F-16 & Cessna mid-air over SC

[KState_Poke22]

In UPT it happened probably close to 10 times when RAPCON had us hold above a certain altitude in our MOA for a civil aircraft to transit through. I get that it's perfectly legal but it's frustrating (and dangerous) nonetheless. That's not to mention the multiple instances of GA aircraft blasting through without a warning and a close midair.

[MD]

In UPT it happened probably close to 10 times when RAPCON had us hold above a certain altitude in our MOA for a civil aircraft to transit through. I get that it's perfectly legal but it's frustrating (and dangerous) nonetheless. That's not to mention the multiple instances of GA aircraft blasting through without a warning and a close midair.

It's the nature of a MOA. See and avoid is key. Otherwise change it to a Restricted Area.

[ARIs 'R' Us]

In UPT it happened probably close to 10 times when RAPCON had us hold above a certain altitude in our MOA for a civil aircraft to transit through. I get that it's perfectly legal but it's frustrating (and dangerous) nonetheless. That's not to mention the multiple instances of GA aircraft blasting through without a warning and a close midair.

There's my point. You can't fix it, but if you want to try to fix it, work with your wings safety outreach to local FBOs. That's the only way the public will find out what goes on in the MOAs, and why they should be avoided.

GA pilots (some, anyway) are experts at what they do. Nowhere in their training is the importance of observing MOA restrictions taught, unless they're trained by an ex-mil CFI. VFR flight following can be a hassle, and if you're not on that or IFR, nobody is there to tell you where not to go.

[F16Rooster]

My experience with VFR flight following and MOAs has been maybe a traffic call but certainly no "Avoid XXXX Moa." I think for the most part the see and avoid thing combined with traffic callouts and radar monitoring (for the mil guys) works out just fine. There are, after all, times it would be a serious inconvenience for a GA aircraft to avoid a MOA. That being said it could, and probably should, be something that GA guys are a little more familiar with. I've had CFIs say nothing at all or treat them as restricted areas. A little knowledge could go a long way. And the other side of the coin, it's not the military's airspace. The taxpayer in a GA airplane has just as much right to that airspace as you do. Don't get all butthurt if you have to adjust your altitude block.

[brabus]

It seems to me a good idea would be to mandate GA to be on an IFR flightplan or have VFR flight following to enter a MOA. If you don't have either, you don't go. I don't get butthurt if a dude enters the MOA and I know about it, what I get pissed about is the asshole who doesn't say shit and enters a MOA - it's extremely dangerous for everybody. See and Avoid is a 1/2 cop out on the mil side - yeah we're looking out the window, but we're also raging around near the mach, executing aggressive maneuvering under G, managing a shitload of data to make 1/2 sec decisions in a tactical environment, talking to several people on the radio, etc. Many GA pilots have zero SA about any of this unless former mil, trained by mil dude on the side, etc....I was one of them. It's not that they're incapable of understanding, they just are never taught/told and/or have an entitled attitude and put their lives at a lot of risk all because "I'm a taxpayer dammit, I can go here!" It's dumb and naive.

[MD]

It seems to me a good idea would be to mandate GA to be on an IFR flightplan or have VFR flight following to enter a MOA. If you don't have either, you don't go. I don't get butthurt if a dude enters the MOA and I know about it, what I get pissed about is the asshole who doesn't say shit and enters a MOA - it's extremely dangerous for everybody. See and Avoid is a 1/2 cop out on the mil side - yeah we're looking out the window, but we're also raging around near the mach, executing aggressive maneuvering under G, managing a shitload of data to make 1/2 sec decisions in a tactical environment, talking to several people on the radio, etc. Many GA pilots have zero SA about any of this unless former mil, trained by mil dude on the side, etc....I was one of them. It's not that they're incapable of understanding, they just are never taught/told and/or have an entitled attitude and put their lives at a lot of risk all because "I'm a taxpayer dammit, I can go here!" It's dumb and naive.

