Pilots breaking VFR minimums

[flyingron]

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.

 

[James331]

I don't think you'll find much sympathy on POA about training being affected or even many that avoid them while VFR. The activities and hazardous that occur in them have been discussed ad nauseam on POA. Everyone does their own risk assessment of transiting a MOA and personally, I consider the risk to be that of flying into an event like OSH or transiting a high trafficked alert area. Increased risk yes, but I support the freedom of civilian pilots to fly through them VFR...and I used to work MOA control.

That.

 

[Cooter]

Everyone does their own risk assessment of transiting a MOA

That's the part I disagree with. Even if there is any form of RA being done, it can't be done properly unless it is known what kind of training is being done. I would like to see how that risk assessment is built. The risk will change with the event that is taking place at the time, so some form of inquiry would have to be made for it to be of any use. A military pilot would never transit an active MOA without coordinating with the other aircraft. I haven't been around here long enough to have seen it discussed, so I don't know what other points were made. But, I don't have a problem with the legality of it, I would prefer pilots actually worked out these types of things on their own. It works well on the military side. The problem I have is with know it all VFR pilots who are eager to tell others how unsafe they are, yet are unwilling to learn something new about their own safety and the impact they have on other aviators. The fact is, most people have no idea what risk is present when flying through a MOA.

 

[James331]

Do you transition busy civilian areas/airspace?

You have no idea what type of flying is being done ether, could be a student pilot on his first solo, could be a aerobatic plane, could be a low level float plane, could be a photo flight, could be a formation of RVs, could be all of the above.

 

[Everskyward]

That's the part I disagree with. Even if there is any form of RA being done, it can't be done properly unless it is known what kind of training is being done. I would like to see how that risk assessment is built. The risk will change with the event that is taking place at the time, so some form of inquiry would have to be made for it to be of any use. A military pilot would never transit an active MOA without coordinating with the other aircraft. I haven't been around here long enough to have seen it discussed, so I don't know what other points were made. But, I don't have a problem with the legality of it, I would prefer pilots actually worked out these types of things on their own. It works well on the military side. The problem I have is with know it all VFR pilots who are eager to tell others how unsafe they are, yet are unwilling to learn something new about their own safety and the impact they have on other aviators. The fact is, most people have no idea what risk is present when flying through a MOA.

If the government decides it's too risky or too much of an inconvenience which causes increased expenditures they'll change the airspace designation. Until then it is what it is and civilian pilots can decide on their own whether or not to transit.

 

[Cooter]

Do you transition busy civilian areas/airspace?

You have no idea what type of flying is being done ether, could be a student pilot on his first solo, could be a aerobatic plane, could be a low level float plane, could be a photo flight, could be a formation of RVs, could be all of the above.

Going into an unfamiliar area, I would probably go IFR. But, if I did go VFR I would do a little homework and learn something about the area. If there was a designated practice area, I would learn how to avoid it, or how to coordinate with it so as not to cause a conflict. A MOA exists to separate some of that traffic, so that the focus doesn't have to be primarily on avoiding others.

This is what I meant about taking sides. If you want to challenge me and inquire about my habits, I'll be happy to answer. But that is a distraction from the point, which no one seems to want to engage with. I've already made it more than once so I'll let it go.

I came to this site because I was out of GA for a while and I wanted to refamiliarize myself with some of what I may have forgotten. I have no problem admitting that there are areas where my knowledge is weak and have asked some pretty basic questions here. I may have gone about it wrong in this post, but it would be nice if POA was open to having fruitful discussion so that collective knowledge was pooled, instead of sides being taken and softer voices shouted down. I'm happy to discuss any issue on its merits to see which has the stronger case. But instead, sophistry seems to be what most often prevails.

 

[MAKG1]

I don't think you'll find much sympathy on POA about training being affected or even many that avoid them while VFR. The activities and hazardous that occur in them have been discussed ad nauseam on POA. Everyone does their own risk assessment of transiting a MOA and personally, I consider the risk to be that of flying into an event like OSH or transiting a high trafficked alert area. Increased risk yes, but I support the freedom of civilian pilots to fly through them VFR...and I used to work MOA control.

You don't speak for the whole community.

Military pilots are pilots as well, and it's SELFISH AS HELL to disrupt another pilot's training because you don't give a damn. But severe selfishness is indeed par for the course in some corners here.

No one said you should avoid all MOAs while VFR, only hot ones.

 

[Cooter]

If the government decides it's too risky or too much of an inconvenience which causes increased expenditures they'll change the airspace designation. Until then it is what it is and civilian pilots can decide on their own whether or not to transit.

