What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Military aircraft

rcarsey

Well Known Member
Just a FYI, as of (soon), military aircraft have the option of turning off their ADS-B transmissions in locations that otherwise would require it. (link to the Federal Register here).

I saw a Black Hawk from the ground that was not broadcasting (though its not 2020 yet!), however, I did see him on the TIS feed from ATC. Possible the heli wasnt ADSB equipped yet though, or they turned it off.
 
Most likely not equipped. A substantial portion of the military fleet will not meet the deadline. All military aircraft I am aware of have the ability to stop all electronic emissions from the aircraft usually by just pushing one switch. The reasons are obvious.
G
 
Most likely not equipped. A substantial portion of the military fleet will not meet the deadline. All military aircraft I am aware of have the ability to stop all electronic emissions from the aircraft usually by just pushing one switch. The reasons are obvious.
G

Correct. Just had a Lt. Col. from Luke AFB give a talk to our EAA chapter of their procedures and practices and was told they do not have ADSB.
 
FWIW the FAR's do not apply to military aircraft. :cool:

Actually, FAR does apply to military aircraft though they have some waivers.


?91.1***Applicability.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b), (c), (e), and (f) of this section and ??91.701 and 91.703,
this part prescribes rules governing the operation of aircraft within the United States, including
the waters within 3 nautical miles of the U.S. coast.
(b) Each person operating an aircraft in the airspace overlying the waters between 3 and 12 nau-
tical miles from the coast of the United States must comply with ??91.1 through 91.21; ??91.101
through 91.143; ??91.151 through 91.159; ??91.167 through 91.193; ?91.203; ?91.205; ??91.209
through 91.217; ?91.221, ?91.225; ??91.303 through 91.319; ??91.323 through 91.327; ?91.605;
?91.609; ??91.703 through 91.715; and ?91.903.
(c) This part applies to each person on board an aircraft being operated under this part, unless
otherwise specified.
(d) This part also establishes requirements for operators to take actions to support the continued
airworthiness of each airplane.
(e) This part does not apply to any aircraft or vehicle governed by part 103 of this chapter, or
subparts B, C, or D of part 101 of this chapter.
(f) Except as provided in ??107.13, 107.27, 107.47, 107.57, and 107.59 of this chapter, this part
does not apply to any aircraft governed by part 107 of this chapter
 
Actually, FAR does apply to military aircraft though they have some waivers.


?91.1***Applicability.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b), (c), (e), and (f) of this section and ??91.701 and 91.703,
this part prescribes rules governing the operation of aircraft within the United States, including
the waters within 3 nautical miles of the U.S. coast.
(b) Each person operating an aircraft in the airspace overlying the waters between 3 and 12 nau-
tical miles from the coast of the United States must comply with ??91.1 through 91.21; ??91.101
through 91.143; ??91.151 through 91.159; ??91.167 through 91.193; ?91.203; ?91.205; ??91.209
through 91.217; ?91.221, ?91.225; ??91.303 through 91.319; ??91.323 through 91.327; ?91.605;
?91.609; ??91.703 through 91.715; and ?91.903.
(c) This part applies to each person on board an aircraft being operated under this part, unless
otherwise specified.
(d) This part also establishes requirements for operators to take actions to support the continued
airworthiness of each airplane.
(e) This part does not apply to any aircraft or vehicle governed by part 103 of this chapter, or
subparts B, C, or D of part 101 of this chapter.
(f) Except as provided in ??107.13, 107.27, 107.47, 107.57, and 107.59 of this chapter, this part
does not apply to any aircraft governed by part 107 of this chapter

Actually not.
 
Actually not.
^^^ THIS ^^^

The FAA governs civilian aviation and does not govern military aviation. The military has their own rules and regulations, but voluntarily follow FAA regulations when flying in National Airspace, except when they decide it isn't best for them to do so. That entire section you quote applies to civilian aviation under the different parts. ;)
 
Last edited:
Some do and some don?t

For example if you look at 91.175 and 176 you will see language that specifically excludes military aircraft. In some cases the wording is except public aircraft. If you go to FAR 1 you will see the definition of public aircraft as military. The actual definition is much longer and I?m too lazy to copy it. If the military was completely exempt there would be no reason to exclude them within specific FARs.

Sometimes the military is exempt by letter of agreement which allows military aircraft / aircrews to do the things we need to do. Those are usually resigned each year without fanfare. Before NVGs become encoded in the FARs most of what we did lights out was by letter of agreement. I don?t know if those exemptions still exist or what is included.

