Pilots breaking VFR minimums

Cooter143 said:
I don't think so, there is a difference between force and encouragement. Maybe just a few being educated here and there and spreading the good habits will catch on. I prefer a bottoms up approach where problems are solved at the local level.
Click to expand...
Maybe a few, but I have very little faith that "encouragement" is going to get a bunch of hard-headed people to change their habits. Or maybe I have read too much of what people post here.
 
Everskyward said:
Maybe a few, but I have very little faith that "encouragement" is going to get a bunch of hard-headed people to change their habits. Or maybe I have read too much of what people post here.
Click to expand...
That's a shame. Hard-headed and aviation are not a good mix.
 
Cooter143 said:
Depending on the MOA and the users, it might often be active but not occupied. But, usually for not any significant length of time. An LOA will typically spell out how that is handled. If it's empty, there should be no problem with traffic being routed through.
Click to expand...

Sometimes for the entire time it was NOTAMed active.
 
roncachamp said:
Sometimes for the entire time it was NOTAMed active.
Click to expand...
NOTAMed active doesn't mean that it's hot. It can be NOTAMed active but Chicago Center still retain control able to flow traffic through there. An LOA published by the controlling ARTCC should prevent the MOA from creating a large chunk of unused airspace. If that is happening, it should be addressed.
 
Cooter143 said:
NOTAMed active doesn't mean that it's hot. It can be NOTAMed active but Chicago Center still retain control able to flow traffic through there. An LOA published by the controlling ARTCC should prevent the MOA from creating a large chunk of unused airspace. If that is happening, it should be addressed.
Click to expand...

You're mistaken, NOTAMed active means it's hot and IFR traffic must be kept out of it.
 
roncachamp said:
You're mistaken, NOTAMed active means it's hot and IFR traffic must be kept out of it.
Click to expand...
NOTAMed means that it was scheduled. That should happen at least 48 hours prior unless by special request which requires 2hrs and may not be granted. An LOA should spell out the terms clearly about times when the MOAs aren't being occupied, and that LOA is written by the ARTCC. Control of the MOA can be passed from the agency that owns the MOA to the controlling ARTCC, and how/when that is done should be spelled out clearly. Those terms will be influenced by the nature of use by the users of the MOA.
Edit: I want to add that commercial traffic wields a lot of influence on dictating those terms as well.
 
Last edited:
Cooter143 said:
NOTAMed means that it was scheduled. That should happen at least 48 hours prior unless by special request which requires 2hrs and may not be granted. An LOA should spell out the terms clearly about times when the MOAs aren't being occupied, and that LOA is written by the ARTCC. Control of the MOA can be passed from the agency that owns the MOA to the controlling ARTCC, and how/when that is done should be spelled out clearly. Those terms will be influenced by the nature of use by the users of the MOA.
Click to expand...

When it's scheduled a NOTAM is put out with the time it's to be active. During that time the MOA is hot and IFR traffic must be kept out of it, even if the military has cancelled the planned activity without informing the FAA.
 
flyingron said:
A few years back I was flying the ILS into SVH. As I'm coming across the IAF (there's a hold-in-loo there), ATC reports a plane pretty much right on the approach path ahead of me. I'm in solid IMC, so I opt to take another turn in the hold until they move off. Break out around 1500'.

Find out later that two INSTRUCTORS from my airport were up. One is under the hood, the other is the supposed "safety pilot." Safety pilot allows plane sans IFR clearance to drift up into the clouds. Fortunately, hooded pilot once he realizes what is going on discontinued the nonsense and gets back into VFR conditions. I'd have reamed safety pilot instructor myself, but hooded pilot had already unloaded on her.
Click to expand...

This reminds of something. I was under the hood getting an IPC. Scattered VFR day. CFI puts .2 actual in my logbook (we were on a clearance, that's not the point here.) I was never aware we went actual. Not that it's a big deal but it doesn't seem that actual should be in my logbook because I was under the hood and unaware of it. Point being that there must some reason actual is logged separtely from simulated, like it's harder and really means something to the quality of experience. If I was only aware of being hooded and not aware of being in a cloud then shouldn't it not count?
 
roncachamp said:
When it's scheduled a NOTAM is put out with the time it's to be active. During that time the MOA is hot and IFR traffic must be kept out of it, even if the military has cancelled the planned activity without informing the FAA.
Click to expand...