Thats not the way it works exactly, the designations determine what type of events can take place. Weapons, lasers, CM, etc. The airspace battle is a very touchy/heated one and I can assure you the the rights of VFR traffic is not much of the discussion.

But, I have not argued at all that it should be illegal for VFR traffic to fly through MOAs. Why do you want the Govt to be the final arbiter of any issue? Wouldn't you rather the pilots work it out themselves?

 

[Dr. O]

On MOA's - is it legal under the FAR?
Answer: Yes.
Is the military pilot bound to the VFR rules when using the public airspace?
Answer: Yes.
So why are we discussing it?

On the picture posted, that is VFR weather here in the Great Lakes weather machine, or you don't get to go flying at all.

denny-o
old and grumpy

 

[Everskyward]

Thats not the way it works exactly, the designations determine what type of events can take place. Weapons, lasers, CM, etc. The airspace battle is a very touchy/heated one and I can assure you the the rights of VFR traffic is not much of the discussion.

But, I have not argued at all that it should be illegal for VFR traffic to fly through MOAs. Why do you want the Govt to be the final arbiter of any issue? Wouldn't you rather the pilots work it out themselves?

That may not be the way it works from the military end but as far as civilians are concerned, they can decide for themselves whether they want to fly through or not.

 

[kyleb]

MOA's are shared airspace. It ain't sharing if everyone can't use the airspace.

 

[Cooter]

That may not be the way it works from the military end but as far as civilians are concerned, they can decide for themselves whether they want to fly through or not.

You are responding to something that is not the issue and you are also not answering the question posed. Whether or not they can do it is not in question. But, I made my point. Maybe military pilots should file safety reports every time VFR traffic shows up unannounced. That might invite more interest in the discussion.

 

[azure]

Not sure why we are discussing MOAs in this thread, but for the record, I do not fly through active ones VFR, and have never been cleared through an active one when IFR either.

Also for the record, I'm generally NOT one who turns in fellow pilots - I'm very live and let live about rules violations provided I don't feel my safety is being compromised. And even when safety is an issue, I prefer the come to jesus approach to turning someone in, if it can be done. If the pilots who fly VFR in the soup would get an IFR clearance instead of trying to circumvent the system I wouldn't have a problem with it - I don't care if they're rated or not, if they know how to fly IFR then whether they're legal or not is between them and the FAA. But I stand by my position that scofflaws who intentionally endanger themselves and IFR traffic in the system should be dealt with harshly. I don't need to have the additional concern that I'm going to hit someone when I'm IMC on top of the added workload that flying in those conditions automatically brings.

 

[Velocity173]

That's the part I disagree with. Even if there is any form of RA being done, it can't be done properly unless it is known what kind of training is being done. I would like to see how that risk assessment is built. The risk will change with the event that is taking place at the time, so some form of inquiry would have to be made for it to be of any use. A military pilot would never transit an active MOA without coordinating with the other aircraft. I haven't been around here long enough to have seen it discussed, so I don't know what other points were made. But, I don't have a problem with the legality of it, I would prefer pilots actually worked out these types of things on their own. It works well on the military side. The problem I have is with know it all VFR pilots who are eager to tell others how unsafe they are, yet are unwilling to learn something new about their own safety and the impact they have on other aviators. The fact is, most people have no idea what risk is present when flying through a MOA.

If you assume the worst, such as the type of training you described, then you've done your own mental RA.

Can't use a one size fits all on active MOAs. When I approach a MOA, I'm already up ATC. If I hear "I'm showing multiple targets in XYZ MOA that I'm not talking to" then I'm going around. Especially if I'm terminated because ATC doesn't want the responsibility of working me through. Now, if I hear "the MOAs are active but I'm only working two aircraft right now and their currently located..." then I'm flying through and I'll be on the look out with help from ATC (AIM 3-4-5).

MOAs block a large chunk of airspace that VFR aircraft either need to transit or do training in. Ours (NBC) blocked a busy piece of airspace along the coast. I can inderstand those that look at them as an inconvenience and not want to circumnavigate. I worked some that wanted nothing to do with the airspace and others that had no problem with 500 + kt aircraft going by them. I don't consider the first to be overly cautious and the later to be dangerous. They just have their own personal RA of what they believe the "threat" to be.

Personally, the only times I've come close to military aircraft has nothing to do with MOAs but MTRs. Again, all of those aren't created equal either but the area I operate in are quite active at the altitudes we fly. And unlike a lot of MOAs, no one is talking, no one is on radar and they're always going fast.

