on a busy schedule, you are going to bypass the MOA?

I challenge you to find one situation where flying through the MOA isn't the best decision to make on that flight. And 'not flying' that day is not an answer, because you cant just go and tell your passenger "sorry, can't fly today, there is a small possibility of military traffic."

[Airbus_A320]

Now the military understands that such airspaces take up a lot of space. By allowing open access through MOAs to VFR a/c, the military is in it's own regards being a rather friendly neighbor. Just be glad that MOAs are not restricted airspace.

You must be one of those people that the government should be able to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, wherever it wants, with all of us existing to serve the government without asking any questions. Am I right?

Airspace belongs to the people of the United States and since the people pay the taxes that allow the military to exist and do its training missions, we had better have every right to fly through the thousands of square miles that are set up as being part of MOA's and would make certain flights have to take extreme detours increasing fuel burn, time, and costs to complete if circumnavigated. MOAs are set up to keep the military in and to let civilian pilots know that there is training activity there so as to not be taken by surprise. This doesn't give military pilots the right to harass civilian pilots for no reason as is exemplified by the fact that the F-16 pilot was disciplined. Remember, who is paying for the fuel that allows you to fly, train, and get paid for doing so? The fact that anyone would suggest that such large areas of airspace should become restricted is just beyond me Civilian pilots have every right to that airspace, and restricted areas are small in comparison to MOA's.

Now yes, if flying around the MOA took a small deviation that would have little to no effect on the overall distance, I'd do it, it's the same as flying around class B or C airspace if you are VFR and can do it easily and don't want to deal with talking to anyone, but if you have a giant MOA in the middle of your route, that's kind of hard to do.

[Crunk415balla]

I don't think ANY pilot seeks out an MOA. They are in areas we NEED to go through to get to certain airports or we wouldn't fly through them. And accordingly, both GA and Military pilots should take precautions for saftey in this shared airspace, not disregard one another then turn around and point fingers.

[Uncle Jay]

Not About MOAs

Its about persons in authority being out of control. I believe the expression is 'jack-booted thugs'. Just like a cop ordering people around, a TSA employee herding people around, a jet pilot invading personal airspace. No difference.

[contrail_25]

I think some of my key points were not read or just misunderstood.....


Remember, I've fly on BOTH sides of this coin. My opinions are neither those of a self righteous civilian pilot or self centered military one.

Airbus_320 wrote:
You must be one of those people that the government should be able to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, wherever it wants, with all of us existing to serve the government without asking any questions. Am I right?

The fact that anyone would suggest that such large areas of airspace should become restricted is just beyond me

You couldn't be further from the truth. My comment about MOAs not being restricted airspace had nothing to do with the assumption I believe they should all be made such and nor do I believe that to begin with.

The entire point I was getting at and even stated was that we have these MOAs so YOU the flying civilian population (if you are indeed a pilot) know where we will be flying. I even proposed that we all take a second to think about what it would be like if we didn't have MOAs and the military just did their thing anywhere they wanted to. That would be dangerous as hell.

When these MOAs were created it was a great idea to make them MOAs and not restricted areas....for all the reasons we've been discussing about joint use airspace. But it is a two way street. Just as we in the military need to take precautions (and unlike the F-16 pilot...adhere to them) for civil aircraft flying through our MOAs, those civilian aircraft should also have some consideration for the work we are doing in MOAs. You made the argument that you pay the taxes that pay for what we do, well you and me both pal. That does not entitle you to have more of a right to fly in MOAs than anyone else.

If anything, using that argument should cause you to be more angry about wasted taxpayers money when we have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to refly a mission that was aborted due to someone entering a MOA.

E-Diddy! wrote:

I challenge you to find one situation where flying through the MOA isn't the best decision to make on that flight. And 'not flying' that day is not an answer, because you cant just go and tell your passenger "sorry, can't fly today, there is a small possibility of military traffic."

I've already discussed this real life situation:

For an example I use a local MOA that is active 5 days a week. This MOA is subdivided into six different "areas" each with a high and low area for a grand total of 12 areas. This subdivision is not charted on any FAA pubs, and many MOAs are divided up as such. So in this single MOA, you can have up to 12 different aircraft at varying altitudes, maneuvering rather aggressively in both the vertical and horizontal. Would you want to fly through that? Not me. Yet people still choose to do so!

I was off in my calculations. The MOA discussed, VANCE 1B, has 14 areas within it. Each area has a high and low, for a grand total of 28 useable areas. So now, you can have up to 28 aircraft flying anywhere from 7,000 - FL240 all within that one single MOA. The number goes up when formations are being practiced. There's also the Vance 1A/C/D MOA in which you have nearly equal amounts of T-38s and T-1 flying, albeit they have a larger area in which to maneuver.

Back to the point though, are you seriously going to suggest that flying though this MOA (or other heavily used MOAs) is the "best idea" for someone considering the factors of time, fuel, and customer satisfaction? Or are those factors more heavily weighed in your flight planning than your own personal safety?

In the Phoenix incident, the pilots planned flights through the Gladden and Bagdad MOAs are used rather heavily by the F-16s out of Luke. I do not disagree with their right to do so. However, from a safety standpoint, knowing that the MOA was active with F-16s would heavily deter me from flying through it until it was clear, and back in 2006 as a civilian aerial survey pilot it did.

I have already stated that what the F-16 pilot did was not the best choice on his/her behalf. Did he really get within 10 feet? We cannot say since we were not there. If he got within 1000 it was a bad choice, if he got within 500 it was illegal by both military and FAA regs.

Hopefully you all see that I agree with you on the joint use of MOAs and that yes we may need to fly through some to get to certain airports within them. However, I am seeing a deadly reason behind many of your reasons: convenience.

Yes it may take more time and fuel or put your clients schedule slightly behind if you have to go around, over, under an active MOA. And yes we all have the right to fly in them. Yet if the safety of you and your passengers is not the #1 priority on your list when planning a flight, then you are severely wrong.

As a professional pilot I will never endanger lives for the sake of saving some time, money, or exercising a right just because I can. Our right to live is more important that our right to be in that MOA.

[bob12312357]

All arguments are of a moot point. It is illegal for a pilot 2 fly in formation with another aircraft with out prior consent of the other pilot thats basic knowledge that you learn for the private written. The F-16 pilot would be hard pressed to call it a matter of security and BOTH pilots from BOTH planes were pissed as hell over what happened and demanded then and there to report it. Not really a he said, she said with 1vs1.