Pilatus Intercept Radar Video released

TMetzinger

TMetzinger

Final Approach
Joined
Mar 6, 2006
Messages
9,660
Location
Northern Virginia
Display Name
Display name:
Tim
http://flash.aopa.org/video/F16intercept.wmv

Back in March there was an uproar about a couple of airplanes (Pilatus and a Beech Premier) flying through a MOA that claimed to have been intercepted by an F16 without prior communication.

A video of the ATC radar with accompanying audio has been released, and appears to validate the claims made by the Beech pilot, who was at 17500 and had to climb into the flight levels in response to a TCAS radar advisory.

When I was in the military, we never flew in close proximity to a civilian airplane unless a join-up had been pre-briefed, either in direct communication or relaying through ATC. As I understand it, military aircraft in a MOA are required to "knock it off" when a civilian enters their play space if there's any doubt about separation. It certainly seems to me like the F-16 pilot (who has been apparently been reprimanded according to AOPA) didn't follow procedures.

What leaves a bad taste in my mouth was the initial reaction by the Air Force, which as I recall was "It didn't happen.... Well, if it DID happen it was done by a professional pilot who is trained to make this kind of judgement... Well we'll investigate.... " Both the actual incident and the follow on "management" of it are a tarnish on the honor of the service.

One final comment - I think the Beech driver did a pretty good job - he flew the airplane, exercised his emergency authority to climb into Class A without an IFR clearance, and communicated his actions to ATC. He certainly sounded a bit stressed, but not hysterical.
 
Last edited:
Wow, you can definitely hear the stress in his voice, but it was very very well handled by that pilot. Impressive tape, to say the least!
 
Wow, handled well indeed. Hope the military action was taken. There was another incident here in the East coast I think with a military plane performing a loop over a stadium? can't remember right now, but I think it was earlier this year. The pilot was repremanded for that, don't know to what extent though.
 
Rob Schaffer said:
Wow, handled well indeed. Hope the military action was taken. There was another incident here in the East coast I think with a military plane performing a loop over a stadium? can't remember right now, but I think it was earlier this year. The pilot was repremanded for that, don't know to what extent though.
Click to expand...
You're referring to an incident over Boston's Fenway during the season opener. The 4th plane in the flyover was out of position and flew a couple of barrel roles over the other 3; a normal slowdown and catch up manuver. It looked great for most of us but the pilot was repremanded for his error (low altitude).
 
Last edited:
Certainly glad to hear AOPA is spreading the truth on this one, and the tapes confirm it all. I'm slightly surprised that the controller didn't give a traffic advisory since he did indeed have an LDB (limited data block) with mode C readout on the F-16 even though he wasn't talking to him (though technically such an advisory is on a workload permitting basis). In any event, the pilot promptly and professionally responded to the TCAS resolution advisory....excellent execution.

Needless to say, I never enter hot MOA's even if I'm talking with the controlling agency, VFR. Circumnavigate for me, much safer.
 
AdamZ said:
Wow certainly was stressful. I wonder if was on an IFR flight plan.
Click to expand...

I'd bet no. He started out at 17,500 and was worried about crossing FL180 into the Class A, not just leaving his assigned altitude, and the supervising controller sounded most worried about him getting back below 18k. I think he was worried about getting slapped with a Class A violation more than anything (except hitting the F-16, obviously).
 
That's unbelievable. That F16 pilot shouldn't be allowed to fly again. Talk about irresponsible and simply idiotic.

-Felix
 
Un-freakin-believable! I've never heard anything like that before with civilian aircraft being harassed. This sounds like the sort of thing that we were afraid back in the cold war days would cause a live fire incident with the Soviets!
 
You know, as much as the F-16 driver screwed up, flying through a hot MOA "just because you can" isn't always a good choice. Perhaps it was the best option here...dunno. I just don't think all the blame can be placed on the F-16 driver. My opinion, YMMV.
 