That may be true in some specific cases, but certainly not in all. BTW, I was recently told by the FAA that it is only NOTAMed if it is scheduled outside of its standing scheduled times. The times can be referenced on a sectional.

I am somewhat familiar with MOA interaction with ARTCC, and LOAs allow for both sides to negotiate the terms. There is a lot of pressure to not have empty MOAs that are hot. The schedules must be submitted several days prior and are usually over scheduled to allow for flexibility. Some MOAs have many users and it's not feasible to turn it back in every time someone vacates. Sometimes WX has the planes on hold, and are trying to get to the MOA but can't. Both sides have their own interest, but there is a process for communicating to optimize airspace use. I have always worked with ATC to maximize coordination between MOA use and other traffic. But, sometimes it's just difficult and there will be inefficiencies in the system. Both the military and FAA have liaisons assigned to work these issues out. In some cases, the military can communicate real time via shout line with the appropriate sector to maximize communication and minimize hot but empty airspace.
 
luvflyin said:
This reminds of something. I was under the hood getting an IPC. Scattered VFR day. CFI puts .2 actual in my logbook (we were on a clearance, that's not the point here.) I was never aware we went actual. Not that it's a big deal but it doesn't seem that actual should be in my logbook because I was under the hood and unaware of it. Point being that there must some reason actual is logged separtely from simulated, like it's harder and really means something to the quality of experience. If I was only aware of being hooded and not aware of being in a cloud then shouldn't it not count?
Click to expand...

If its IMC its IMC, just as if you're under the hood and it's nighttime you still log night.

My only beef would be why your CFI didn't let you get the experience of going in and out of actual
 
Have to say, I'm somewhat confused. If the traffic engineers put up a yield sign at an intersection of two roads. Someone getting irritated that I didn't stop, is missing something. On the other hand, if they put up a stop sign and I go through it without stopping...I messed up. If the federal government, who would promptly "listen" than ignore me if I filed a citizen statement requesting that MOA airspace not be changed to Restricted can't bother to put up the effort to change the MOA airspace to Restricted...what am I supposed to think? I'll tell you what I think it means, it means that one is permitted to transverse, now will I be talking to ATC, yes, and if they ask me to go up down or around will I? Yes. But look at your sectionals, out west there are HUGE swaths of land that are MOA'd, airports underneath them, and there's very little way to get from point A to point B without going through the MOA, or it'll add a decent amount of time. And hey, maybe if more MOAs were from say 5000 AGL to 18000 instead of surface to 18000 we'd eliminate all the issues entirely, but does the Federal Government consider, hey we'll have less VFR transitions if we actually give under space to GA aircraft...NO and why not? Because the very point of MOA instead of R- is you're welcome to go through if you keep your head on a swivel.

If the Federal Government wants separated areas hey guess what that's what R- and W- airspace is. And as people pointed out, becoming familiar with the training operation, uh really?, I've called up Weather Brief many many a times and have never got a "let me explain the training" and quite frankly I doubt that anyone would all that thrilled or even willing to tell me what this training is that they're doing.
 
^^^ 2 quotes above ^^^
Yeah. There is definetly something to going in and out. What I guess I'm wondering as much as anything is why actual is logged separately. You're either flying by instruments or you're not.
 
Cooter143 said:
Gladly!:)

The initial point I wanted to make was against those (maybe just the OP) that were up in arms about somebody being unsafe and willing to turn him to the FAA. I'm not a fan of that attitude because there's plenty of self inspection that should be happening before being willing to turn a fellow pilot in. For the most part, the OP had no idea what was really going on with the other airplane and should leave well enough alone.

But, I brought up MOAs because other than some of the buffoonery going on around some small GA airports, the biggest problems I've had have been in MOAs. Many VFR pilots love to talk about cloud clearance requirements (on one of my recent BFRs the CFI spent about 20min showing me a good way to memorize them), but will fly right into a MOA with no clue as to what is going on in there or what hazards are present. So I would ask, what makes you think you are safe just because the rules allow you to do it? Do you know that very few of the safety incidents between mil/civ aircraft in MOAs are reported? There is really no way for a VFR pilot to know what impact they have when transiting a MOA unless they do their homework.

