Відео

Agreed on all of your points. This may be my favorite comment of all for this video. As both a military pilot and a GA pilot, I’m most in favor of as much unfettered access to aviation as is safely possible. So it’s up to all of us to use as many tools as we or our missions can handle to conduct ourselves safely to avoid restrictive airspace changes. In this case, the system worked the way it was supposed to and multiple tools recognized a conflict and the threat was mitigated. But if you’re an aviator, you know that sometimes systems fail. FF is another layer of redundancy in that system that aviators can use when their workload and mission allow it. That’s the takeaway here. The pilot referenced wasn’t doing anything wrong per the law, but FF may have increased the factor of safety. And I’ll always be in favor of tools that do that.

@@kiovaniewing6593 appreciate it Kiovani! 💪

@@kittylulu thanks for watching and looking forward to flying again soon also!

Nailed it, sir! The guy in the video was doing exactly what he was and is legally able to do! I didn’t mention that possibility because I know that in this case he did not attempt and wasn’t denied, but you are correct that there are instances where ATC will deny you, so thanks for bringing attention to that! Here at Sheppard, we use a “Share the Air” program to increase awareness about our operation and encourage things like flight following to avoid conflicts. However, we still have an uncomfortable amount of close calls with GA traffic. We’d like to avoid making restrictive airspace changes to keep the air as free and user friendly as possible, and our local GA representative have requested more educational outreach on tools and practices to mitigate conflicts and ultimately mitigate the necessity of an airspace change. This is one example of our efforts. Blue skies and happy flying!

Well, I'm on the FF side, but to your point: at least when they called him out at 0:52, he wasn't even in the MOA. He was below the MOA he was leaving, and above the Alert area he was entering.

I’m not sure what you mean. Do a little research on ENJJPT, the foreign countries foot majority of the bill.

I'm glad you enjoyed it, and I appreciate the support!

You might want to watch the beginning again. Center didn’t control this and nobody was above 180. The traffic was a conflict arriving back to initial. Source, I personally issued the first traffic call.

Hi there! You’re alluding to a great point about flight following. You’re not required to comply with any vectors or changes in altitude when using it. Sometimes I don’t see when VFR traffic enters the active MOA I’m operating in and the center controller often doesn’t catch it either. While I would obviously prefer no traffic in the MOA confines or near the traffic pattern, I would love to have a cursory ‘heads up’ that the traffic is there. Flight following is one of the great free tools that allows that to happen and that’s all we’re trying to communicate here. Hope to share the air with you sometime soon!

What you miss is that without flight flowing, radar identification, etc, your mode C is ‘indicated’. Meaning invalid. You could be 5,000 ft apart but without a validated Mode C, the traffic has to be issued. Conversely, if your mode c is incorrect, you would have no way of knowing, so a traffic call on you with an indicated altitude that is significantly off, may cause the ‘military guy’ to dismiss the call. Meaning vigilance would be lower and your invalid mode c could be deadly. If you want to fly without flight following through an alert area, or MOA with student pilots in supersonic jets built 60 years ago, that’s fine. Just realize the point of this is to suggest that it’s better for everyone if you get flight following in the best interest of flight safety.

@@PistolPete-1211 Yeah... I didn't miss any of that.

Nice! I fly in and out of PDK all the time, hope to see you around, thanks for watching!

Hey there, you bring up a great point about fuel planning! I’m constantly preaching fuel planning and awareness to my young fighter pilots in training. We’re always trying to find the balance between maximizing training to most effectively utilize the taxpayer dollars we’ve been entrusted with while still carrying the appropriate reserves for flexibility on the RTB. In cases like this, we can certainly handle the flex in plans, but may now have to omit other training objectives that require additional training flights and more resources. We’re just trying to work together to most effectively and safely share the airspace. But you’re right, the GA traffic in this instance was indeed not violating any rules!

Not breaking any rules doesn't make this pilot a safe pilot or one with half a brain about SA and making other people also not breaking any rules in designated military airspace having to deviate around what is an easily remedied threat by just communicating! Don't make excuses for other pilots who don't respect the threats of different airspace designations, non-chalant their side of the safety bargain and ultimately think that there is alot of airspace and they are just one little teeny airplane. What you don't know, or worse, don't care about can certainly hurt you and in this case, many others.