 

[Everskyward]

You are responding to something that is not the issue and you are also not answering the question posed. Whether or not they can do it is not in question. But, I made my point. Maybe military pilots should file safety reports every time VFR traffic shows up unannounced. That might invite more interest in the discussion.

It seems as if you would like civilian pilots to do things the way you want them done, but that is not happening in absence of a rule or airspace change. You can ask nicely here on this board and elsewhere but that doesn't mean a sea change in the way civilian pilots act around MOAs.

 

[Cooter]

It seems as if you would like civilian pilots to do things the way you want them done, but that is not happening in absence of a rule or airspace change. You can ask nicely here on this board and elsewhere but that doesn't mean a sea change in the way civilian pilots act around MOAs.

Mainly, I want to inform VFR pilots about what actually occurs when they fly through active MOAs. It would be nice if there could be a real discussion. I did it wrong for years until I was on the other side and saw the impact. It doesn't really affect me much either way now, but if I did happen to stumble into a MOA and disrupt training I would want to know. I'm getting the impression here that most don't want to know and don't care. I see it as abusing a freedom, and frankly I think it's foolish just to rely blindly on the rules and being unwilling to work more wisely within the rules so that they don't need to change.

 

[Everskyward]

Mainly, I want to inform VFR pilots about what actually occurs when they fly through active MOAs. It would be nice if there could be a real discussion. I did it wrong for years until I was on the other side and saw the impact. It doesn't really affect me much either way now, but if I did happen to stumble into a MOA and disrupt training I would want to know. I'm getting the impression here that most don't want to know and don't care. I see it as abusing a freedom, and frankly I think it's foolish just to rely blindly on the rules and being unwilling to work more wisely within the rules so that they don't need to change.

It seems as if we are having a discussion. You can start a new thread if you want it to be obvious what you are discussing. I'm just saying there are going to be varying opinions. The rules leave a lot up to the individual pilot. Look at the threads about [cough] entering the traffic pattern if you want an example of how some pilots want to impose what they think is best on others.

 

[James331]

Going into an unfamiliar area, I would probably go IFR. But, if I did go VFR I would do a little homework and learn something about the area. If there was a designated practice area, I would learn how to avoid it, or how to coordinate with it so as not to cause a conflict. A MOA exists to separate some of that traffic, so that the focus doesn't have to be primarily on avoiding others.

This is what I meant about taking sides. If you want to challenge me and inquire about my habits, I'll be happy to answer. But that is a distraction from the point, which no one seems to want to engage with. I've already made it more than once so I'll let it go.

I came to this site because I was out of GA for a while and I wanted to refamiliarize myself with some of what I may have forgotten. I have no problem admitting that there are areas where my knowledge is weak and have asked some pretty basic questions here. I may have gone about it wrong in this post, but it would be nice if POA was open to having fruitful discussion so that collective knowledge was pooled, instead of sides being taken and softer voices shouted down. I'm happy to discuss any issue on its merits to see which has the stronger case. But instead, sophistry seems to be what most often prevails.

Not challenging you, nothing to do with you, it's a MOA, it's shared airspace, it's not private.

If I'm shooting a practice approach and a millitary chopper decides to do a few touch and goes, that's life, same with MOAs.

Now I'm not blasting through one in poor VFR wx and IFR I'm getting routed around a hot MOA anyways, but if I'm VFR in clear blue and 22, I fail to see the issue.

 

[Cooter]

It seems as if we are having a discussion. You can start a new thread if you want it to be obvious what you are discussing. I'm just saying there are going to be varying opinions. The rules leave a lot up to the individual pilot. Look at the threads about [cough] entering the traffic pattern if you want an example of how some pilots want to impose what they think is best on others.

The points I'm making aren't really being addressed, but granted I did kind of hijack a thread. I'm not trying to make any kind of rule change and I'm not arguing the legality at all. I like it the way it is, but the way it is also allows for misuse. So, in the spirit of discussion, what do you do to maximize safety and limit conflict before flying through a MOA?

 

[Cooter]

Not challenging you, nothing to do with you, it's a MOA, it's shared airspace, it's not private.

If I'm shooting a practice approach and a millitary chopper decides to do a few touch and goes, that's life, same with MOAs.

Now I'm not blasting through one in poor VFR wx and IFR I'm getting routed around a hot MOA anyways, but if I'm VFR in clear blue and 22, I fail to see the issue.