Before flying through a MOA, a pilot needs to know whether its active and if there are aircraft in there. There may be two or there may be ten, and military pilots mostly treat them like they are their areas designated for their training purposes. They are not looking out for VFR traffic they way they would outside of the MOA because they are in there for a purpose, to train. They may be 0-500kts, 100ft-18,000ft, heads down, heads behind them, writing notes, pulling 4Gs-9Gs. Many don't have TCAS are none that I'm aware of have ADS-B. Many don't have radar. I have had numerous close calls with VFR interlopers, and more times than that, I've had to knock off training and wait for VFR traffic to clear the area. More than once, training objectives for the entire flight weren't met because a VFR airplane wanted a shortcut. Doing the homework on transiting a MOA should be just as much a part of the flight as researching the WX and TFRs.

I feel better now, thanks for biting!
Click to expand...

Ah, a ring banger, thought so, thanks for the confirmation. "VFR interloper" really, it's your airspace and everyone else keep out. I knew a few like you during my USAF career, but most of us were more accommodating of the realities of civilian aviation. Yes I do know the issues involved in penetrating Talon 1 or Bagdad or Vance or ..... and I am in contact with ATC, often the local military controlling agency. I have not had the problems you describe and have always been aware of the situation or SA. Knock off training sure it happens but that is part of training also, it teaches the student to be aware and to be flexible to changing circumstances. We knew the biggest flaw in the Soviet air defense (Frontal Aviation) was its inflexibility that is how we got the good look at the MiG-25. Finally, 500kts below 10,000 feet really, where? Your post comes down to sounding like your annoyance at your personal inconvenience. Thanks for biting.
 
[member: 4692"]You're mistaken, NOTAMed active means it's hot and IFR traffic must be kept out of it.[/QUOTE]

Not if you have an LOA between using and controlling agencies and approved separation can be maintained between participants and IFR nonparticipants.
 
CRAFT said:
Finally, 500kts below 10,000 feet really, where? Your post comes down to sounding like your annoyance at your personal inconvenience. Thanks for biting.
Click to expand...

Hey man, haven't you read @EvilEagle sig? If you're not 5 bills at the merge, you're nobody. :D

I'm above 5 bills routinely below 10k. See, Uncle sam got a boner for this F-35 thunderpig google-glasses boondoggle so we got no money for legacy communities, or parts really. So they told me hey thanks for your service but ya gotta keep teaching the kiddos how to fly tac in a god----d 1964 Plymouth Fury that won't swing a loop unless I give it 5 bills minimum. Think the kid sees the bottom of the MOA coming up on the backswing? You'd be mistaken...weeeeeeee...off we go bottom of the block at 5.4 bills, me guarding the stick to ride the beeper so the kid doesn't over-G the living snot out that rickety plymouth, again. 5 bills below 10 is not hyperbole and VFR GA would be ill advised from playing chicken with me in that situation, over a principle. But like I also said before, I fully support VFR transit's legal ability to do so and find it incredibly helpful when they are aware of our local ops and can be smart about their transit plan.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Hey man, haven't you read @EvilEagle sig? If you're not 5 bills at the merge, you're nobody. :D

I'm above 5 bills routinely below 10k. See, Uncle sam got a boner for this F-35 thunderpig google-glasses boondoggle so we got no money for legacy communities, or parts really. So they told me hey thanks for your service but ya gotta keep teaching the kiddos how to fly tac in a god----d 1964 Plymouth Fury that won't swing a loop unless I give it 5 bills minimum. Think the kid sees the bottom of the MOA coming up on the backswing? You'd be mistaken...weeeeeeee...off we go bottom of the block at 5.4 bills, me guarding the stick to ride the beeper so the kid doesn't over-G the living snot out that rickety plymouth, again. 5 bills below 10 is not hyperbole and VFR GA would be ill advised from playing chicken with me in that situation, over a principle. But like I also said before, I fully support VFR transit's legal ability to do so and find it incredibly helpful when they are aware of our local ops and can be smart about their transit plan.
Click to expand...
Great post. Best writing I've seen for a while.
 
