Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Change to my Frequency...' started by Velocity173, Oct 18, 2016.
Old vid but trending in ATC Memes so I'll post it here.
Is it too early in the thread for
Years later, the same two guys are still going at it in the comments.
Mike Foster & 58pilot
I have no respect for people like that. I'll keep the rest of my thoughts away from the keyboard.
Well... what happened? Why did the military agency operating that day think they owned the airspace and could keep people out?
I mean besides being able to let out 6000 rounds per minute.....
My personal opinion? The pilot's a jack ass (though technically correct) and the controller was too insistent.
The exchange should have gone like this:
Pilot: I want to go through here.
ATC: You really shouldn't. Military is pretty insistent that they want to play today.
Pilot: WELL SCREW THE GUBMINT.
ATC: Okay. Proceed at your own risk. If you die it isn't on me.
Sealord is the problem. They've always been that way. Unfortunately for them, the airspace is nonregulated and they have no authority in keeping VFRs out, minus an ADIZ penetration.
Really the controller in question should've just let the aircraft terminate and be on his way. Scolding the pilot about hazards of a warning area is like scolding a pilot about hazards in a MOA; a waste of time. Oddly enough, the pilot in question kept referring to the W area as a MOA. Not sure why.
Hmm. Gosh that pilot really annoyed me and represented everything annoying about spam can pilots in the minds of ATC.
He may want to research the difference between a MOA and a Warning area. The latter is operationally identical to a restricted area, and the hazards are the same. Difference is you can't create restricted airspace beyond the three mile territorial limit.
Agreed tht the controller should have just let him go after mentioning the danger and left it at that. Of course he probably didn't want to get chewed out when traffic he was working plodded into the warning area.
Oh.... Ok, thanks. I missed hearing the Sealord part. I understand now.
I did hear the pilot keep calling it an MOA instead of the Warning Area. That might have caused me to miss the Sealord part. Now I wonder why ATC was complying with Sealord and trying to keep people out? I was in the southwest one time, Arizona or New Mexico, VFR with flight following and the MOA went active. The controller gave me a heading to take the shortest route to get out of the MOA. I thanked him and said I will stay on my current heading. He just advised me that MOA is now active, and that was the end of it.
I was in Alaska once, again VFR, and was dodging snow showers. I asked range control if I could go through a prohibited area, and he said wait one. He came back and asked if I could be through it in 10 minutes or less because a flight of A-10s were on their way for some live firing. I turned around and went through another pass... I wasn't brave enough that day to see if the A-10 pilots were looking at anything except the target.
I was always told that a warning area is functionally equivalent of an MOA. Not a restricted area. It was a question that even came up when the DPE asked me about the restrictions of warning areas and I told him they were basically the same as MOAs. He said I was correct.
He then said "And why do the feds not just make these restricted areas?"
And I said "I don't know."
And he replied "Because they can't."
Your DPE is not correct. It's true that MOAs and Warning areas don't require authorization to enter, but the activities in them are different. See the definitions below and notice the underlined words.
A Military Operations Area (MOA) is airspace established outside of Class A airspace to separate/segregate certain nonhazardous military activities from IFR traffic and to identify for VFR traffic where these activities are conducted.
Areas contain airspace identified by an area on the surface of the earth within which the flight of aircraft, while not wholly prohibited, is subject to restrictions. Activities within these areas must be confined because of their nature or limitations imposed upon aircraft operations that are not a part of those activities or both. Restricted areas denote the existence of unusual, often invisible, hazards to aircraft such as artillery firing, aerial gunnery, or guided missiles. Penetration of restricted areas without authorization from the using or controlling agency may be extremely hazardous to the aircraft and its occupants. Restricted areas are published in the Federal Register and constitute 14 CFR Part 73.
A nonregulatory warning area is airspace of defined dimensions designated over international waters that contains activity which may be hazardous to nonparticipating aircraft. The purpose of such warning areas is to warn nonparticipating pilots of the potential danger.
DPE was correct. MOAs and Warning areas are the same as far as entry requirements are concerned. The activities inside of them notwithstanding, as far as non-participating aircraft are concerned, they're the same. Proceed at your own risk.
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
while you could find a super hornet in both a MOA and a restricted/warning area, the types of operations are quite different.
