Radar video of F-16 playing games

[flightops1272]

I had two F-5's do this to me a few years back in N. Central Texas. I thought it was kinda neat but I was just out playing around in a C182, and had a visual on them the whole time (they weren't as sneaky as they thought). Conversely, I can totally understand why the two bizjet pilots weren't as impressed.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=76c_1215478326

[aitke12]

Awesome!!!

[maredzki]

Very interesting!

[UNATCAZ]

how about you dont fly through the MOAs.....

[Pilot3033]

how about you dont fly through the MOAs.....

Because a MOA is not the same thing as restricted airspace. Even when active, non-military aircraft can fly through a MOA. While not recommended, there is nothing stating you can't do it, and frankly, sometimes it's the only hassle free way through, especially out in Arizona and New Mexico where the military owns a lot of airspace. Both pilots most likely knew the MOA was active, having either called flight service before take-off, or by notification from Albuquerque Center or by calling the listed frequency attached to the MOA and they both determined it was safe to go through.

The F16 pilot was completely out of line, and should know better than to "toy" with civilian aircraft. His actions were dumb, reckless and completely uncalled for, and as the radar shows, had nothing to do with any mission he was flying. The aircraft clearly deviated to mess with two aircraft in compliance with all rules and regulations. Entering formation flight without all participating aircraft's consent and knowledge is both dangerous and illegal, especially considering you have an F16 vs. a PC12. This is not flight simulator, one wrong move by either pilot and the PC12 could have ended up in some serious wake turbulence or worse.

Your statement represents one of ignorance, arrogance or both. Flying an F16 doesn't make you "king of the sky" or immune to rules, or playing nice. And there is certainly no room for a superiority complex, especially one based on false assumptions.

EDIT: I just read over in the intro thread you're a controller. I don't know what would compel you to be to brash about this situation. The way I read your statement, you are putting fault on both GA pilots and that really makes no sense to me. A close call due to conflicting traffic is one thing, and I'd be more than happy to discuss the FAA's regulations regarding active MOAs and VFR traffic, but the video clearly shows the F16 "messing" with both aircraft, forcing one VFR aircraft to break into Class A airspace.

[UNATCAZ]

[
[/quote]
Because a MOA is not the same thing as restricted airspace. Even when active, non-military aircraft can fly through a MOA.
[/quote]

yeah i am aware of how this whole airspace thing works.  in fact, i control those aircraft on a daily basis.  i also listen to the ga traffic complain about the military and their mission.  i understand the ga traffic can go through there but when you fly through an active MOA, expect there to be "military ops" going on in there...

[UNATCAZ]

im not saying the F16 pilots were not at fault, but we hear all the time about how the vfr GA traffic is buzzed by military.  the radar the 16s have is not as good as what is on newer jets and dont have TCAS.

[atcman23]

That's rather unprofessional.  The F16 pilot was certainly at fault; he even did it to another aircraft (another aircraft mentions the same thing).  That could have been a lot worse than breaking airspace (VFR above FL180).  I would file a complaint too.

[sykocus]

from the AIM (my emphasis)

b. Examples of activities conducted in MOAs include, but are not limited to: air combat tactics, air intercepts, aerobatics, formation training, and low-altitude tactics. Military pilots flying in an active MOA are exempted from the provisions of 14 CFR Section 91.303(c) and (d) which prohibits aerobatic flight within Class D and Class E surface areas, and within Federal airways. Additionally, the Department of Defense has been issued an authorization to operate aircraft at indicated airspeeds in excess of 250 knots below 10,000 feet MSL within active MOAs.

and the kicker

c. Pilots operating under VFR should exercise extreme caution while flying within a MOA when military activity is being conducted. The activity status (active/inactive) of MOAs may change frequently. Therefore, pilots should contact any FSS within 100 miles of the area to obtain accurate real-time information concerning the MOA hours of operation. Prior to entering an active MOA, pilots should contact the controlling agency for traffic advisories.

Maybe it's because I started my career in the military, but I have no sympathy for the GA guys. MOAs are clearly marked on the charts, and I have a hard time believing the controller didn't advise them they were entering the MOA (we always did). Most GA seem to get a kick out of being "intercepted", however it goes both ways. The military don't often appreciate some VFR sputtering though "their airspace".

