Airspeed of military planes

[Tetsuji Rai]

Airspeed limitation below 10000ft is usually 250kts unless you have been
authorized by the Administrator. However I guess it's a bit slow for
military fighters. So I am curious how fast military fighters fly in the
real world. I guess it's very dangerous military aircraft fly much fast
among civilian planes.

[John R Weiss]

"Tetsuji Rai" > wrote...
> Airspeed limitation below 10000ft is usually 250kts unless you have been
> authorized by the Administrator. However I guess it's a bit slow for
> military fighters. So I am curious how fast military fighters fly in the
> real world. I guess it's very dangerous military aircraft fly much fast
> among civilian planes.

Many of them fly 250 knots below 10,000'. Some are authorized to fly as fast as
300.

A heavy 747 climbs out at 282 knots...

[Casey Wilson]

"Tetsuji Rai" > wrote in message
s.com...
> Airspeed limitation below 10000ft is usually 250kts unless you have been
> authorized by the Administrator. However I guess it's a bit slow for
> military fighters. So I am curious how fast military fighters fly in the
> real world. I guess it's very dangerous military aircraft fly much fast
> among civilian planes.

If they are in Special Use Airspace and Military Operating Areas, they can
go as fast as they want -- well, as fast as the mission test plan calls for.
An F-14 Tomcat at Mach 1+, 200 Ft AGL, and 1/2 mile away in a 60 degree
bank with full burner is a visceral thing.

[Tetsuji Rai]

Thank you! It straightened things out. I was wondering this in a flight
sim.

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:ACkQb.132667$I06.1179503@attbi_s01...
> "Tetsuji Rai" > wrote...
> > Airspeed limitation below 10000ft is usually 250kts unless you have been
> > authorized by the Administrator. However I guess it's a bit slow for
> > military fighters. So I am curious how fast military fighters fly in
the
> > real world. I guess it's very dangerous military aircraft fly much
fast
> > among civilian planes.
>
> Many of them fly 250 knots below 10,000'. Some are authorized to fly as
fast as
> 300.
>
> A heavy 747 climbs out at 282 knots...
>

[John R Weiss]

"Casey Wilson" > wrote...
>
> If they are in Special Use Airspace and Military Operating Areas, they can
> go as fast as they want -- well, as fast as the mission test plan calls for.

Not quite...

Supersonic flight is additionally restricted to designated Supersonic corridors
for non-emergency ops.

[BTIZ]

"it depends"..

When I was flying the B-1, we would accelerate to 360 knots on climb out..
Coming back down into traffic pattern it was 300knts below 10K
Our flap / gear speed is 240knt (the buzzer comes on below 240knts if the
flaps are not out)

But for low level in IR training routes, we planned 540knt, 500-1500ft AGL
Those IR routes are not in MOA or restricted airspace, but can be, and they
are on the VFR charts for a reason.

BT

"Tetsuji Rai" > wrote in message
s.com...
> Airspeed limitation below 10000ft is usually 250kts unless you have been
> authorized by the Administrator. However I guess it's a bit slow for
> military fighters. So I am curious how fast military fighters fly in the
> real world. I guess it's very dangerous military aircraft fly much fast
> among civilian planes.
>
>

[Glenn Westfall]

I'm an Air Force Air Traffic Controller and am currently working in
Okinawa, Japan. We have F-15's here at Kadena and it is not uncommon
for them to come back well above 400 Kts below 10,000. We usually
only worry about slowing them down if they are being sequenced to
follow another aircraft. Close to final, they will usually slow
themselves to 250 Kts or slower unless told otherwise.

Glenn


On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 01:59:28 GMT, "Tetsuji Rai"
> wrote:

>Airspeed limitation below 10000ft is usually 250kts unless you have been
>authorized by the Administrator. However I guess it's a bit slow for
>military fighters. So I am curious how fast military fighters fly in the
>real world. I guess it's very dangerous military aircraft fly much fast
>among civilian planes.
>
>

[S. Sampson]

"Glenn Westfall" > wrote
> I'm an Air Force Air Traffic Controller and am currently working in
> Okinawa, Japan. We have F-15's here at Kadena and it is not uncommon
> for them to come back well above 400 Kts below 10,000. We usually
> only worry about slowing them down if they are being sequenced to
> follow another aircraft. Close to final, they will usually slow
> themselves to 250 Kts or slower unless told otherwise.

I've heard that F-15's and Mig-29's are pigs below 400 knots :-)
The AOA is probably in the teens by 250 knots...

[Nathan Young]

Hi there BT.

A couple questions if you'll indulge us.

At 540 kts and 1000AGL, I'd be damn worried about hitting a GA spam
can. I know the training routes are on the charts, but a lot of GA
pilots don't pay attention to those.

I assume most aircraft have a military version of TCAD/TCAS? Does
this give suficient heads up to keep separation from the slow moving
GA traffic?

