Interesting MOA encounter with Viper

[airspeed]

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.

 

[bagasticks]

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. .

 

[ExAF]

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.

 

[erj-145mech]

That's what Vipers do... intercept. If both are VFR was any aviation law broken?

Yes, check out the part about formation flying. Read that part about briefing before hand.

 

[tomgoodman]

Oh, yeah, heh heh...

Told my instructor: "Flying in this MOA makes me nervous." He shouted: "Idiot! You're in the military!"

 

[RiddleRat]

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

 

[stonewall]

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.

 

[Deuce130]

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.

 

[GoUglyEarly]

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.

 

[Deuce130]

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?