With all due respect, the aircraft was operating in constant communication with the responsible facility for the MOA.
 
Jack Allison said:
You know, as much as the F-16 driver screwed up, flying through a hot MOA "just because you can" isn't always a good choice. Perhaps it was the best option here...dunno. I just don't think all the blame can be placed on the F-16 driver. My opinion, YMMV.
Click to expand...
I don't want to get into an argument, but...this is just not right. Flying through a hot MOA, while maybe not always considerate, is legal and not inherently irresponsible.

On the other hand, flying in formation with another plane without their consent is not only against FAA but also Air Force regulations. The civilian planes didn't create this situation. The F16 guy created, without necessity, a very dangerous situation that could have cost lives. Not only is he the only one to blame for that, but the fact that he's still flying really looks bad for the Air Force. What do you think the FAA would have done to a civilian pilot had he pulled the same stunt? We don't need lower standards for military aviators; if anything, they ought to be higher than the civilian counterparts. This guy has attitude issues. Do you really want him flying around in our airspace? I certainly don't.

-Felix
 
The pilot was very much in the right here.

I teach students to not depend on the times listed in the chart tabs nor upon NOTAMs which may not make it to publishing. ALWAYS contact the agency overseeing activity in any airspace to be certain. Even then, they may not have a picture on low-level activity. Obviously, they did near the flight levels.

Sorry, but the military pilot was in the wrong on this one.
 
sba55 said:
I don't want to get into an argument, but...this is just not right. Flying through a hot MOA, while maybe not always considerate, is legal and not inherently irresponsible.

On the other hand, flying in formation with another plane without their consent is not only against FAA but also Air Force regulations. The civilian planes didn't create this situation. The F16 guy created, without necessity, a very dangerous situation that could have cost lives. Not only is he the only one to blame for that, but the fact that he's still flying really looks bad for the Air Force. What do you think the FAA would have done to a civilian pilot had he pulled the same stunt? We don't need lower standards for military aviators; if anything, they ought to be higher than the civilian counterparts. This guy has attitude issues. Do you really want him flying around in our airspace? I certainly don't.

-Felix
Click to expand...

Go re-view the video and watch the track of the F-16. Guilty as h e double hockey sticks of intentionally harrassing that PC-12. I hope it was a STRONG reprimand. And if I did something like that, I bet the FAA would pull my ticket, and rightly so.
 
Nah, who wants to argue...not me :-) "Healthy dialogue" is a much better way to say it

I never said it was irresponsible to fly through a MOA. Rather, I said it was not always a good choice. Yep, it's legal. The question to me is "is it the best choice"? Sort of like a 0/0 IFR departure under part 91. Is it legal? Sure. Is it the best thing to do? For me, no, it's not worth the risk and I won't do it. For others, the answer might be different. I'd disagree with that choice and move on.

I don't think it's a matter of being considerate when choosing to avoid an active MOA. Sure, I don't expect an F-16 to fly formation with me but that's not my biggest concern. I'm much more concered about not being able to see/avoid faster moving aircraft.

I'm not saying the F-16 driver didn't screw up. He did. That said, I think there's an aspect of the decision making process to fly through the MOA that lies with the civilian pilots. Now, if the MOA was supposed to be cold (and I don't know what the "known" status was ahead of time), it's a differnet story. If ATC says a MOA is cold, I have no issues flying through one.
 
Ghery said:
Go re-view the video and watch the track of the F-16. Guilty as h e double hockey sticks of intentionally harrassing that PC-12. I hope it was a STRONG reprimand. And if I did something like that, I bet the FAA would pull my ticket, and rightly so.
Click to expand...
Maybe you didn't mean to quote me - I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, it doesn't sound like his ticket was pulled....
 