Yep, legally flying VFR aircraft, maybe he put in for flight following, and ATC at their discretion denied the request because they were busy. Still have that possibility, but keep on busting on and complaining about pilots., eventually, you will get rid of us all.

In over a decade of being a controller at Sheppard, I have never once denied flight following, nor have I ever seen it done. Don’t think this is just about them. These are student pilots in supersonic jets that were built in the 60s.

For somebody who actually works for the Air Force, I would think you actually have a better understanding of safe aviation, Kapono.

Solid observation. All aircraft in Undergraduate Pilot Training are equipped with ADSB-Out, but like any system on an airplane, it’s not fail-proof. With respect to other military aircraft, sometimes the sensitivity of the tactical procedures being employed requires ADSB-out operations to avoid exploitation by foreign agencies given the incredibly detailed information that can be obtained from ADSB data.

@ I totally get OPSEC. I served just shy of 24 years and have a secret clearance that I actually used down range. KC135 tankers that are flying to keep pilots current have very little flight performance data that isn’t widely available to the world, especially considering they’ve been in service for over six decades. There’s absolutely no reason to not have ADS-B out on those kinds of CONUS training flights. That’s just one example. If it’s a B2, then I totally get why it wouldn’t have a discrete squawk. But those aren’t the flights or tech I’m referring to.

@@VictoryAviationI hear ya. And thanks for serving brother!

@@ptwob408 You as well 🤙🏼 I was actually just on converging vectors/same altitude with a Chinook half an hour ago. I called them up on guard to work out the deconfliction. Them having ADS-B out really helped in that situation. Hopefully the idea will keep moving forward. Catch ya out there! You’re living the dream I never got to fulfill because of my color vision. Next time you’re up there, do a victory roll for me.

Part of the adsb problem isn’t the aircraft. It’s our ATC equipment. Almost the entirety of FAA has ADSB but the Air Force is still YEARS from having that capability. All we see is a 1200 code with an unvalidated altitude.

Exactly this. I fly those areas and many others at low altitudes for work. Very often there is absolutely no way ATC can communicate with aircraft at lower altitudes, so flight following is pointless in that situation. The TRSA around Altus has decent comms coverage for the most part, even at extremely low altitudes.

@@VictoryAviationthanks for all the work you do flying low like that! I’m sure that’s tough but rewarding flying. Unfortunately we can’t cover every scenario in this video, but I will say pipeline traffic is not my main concern. I see you guys all the time and our controllers do a great job of pointing you out. Thank you for using ADSB! It’s significantly helped me to get eyes on to avoid while on short final at Sheppard

@@ptwob408 Personally, the furthest South I fly in that AO is Frederick. But I fly all around Altus, including right next to the drop zone to the West where the C17’s do a lot of work. I’ve got some awesome footage from that. The DC-3 that flies out of Frederick is amazing as well. If I’m ever close enough to be flying line anywhere around short final, especially at a military airfield, I’ve already been in contact with ATC for several minutes before then. If it’s a pilot controlled airport, our FAA ops agreement states we’re required to make an announcement by 5 miles out. I fly directly over Vance and Tinker without any issues. My only concern is why military aircraft flying in homeland civilian airspace don’t have working and used ADS-B out, or even Mode-S transponders. To me that seems like a conflict waiting to happen, and it has many times over throughout the years. This is coming from a retired service member. I’m a huge advocate for the military and military aviation. The decision to not have military aircraft use ADS-B out is counterintuitive to safety culture. Everyone knows the majority of accidents happen in the training environment, not down range. Why not use the technology available to help prevent that? The only exception should be when aircraft don’t need to be tracked, such as repositioning as a matter of national security.