When there is ?problem? ATC will contact a military representative (a Designated Airspace Representative) and the investigation is handled internally. But occasionally it is handled outside the military chain of command. If the FAA can get the crew members name and they have a civilian ticket they can take action. I know of two cases where pilots were under consideration for civil suspension for actions in a military aircraft.

Having said all that, 99.9% of the time a military aircrew operating within their specific service rules would never have any problems violating FARs.
 
In our country (I suspect the USA is fairly similar), military aircraft are specifically exempt from civil aviation regs. But..... military policy is normally to comply where possible, in the interests of aviation safety for everyone. I remember more than one pilot in my day being dragged into the squadron commander?s office after busting civil regs outside military airspace for no good reason.

As far as equipping military aircraft with ADSB and other avionics which the aircraft may not have been originally designed with, you probably need to have served in the military to realise how long the bureaucracy and the supply/engineering chain takes to get these things moving!
 
If the military was completely exempt there would be no reason to exclude them within specific FARs.
The reason is to prevent civilians from trying to apply the FARs on the military.

I know of two cases where pilots were under consideration for civil suspension for actions in a military aircraft.
Exactly, suspending their CIVILIAN privileges. They are completely powerless on their Military privileges.

:cool:
 
Well one more example is in order, TFRs. Restrictions established to prevent all but authorized aircraft to enter. Surely you are not supporting the notion that military aircraft are exempt from TFRs or other airspace requirements established by the FAA. Try blowing through class B,C D airspace without a clearance.

We are not exempt from many FARs. Whether the chain of command supports resolving violations is another issue.
 
Scott?s answer is correct. In my experience the military never provided a pilots name to the FAA in cases of a suspected violation. This effectively blocked the FAA from any action against a pilot. The exception would be some type of very high profile issue like flying over a major city very low.
 
Well one more example is in order, TFRs. Restrictions established to prevent all but authorized aircraft to enter. Surely you are not supporting the notion that military aircraft are exempt from TFRs or other airspace requirements established by the FAA. Try blowing through class B,C D airspace without a clearance.
What do you think the ANG F16's did through the Washington DC airspace during 9/11? They only talked to the SEADS.

It isn't a carte-blanch approval to violate the FAR's since military procedures closely follow the FAR's and vice versa. Regarding your examples, military procedures and the FAR's are exactly the same. Some differences; the FAR's require that below 10,000' you must keep your speed below 250Kts unless unable. Military procedures authorizes certain flights below 10,000' at 450+Kts, even outside of MOA's and this happens every day.

Violate military procedures, aligned with the FAR's or not, and see what happens to the military aviator.

:cool:
 
Last edited:
Ok have it your way. Military aircraft launched during a national emergency is not an example of normal operations of military missions flown in national airspace. During 9/11 all airspace rules were altered to handle the emergency.

I spent the last six or seven years of my career in Stan Eval dealing with these issues. If you choose to believe otherwise, so be it.
 
Ok have it your way. Military aircraft launched during a national emergency is not an example of normal operations of military missions flown in national airspace. During 9/11 all airspace rules were altered to handle the emergency.
No rules were altered during 9/11, just fringe areas of the rules not normally used became applicable. The best example was the partial implementation of SCATANA.

I spent the last six or seven years of my career in Stan Eval dealing with these issues.
Good for you. I also spent 6yrs in USAF Stan Eval, 3 as Sq Chief Stan Eval but not interested in who has the biggest "stick".

:cool:
 
Wading in- USAF military guy- story all can understand-

Had a TFR show up on a low level route corridor when they were new- active during a sporting event- Instrument Route on an active IFR flight plan- ATC helped us with enough heads up to avoid it.

No one back then knew how to check the sporting event TFRs.

In AMC we followed FARs in FAA airspace unless we could not- then we followed approved regs that were all coordinated with the FAA through standing channels.

I was later a safety guy- part of our gig was working with FAA mil liaisons at times- that was the firewall to keeping crew names out of FAA violation channels. It was a service foul, not a named person foul.

Harder yet was being a Tactics shop guy and building low level routes with the FAA. I'd rather get violatedthan do that again! Can I even post here- I was only in a Sq and Gp StanEval for 3 years;)
 
Last edited:
What to make of all this?