[Pilot3033]

Nobody here would argue that entering an active MOA is a desirable option, but that doesn't excuse the military pilot from entering an unauthorized formation flight with 2 GA pilots. Your quotes AIM sections give authority of military airspace to the DOD or other controlling agency, and allow military aircraft to break rules that should only apply to civilian aircraft (such as the 250kts rule, or rule regarding aerobatic training). However, it does not give the F16 pilot the authority to intercept or formation fly with any aircraft he chooses. As it stands, both GA pilots were acting in accordance with all regulations and both were in contact with ATC at the time. The military had not authorized an interception and the F16 pilot was acting on his own accord.

If I remember correctly (this incident took place in 2008), the F16 pilot did end up reprimanded. Being part of the military doesn't make you immune to rules, regulations or laws.

[sykocus]

To be clear I'm not saying what the f16 was legally or morally right, but I don't understand the surprise in PC12's voice and the comment to the effect of "he needs to be talking to somebody". To play the devil's advocate we don't know that what the F16 did wasn't part of whatever he was out there doing, and bam there's a GA off his nose. I see lots of anecdotal comments that the f16 go reprimanded, but haven't seen any solid reference to it. It's possible that he did but I doubt it.

My point is if you're flying VFR though the middle of MOA don't be surprised when you find yourself in the middle of " air combat tactics, air intercepts, aerobatics," etc. VFR aircraft have every right to fly though though MOA, but they shouldn't expect the aircraft using those areas curb their ops when they're in there. Like I said it goes both ways. The military want's exclusive use in a moa. That's not going to happen, but if GA want military to stay 500' and 3 miles a way, that's not going to happen either.

[btnhtillidie]

They are the military the can do what they want. Enough said. Both GA pilots Blew it out of Proportion, I would have grabbed a camera and took a picture.

You don't like it, don't play in their airspace. Sounds like Both GA Pilots were full of them self's. "He's to close to my airplane" Really? I mean Really? The F-16 cost 10 times as much as "Your Plane" Their training is that much more Difficult. To GA pilots, They might as well be GOD because they are that much better than you.

Flying a F-16 does not make him King, but flying an Airplane for the United States Air force Does.     

[btnhtillidie]

Nobody here would argue that entering an active MOA is a desirable option, but that doesn't excuse the military pilot from entering an unauthorized formation flight with 2 GA pilots. Your quotes AIM sections give authority of military airspace to the DOD or other controlling agency, and allow military aircraft to break rules that should only apply to civilian aircraft (such as the 250kts rule, or rule regarding aerobatic training). However, it does not give the F16 pilot the authority to intercept or formation fly with any aircraft he chooses. As it stands, both GA pilots were acting in accordance with all regulations and both were in contact with ATC at the time. The military had not authorized an interception and the F16 pilot was acting on his own accord.

If I remember correctly (this incident took place in 2008), the F16 pilot did end up reprimanded. Being part of the military doesn't make you immune to rules, regulations or laws.

They are not Governed by the FAA. They make their own rules, When it comes to the military the FAA plays by their rules.

[Biff]

They are the military the can do what they want. Enough said.

The FAA and the USAF disagree with you.  Until we officially declare war on Pilatus anyway.

Sounds like Both GA Pilots were full of them self's. "He's to close to my airplane" Really? I mean Really? The F-16 cost 10 times as much as "Your Plane"

I've been unable to find the FAR that states required separation distance is inversely proportional to the resale value differential of the participating aircraft.

The F-16 also has a marked advantage in the ratio of ejection seats to passengers.

I would have grabbed a camera and took a picture.

As a passenger, sure.  As a pilot your primary responsibility is the safety of your aircraft and passengers, not sightseeing.

[btnhtillidie]

They are the military the can do what they want. Enough said.

The FAA and the USAF disagree with you.  Until we officially declare war on Pilatus anyway.

Sounds like Both GA Pilots were full of them self's. "He's to close to my airplane" Really? I mean Really? The F-16 cost 10 times as much as "Your Plane"

I've been unable to find the FAR that states required separation distance is inversely proportional to the resale value differential of the participating aircraft.

The F-16 also has a marked advantage in the ratio of ejection seats to passengers.

I would have grabbed a camera and took a picture.

As a passenger, sure.  As a pilot your primary responsibility is the safety of your aircraft and passengers, not sightseeing.

The only thing you are right ton is the FAA and USAF disagreeing.

As far as the Ejection seat comment. How do you know there were passengers on board? Now where in that article did it state that it was a Pt. 135 or PT 91 flight. It could have been a Part 91 ferry or home flight. 

Your pilot comment is laughable, Either you have no idea about real world Aviation or you work at a FSDO. I have seen thousands of Pictures that pilots have showed me of landmarks, Other Aircraft, and of each  other messing around on the flight deck. These are pilots with Commercial and ATP ratings. Everything is not always done by the book.