Are you safer flying IFR in VFR weather?

[flyingcheesehead]

Yup. Lots of things you can legally do that I don't. Part 91 zero/zero takeoffs, flying through hot MOAs VFR, ...

IFR, they'll probably vector you all the way around the MOA. VFR, you might be able to go through just as safely by contacting the military guys. For example, I'll happily go through the Volk east/west/north MOAs when they're hot, but I'll be talking to Volk Approach.

That said, I'm not exactly afraid of going through a hot MOA. C'mon, this is the US military - I'm sure they know EXACTLY where I am at all times! Probably locked a few missiles on me too.

 

[sba55]

Regarding FF & MOAs. I have heard (over the air ) center advise that they cannot continue VFR-FF advisories if a pilot continues into an active MOA.

The few times I have heard this, the pilot ended up making a course deviation and went around the MOA.

It would be interesting to know if anyone has ever received FF while crossing a hot MOA.

Odd. That must be a local policy for that particular center. I've gone through active MOAs on FF quite a few times. Even gone through an active but "not in use at this time" restricted area near Paso Robles a few times....

"Umm center, we were told this area was active, are you aware that your vector will take us through there and confirm we are cleared"

-Felix

 

[Anthony]

I would say east of the Missouri, not east of the Rockies. My last overnight on my big trip I stayed at Front Range airport just east of Denver - Field elevation 5512. Even a short cross country there is probably going to be at 8500 or 9500.

Kent, as you probably know, I used to be based at Front Range. Its common for VFR to even do IFR altitudes when talking to ATC and doing short hops when getting FF. 7,000 or 8,000 ft is wrong VFR but is accepted when the field elevations is 5,512 like at KFTG and you are just flying a short hop locally.

 

[sba55]

Kent, as you probably know, I used to be based at Front Range. Its common for VFR to even do IFR altitudes when talking to ATC and doing short hops when getting FF. 7,000 or 8,000 ft is wrong VFR but is accepted when the field elevations is 5,512 like at KFTG and you are just flying a short hop locally.

In addition, I don't believe VFR altitude rules apply below 3,000' AGL....

 

[gprellwitz]

IFR, they'll probably vector you all the way around the MOA. VFR, you might be able to go through just as safely by contacting the military guys. For example, I'll happily go through the Volk east/west/north MOAs when they're hot, but I'll be talking to Volk Approach.

That said, I'm not exactly afraid of going through a hot MOA. C'mon, this is the US military - I'm sure they know EXACTLY where I am at all times! Probably locked a few missiles on me too.

If I'm not talking to the controlling agency, I AM afraid of active MOAs. If I'm talking to them, they can keep me clear of the truly active portion.

Having read the article in, IIRC, AOPA Pilot, I'm not going through an active MOA without talking.

Kent, as you probably know, I used to be based at Front Range. Its common for VFR to even do IFR altitudes when talking to ATC and doing short hops when getting FF. 7,000 or 8,000 ft is wrong VFR but is accepted when the field elevations is 5,512 like at KFTG and you are just flying a short hop locally.

VFR altitudes are above 3000' AGL, so in no way is 6,000' MSL a "wrong" VFR altitude if ground is at 5,512 MSL.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

VFR altitudes are above 3000' AGL, so in no way is 6,000' MSL a "wrong" VFR altitude if ground is at 5,512 MSL.

Bingo. ATC doesn't seem to get that though, I've been chastised for going westbound at 3000 or 3500. (ground is ~700-1000 in these parts.)

 

[Anthony]

In addition, I don't believe VFR altitude rules apply below 3,000' AGL....

I had forgotten that. That's why Denver App would assign me 7,000 or 8,000 when tooling around the Front Range. Thanks!

 

[gprellwitz]

I'm a slow typist. Felix's post wasn't there when I posted. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it!

 

[dmccormack]

Several people have said this, and I don't understand it. What kind of proficiency do you need in "the system"? Talking to ATC?

Maybe I don't get it because I fly out of a class C airport and I'm always talking to ATC, but is it really such a hard thing to do that it takes practice to remain proficient?