Nor is the GA plane required to say anything to anyone when entering a MOA. Would it be nice for a GA pilot to do some homework regarding a MOA? Such as calling ATC to determine if it's hot or cold, referencing a sectional to see if they could potentially fly underneath the surface of it? Etc? Sure. That'd be great. Unfortunately, with no regulations changes, there's no requirement for GA to exercise due diligence in that way. So if the military wants to turly protect that airspace during its operating hours, it's going to have to become a Restricted Area. Unfortunate, but true.

[HU&W]

My experience with VFR flight following and MOAs has been maybe a traffic call but certainly no "Avoid XXXX Moa." I think for the most part the see and avoid thing combined with traffic callouts and radar monitoring (for the mil guys) works out just fine. There are, after all, times it would be a serious inconvenience for a GA aircraft to avoid a MOA. That being said it could, and probably should, be something that GA guys are a little more familiar with. I've had CFIs say nothing at all or treat them as restricted areas. A little knowledge could go a long way. And the other side of the coin, it's not the military's airspace. The taxpayer in a GA airplane has just as much right to that airspace as you do. Don't get all butthurt if you have to adjust your altitude block.

I don't think too many of us mind adjusting the alt block all that much. It's adjusting it with .69 seconds of notice that's not fun.

[HuggyU2]

In UPT it happened probably close to 10 times when RAPCON had us hold above a certain altitude in our MOA for a civil aircraft to transit through. I get that it's perfectly legal but it's frustrating (and dangerous) nonetheless.

If RAPCON advises you in advance that you have traffic that is going to transit the MOA, and then they give you an altitude restriction, I fail to see where it is "dangerous".

[Lawman]

Nor is the GA plane required to say anything to anyone when entering a MOA. Would it be nice for a GA pilot to do some homework regarding a MOA? Such as calling ATC to determine if it's hot or cold, referencing a sectional to see if they could potentially fly underneath the surface of it? Etc? Sure. That'd be great. Unfortunately, with no regulations changes, there's no requirement for GA to exercise due diligence in that way. So if the military wants to turly protect that airspace during its operating hours, it's going to have to become a Restricted Area. Unfortunate, but true.

FAA can always get more restrictive. In this case I'd honestly support it. I've seen too much stupidity regarding MOAs and training routes.

We in the U.S. enjoy many freedoms that general aviation pilots in other countries would only dream about (Night time VFR in Germany for example). We tend to go till there is a major issue that causes reaction much like how many countries have adopted prescribed procedures for operations at uncontrolled airports where we just passed out an advisory circular and called it good. That's the FAA saying fix the problem or we will fix it for you.

Incidents like this in the future will eventually force rules to be made. Look at cities with bans on flying tours because of stupidity in the past. If the GA pilots (which having been one probably ought to be called amateur pilots just like radio operators) want to keep their freedoms of air navigation they best not try to but heads with mil and commercial ops. Both those entities have a lot more buying power as far as congressional and administrative action despite what AOPA thinks.

[DEVIL]

Back in my broke college student days of cessna flying, I'd definitely transit through MOA's, but I'd have flight following and ask approach if there was activity and the best altitude for me to be at, avoiding MOA's is expensive when you're watching the Hobbs...

[MD]

FAA can always get more restrictive. In this case I'd honestly support it. I've seen too much stupidity regarding MOAs and training routes.

We in the U.S. enjoy many freedoms that general aviation pilots in other countries would only dream about (Night time VFR in Germany for example). We tend to go till there is a major issue that causes reaction much like how many countries have adopted prescribed procedures for operations at uncontrolled airports where we just passed out an advisory circular and called it good. That's the FAA saying fix the problem or we will fix it for you.

Incidents like this in the future will eventually force rules to be made. Look at cities with bans on flying tours because of stupidity in the past. If the GA pilots (which having been one probably ought to be called amateur pilots just like radio operators) want to keep their freedoms of air navigation they best not try to but heads with mil and commercial ops. Both those entities have a lot more buying power as far as congressional and administrative action despite what AOPA thinks.