Jack Allison said:
Nah, who wants to argue...not me :-) "Healthy dialogue" is a much better way to say it

I never said it was irresponsible to fly through a MOA. Rather, I said it was not always a good choice. Yep, it's legal. The question to me is "is it the best choice"? Sort of like a 0/0 IFR departure under part 91. Is it legal? Sure. Is it the best thing to do? For me, no, it's not worth the risk and I won't do it. For others, the answer might be different. I'd disagree with that choice and move on.

I don't think it's a matter of being considerate when choosing to avoid an active MOA. Sure, I don't expect an F-16 to fly formation with me but that's not my biggest concern. I'm much more concered about not being able to see/avoid faster moving aircraft.

I'm not saying the F-16 driver didn't screw up. He did. That said, I think there's an aspect of the decision making process to fly through the MOA that lies with the civilian pilots. Now, if the MOA was supposed to be cold (and I don't know what the "known" status was ahead of time), it's a differnet story. If ATC says a MOA is cold, I have no issues flying through one.
Click to expand...
That makes sense. I agree that the civilian pilot could have avoided this situation if he hadn't flown through the MOA. I just don't know how relevant that is. We all fly in the airspace expecting other pilots to respect the rules. That's just assumed, and if I couldn't make that assumption, I really couldn't safely fly anywhere....
 
sba55 said:
The F16 guy created, without necessity, a very dangerous situation that could have cost lives. Not only is he the only one to blame for that, but the fact that he's still flying really looks bad for the Air Force. What do you think the FAA would have done to a civilian pilot had he pulled the same stunt?
Click to expand...

The FAA would likely suspend the offending pilot's certificate for a while, then we'd be sharing the skies with him again. Keep in mind no paint was swapped and the extent of "damages" was increased blood pressure and maybe a little extra fuel, so while we can cry "careless and reckless," in the end no harm was done.

Considering how much of my tax money was spent training that pilot, I'm good with some remedial instruction and continued flight status.

The real lesson here is take care when transiting hot MOAs. What's legal isn't always safe and what's safe isn't necessarily legal.
 
While that's certainly true, the reality in a lot of places is that you can't go much of anywhere without transiting MOAs. On my long trip, I rerouted a couple of times to avoid them, but it just took a few extra miles. That wouldn't have been possible if I were going out west.

It's a big sky, and we need to share.
 
Jack Allison said:
You know, as much as the F-16 driver screwed up, flying through a hot MOA "just because you can" isn't always a good choice. Perhaps it was the best option here...dunno. I just don't think all the blame can be placed on the F-16 driver. My opinion, YMMV.
Click to expand...
I sort of agree - the blame is spread on the F-16 driver, and his command, because somewhere along the line they failed to either teach him what the rules were (and what he did violated USAF rules as well as FAA rules), or that his duty was to follow the rules, like them or not.

I clearly remember in boot camp a crusty chief petty officer lecturing me that there would be times that the rules would seem to make no sense, but that we had to have trust in the system, because nearly all the rules were the result of someone earlier dying or getting injured. He then went on to say that an honorable man might choose to break the rules, but he would then step forward, admit what he did, and take whatever punishment resulted.

Later in my military path, I heard the other side of the coin - it was my duty as a leader to monitor and punish my subordinates when they broke the rules, and take responsibility for their actions and my own punishment as needed.

The actions of the F-16 pilot were bad - but the initial actions of his command in response to the incident were (in my opinion) worse.
 
TknoFlyer said:
The FAA would likely suspend the offending pilot's certificate for a while, then we'd be sharing the skies with him again. Keep in mind no paint was swapped and the extent of "damages" was increased blood pressure and maybe a little extra fuel, so while we can cry "careless and reckless," in the end no harm was done.

Considering how much of my tax money was spent training that pilot, I'm good with some remedial instruction and continued flight status.

The real lesson here is take care when transiting hot MOAs. What's legal isn't always safe and what's safe isn't necessarily legal.
Click to expand...