Repeated practice in IFR flight preparation and planning, filing, ATC coordination, approaches, coupled with the ability to fly through even thin layers means filing and flying IFR in VFR conditions is a good option.

 

[dmccormack]

That said, I'm not exactly afraid of going through a hot MOA. C'mon, this is the US military - I'm sure they know EXACTLY where I am at all times! Probably locked a few missiles on me too.

If you're basing your safety on that, you need to take a ride on a C-130.... (most are not packed with advanced avionics gear)

 

[roncachamp]

Yup. Lots of things you can legally do that I don't. Part 91 zero/zero takeoffs, flying through hot MOAs VFR, ...

So you meant to say you chose to fly around it instead of had to fly around it?

 

[roncachamp]

Regarding FF & MOAs. I have heard (over the air ) center advise that they cannot continue VFR-FF advisories if a pilot continues into an active MOA.

The few times I have heard this, the pilot ended up making a course deviation and went around the MOA.

It would be interesting to know if anyone has ever received FF while crossing a hot MOA.

I'm a controller. There's nothing in FAAO 7110.65 which prevents a controller from providing radar traffic advisories to VFR aircraft in an active MOA. I've provided such services through MOAs in central Wisconsin. When it appeared aircraft would enter them I advised them the MOAs were active. Some chose to go around them, some chose to go through them, either way services were continued as long as I was able to provide them.

 

[roncachamp]

Kent, as you probably know, I used to be based at Front Range. Its common for VFR to even do IFR altitudes when talking to ATC and doing short hops when getting FF. 7,000 or 8,000 ft is wrong VFR but is accepted when the field elevations is 5,512 like at KFTG and you are just flying a short hop locally.

7000 or 8000 MSL is not wrong for VFR cruising altitudes where surface elevations are 5512 MSL.

 

[docmirror]

If I'm not talking to the controlling agency, I AM afraid of active MOAs. If I'm talking to them, they can keep me clear of the truly active portion.

Having read the article in, IIRC, AOPA Pilot, I'm not going through an active MOA without talking.

Statistically speaking, you are in much higher danger outside a hot MOA than inside. That is, if you're flying a GA plane and not a fast mover. :wink2:

Oh, it's also interesting that everyone assumes(based on postings) that above 6000' is less busy. Kind of an anti-proof it looks like to me.

I don't file IFR because I'm not even remotely current. I wouldn't say anyone in the system is any safer than a VFR target on the same route(VMC of course).

 

[SkyHog]

Well, here's my take (I can't believe it hasn't been said):

ATC has no obligation to separate VFR from IFR traffic. Period.

But, I have noticed that ATC will, when appropriate, give warning to each aircraft when there's a conflict. That means there is at least SOME safety benefit to filing, as long as you don't rely on it.

Now, for MOAs? New Mexico is like one giant restricted air space. Its really ridiculous how much restricted area we have here, it makes navigating anywhere south of Albuquerque a royal PITA. So if I have to fly through an active MOA to get somewhere without flying 2 hours around the MOA, I'm going to do it. And I've done it on FF, without being dropped.

Its not that big of a safety concern; my understanding is that when a non-participating aircraft enters an MOA, they will adjust or stop their drill or whatever they're doing anyway. Bad attitude? Nope, with as much restricted air space as they already have, they don't need to be working in an MOA to accomplish their goals.

MOAs are voluntary for a reason.

 

[CJones]

Oh, it's also interesting that everyone assumes(based on postings) that above 6000' is less busy. Kind of an anti-proof it looks like to me.

Nice observation. Your analysis makes sense, but based on personal experience when IFR or VFR FF, I have noticeably fewer traffic call-outs by ATC when I am tooling along at 10-11k than when I'm putzing around at 4-6k. It's almost boring at higher altitudes. Just my personal experience, though.

 

[roncachamp]

ATC has no obligation to separate VFR from IFR traffic. Period.

Unless it's Class B airspace or Class C airspace, including the Outer Area, or a TRSA, or where procedures have been established to provide separation to VFR aircraft practicing instrument approaches.