It would actually be safer in MVFR and IFR. The problem is that your very presence necessitates a Knock-it-off if there is no communication. Any engagement cannot continue until non participating traffic is clear of the MOA. The boundaries matter. Military traffic considers themselves separated when active in a MOA. If someone shows up that is not coordinating, in most cases all training must stop. If Center comes up and says there is non-participating traffic, everyone has to stop and start looking for the traffic. Even if they are miles away or thousands of feet separated. The VFR traffic doesn't see this or know this because they are not talking. BFM engagement will often use the entire vertical structure of the MOA. A Cessna skirting along the bottom stops training for the fighters at 17k setting up for another set and they must hold and burn gas until it is clear. Sometimes that fuel burn is enough to render the flight ineffective. I get that you don't see the conflict and that's why I want to explain.

For the safety factor, a fighter engaged in BFM is usually padlocked onto the other fighter while he is still 300+Kts and turning and maneuvering. He's not looking for the guy taking a shortcut. It's very similar for air to ground employment.

 

[Everskyward]

The points I'm making aren't really being addressed, but granted I did kind of hijack a thread. I'm not trying to make any kind of rule change and I'm not arguing the legality at all. I like it the way it is, but the way it is also allows for misuse. So, in the spirit of discussion, what do you do to maximize safety and limit conflict before flying through a MOA?

I didn't say you were trying to make a rule change, but that's the only way to ensure compliance with what you apparently want.

You could push for more education and information about what is going on in the MOA at the time. Otherwise there are some who will assume the worst case scenario, some who will assume the best, and some will be in the middle. Even in the worst case scenario there will be pilots who are willing to take the risk.

 

[coloradobluesky]

How many accidents between military aircraft and GA aircraft in an MOA have there been? I've only heard of one.

 

[roncachamp]

I get the sense that many of the same safety nazis here, who are so eager to rat out another pilot for flying too close to a cloud, are the same ones who will knowingly trundle straight through an active MOA because its "legal". But, maybe I'm wrong.

I don't see any similarity. Flying too close to a cloud violates a regulation, trundling straight through an active MOA does not.

 

[roncachamp]

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.

It's not possible to know what is not reported.

 

[Cooter]

I didn't say you were trying to make a rule change, but that's the only way to ensure compliance with what you apparently want.

I guess I'm not communicating all that well. I don't want to ensure compliance, I don't want to force anybody to change. I would like to see VFR traffic actually care and try to avoid it when possible. And if not possible, communicate so as to limit the intrusion. Velocity173 was on the right track earlier, but most don't seem to make even that effort. I've actually seen the opposite, where planes will cancel IFR so they don't have to fly around.

 

[Cooter]

I don't see any similarity. Flying too close to a cloud violates a regulation, trundling straight through an active MOA does not.

Either may be safe or unsafe depending on the circumstances. He reported it because he thought it was unsafe, he couldn't have conclusively determined the legality of it.

 

[roncachamp]

How many accidents between military aircraft and GA aircraft in an MOA have there been? I've only heard of one.

Perhaps keeping IFR GA aircraft out of MOAs and many VFR GA pilots choosing to stay out of them has had some influence on that number.

 

[Cooter]

It's not possible to know what is not reported.

Ok, in the long run I don't think you'd want it to go that route though. Do you need a certain number of safety reports before you would reconsider the safety implications? That seems to be showing up to the party a little late. I wish you'd engage the content of what I've said and we can discuss the safety aspect of it from there.

Boy, I get the feeling I'm not making any friends around here!

 

[roncachamp]

Ok, in the long run I don't think you'd want it to go that route though. Do you need a certain number of safety reports before you would reconsider the safety implications? That seems to be showing up to the party a little late. I wish you'd engage the content of what I've said and we can discuss the safety aspect of it from there.

Okay. Let's discuss the safety aspect of trundling straight through an active MOA that is void of military aircraft.

 

[Cooter]

Okay. Let's discuss the safety aspect of trundling straight through an active MOA that is void of military aircraft.

That's not a problem, trundle on. My turn, how about the safety aspect of trundling straight through an active MOA with a 2v2 engagement going on? Or, if you'd rather, a CAS scenario with 3 groups of fighters holding in different sectors?

 

[Everskyward]

I guess I'm not communicating all that well. I don't want to ensure compliance, I don't want to force anybody to change. I would like to see VFR traffic actually care and try to avoid it when possible. And if not possible, communicate so as to limit the intrusion. Velocity173 was on the right track earlier, but most don't seem to make even that effort. I've actually seen the opposite, where planes will cancel IFR so they don't have to fly around.

These two statements are somewhat contradictory. The military and FAA could set up an education campaign, but that would also require the military to reveal what kind of activity is going on in the MOA in real time. Otherwise civilians are guessing. And you would still get pilots who don't care.