As someone on another thread noted, you don't need authorization to enter a Warning area...you also don't need authorization to enter a tornado either.
Partly funny, mostly sad. I like how at one point 58pilot is trying to pretend he's just someone commenting on the side of the pilot... speaking about "the pilot" in the 3rd person. Then switches up at some point and calls himself out.
While that's correct, the difference is absolutely germane. The pilot's entire argument was that he could have flown right on through, legally, without talking to ATC, and been none the wiser as to the hazard. Basically, that says that he didn't understand the difference between a MOA and a Warning area. If he had, he'd have known that talking to Center or Sealord was going to be an utter waste of time. If he wanted to tell them to take their activities to an R-area, well, that's not going to happen. If he wanted to have the area designated as an R-area, he's talking to the wrong people.
That whole 5 minute exchange was just a waste of everyone's time, and it sounds like the pilot wanted to make a federal case over something that was out of the control of anyone he was thinking of complaining to.
Despite "hazardous" being left out of the definition, there are plenty MOAs that I'd avoid before avoiding a typical warning area. They're rarely launching live ordnance in the warning area and usually their activities (mostly ACM) are in the heart of the W and at high altitude. You won't get shot down in a MOA but you'll see plenty of aircraft manuevering rapidly at high speeds and at GA altitudes. Could very well be hazardous to nonparticipating aircraft regardless of whether or not the FAA says so.
At any rate, it still doesn't change the fact the airspace is non regulatory and Sealord overstepping their bounds.
Where is that?
Youtube comments probably
It's not overstepping their bounds. The FAA can't tell you to stay out, but the military can tell you that it's at your own peril that you enter.
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.
Sealord telling the controller to not let anyone go near the warning area. That would be like telling another controller not to let a VFR go near a MOA. Outside of an IFR, it's not in their authority to do that. If they feel uncomfortable in providing FF, then simply terminate and leave it at that.
I worked 4 years adjacent to Sealord's airspace and they pulled this stuff all the time. They used to go up on guard for a 1200 that was cruising along W74 and try and get them to contact them. They had no authority to make that pilot contact them and we had a few controllers that would key the landline and tell them just that. Now an ADIZ penetration on a 1200? Sure, seen that on radar first hand and the resulting intercept. The situation in the vid has nothing to do with an ADIZ though. While not smart, it's still his prerogative to fly through.
Oh, don't mind the military and their efforts to train and equip themselves for combat. That's YOUR airspace and if they have to knock-it-off and call it a day so that you can assert your rights and privileges, well that's just what they'll do! The Warning in Warning Area is actually meant to warn the military pilots that the WA is VFR Airspace for any and all who wish to pass through. Don't let all that all about hazardous activity frighten you, it's just scare tactics.
Yeah. They don't like things like "Navy shoots down airplane during exercise, more on the evening eyewitness news."
Concur with this
What authority do you think they need to try to entire VFR aircraft to talk to them on guard?
Rereading this thread, I think the confusion was from my use of the word "operational". By that I meant the military training operation taking place inside the SUA, not the operational requirement for a VFR pilot to obtain authorization prior to entry. While the types of activities in restricted areas and MOAs overlap, operations considered hazardous belong in restricted areas. When those activities extend beyond 3nm off the coast, they continue in a warning area. The airspace off the coast of Virginia Beach is a great example of this.
Because the use of guard is for emergencies or to prevent an emergency. It's not for trying to get ahold of some 1200 flying through airspace that isn't regulatory in the first place. It would be like a controller working a MOA and calling on guard for a 1200 transiting the area. Its a waste of guard use and outside the controller's lane. It's the pilots business if he wants to go through the airspace while it's hot and not talk to anyone.
Now, if some 1200 is heading towards a restricted area? Heck yeah I'm going on guard. That's a situation where nonparticipants require specific permission to enter. The intercept that I referred to is another situation that Sealord went on guard for but in that case, was warranted. The pilot violated the ADIZ without being on a DVFR flight plan. If he would have contacted Sealord, they probably would've let it slide. Instead, they launched a couple of F-16s out of KCHS after him.