Both radars will pick you up at 500AGL. Also, the alert areas and MOA are a good place to avoid if you aren’t talking to ATC. Student pilots in supersonic jets…

Hey there, you bring up a great point about fuel planning! I’m constantly preaching fuel planning and awareness to my young fighter pilots in training. We’re always trying to find the balance between maximizing training to most effectively utilize the taxpayer dollars we’ve been entrusted with while still carrying the appropriate reserves for flexibility on the RTB. In cases like this, we can certainly handle the flex in plans, but may now have to omit other training objectives that require additional training flights and more resources. We’re just trying to work together to most effectively and safely share the airspace. And just to clarify, there are no autopilot modes for any aircraft currently used in undergraduate pilot training. So we hand fly every second of every sortie. Thanks for watching the video and hope to share the air safely with you sometime soon 🤙

@ Have mercy. I appreciate you taking the time to reply and for your candor about the lack of autopilot systems and the existence of mission objectives. Everyone has mission objectives and I'd be willing to bet that the GA pilot is more concerned about and much more impacted in terms of how much fuel they're paying for. I am somewhat familiar with this airspace and also note that you differentiated between a RTB situation and "cases like this" as if it wasn't a RTB when the flight was vectored direct to base and any deviation would have been bent only slightly behind the GA aircraft. I recall this video complaining about deviations while they were "right at bingo fuel". Do you frequently initiate "other training objectives" that aren't incidental to a RTB when you're right at bingo fuel? Probably not. There are often very good reasons GA pilots aren't on FF. It is comical in nature but not all that funny (more of a 'smh') in the final analysis that military pilots, particularly novice ones training to fly a fast mover, act so inconvenienced when they encounter GA in the wild that they make a video about it and post it to youtube attempting to shame or pretend to "educate" the GA community as if they are somehow superior pilots. They don't lick that culture off the grass, it's fed straight to them. Please don't do that. The most notable example of this can be found in the title of the video, "SMALL PLANE flies through MILITARY AIRSPACE". T38s aren't exactly big planes (wouldn't even trigger a Type rating if it was flying under a normal certificate) and remember when I said I was somewhat familiar with this airspace? Yeah, that GA pilot at 4,500 was actually not in any military use airspace and was exercising notable care not to play in your sandbox at all, yet somehow still finds himself the subject of your condescending ire on social media. I just wish someone told him those guys were cool, because clearly, he didn't know.

@@bt8469 I suspect you’ve had some rather unfortunate experiences with military pilots in the past. That’s a bummer, but I suppose there are egos everywhere. My involvement in this video was motivated by nothing but a desire to bring awareness to the tools and options we all have as aviators to keep us safe. Many times in my career I have opted to do something elective that was not mandatory or required in order to increase the factor of safety on that flight. I have not always had that luxury because of mission objectives like the ones you allude to. But conversations like these and content like this have made me aware of my options. If we’re able to reach some young or inexperienced aviators with this video to be that ‘new’ perspective, that’s a win in my book. Happy flying!

@@bt8469👍

I think a good example of those kinds of encounters is highlighted in this video. Its claimed purpose is to reach out to other pilots for the purposes of educating them, but then goes on to mislead them fueled by the social pressures of the egos highlighted in this video. That pilot was not in "military airspace" and a minuscule deviation 1/2 mile off course is piloting 101 and something even a student on a first cross country solo can manage. If this unit can't release a sortie without such a routine deviation causing any safety hazard whatsoever, its commander should be relieved. This scenario would be like that GA pilot making a video about having to wait at the hold short line while a fighter feels the need to show off "the overhead" causing them to burn more fuel waiting for the airshow to be over so they can CM themselves.

Thanks for watching!

@@markhelton2088 He is indeed!

Here’s a good reason not to get flight following through a MOA… ATC can’t provide sufficient radio coverage at the altitudes I’m flying for low-level pipeline patrol. When ATC can provide that, I will happily pick up flight following. And no, it is not possible to provide a route to ATC ahead of time. I don’t follow the same route, in the same order, every time.

@@VictoryAviationfair enough, can’t say you’re wrong on that. I guess I’ll be more specific on my first post. I ROUTINELY have VFR in the 6000-17500 altitudes (well within radio coverage) that fly through active MOA’s. Completely legal, nothing wrong with that. However, in my 10 years of being an approach controller I’ve seen many NMACs and know many HATR reports filed by military pilots because of the situation brought up in this video. Those are facts, period. That’s what I was agreeing to and which is why I was encouraging flight following. And for the record, our pipeline pilots take flight following as long as we can hold on to them (radio/radar coverage) and fly the same route every time. Might be because of where I live - but it’s possible up to a point. Either way, safe travels up there and thank you for your input.