 

[wabower]

My closest call ever was on FF at 10.5k. Big yellow turbine-powered ag plane right across my nose. No talkee, no squawkee.
-

Nice observation. Your analysis makes sense, but based on personal experience when IFR or VFR FF, I have noticeably fewer traffic call-outs by ATC when I am tooling along at 10-11k than when I'm putzing around at 4-6k. It's almost boring at higher altitudes. Just my personal experience, though.

 

[SkyHog]

Unless it's Class B airspace or Class C airspace, including the Outer Area, or a TRSA, or where procedures have been established to provide separation to VFR aircraft practicing instrument approaches.

I knew about the Class B separation, but I was not aware that Class C and TRSA separation was guaranteed also. Good to know (is there a reference so I can cite it in the future?)

 

[sba55]

I'm a slow typist. Felix's post wasn't there when I posted. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it!

Same here Grant, happens to me all the time

 

[roncachamp]

I knew about the Class B separation, but I was not aware that Class C and TRSA separation was guaranteed also. Good to know (is there a reference so I can cite it in the future?)

VFR aircraft are separated from IFR aircraft in Class C airspace. Participating VFR aircraft are separated from IFR aircraft in the Outer Area associated with Class C airspace. All participating aircraft are separated in a TRSA.

See AIM paras 3-2-4.e. and 4-1-18.b.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Huh? I'm pretty sure a mid-air will kill me equally whether I'm filed IFR or not... And I'm pretty sure it'll kill me no matter what my ticket says (or doesn't).

The more skills one has, the less likely they will be involved in a mid-air.

 

[RotorAndWing]

The more skills one has, the less likely they will be involved in a mid-air.

"Skills" has nothing to do with it. You can be Joe SuperAce pilot with every rating and then some but if you are doing like most pilots today flying around with your head firmly glued to the GPS or Glass panel instead of looking outside sooner or later it will get you.

Back in "the good old days" we taught pilots to keep their eyes outside the cockpit. Today's pilots are taught to stare at the instruments and to totally rely on the radio.

 

[jmaynard]

Today's pilots are taught to stare at the instruments and to totally rely on the radio.

Uhm, no. At least, that's not what I'm being taught to teach students. Even for those things that require looking at the instruments every now and then, it's 90% outside, 10% inside.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Uhm, no. At least, that's not what I'm being taught to teach students. Even for those things that require looking at the instruments every now and then, it's 90% outside, 10% inside.

You're the exception and not the rule. Most new instructors are infatuated with technology and have the belief that as long as they maintain ATC contact all will be taken care of.

 

[gismo]

...belief that as long as they maintain ATC contact all will be taken care of.

Strange. In all my discussions with a vast array of other pilots, I've never encountered one who felt that way and that includes every CFI I've ever known. Now I have met pilots (and I admit than on occasion I've been guilty myself) that don't do as much sky scanning as they should but IME it's more the result of the fact that most of the time we look we don't find anything to see. Granted, these days there's a lot more stuff pulling at our attention inside the cockpit but that just makes it a little easier to become distracted enough to shortside the external scan.

 

[ScottM]

New Mexico is like one giant restricted air space. Its really ridiculous how much restricted area we have here, it makes navigating anywhere south of Albuquerque a royal PITA.

Well I'll bet you a lot of dough had I been firing my laser on the Sandia optical range or down by White Sands it would have been much more than a PIA as we vaporized your aircraft and you.

Yeah there are lots of MOAs out that way but trust me a lot of those are really needed for some interesting work.

 

[gismo]

Well I'll bet you a lot of dough had I been firing my laser on the Sandia optical range or down by White Sands it would have been much more than a PIA as we vaporized your aircraft and you.

Yeah there are lots of MOAs out that way but trust me a lot of those are really needed for some interesting work.

It's my understanding that live firing of weapons is limited to restricted areas and doesn't occur in MOAs, not that I'd want to get in the way of a flight of fighters.

 

[ScottM]

It's my understanding that live firing of weapons is limited to restricted areas and doesn't occur in MOAs, not that I'd want to get in the way of a flight of fighters.