ADS-B is no replacement for see and avoid. It sounds like military aircraft or non-equipped civilian aircraft can simply appear in your windscreen if you don't scan for traffic as you proceed on your way.
 
I can confirm most Blackhawks are not yet equipped.

I would beg to differ, we have the capability to turn Mode S on and off on our transponders, when on, you will appear on ADSB Radar. I fly with a Stratus 3 and am always getting traffic alerts when flying formation flights.
 
Most likely not equipped. A substantial portion of the military fleet will not meet the deadline. All military aircraft I am aware of have the ability to stop all electronic emissions from the aircraft usually by just pushing one switch. The reasons are obvious.
G

Strangle the parrot
 
My observations..

My day job is maintenance oversight of very large Military aircraft, some of the stuff mentioned applies, and some not. I do crew air briefings once a month or so, and share RV stories with the like minded crews..they like to be seen also when need be. My "play job" is like most of us, flying our RV's safely, and as of now, I do not have ADSB in my -4, but will soon. However, in the past couple years or so, while flying in group gaggles with others en route to wherever, the ADSB in guys often spend so much time looking at the scrceens and relaying positions of passing aircraft (I often cant even spot) that it makes me wonder if they are ever looking out the window and flying their own plane..we all need to keep our grass roots awareness in check!
 
Most

I would beg to differ, we have the capability to turn Mode S on and off on our transponders, when on, you will appear on ADSB Radar. I fly with a Stratus 3 and am always getting traffic alerts when flying formation flights.

That?s why I said most, not all.
 
Sooo....

Who wants to bet the Military pays $50,000 or more per aircraft to install a basic Mode S transponder?

Crikee, they could just install the uAvionix echoUAT - $1,000 - hooked to the standard transponder, and have a separate power switch to kill it for actual missions. Then all those pilots using their iPads could see traffic, too... :D
 
Sooo....

Who wants to bet the Military pays $50,000 or more per aircraft to install a basic Mode S transponder?

Crikee, they could just install the uAvionix echoUAT - $1,000 - hooked to the standard transponder, and have a separate power switch to kill it for actual missions. Then all those pilots using their iPads could see traffic, too... :D
I think you?ll find military transponder requirements go well beyond what the echoUAT or equivalents can do.

Our C130J fleet just got a transponder upgrade with ADSB. But it also includes mode 1, mode 2, mode 5 NATO compatible military identification, and then all of that has to be interfaced with mission computer software which is both proprietary owned and classified and will need code rewritten or added, and wired to various communication interfaces, then extensively tested so we don?t get shot down by our own side.

It?s not a trivial installation job..... and I?ll bet it cost a darn sight more than $50k per airframe! :)
 
I think you’ll find military transponder requirements go well beyond what the echoUAT or equivalents can do.
Yup and these requirements go way beyond what even high $$$ civilian transponders do. No Mode 1,2,4,5 or other military modes that civilians (even the FAA) ever see.

:cool:
 
I think you?ll find military transponder requirements go well beyond what the echoUAT or equivalents can do.

Our C130J fleet just got a transponder upgrade with ADSB. But it also includes mode 1, mode 2, mode 5 NATO compatible military identification, and then all of that has to be interfaced with mission computer software which is both proprietary owned and classified and will need code rewritten or added, and wired to various communication interfaces, then extensively tested so we don?t get shot down by our own side.

It?s not a trivial installation job..... and I?ll bet it cost a darn sight more than $50k per airframe! :)

No kidding - I did fly with Mode S/IFF and IPX in the Phantom, and understand there are MILITARY transponder needs. Those are (presumably) already taken care of. My post was SOLELY about retrofitting civilian ADS-B out capability. It shouldn't cost $50k per aircraft, and the unit I mentioned is so small they could locate it just about anywhere.

And, you've just about made my point for me - that the military sourcing weenies would be inclined to replace a brand new transponder just to add one additional feature. ;)

I shoulda become a military equipment supplier when I got out...
 
And, you've just about made my point for me - that the military sourcing weenies would be inclined to replace a brand new transponder just to add one additional feature. ;)
Not sure I agree with that!

Unlike the Phantom, where avionics were driven by hamsters running in small wheel cages, modern military aircraft are driven by software.