@@mikev1822 I technically fly the same routes, sort of, but the way those routes are flown can vary greatly. I might fly a section of one route, then jump over to another due to wx or time constraints. The direction I’m working from may change how I fly the lines as well. Companies like Barr have their pilots fly the same routes, the same direction, at close to the same times, every two weeks. They also fly air conditioned planes. Must be nice lol. We are a smaller company, as everyone is compared to Barr, and therefore we have to cover a lot more ground and be more flexible. I routinely cover seven states, but have flown upwards of sixteen states while patrolling. If I were to attempt coordination of flight following every time I patrolled, I would get even less done. It takes an absorbent amount of time coordinating with clients alone, let alone all the other administrative tasks we’re required to complete in and out of the cockpit as single pilots. As far as altitudes go, most of the time I’m between 200-700 AGL. The only time coordinating with ATC for is even reasonable is around terminal areas. Otherwise I’m simply told to squawk VFR and be on my way. I’ve tried to set up a discreet code to always squawk when running certain routes for safety reasons, but all the different ATC areas I’ve flown in don’t even seem too interested in retaining detailed maps I have painstakingly created from scratch and sent in to multiple towers and approach controls, let alone cared enough to establish a discreet squawk. The only exception has been DEN. They require pre-designated routes and approval ahead of time. But that’s it. Everywhere else I fly doesn’t seem to be too concerned with setting up routes or designating discrete squawks for the purposes of identification in the absence of comms. I wish that were not the case.

@@VictoryAviation as long as you’re safe, that’s all that matters. I’m simply saying, you’re not gonna see a T38 before it’s too late. I’ve seen some ugly close calls with the best intent by all parties. Be careful, stay safe and call us 121.5 for a good time :)

@@mikev1822 I completely agree that see and avoid just isn’t trustworthy on its own. Our bodies aren’t equipped to obtain, track, and respond to threats that fast. As much as I hate ADS-B being forced on aircraft owners, I see the value in the technology. It would make sense for all military aircraft to employ ADS-B in/out as an extra layer of protection. If there were a need for military aircraft to not be tracked, then military only would be allowed to disengage the feature. Do the T38 guys and gals always monitor 121.5? I usually do and that would be one way to give them a heads up, or get a really cool photo op if I saw them inbound as I’m scud running down in the hundreds 🤣 I had ATC call on guard and advise for me to turn immediately due to the restricted area West of Fort Lawton. I just called back and advised, “Negative. Operations below 500 AGL.” I didn’t hear anything after that 🤷🏼‍♂️ I was at maybe 300-400 AGL.

It was a pleasure to fly with you, Nathan! Thank you for your efforts in getting this message out to the rest of the aviation community 👍

Sounds like you didn’t declare an emergency… you just advised tower of what your current situation was, which was not normal. Seems like a reasonably smart thing to do.

This can also be an intimidation tactic, albeit unprofessional. Military flights are usually given a discreet frequency to switch to after ATC clears them into the MOA and gives the military flight 'block altitude' clearance. This clears the military flight to do aerobatics, climb, descend, and maneuver at their discretion, which of course is necessary for training. However, the military flight being on a discreet frequency from that of ATC also means ATC can't communicate with them and call out traffic. Therein lies the problem - YOU might be talking to ATC while flying through a MOA, but the military flight in the same MOA might not be talking to ATC. ATC can only contact you and tell you that the MOA is hot but can't tell you what heading and altitude the military flight is flying because ATC doesn't know themselves. If the military flight sees you, they can come back up on the regular ATC frequency and request separation vectors from you. Otherwise it's see and avoid for both parties in the MOA. Never assume the military flight in the MOA is talking to center though. Those intercepts you're seeing are basically the military's way of getting your attention to let you know they are there, and also a sort of invitation to leave even though you are well within your legal right to be there.

@tripodcatz5532 I don't think they've ever been intimidation. I've always seen them come from far away in the sector. And if it is ever intimidation, I'm not going anywhere. My tax dollars are fueling those noise generators in those jets. I'll piddle along at my 120kts in a straight line, they can go somewhere else in the sector.