We were live firing from just south of the approach end of runway 26 at KABQ towards the south. Not even an MOA there. That was with a 10kW laser. I'll see if I can dig up a few photos of that laser.

The bigger laser near White Sands was in a restricted area.

These were both land based lasers shooting at land based targets. The HAAT was about 50 feet at most.

The ALL (Airborne Laser Lab) did shoot at airborne targets. I am not sure what the airspace designation was at the time. But it is currently charted as MOAs.

There are also things called controlled firing areas. Those are not charted at all. Live fire occurs and that airspace is monitored by the safety office for the range. If anything get near those areas the safety office will stop the live fire.

3-4-7. Controlled Firing Areas ​

CFAs contain activities which, if not conducted in a controlled environment, could be hazardous to nonparticipating aircraft. The distinguishing feature of the CFA, as compared to other special use airspace, is that its activities are suspended immediately when spotter aircraft, radar, or ground lookout positions indicate an aircraft might be approaching the area. There is no need to chart CFAs since they do not cause a nonparticipating aircraft to change its flight path.

 

[KennyFlys]

It's my understanding that live firing of weapons is limited to restricted areas and doesn't occur in MOAs, not that I'd want to get in the way of a flight of fighters.

I've gone through the Brady MOA in west Texas a few times. Usually, it's dead or appears to be. But, if Fort Worth Center advises of activity, that's a pretty strong suggestion to get the heck out of Dodge.

 

[bbchien]

Training time for our aircrews is so critically short. They are current but not necessarily proficient.

To have a training session scrubbed by the presence of a civil aircraft in reserved space....is a great disservice to the aviators who are dependent on that training.

You will not see the F16's in the MOA. Just outside of a Western MOA: "Fox flight one, light civilian aircraft 2 o'clock, 16,000, slow mover...." ....and we never saw them.

 

[gprellwitz]

When I hear about flying through a "hot" MOA, I think back to a couple of articles in AOPA Pilot:
http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/1999/military9909.html and http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/2005/low0501.html

Note also a site that allows you to check the status of MOAs and MTRs:
http://sua.faa.gov/sua/Welcome.do

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

"Skills" has nothing to do with it. You can be Joe SuperAce pilot with every rating and then some but if you are doing like most pilots today flying around with your head firmly glued to the GPS or Glass panel instead of looking outside sooner or later it will get you.

Back in "the good old days" we taught pilots to keep their eyes outside the cockpit. Today's pilots are taught to stare at the instruments and to totally rely on the radio.

These are the good old days. Skillful pilots will accomplish their panel scans quickly and efficiently, thereby making the required time for their outside scan available and efficiently used. Those that don't, are not that skillful.

 

[sba55]

Those that don't, are not that skillful.

In addition, some people are just better at spotting planes than others. I'm horrible at it. I've improved a lot since I bought polarized sunglasses, but I'm still not nearly as good as a non-pilot friend of mine. It just depends, and things like polarized glasses make a huge difference.

-Felix

 

[gprellwitz]

In addition, some people are just better at spotting planes than others. I'm horrible at it. I've improved a lot since I bought polarized sunglasses, but I'm still not nearly as good as a non-pilot friend of mine. It just depends, and things like polarized glasses make a huge difference.

-Felix

That's interesting, because the general recommendations I've seen are to avoid polarized sunglasses with aviation. Partly, at least, because they can make it difficult to see some of the glass panels and LCD displays.

And Transport Canada says:

Sunglasses may be constant-gradient, photochromic or polarized. Polarized lenses are great for fishing, but bad for flying. Due to manufacturing stresses, there may be small areas of polarization in an aircraft canopy or windscreen and, if the angles of polarization in the glasses and the windscreen differ, a blind spot can be produced. Polarization may also interfere with depth and distance perception, particularly during a bank. Just what you need turning on final!
[...]
Neutral grey, green or brown lenses are the most popular. Blue, orange or polarizing lenses should not be worn while flying.