So for example the first military aircraft I flew had the exact same transponder unit as the Phantom had (which in the day was pretty much a universal standard for any military aircraft manufactured by an American aerospace company), with its thumbwheel code settings, press-to-test lights, etc. With these hardwired interfaces, maybe adding a new ADSB capability would be easier if you could find avionics rack space for it. You just can't do that now. It's all written into software and controlled by multifunction displays. You don't just fasten a new box to the avionics rack, connect a few wires, and off you go now with ADSB. I do take your point about the military paying too much for everything though. That's just SOP. :)
 
Last edited:
Not sure I agree with that!

Unlike the Phantom, where avionics were driven by hamsters running in small wheel cages, modern military aircraft are driven by software.

Hey - we had SUPERIOR hamsters! :D

So for example the first military aircraft I flew had the exact same transponder unit as the Phantom had (which in the day was pretty much a universal standard for any military aircraft manufactured by an American aerospace company), with its thumbwheel code settings, press-to-test lights, etc. With these hardwired interfaces, maybe adding a new ADSB capability would be easier if you could find avionics rack space for it. You just can't do that now. It's all written into software and controlled by multifunction displays. You don't just fasten a new box to the avionics rack, connect a few wires, and off you go now with ADSB. I do take your point about the military paying too much for everything though. That's just SOP. :)

... and yet, adding ADS-B is EXACTLY as easy as adding a single purpose-built box and wiring it in. In ANY case, you would have to add a new transceiver and antenna and power supply to the transceiver. Once you've done that, you're done anyway.

And, I've never yet figured out how to get any software I've written to send and receive radio transmissions without a hardware transceiver and antenna... ;)

I'm sticking to my guns - you made my point for me splendidly!

But, I will also acknowledge that there are many things they can do with software and multi-sensors that were beyond the imagination when the museum pieces I once flew ruled the skies. I remember this system they were working on in Europe to report on battle damage at any European airport across this thing called ARPANET.....
 
Military compliance with FARs

The ADSB mandate is a real problem for the military. I'm flying one of the very few aircraft that has been equipped for ADSB-out and we still haven't nailed down the rules for when we can turn it off...so it stays on. There is button to turn it off, but that's not allowed as of now. There's also no way in any military aircraft I know to strangle all of your emitters with one switch. It's more like a dozen. I'm pretty confident cooler heads will prevail and we'll get a waiver to fly in controlled airspace but you can count on the fact that this isn't going to be just a matter of the DoD ignoring DoT.

Galin,

I think there's a misunderstanding and that you are about half-right with the assertion that we don't follow the FARs. Aircraft and aircrew certification is conducted by the USAF through DoD and DoT waivers permitting us to police ourselves in several ways. However, we absolutely comply with the FARs and host nation rules when conducting operations in that airspace unless special dispensation has been granted by emergency declaration or act of war.

AFI 13-201 Airspace Management
1.1 Purpose. This document provides airspace management instructions on creating and maintaining airspace that allows the United States Air Force (USAF) to meet operational needs for Military Readiness. This instruction provides guidance for compliance with all the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other environmental guidance to include the Air Force's Planning Requirements in the Environmental Impact Analysis Process (PREIAP)...

AFI 11-202 v3
1.7 Violations. A violation may result when a USAF aircraft deviates from flight rules. FAA ATC deviation reports involving a USAF aircraft are processed by the Air Force Representative to the FAA IAW AFI 13-201, Airspace Management.

AFMAN 11-217
Entire Document: It has been substantially re-written recently and is about to be rescinded because the Air Force Flight Standards Agency (AFFSA) has realized they are merely transcribing Title 14 CFR and distilling ICAO SARPS into a single document when they could just tell us outright "follow the rules of the airspace you are flying in".

20 years of flying, 15 years instructing, 12 years evaluating on every continent (except Antarctica...****) and in over a hundred countries has taught me unequivocally that you have to read the FLIP AP documents thoroughly to understand the airspace rules of the country you are flying in so you don't violated and cause a problem for the Department of State to deal with.

Really sorry for the rant guys but I can't stand the thought of a young AF aviator reading this thread and convincing himself he doesn't have to comply with NAS restrictions or Host Nation flight rules.

Greg
 
The last military aircraft I flew shut off all emitters with one switch. Several others fighters have the same type system.
G
 
Thanks

G,
Thanks for that. I was not aware of any aircraft that could shut down everything with a switch due to the wide variety of emitter there are. We have to go through several steps to shut off TACAN, RADALT, RADAR, SAT and all the other stuff.

Greg
 
Back
Top