 

[roncachamp]

That's not a problem, trundle on. My turn, how about the safety aspect of trundling straight through an active MOA with a 2v2 engagement going on? Or, if you'd rather, a CAS scenario with 3 groups of fighters holding in different sectors?

I think I'd be less likely to trundle straight through an active MOA with a 2v2 engagement going on, or a CAS scenario with 3 groups of fighters holding in different sectors, if not for the many times I've observed active MOAs void of military aircraft.

 

[hindsight2020]

Ok, in the long run I don't think you'd want it to go that route though. Do you need a certain number of safety reports before you would reconsider the safety implications? That seems to be showing up to the party a little late. I wish you'd engage the content of what I've said and we can discuss the safety aspect of it from there.

Boy, I get the feeling I'm not making any friends around here!

Nah, it's a touchy subject, but there's several current and ex-mil guys on here who are GA owners and participants, and who do offline ambassadorship for the safe sharing of airspace between the two communities (yours truly included). Don't let the verbal minority on here give you the impression they speak for the entire GA cohort.

I deal with this situation weekly in the conduct of my job. Yeah, I catch flak for incompleting a sortie, but it is what it is. We keep our MOA ops safe not because of VFR GA participation, but in spite of VFR GA. I think it's petulant to play chicken with TACAIR because "this is 'Murica so Eff you and I'm gonna transit at the 1000 feet above the bottom of your block" instead of descending a couple thousand feet and making it a non issue, but that's the freedom we defend as bag wearers am I right? It'd be hypocritical of me to decry the right they have to be buffoons around the very NAS I'm paid to uphold to defend.

As to my opinion of the standard for due diligence? As a GA owner I can say I don't think it's unreasonable to pop up on freq, ask what MOAs are active and ask what altitude block would be most convenient to transit through. Most of the time going below for 30-40 miles a couple thousand feet, if overflying isn't a possibility, otherwise consideration should be given to going around. Most of the time underflying would be less time consuming than circumnavigating. At a minimum squawk VFR so those who have TCAS (few fighters do ironically enough) can gain SA on you if you're not piping up on the radio. I think that's a 80% solution and a general courtesy than can keep everybody on the level.

 

[Cooter]

I think I'd be less likely to trundle straight through an active MOA with a 2v2 engagement going on, or a CAS scenario with 3 groups of fighters holding in different sectors, if not for the many times I've observed active MOAs void of military aircraft.

You can ask about their status. The biggest problem is with the guy who knows he's flying through a MOA and won't talk to anybody because he doesn't want to be told to deviate. But, I'm curious, how did you observe the voidness? I grant that they aren't always occupied.

 

[Cooter]

These two statements are somewhat contradictory.

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.

 

[Shawn]

If there is a film crew doing a shoot out on a street with a public notice of filming sign, it may still be legal to just walk down the public sidewalk and blow right through their shot.

May be legal but makes you self centered disrespectful a D-Bag in my view.

Same idea with a MOA that you KNOW is hot.

I do not give MOA transitions a second thought, but I am always on FF and will skirt around if they are hot.

 

[roncachamp]

You can ask about their status. The biggest problem is with the guy who knows he's flying through a MOA and won't talk to anybody because he doesn't want to be told to deviate. But, I'm curious, how did you observe the voidness? I grant that they aren't always occupied.

I knew their status, they were active by NOTAM but without users. I observed the voidness from my radar scope in Chicago ARTCC.

 

[Cooter]

I knew their status, they were active by NOTAM but without users. I observed the voidness from my radar scope in Chicago ARTCC.

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.

Some of the MOAs I've worked would have center come up and ask if we could block off airspace for through traffic. Most everyone I know will work to accommodate that kind of traffic, even if it's an inconvenience. It's the guy not talking that's the problem.

 

[Witmo]

I'm a retired military aviator and know what goes on in MOAs. I have to say that I will make an effort to stay out of them if it doesn't cause me a huge inconvenience but in some areas of the country you can't get there from here without going way out of your way to avoid a MOA complex. If I have to transit an active MOA, I more than likely will be talking to Center and at least the military flight will know what I'm doing and can work around it. Most MOAs I come across are such that I might be able to easily underfly them or cut through a corner so as to minimize transit time. Very rarely would I have to cut through the center of one but never say never. Given the performance of many military types, it's not that difficult for them to set a floor to their activity that would allow a VFR puddle jumper to pass through without unduly stopping all training activity for the duration of the transit.

 

[JoseCuervo]

The MOA's located closest to me are 150 miles wide, and 120 miles deep. Maybe 18,000 square miles of space??

If the weather is VFR, I am going thru the MOA as per the regulations allow.