And the American Optometric Association has a page on it written by folks at CAMI:

Polarized lenses eliminate reflected glare from a flat surface. However, looking through a laminated aircraft windscreen, while wearing polarized lenses, can result in a reduced retinal image.

 

[sba55]

That's interesting, because the general recommendations I've seen are to avoid polarized sunglasses with aviation. Partly, at least, because they can make it difficult to see some of the glass panels and LCD displays.

And Transport Canada says:


And the American Optometric Association has a page on it written by folks at CAMI:

That's interesting, I hadn't heard about any of this. The glass panels can be a problem or they can be fine. It depends on the ones you have and where you sit (right vs left seat). For example, I can't read my friend's Sandell HSI from the right seat, but I can read the Aspen from the right seat. You just need to experience a bit. I've never had an issue reading any of the LCDs from the left seat.

I don't know what Transport Canada is on about. Never had a problem with that. As far as the sentence from CAMI goes - I'm not an eye expert, but I haven't noticed my vision being any different.

All that said, the advantages are overwhelming for me (and some other pilots I know). It's much easier to see air traffic. Airplanes sort of "pop out" from the surrounding sky. I've even looked at the same traffic with/without glasses just to see the difference. If you haven't tried it, give it a shot.

-Felix

 

[jmaynard]

I've never had an issue reading any of the LCDs from the left seat.

I can't read either my 430 or my 496 with polarized glasses on unless I hold my head just the right way. There are also lots of spots in the canopy that show up with polarized glasses on.

That's why I don't wear them in my airplane at all.

 

[sba55]

I can't read either my 430 or my 496 with polarized glasses on unless I hold my head just the right way. There are also lots of spots in the canopy that show up with polarized glasses on.

That's why I don't wear them in my airplane at all.

Makes sense. I guess the model of sunglasses and/or the canopy/panel manufacturing make all the difference. No spots or anything abnormal for me....

 

[gismo]

Makes sense. I guess the model of sunglasses and/or the canopy/panel manufacturing make all the difference. No spots or anything abnormal for me....

Are you certain the sunglasses you have are polarized? If they are, you should find that looking at any LCD and rotating the glasses (e.g. tilting your head to the side) will have the effect of dimming the display at some angle, typically with an angle of 90 degrees from normal. Older equipment often had LCDs with the viewer side polarizer oriented horizontally making it nearly impossible to see the display with polarized lenses (glasses are always polarized vertically to attenuate reflections from horizontal surfaces. Several years ago everyone designing equipment using LCDs recognized this problem and began to insist that the displays were made with vertical polarization of the emitted light.

In any case I'm having a hard time understanding why polarized glasses would improve one's ability to pick out hard to see traffic. If anything I'd think it could worsen the problem by attenuating the sun's reflection off any horizontal surfaces.

 

[sba55]

Are you certain the sunglasses you have are polarized? If they are, you should find that looking at any LCD and rotating the glasses (e.g. tilting your head to the side) will have the effect of dimming the display at some angle, typically with an angle of 90 degrees from normal. Older equipment often had LCDs with the viewer side polarizer oriented horizontally making it nearly impossible to see the display with polarized lenses (glasses are always polarized vertically to attenuate reflections from horizontal surfaces. Several years ago everyone designing equipment using LCDs recognized this problem and began to insist that the displays were made with vertical polarization of the emitted light.

Yes, I am. I fly with Maui Jim's that I bought last year and I understand all their glasses are polarized. In addition, when I tilt them as you described, LCDs become completely black.

In any case I'm having a hard time understanding why polarized glasses would improve one's ability to pick out hard to see traffic. If anything I'd think it could worsen the problem by attenuating the sun's reflection off any horizontal surfaces.

That I can't say anything about because I know nothing about the problem. It seems like it makes a huge difference. But I haven't tried looking at the same plane with/without/without polarization. Maybe regular sunglasses would do just as well? It doesn't seem like that to me, but I'm not sure. What I have noticed, however, is that there aren't any spots on the canopy of the two planes I fly regularly (maybe it's because they're Beech-$$$ windshields? )

-Felix