MOA's

I thought that I left all of this unpleasant "grab for power" on the
other side of the pond but I think I was wrong....stick to your fight
guys.

Jacek
Washington State

At 18:30 25 May 2006, Mike The Strike wrote:
>It was unfortunate since we've had a good discussion
>going on between
>ASA and Luke AFB for three months and the persons complaining
>didn't
>bother to check with their own liaison personnel or
>us before firing
>complaints off in every direction - to the FAA, local
>city managers and
>the press.
>
>For Region 9, we'd agreed to avoid tasking completely
>in one MOA and to
>avoid one sector of another one and requested in return
>they keep
>military aircraft above glider operating altitudes
>for the three hours
>or so on the four days we'll be in potential conflict
>in the two
>remaining segments. (For the last couple of days,
>top of the boundary
>layer has been below the MOA floor of 7,000 feet)
>We'd also agreed to
>use steering turns to move gliders further away from
>training and
>approach areas.
>
>Rewards for this cooperation are threats to close down
>our glider field
>permanently and requests to the FAA to ban gliders
>from MOAs
>completely.
>
>No good deed goes unpunished!
>
>Mike
>
>

I would keep AOPA advised of any airport and/or MOA
threats coming out of Luke AFB. AOPA has the clout
of numbers to get FAA's attention. A military recommendation
to close MOA’s to any civilian aircraft is a serious
matter.

Gary Evans wrote:
> At 18:30 25 May 2006, Mike The Strike wrote:
>
>>It was unfortunate since we've had a good discussion
>>going on between
>>ASA and Luke AFB for three months and the persons complaining
>>didn't
>>bother to check with their own liaison personnel or
>>us before firing
>>complaints off in every direction - to the FAA, local
>>city managers and
>>the press.
>>
>>For Region 9, we'd agreed to avoid tasking completely
>>in one MOA and to
>>avoid one sector of another one and requested in return
>>they keep
>>military aircraft above glider operating altitudes
>>for the three hours
>>or so on the four days we'll be in potential conflict
>>in the two
>>remaining segments. (For the last couple of days,
>>top of the boundary
>>layer has been below the MOA floor of 7,000 feet)
>>We'd also agreed to
>>use steering turns to move gliders further away from
>>training and
>>approach areas.
>>
>>Rewards for this cooperation are threats to close down
>>our glider field
>>permanently and requests to the FAA to ban gliders
>
>>from MOAs
>
>>completely.
>>
>>No good deed goes unpunished!
>>
>>Mike
>>
>>
>
>
> I would keep AOPA advised of any airport and/or MOA
> threats coming out of Luke AFB. AOPA has the clout
> of numbers to get FAA's attention. A military recommendation
> to close MOA’s to any civilian aircraft is a serious
> matter.
>
>
>
The regional AOPA rep has been CC'd on all discussions and corespondence.

Ramy wrote:
> This probably wouldn't be an issue if we all flew with transponders...

Wrong. This is not the time to grind that axe, Ramy.

Once some Colonel gets his shorts in a knot about an issue like this,
the only thing that will cool him off is a higher authority who does
have the big picture.

AOPA/SSA will know how to handle it and it won't be by bending over for
more expensive and ineffective schemes.

Transponders are a good thing to have, but a very bad mandate.


Jack

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Mike the Strike wrote:
>> Transonders? Wrong. There is no air traffic control in the MOAs and
>> the military aircraft have no electronic equipment that enable them to
>> see or respond to other traffic with transponders.
>>
>> Military aircraft are involved mostly in visual dogfight training and
>> not using instruments.
>
> This is hard to imagine in an age when air-to-air fighting means firing
> missiles, but I don't have any direct knowledge.

I suspect that they have a lot of electronics onboard to identify other
aircraft, but it mostly locates a heat source.

>>
>> I asked this question specifically and was told transponders would not
>> help.
>
> In our area, the C-17 transports are being equipped with TCAS units. The
> percentage of the fleet so equipped was about 20% three years ago, but I
> don't know what it is now. In addition, they are in contact with ATC
> when they are "high" (they spend a lot of time "low"), which is around
> 2000' agl or higher, so ATC can and does give them transponder locations.
>
> I don't know about the fighters in our area, but my understanding is a
> fighter has the electronics to "see" transponders.

Maybe, though an F18 pilot told me the opposite about 5 years ago. I
wonder if the ability to locate a transponder would be of much value to
a fighter.

Luke AFB decided this afternoon to suspend training in all MOAs
starting at 1300 hours next week. No doubt they're going to turn around
and use that as ammunition to lobby the FAA for reclassification of
those MOAs as restricted airspace.

I sure hope that SSA and the AOPA will be heavily involved in this
battle. I for one plan on making more than a little crunching sound
when that big foot starts to come down from on high!

~ted/2NO

At 23:06 26 May 2006, tuno_public@pobox.com wrote:
>Luke AFB decided this afternoon to suspend training
>in all MOAs
>starting at 1300 hours next week. No doubt they're
>going to turn around
>and use that as ammunition to lobby the FAA for reclassification
>of
>those MOAs as restricted airspace.
>
>I sure hope that SSA and the AOPA will be heavily involved
>in this
>battle. I for one plan on making more than a little
>crunching sound
>when that big foot starts to come down from on high!
>
>~ted/2NO
>
>

OK that’s one less thing to worry about in the air.
So I guess push now has come to shove with the local
Military. I went out today and flew through an MOA
just because I can and will continue to do so since
regs permit it. The person at Luke making this bad
call may be biting off more than they can chew.
Would he be happy if all airspace around Phoenix was
reserved for their training flights? What they need
to recommend is that all of this airspce is changed
from MOA's to restricted. Good luck!