gov98 said:
Have to say, I'm somewhat confused. If the traffic engineers put up a yield sign at an intersection of two roads. Someone getting irritated that I didn't stop, is missing something. On the other hand, if they put up a stop sign and I go through it without stopping...I messed up. If the federal government, who would promptly "listen" than ignore me if I filed a citizen statement requesting that MOA airspace not be changed to Restricted can't bother to put up the effort to change the MOA airspace to Restricted...what am I supposed to think? I'll tell you what I think it means, it means that one is permitted to transverse, now will I be talking to ATC, yes, and if they ask me to go up down or around will I? Yes. But look at your sectionals, out west there are HUGE swaths of land that are MOA'd, airports underneath them, and there's very little way to get from point A to point B without going through the MOA, or it'll add a decent amount of time. And hey, maybe if more MOAs were from say 5000 AGL to 18000 instead of surface to 18000 we'd eliminate all the issues entirely, but does the Federal Government consider, hey we'll have less VFR transitions if we actually give under space to GA aircraft...NO and why not? Because the very point of MOA instead of R- is you're welcome to go through if you keep your head on a swivel.
Click to expand...

If you're VFR they shouldn't ask or tell you to go up, down, or around it. Nor should they terminate radar services if you decide to go through. They should only ensure you're aware the MOA is active.
 
Velocity173 said:
Not if you have an LOA between using and controlling agencies and approved separation can be maintained between participants and IFR nonparticipants.
Click to expand...

I'm aware of that language in the order but know of no example where that's done.
 
roncachamp said:
See message #84.
Click to expand...
If it is NOTAMed and empty, I'm not surprised because of the process I mentioned earlier. If it is treated as hot, without a single aircraft using it all day, that is an inefficiency that can be eliminated.

I don't doubt that MOAs can be nuisance to IFR traffic. I also don't have a problem with VFR traffic being able to transit them, which I thought I made pretty clear. But, I do think that the attitude that says I've seen them empty before (or I've flown through them with no problem) so I'm not going to bother coordinating a VFR flight through, is wrong. As someone else pointed out, some people are hardheaded and won't change their ways unless the gov't comes in and makes it illegal. But, there are others who learn something new and willingly make adjustments to make things more accommodating for all. I have no interest in engaging in a back and forth with the former unless they have compelling information and are willing to discuss the facts. I was hoping to shed some light on MOA activity from the other side, so that those who are open to learning can potentially make a better decision.
 
Last edited:
Seen 500 + kts below 10K on radar several times during a MOA. Don't think I ever saw a B-1 on attack at anything less than 500 kts. I'm sure the A-6 guys would've hit it as well if they could but 450 kts and 100 ft is just as impressive. Close enough to see the pilot's face if you're standing on the catwalk.;)

Just gotta make sure you keep the appropriate cloud distance criteria. There, I linked it into the original subject.
 
roncachamp said:
If you're VFR they shouldn't ask or tell you to go up, down, or around it. Nor should they terminate radar services if you decide to go through. They should only ensure you're aware the MOA is active.
Click to expand...
They might, though. Saginaw Approach once told me in no uncertain terms that they would terminate me (VFR flight following) if I didn't turn away from Steelhead MOA as it was hot. Avoiding the MOA didn't really add any significant time to my flight, so I turned away. (Now I'm more careful about active MOAs, and in any case, usually I'm IFR.)
 
How many mid air collisions have there been inside a cloud? I really don't know, but I can't ever remember hearing or reading about one.
 
Dav8or said:
How many mid air collisions have there been inside a cloud? I really don't know, but I can't ever remember hearing or reading about one.
Click to expand...
There most certainly are. Now mind you most midairs occur close to the ground and more often than not visual conditions, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Had a DC-8 and a Connie collide over NY in 1960. The DC-8 was 12 miles off course when it collided with the Connie in fog and light rain. At the time it was the deadliest US air crash.

There have been some incidents involving bogie VFRs in less than VMC conditions (though not in a cloud as such). Was one up in Alaska in 1992 where an airliner broke out at 800' in a control zone to be on a collision course with an illegal VFR flight.

There have been a couple of fog-bound runway incursions that resulted in fatalities as well.
 