Heck, night VFR without a flightplan in Mexico....also non-existant. It'd be a tough sell to make many MOAs more restrictive than they are, especially in the western USA where many MOAs are huge both laterally and vertically. If MOAs begin to become more restrictive like Restricted Areas, I could see the FAA paring down the size of a good number of existing MOAs as a compromise.

[brabus]

Unfortunately, with no regulations changes, there's no requirement for GA to exercise due diligence in that way

That's my point - there should be an FAA reg that makes it a violation to transit a MOA without being on an IFR flightplan OR using VFR flight following. GA can still transit MOAs; nothing really changes except if you can't meet one of these two requirements, you must avoid a MOA (laterally or vertically). I don't think that's asking much and keeps everyone safer.

[MD]

That's my point - there should be an FAA reg that makes it a violation to transit a MOA without being on an IFR flightplan OR using VFR flight following. GA can still transit MOAs; nothing really changes except if you can't meet one of these two requirements, you must avoid a MOA (laterally or vertically). I don't think that's asking much and keeps everyone safer.

Problem there will be at some lower altitudes in some locations, out west especially, you'll have GA planes flying VFR, but too low for flight following. Or, since VFR flight following is the bottom priority of ARTCC, may not get the service if ARTCC is busy. Now, you'll get planes who can't transit said MOA when active, or can't fly underneath, and will be too far to go around since the MOA is laterally huge. FAA will hear all kinds of grief over it. And out west, Special Use Airspace takes up some huge chunks of airspace real estate.

I still think that education is the best way....military outreach as well as better civilian training/awareness to the hazards of a MOA when it's active. Which will hopefully teach some better due diligence of civilian aviators to actaully check the status of a MOA, or do some research of the dimensions of the airspace in order to better plan transiting it.

[Joey Freshwater]

It seems to me a good idea would be to mandate GA to be on an IFR flightplan or have VFR flight following to enter a MOA.

I'm not bothering to consult any regs, but I don't think IFR traffic normally transits MOAs. I agree with the intent of your post, but I feel that giving folks on an IFR flight plan(specifically part 91 types) carte blanche to file through a MOA would open a whole new can of worms(way more civilian traffic transiting MOAs than we already have). Just my very inexperienced .02

[Sprkt69]

If RAPCON advises you in advance that you have traffic that is going to transit the MOA, and then they give you an altitude restriction, I fail to see where it is "dangerous".

It can be dangerous when you dont get the call out and were fighting at all altitudes of the MOA.

[Sprkt69]

Heck, night VFR without a flightplan in Mexico....also non-existant. It'd be a tough sell to make many MOAs more restrictive than they are, especially in the western USA where many MOAs are huge both laterally and vertically. If MOAs begin to become more restrictive like Restricted Areas, I could see the FAA paring down the size of a good number of existing MOAs as a compromise.

Smaller airspace is not the answer for training operations as the ranges actually need to be bigger to accommodate 5th gen aircraft

[Mark1]

If the GA pilots (which having been one probably ought to be called amateur pilots just like radio operators) want to keep their freedoms of air navigation they best not try to but heads with mil and commercial ops.

Is that the 3rd Amendment in the Bill of Rights? I always forget that one.

[sqwatch]

The taxpayer in a GA airplane has just as much right to that airspace as you do. Don't get all butthurt if you have to adjust your altitude block.

shack

[brabus]

Problem there will be at some lower altitudes in some locations, out west especially, you'll have GA planes flying VFR, but too low for flight following. Or, since VFR flight following is the bottom priority of ARTCC, may not get the service if ARTCC is busy. Now, you'll get planes who can't transit said MOA when active, or can't fly underneath, and will be too far to go around since the MOA is laterally huge.

Good points - as I typed the above I thought about Alaska and how that would be very challenging to meet for a lot of GA. Maybe at min the military could publish appropriate freqs in NOTAMs and the GA dude could at least make an entry/exit position call when a MOA is hot - ideally on a C2 freq. But like you said, the bottom line is education.

