ATC Argument

roncachamp said:
Artillery and other toys that go boom warrant Restricted Areas. MOAs are for nonlethal activities.
Click to expand...
And it's not necessarily military.

The Alameda County Sheriff runs a bomb range near Tracy, that has restricted airspace up to 4000 for potential shrapnel. R-2531.
 
ircphoenix said:
Also... pretty sure a Super Hornet squishing me in an MOA is just as hazardous as getting squished by a Super Hornet in a Warning area. =D
Click to expand...
But the Super Hornet (or ship for that matter) firing live ordnance can add a whole new level of excitement in a Whiskey area.
 
coma24 said:
I thought the protocol for a spill-in into a Warning area was for the operation to be shutdown until the conflicting traffic was clear of the area, no? The "don't come in here or you could get hit by a fast moving jet" seems like a generic warning to try to keep people out, but if you do happen to fly in it, my understanding was that they do NOT just shrug it off and continue.
Click to expand...
Of course. We call them range foulers.

But do you really want to take s chance that they'll see you?

I don't know of any incidents with civil aircraft, but we have inadvertently fired at plenty of small vessels over the years.
 
ircphoenix said:
Listen... if I get taken out by an arty shell, that would be terrible.

But it would make for probably one of the coolest death stories ever.
Click to expand...

Almost been there, done that. Operation Strong Eagle in Afghanistan. From the arty guys: "Assault 11, are you clear of gun line 039?!"
 
ircphoenix said:
You're typically lower than I'd be, no?
Click to expand...

Possibly. We were flying command and control (C2) at the time. Think we were around 1500-2000 AGL. Deconfliction looks great in a PPT brief but once the shooting starts, procedures go out the window.
 
Last edited:
MAKG1 said:
And it's not necessarily military.

The Alameda County Sheriff runs a bomb range near Tracy, that has restricted airspace up to 4000 for potential shrapnel. R-2531.
Click to expand...
According to the FAA, the using agency of R-2531 is the Department of Energy.

https://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/order/sua.pdf (See page 29.)

Sources indicate that Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory uses it, referring to it as "Site 300."
Maybe they let the sheriff use it too. :dunno:

https://str.llnl.gov/str/Grissom.html

https://www.dtsc.ca.gov/HazardousWaste/Projects/upload/LLNLSite300_IS.pdf

The location of Site 300 looks about right on Google Maps:

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.6346721,-121.5009084,16.01z
 
Fearless Tower said:
Of course. We call them range foulers.

But do you really want to take s chance that they'll see you?

I don't know of any incidents with civil aircraft, but we have inadvertently fired at plenty of small vessels over the years.
Click to expand...

Wait. What about TWA 800? ;)
 
Wow that was a long winded discussion...the pilot was definitely looking for a confrontation. I like how the controller used the argument "I have worked race day at Daytona, and we could not let anyone go 7 miles east of where you are". I hate to be captain obvious here, but pretty sure that would be the fly over and typical stadium TFR. Just sayin...
 
The pilot had a point. The conversation was a bit long-winded of course, but the frequency appeared to be quiet, and he didn't appear to be hostile. The controller, in fact, seemed to be less aware of the legalities of what was involved than the pilot did. Also, there seemed to be a strong suggestion by the controller that a violation would occur if the pilot proceeded on his route, even though it was never directly stated that way. That would have rankled me as well. There's nothing legally preventing a GA pilot from entering an active warning area.

This would probably have gone smoother if the controller stated "Advise you steer clear of W-XXX. I was told by our military counterparts that there would be activity in the airspace and to re-route all traffic around it." At that point it's a polite request rather than a demand. Of course that doesn't preclude the pilot from entering anyway, even though it would be pretty foolish to do so.
 
When the ATC says don't go there, there may be F16s flying around, I would just not go there..but again that's just me. What a waste of airtime

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 
WannFly said:
When the ATC says don't go there, there may be F16s flying around, I would just not go there..but again that's just me. What a waste of airtime
Click to expand...

He didn't. He politely did as the controller advised. I think it was a matter of a chatty pilot and a controller who overstepped his bounds ever so slightly. It was a civil if not lengthy exchange.
 
Ryan F. said:
He didn't. He politely did as the controller advised. I think it was a matter of a chatty pilot and a controller who overstepped his bounds ever so slightly. It was a civil if not lengthy exchange.
Click to expand...
True. I was thinking if it was me the exchange would be
Controller: stay out of that airspace, the military is doing God knows what
Me: am outta here


Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 
WannFly said:
True. I was thinking if it was me the exchange would be
Controller: stay out of that airspace, the military is doing God knows what
Me: am outta here
Click to expand...

Ha. Me too, more or less. I wouldn't have bothered getting into it with the controller because I'm already aware of what I legally can and can't do. The controller was simply misinformed. The military can demand ATC not send IFR or VFR advisory traffic into the W, but they can't restrict a pilot from entering it on his own. To do so after being advised against it by ATC would be foolish and costly to the folks doing important work in that area so it behooves everyone to stay out when they ask us to stay out.
 
Ryan F. said:
Ha. Me too, more or less. I wouldn't have bothered getting into it with the controller because I'm already aware of what I legally can and can't do. The controller was simply misinformed. The military can demand ATC not send IFR or VFR advisory traffic into the W, but they can't restrict a pilot from entering it on his own. To do so after being advised against it by ATC would be foolish and costly to the folks doing important work in that area so it behooves everyone to stay out when they ask us to stay out.
Click to expand...

Correct. IFRs are a different animal also. That's a situation where ATC has a separation responsibility for nonparticipating aircraft. In that instance, unless the airspace has been delegated from the using agency (FACSFAC) back to the controlling agency (FAA), they either have to maintain separation (3 miles) from that W area boundary or get permission to transit the aircraft through. "Sea lord" (FACSFAC) won't let that happen if certain hazardous conditions are present.

A VFR has no obligation to talk to anyone and has no requirement to remain clear of the airspace. Therefore in the example "N12345 terminating radar services."
 
What an A__-hat.
Currently the county has enough $$s in the budget for 4 hours of flying time a month per active duty pilot. And he's going to foul the exercise. Just great. It'll probably cost him 0.3 of engine time to avoid the Sealord and "I've got rights". Bet he's never seen the naval gatling gun at work.....

The ATCer is correct, he's going to meet a lot of friends he doesn't want to meet. The pilot is going to be entirely within his rights but it sure sounds like "well hey I got rights!". The Pilot is correct he has the right to do that. GREAT Ambassador for GA.....not so much.
 
The conversation got out of hand and became unprofessional. It should have ended with "Roger, radar service terminated, squawk 1200, be advised the Sealord MOA is active, good day".

Whether or not the pilot gets into the MOA is HIS responsibility to know about (to the extent possible not allowing for immediate status changes). The assertion that the pilot would not have known about it unless the controller advised him of it is bogus.

tex
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top