My mistake, I didn't mean to imply that it was a great idea and we should all do it. I acknowledge that it's a huge waste of resources if they shut down the operation while a bug smasher putters through the edge of the airspace. My point was that they DO stop their operation, though, so a more realistic (albeit potentially less effective) warning would be, "Please don't fly in there, a ton of resources are going to be wasted and an operation to help train military pilots will be delayed while you save 35 seconds on your direct flight plan."
It's entirely unlike a MOA. The activities within a W area are in the same class as what goes on in R-area. Having someone penetrating that is just as much of an "emergency" as if one was penetrating an R area. The only difference is that there's no FAA enforcement action ensuing from a W area penetration, but that doesn't mean that it's not as dangerous nor that the impact on the military operations in the W area isn't as affected.
That would certainly be enough to make me rethink my plan!
In fact, learning about that issue on line has made me far more likely to avoid MOAs in recent years.
The military has done a terrible job of getting that message out. I try to communicate it whenever I can, but there are real hazards as well. The problem is that the average VFR pilot has no idea of the disruption they've caused or in many cases how close they came to a mid-air. Ignorance is bliss, but it doesn't mean it's safe. As for Warning Areas, I would definitely heed any advice to remain clear. Someone mentioned VA Beach, we used to do our Air-to-Air live fire gunnery in the W areas out there. It was done quite a ways out so it would be unlikely to have VFR traffic passing through, but still indicates the type of training that goes on there.
One thing that I've always found funny in my ATC career is situations where we should be but aren't talking to a GA aircraft because they aren't on tower/approach frequency. Someone will always suggest, "hit em on guard" like that is going to change the situation. Not all GA aircraft have two radios and very few will be monitoring 121.5. Only time I've monitored guard is when I've been on flight following with Albuquerque Center and I haven't heard anything in a while or I'm transitioning through a MOA.
Well a VFR penetrating a warning area being an emergency, would be highly subjective. Despite the activities involved, Sealord still has no authority to make an aircraft receive FF in a warning area. Just as I had no authority to make an aircraft recieve FF in a MOA. It's the pilot's prerogative regardless of the hazards present.
A restricted area is regulated airspace that requires permission to enter. A warning area is nonregulatory that doesn't require permission to enter. It's that simple. Outside of an nonparticipanting IFR (aircraft ATC has separation responsibility), a VFR is allowed to fly through and talk to no one.
Another thing. All SUAs aren't created equal in the intensity of the activity. I've flown in restricted / danger areas where it's a beehive of activity one day and a ghost town the next. While the activities involved in restricted / warning areas are hazardous, plenty of times none of those hazardous activities are going on. I've seen alert areas and MOAs that had "nonhazardous" activities that were far more of a threat than some restricted / warning areas.
I agree. I don't like to penetrate MOAs or WAs (or even AAs) if I don't have to when they're hot. No need to disrupt their fun with toys that go boom.
However, I also live in a state that is bigger than any other state in the US (Alaska? forget Alaska! LOL) and our MOAs can be so vast that circumventing them would add considerable amount of flying. As an example: a trip to the beach to appease the wife would nearly double in time if I went IFR vs VFR (since no Victor airways transition through any MOAs).
So at least when VFR, I talk and squawk and hope that their artillery really ceases firing when I am transitioning their MOA for 50 miles.
Just coordinate with the controlling agency and they can tell you which routing (through the MOA) would pose the least impact. Make it a compromise instead of all or nothing. I'm sure the users would be grateful.
I thought they weren't supposed to fire artillery in MOAs.
Sealord...could someone define that for me? I think I've figured it out from context, but want to be sure.
This is true, and also would work with restricted areas. When I instructed at Eglin AFB Aero Club for instance, I would call Eglin Approach and get permission to enter a particular Restricted Area, like R-2917 for instance, and monitor their frequency while inside as they could turn 'hot' fairly quick back in the 80s when I was there. Also helped that I was a controller at Eglin too and knew the local procedures.
Artillery and other toys that go boom warrant Restricted Areas. MOAs are for nonlethal activities.
Google Facsfac and you should be able to find some info. Sealord is out of JAX I think, Giantkiller is in VA, I forget what covers the gulf. it probably isn't exactly right, but I kind of think of them as MOA control for the offshore airspace. They are involved in more than that but for a pilot it's similar.