Overall I fully support GA, have enjoyed it myself, and don't want to crush the freedom of airspace we enjoy in the US, just thinking of ways to make it safer for all - I know I've come far too close for comfort a few times in the past and each time it came down to more luck than anything else that a similar tragedy to this one didn't happen.

I'm not bothering to consult any regs, but I don't think IFR traffic normally transits MOAs

Maybe not normally, but it certainly happens.

Edited July 11, 2015 by brabus

[jcj]

That's my point - there should be an FAA reg that makes it a violation to transit a MOA without being on an IFR flightplan OR using VFR flight following. GA can still transit MOAs; nothing really changes except if you can't meet one of these two requirements, you must avoid a MOA (laterally or vertically). I don't think that's asking much and keeps everyone safer.

I'm not bothering to consult any regs, but I don't think IFR traffic normally transits MOAs. I agree with the intent of your post, but I feel that giving folks on an IFR flight plan(specifically part 91 types) carte blanche to file through a MOA would open a whole new can of worms(way more civilian traffic transiting MOAs than we already have). Just my very inexperienced .02

I don't think I've ever been allowed through an active MOA while IFR - I've always been routed around. I'm guessing ATC would do the same thing if you were on VFR flight following - and they might want to cut you loose from flight following if you insisted on not accepting the reroute & going through one.

Edited July 11, 2015 by jcj

[Tinker51]

ATC will not route civilian IFR traffic through and active MOA. VFR traffic including those receiving flight following are free to do as they please. ATC might advise you that you are traversing an active MOA when VFR but they are not required to provide separation.

[Whitman]

Historically, has there ever been a civilian vs military mid air collision in a MOA? If so how likely is this to happen?

The nearest MOA (Gamecock) is almost 20 NM from the crash site. We know the C-150 departed KMKS and was headed to Myrtle Beach. Worst case, assuming a direct flight path, it would've been 30 miles was even in a position to enter the MOA via the southern border. That airspace is active 10k-17.9k. Those altitudes don't make much sense for a short hop to MYR or CRE and aren't very 100hp C-150 friendly on a hot summer day in SC either.

It seems unlikely to be a factor in this crash. I'm not sure how this spawned into an airspace debate, but if people want to talk about airspace, it seems like a great time for both sides to learn from each other.

[Joey Freshwater]

I don't think I've ever been allowed through an active MOA while IFR - I've always been routed around. I'm guessing ATC would do the same thing if you were on VFR flight following - and they might want to cut you loose from flight following if you insisted on not accepting the reroute & going through one.

That has been my experience. I have never seen IFR traffic go through a MOA and I have never seen an airway that goes through a MOA. I have also heard countless people that I'm assuming filed point to point vectored around a MOA. I don't know if it's written anywhere or not, but I don't believe IFR traffic can go through one.

[Sprkt69]

If ATC needs to vector civilian IFR through a MOA, you either never got the airspace to begin with or they call you to let you know they need to take it back. Usually that means there is some nasty weather around.

VFR traffic has a right to transit a MOA. Though sometimes that goes poorly when they are not seeing and avoiding the 18 ship holding before the push into restricted airspace and the start of the VUL.

[icohftb]

Historically, has there ever been a civilian vs military mid air collision in a MOA? If so how likely is this to happen?

The nearest MOA (Gamecock) is almost 20 NM from the crash site. We know the C-150 departed KMKS and was headed to Myrtle Beach. Worst case, assuming a direct flight path, it would've been 30 miles was even in a position to enter the MOA via the southern border. That airspace is active 10k-17.9k. Those altitudes don't make much sense for a short hop to MYR or CRE and aren't very 100hp C-150 friendly on a hot summer day in SC either.

It seems unlikely to be a factor in this crash. I'm not sure how this spawned into an airspace debate, but if people want to talk about airspace, it seems like a great time for both sides to learn from each other.

Gamecock c goes from 100 agl to 10k. But probably not a factor in this incident anyway. Edited July 12, 2015 by icohftb