U.S. Military Operations Areas
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Age: 75
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
U.S. Military Operations Areas
Not sure if any of you saw the AOPA video of an F-16 driver that made a rocket run on a civilian Beech Premier in the American Southwest a few months ago, but the entire incident has raised many questions about operations in or near MOAs for both pilots and controllers.
The Premier pilot - who seems to have been VFR beneath an MOA - saw the F-16 coming and got first a TCAS traffic alert, followed quickly by a resolution alert. He yanked back on the wheel to comply with TCAS and popped into the MOA where civil controllers had no authority to talk to him.
I'm trying to figure out who is more crazy here, the F-16 guy for being beneath the MOA and using the Premier as a practice target, or the Beech pilot for trying to fly VFR so close to the MOA. Maybe it's both.
Since so many of you are from outside the U.S., I thought maybe the rules are somewhat different.
Any thoughts?
Jetwhine
The Premier pilot - who seems to have been VFR beneath an MOA - saw the F-16 coming and got first a TCAS traffic alert, followed quickly by a resolution alert. He yanked back on the wheel to comply with TCAS and popped into the MOA where civil controllers had no authority to talk to him.
I'm trying to figure out who is more crazy here, the F-16 guy for being beneath the MOA and using the Premier as a practice target, or the Beech pilot for trying to fly VFR so close to the MOA. Maybe it's both.
Since so many of you are from outside the U.S., I thought maybe the rules are somewhat different.
Any thoughts?
Jetwhine
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The AOPA Press release states that the civil aircraft were within the MOA (under VFR, which is legal). The MOA was underneath the controlled airspace which one of the civil pilots climbed in to, without clearance, during his avoidance manouevre.
I think there are airmanship issues on both sides. The civil pilots should surely have expected to encounter military aircraft in high energy manouvres since the airspace was notified as active for military use. The military pilot was unwise in pushing home his interception closer than he needed to.
At the end of the day, if the civil pilots were 'VFR' and had the F16 visual, and the F16 came no closer than 600' (according to the USAF) why the drastic manouevres ??
You can read the various claims and counter claims here, along with various links to AvWeb articles and podcasts about the incident:
USAF F-16 Instructor Discusses Flying Into MOAs
I think there are airmanship issues on both sides. The civil pilots should surely have expected to encounter military aircraft in high energy manouvres since the airspace was notified as active for military use. The military pilot was unwise in pushing home his interception closer than he needed to.
At the end of the day, if the civil pilots were 'VFR' and had the F16 visual, and the F16 came no closer than 600' (according to the USAF) why the drastic manouevres ??
You can read the various claims and counter claims here, along with various links to AvWeb articles and podcasts about the incident:
USAF F-16 Instructor Discusses Flying Into MOAs
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: SoCal
Age: 50
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, if I were the pilot of the Premier, I'd have to ask myself why did I even put myself in this situation?
Personally, I think your assumption that the F-16 was flying underneath the MOA altitude is incorrect. There are very few MOAs in ZAB's airspace and the lowest base altitude, IIRC, is 11,000 feet. Seems this incident happened around 16,500 feet.
IMHO the F-16 pilot was attempting to visually ID an aircraft in the MOA. If he got close enough to activate the TCAS, so be it. It is an operation (air intercept) clearly authorized by military aircraft to perform within a MOA.
The Premier pilot should feel lucky he still has his corporate job. If he worked for me, his *ss would be out on the streets. He clearly needs a 14CFR and AIM refresher on MOAs.
Personally, I think your assumption that the F-16 was flying underneath the MOA altitude is incorrect. There are very few MOAs in ZAB's airspace and the lowest base altitude, IIRC, is 11,000 feet. Seems this incident happened around 16,500 feet.
IMHO the F-16 pilot was attempting to visually ID an aircraft in the MOA. If he got close enough to activate the TCAS, so be it. It is an operation (air intercept) clearly authorized by military aircraft to perform within a MOA.
The Premier pilot should feel lucky he still has his corporate job. If he worked for me, his *ss would be out on the streets. He clearly needs a 14CFR and AIM refresher on MOAs.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Age: 75
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOAs
Thanks for the update. I didn't see that release.
