Desert MOA's

Please be careful out there. I just got an earful from a fighter
pilot who said he had an 'encounter' with a glider over the Pahranagat
valley tuesday afternoon. That's a VERY busy corridor Monday through
Friday.

Uncle Fuzzy wrote:
> Please be careful out there. I just got an earful from a fighter
> pilot who said he had an 'encounter' with a glider over the Pahranagat
> valley tuesday afternoon. That's a VERY busy corridor Monday through
> Friday.

Damn pesky gliders, blasting all over SHARED USE airspace at near
supersonic speeds, not paying the least bit of attention to the
occasional fighter jock that gets in their way...

I'm confused. He gave you an earful? ... when you had the right-of-
way? I'm missing something here ... think think think ...

On Jul 10, 9:46 am, Tuno <tedcwag...@**********> wrote:
> I'm confused. He gave you an earful? ... when you had the right-of-
> way? I'm missing something here ... think think think ...

Sorry all, I misstated. I didn't get an 'earful'. More of a heads
up. Yep, the glider not only has the right to be there, but the right-
of-way as well. The mil pilot just wanted to emphasize that's just
about the busiest corridor in a MOA in the US.

Tuno <tedcwagner@**********> wrote:
> I'm confused. He gave you an earful? ... when you had the right-of-
> way? I'm missing something here ... think think think ...

Here's what you're missing:

The other pilot was flying the latest USAF weapon: a balloon fighter
aircraft - something the enemy would never expect!

Nyal Williams <nyalwilliams@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Wasn't the subject line MOA?

Is that relevant? I can't find any qualifiers in the FARs indicating that
changes the right-of-way regulation.

> At 16:46 10 July 2008, Tuno wrote:
>>I'm confused. He gave you an earful? ... when you had the right-of-
>>way? I'm missing something here ... think think think ...
>>

<< Wasn't the subject line MOA? >>

Yeah, so? A MOA is a sandbox where mil aircraft are supposed to play;
it is not an exclusion zone, for civil/GA to stay out of (unless
you’re a power-mad airspace-grabbing bureaucrat working for the Luke
AFB CG).

Glad to hear that the original exchange was really a "heads-up". I
like hearing those from the heavy metal!

~ted/2NO

Nice epitaph - "He had the right-of-way"

Mike

On Jul 10, 11:25 am, Mike125 <mikefad...@************> wrote:
> Nice epitaph - "He had the right-of-way"
>
> Mike

+1

Mike125 <mikefadden@************> wrote:
> Nice epitaph - "He had the right-of-way"

That concept is something I suspect everyone learns about when they first
learn to cross streets. (Though it appears it's worth Usenet "points". ;-)
)

I presume Nyal meant to use "Wasn't the subject line MOA?" as a rhetorical
question somehow. If he meant "You should expect military traffic in an
MOA" then I don't see how that expectation differs from standard
expectations of traffic in any airspace and the dangers of see-and-avoid
complacency.

But it brings up a question that I as a student would be interested in
hearing opinions on: given that "He had the right-of-way" is a lousy
epitaph, how many posters conclude from that (or other lines of thought)
that it is never (for themselves at least) advisable to fly a glider into
an active MOA - or one that you don't have information on current activity
status?