Last edited:
azure said:
They might, though. Saginaw Approach once told me in no uncertain terms that they would terminate me (VFR flight following) if I didn't turn away from Steelhead MOA as it was hot. Avoiding the MOA didn't really add any significant time to my flight, so I turned away. (Now I'm more careful about active MOAs, and in any case, usually I'm IFR.)
Click to expand...

The good ones won't.
 
Dav8or said:
How many mid air collisions have there been inside a cloud? I really don't know, but I can't ever remember hearing or reading about one.
Click to expand...

In addition to the UAL DC-8 overrunning the TWA Connie in IMC over NYC, a few years earlier (1957) an Air Force F-100 collided with a United DC-7 in IMC near Las Vegas. They were in the low 20,000s. The DC-7 was being controlled by Los Angeles Center; the F-100 was being controlled by Nellis AFB.
 
A fighter collided with a GA airplane in IMC that he was trying to intercept a while back too.
 
James331 said:
I'd suspect a covert mode millitary plane could see a 172 with full lights, or even one running dark.
Click to expand...
Plenty of military aircraft are equipped with much less sophisticated nav gear than you might imagine.
 
flyingron said:
There most certainly are. Now mind you most midairs occur close to the ground and more often than not visual conditions, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Had a DC-8 and a Connie collide over NY in 1960. The DC-8 was 12 miles off course when it collided with the Connie in fog and light rain. At the time it was the deadliest US air crash.

There have been some incidents involving bogie VFRs in less than VMC conditions (though not in a cloud as such). Was one up in Alaska in 1992 where an airliner broke out at 800' in a control zone to be on a collision course with an illegal VFR flight.

There have been a couple of fog-bound runway incursions that resulted in fatalities as well.
Click to expand...

aterpster said:
In addition to the UAL DC-8 overrunning the TWA Connie in IMC over NYC, a few years earlier (1957) an Air Force F-100 collided with a United DC-7 in IMC near Las Vegas. They were in the low 20,000s. The DC-7 was being controlled by Los Angeles Center; the F-100 was being controlled by Nellis AFB.
Click to expand...

Oh man!! Sounds like a serious problem we all need to focus on!! :rolleyes:
 
Katamarino said:
A fighter collided with a GA airplane in IMC that he was trying to intercept a while back too.
Click to expand...

Got a report on that one, or a news link? Never heard of it. I did hear of the 152 and the F-16 awhile back, but that had nothing to with IMC, or a fighter trying to intercept a GA plane.
 
Sundancer said:
Plenty of military aircraft are equipped with much less sophisticated nav gear than you might imagine.
Click to expand...

I thought you needed 20/20 vision to fly for the millitary?

If they can't see a standard issue GA bug smasher doing a buck ten in VFR conditions, I want my tax dollars back
 
Dav8or said:
Got a report on that one, or a news link? Never heard of it. I did hear of the 152 and the F-16 awhile back, but that had nothing to with IMC, or a fighter trying to intercept a GA plane.
Click to expand...

We had a thread on it a while ago. F-4 hit a Baron during an ADIZ intercept back in the 80s. Pilot screwed up the intercept while IMC.
 
Velocity173 said:
We had a thread on it a while ago. F-4 hit a Baron during an ADIZ intercept back in the 80s. Pilot screwed up the intercept while IMC.
Click to expand...
If I recall correctly, the daughter of the deceased pilot posted in it, too.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
As one buddy of mine that was in the military told me

"The military designs tools for efficiently killing people. Sometimes they are not to picky about who it kills"
Click to expand...

A couple of F-4s from Eglin AFB shooting at a towed target over the Gulf of Mexico. After lead finished shooting, he slides over to let his wingman have his turn. As he's sliding over wingman opens up and accidently shoots lead down. I arrived at Eglin in '81 so I think this happen in the 70s as the wing had F-15s by then.
 
PPC1052 said:
If I recall correctly, the daughter of the deceased pilot posted in it, too.
Click to expand...

Yep. Did a search but couldn't find the thread. I think it eventually got locked.
 
As a practical matter, what is ATC supposed to do? You say "hey this guy is IMC!" and the other pilot comes back with "nope, I have VFR cloud clearances in all directions." Who is ATC supposed to believe? He said/she said, unfortunately.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top