You make a very interesting point come to think of it though, because the pilot did say he saw the F-16 which would have negated the need to obey the TCAS.
But this is a bit like playing chicken in a big car when you see someone riding a Vespa in the right lane, isn't it?
Jetwhine
You make a very interesting point come to think of it though, because the pilot did say he saw the F-16 which would have negated the need to obey the TCAS.
But this is a bit like playing chicken in a big car when you see someone riding a Vespa in the right lane, isn't it?
Jetwhine
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Over a bit... aah, just there.
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the danger there is that the traffic you see mightn't be the one causing the loud noises and flashing lights. chances are you're right in an ifr environment but with vfr in proximity it would be a bad time to get it wrong.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Middle East
Posts: 1,183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beerhunter....
Good point.
If the pilots start trying to interpret the equipment again we are back to square one and mid-airs are inevitable.
Not a pretty situation this one but it seems there was some poor decision making by the civvy's operators and possibly some overly aggressive maneuvering on behalf of the knucks which may have exacerbated the scenario.
If the pilots start trying to interpret the equipment again we are back to square one and mid-airs are inevitable.
Not a pretty situation this one but it seems there was some poor decision making by the civvy's operators and possibly some overly aggressive maneuvering on behalf of the knucks which may have exacerbated the scenario.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Age: 75
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TCAS
I think I agree with Fox.
The point of TCAS is actually to eliminate the need for the pilot to think, as crazy as that sounds. With some of the closure rates involved, waiting to figure it all out could kill me.
If you talk to a controller, as I was doing on the blog yesterday about this topic though, they often hate TCAS because it takes them out of the control loop.
The case you mentioned Beer would be possible for sure, but pretty far out. Usually, I see a target long before it even becomes a TA, let alone an RA. So the chance of the alert being someone other than what's on the TCAS are slim, if I understood your point.
But to me, if some other plane got totally past my scan and the system is yelling at me to "Climb, Climb," I'd climb first and think later.
Again though, if I saw it visually, the equation changes.
Jetwhine
The point of TCAS is actually to eliminate the need for the pilot to think, as crazy as that sounds. With some of the closure rates involved, waiting to figure it all out could kill me.
If you talk to a controller, as I was doing on the blog yesterday about this topic though, they often hate TCAS because it takes them out of the control loop.
The case you mentioned Beer would be possible for sure, but pretty far out. Usually, I see a target long before it even becomes a TA, let alone an RA. So the chance of the alert being someone other than what's on the TCAS are slim, if I understood your point.
But to me, if some other plane got totally past my scan and the system is yelling at me to "Climb, Climb," I'd climb first and think later.
Again though, if I saw it visually, the equation changes.
Jetwhine
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Age: 75
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TCAS
One other point on Radar's link to the F-16 pilot's statement. It said the F-16 approached the aircraft to identify and educate the pilot about the hazards of flying in an MOA.
This joint-use concept is just silly.
Either we decide to ban everything that's not military when an MOA is hot or the MOA should not exist. Airspace lovers will probably tell me I'm nuts, but I'd rather know I'm not going to get whacked by an F-16 who thinks he has as much right to the airspace as I do.
Jetwhine
This joint-use concept is just silly.
Either we decide to ban everything that's not military when an MOA is hot or the MOA should not exist. Airspace lovers will probably tell me I'm nuts, but I'd rather know I'm not going to get whacked by an F-16 who thinks he has as much right to the airspace as I do.
Jetwhine
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remember in the US it would be reasonably common to operate IFR traffic separated from VFR by only 500 ft - and this incident was in Class E so there could be gliders and other non-transponding aircraft - so just whipping the aircraft around without thinking is probably a bad strategy when operating in VMC - particularly as in this case everyone seems to have been operating VFR.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: US
Age: 42
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I beg to differ on the "very few moas in ZAB." There are 19 moas physically in ZABs airspace, most of which are divided into at least 2 or more sub-moas. Anyway, Gladden/Bagdad moa/atcaa (gladbag or happy sack as we like to say) are regularly hot during weekdays. We admittedly get our fair share of knuckle-head pilots coming out of the Phoenix tracon/Luke AFB areas that think they're the only ones in the sky. It appears to me that both parties involved were at fault.