I think the FAA would have revoked a civil pilot's certificates. Remember that this pilot allegedly did this to another civilian airplane earlier in the day (and I'm finding that allegation much more credible now).
 
sba55 said:
That makes sense. I agree that the civilian pilot could have avoided this situation if he hadn't flown through the MOA. I just don't know how relevant that is. We all fly in the airspace expecting other pilots to respect the rules. That's just assumed, and if I couldn't make that assumption, I really couldn't safely fly anywhere....
Click to expand...

To me, the relevance is in the added risk of flying through a hot MOA (assuming it was known hot ahead of time). If one is willing to accept that increased risk, fine, they are acting as PIC and if they're comfortable with it, ok. If it was me and I could at all avoid the situation, I would since I don't care for this particular increased risk.

Yep, we expect other pilots to respect the rules. The F-16 driver didn't do so and created the entire situation. Had he not done so, there would be no event to talk about.
 
Jack Allison said:
Yep, we expect other pilots to respect the rules. The F-16 driver didn't do so and created the entire situation. Had he not done so, there would be no event to talk about.
Click to expand...
Yes and when people knowingly violate rules people can die.

My mother was very unfortunate to see what happens when F-16 do not play by the rules. The F-16 that deviated from the flight path near SRQ and hit a 172 is what she got to witness. The wreckage landed near her house.

In that case the F16 punched out and survived, the 172 driver was not so lucky. had this F16 driver also 'touched' the plane he probably would have survived while the others were not. He played fast and loose with rules and put other people in a place where they would suffer as a result of his juvenile games.

I had 12 years of the USAF, some of it in a flying job, and served proudly, but I hate it when I see a hotshot do stuff like this. It makes my Air Force look bad.

BTW anyone here from our USAF F16 initial student lately. Any chance this was him?? ;)
 
Not saying the Pilatus pilot was in the wrong in any way, but this is a good example of why I avoid MOAs, regardless of reported status. If it's important to your flight "mission", it's still worth thinking twice about it. Those military flights are not always where they're supposed to be when they're supposed to be, nor are they always doing what they should... and they are usually hotter and smaller than the traffic we normally see.
 
One correction - After many reviews, I believe the video and audio are the interception of the Beech PremierJet, not the Pilatus (which occured earlier in the day). I do hear the Pilatus pilot chiming in later saying essentially "he did it to me too!".

I've edited the original post, and of course this doesn't change any of my other expressed opinions.
 
Jack Allison said:
To me, the relevance is in the added risk of flying through a hot MOA (assuming it was known hot ahead of time). If one is willing to accept that increased risk, fine, they are acting as PIC and if they're comfortable with it, ok. If it was me and I could at all avoid the situation, I would since I don't care for this particular increased risk.

Yep, we expect other pilots to respect the rules. The F-16 driver didn't do so and created the entire situation. Had he not done so, there would be no event to talk about.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I got a difference sense from your previous post for some reason.
 
rottydaddy said:
Not saying the Pilatus pilot was in the wrong in any way, but this is a good example of why I avoid MOAs, regardless of reported status.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, what's the closest MOA to your home field? If I want to fly anywhere between 312 and 030 from the home drome, there's a MOA in the way. That's almost a quarter of the sky! :dunno:
 
Did I hear correctly that ATC wasn't in contact with the MOA?

"We'll get you out of that MOA there... we're not talkin to em"

I think another thing to realize is the amount of MOAs around the Phoenix area:

http://skyvector.com/#37-25-2-4501-2854

The F-16 pilot was definitely in the wrong, particularly if he followed either aircraft through 180, which isn't included in the MOA. But of course it's doubtful much of anything will happen to him.
 
wbarnhill said:
Did I hear correctly that ATC wasn't in contact with the MOA?

"We'll get you out of that MOA there... we're not talkin to em"
Click to expand...

I think that just meant they weren't talking to the F-16 pilot because he had been turned loose in the MOA, so they had no way of asking him what he was doing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top