Thanks,
Nathan


On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 20:41:45 -0800, "BTIZ" >
wrote:

>"it depends"..
>
>When I was flying the B-1, we would accelerate to 360 knots on climb out..
>Coming back down into traffic pattern it was 300knts below 10K
>Our flap / gear speed is 240knt (the buzzer comes on below 240knts if the
>flaps are not out)
>
>But for low level in IR training routes, we planned 540knt, 500-1500ft AGL
>Those IR routes are not in MOA or restricted airspace, but can be, and they
>are on the VFR charts for a reason.
>
>BT
>
>"Tetsuji Rai" > wrote in message
s.com...
>> Airspeed limitation below 10000ft is usually 250kts unless you have been
>> authorized by the Administrator. However I guess it's a bit slow for
>> military fighters. So I am curious how fast military fighters fly in the
>> real world. I guess it's very dangerous military aircraft fly much fast
>> among civilian planes.
>>
>>
>

[Cub Driver]

>Close to final, they will usually slow
>themselves to 250 Kts or slower unless told otherwise.

I hope one of those suckers never gets behind Zero Six Hotel in the
pattern!


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Dudley Henriques]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >Close to final, they will usually slow
> >themselves to 250 Kts or slower unless told otherwise.
>
> I hope one of those suckers never gets behind Zero Six Hotel in the
> pattern!

Don't worry. He won't be there long!
DH

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Glenn Westfall" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'm an Air Force Air Traffic Controller and am currently working in
> Okinawa, Japan. We have F-15's here at Kadena and it is not uncommon
> for them to come back well above 400 Kts below 10,000. We usually
> only worry about slowing them down if they are being sequenced to
> follow another aircraft. Close to final, they will usually slow
> themselves to 250 Kts or slower unless told otherwise.
>

The airspeed limitation he's referring to is found in a Federal Aviation
Regulation,
which is applicable only within the US.

[Jay Honeck]

> >Close to final, they will usually slow
> >themselves to 250 Kts or slower unless told otherwise.
> I hope one of those suckers never gets behind Zero Six Hotel in the
> pattern!

Don't worry, Dan -- they don't occupy the same piece of space for long.
I've flown a pattern with two F-15s, and whatever *they* were doing was
totally unrelated to anything *we* were doing.

We were mere insects to their space-ships.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Peter Hovorka]

Hi Steven,

> The airspeed limitation he's referring to is found in a Federal Aviation
> Regulation,
> which is applicable only within the US.

Also in germany. 250kt below FL 100 except for planes which need to be
flown faster.

Regards,
Peter

[N. Funk]

Yes, but the problems occur when us insects splatter on the windshield
of those fast moving "space-ships". Even though it rarely occurs, it is
usually catastrophic for the insects. Remember the incident several
years ago in around Manatee County, Florida when a Cessna and a fighter
collided.

Nick
PA28-180 'D"

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>Close to final, they will usually slow
>>>themselves to 250 Kts or slower unless told otherwise.
>>
>>I hope one of those suckers never gets behind Zero Six Hotel in the
>>pattern!
>
>
> Don't worry, Dan -- they don't occupy the same piece of space for long.
> I've flown a pattern with two F-15s, and whatever *they* were doing was
> totally unrelated to anything *we* were doing.
>
> We were mere insects to their space-ships.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"N. Funk" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yes, but the problems occur when us insects splatter on the windshield
> of those fast moving "space-ships". Even though it rarely occurs, it is
> usually catastrophic for the insects. Remember the incident several
> years ago in around Manatee County, Florida when a Cessna and a fighter
> collided.
>

It's usually catastrophic for the "space-ships" as well.

[Susan VanCamp]

I can't comment on the MiG but having fought Eagles many times over the
years, I can say that both the light and dark gray versions are remarkably
agile at speeds well below 400KIAS.

As for the "250 below 10" thing, it not only depends on the jet one flies
but also where you're flying it. MOAs, Restricted Areas and VR/IR routes
are the most common exceptions, but any high traffic terminal area warrants
compliance -- either by regulation or common sense. Most TACAIR use
300-400kt climb schedules to intercept an IMN somewhere above 10K'.

"S. Sampson" > wrote in message
news:lQnQb.6287$ce2.322@okepread03...
> "Glenn Westfall" > wrote
> > I'm an Air Force Air Traffic Controller and am currently working in
> > Okinawa, Japan. We have F-15's here at Kadena and it is not uncommon
> > for them to come back well above 400 Kts below 10,000. We usually
> > only worry about slowing them down if they are being sequenced to
> > follow another aircraft. Close to final, they will usually slow
> > themselves to 250 Kts or slower unless told otherwise.
>
> I've heard that F-15's and Mig-29's are pigs below 400 knots :-)
> The AOA is probably in the teens by 250 knots...
>
>

[BTIZ]

> Hi there BT.
>
> A couple questions if you'll indulge us.
>
> At 540 kts and 1000AGL, I'd be damn worried about hitting a GA spam
> can. I know the training routes are on the charts, but a lot of GA
> pilots don't pay attention to those.

I've dodged more than one or two GA aircraft. We really had to be careful
during crop dusting season.. we'd be at 500ft and they would be below us..
the local Crop dusters knew our routes and would post NOTAM equivelant for
us when there would be working in the route structure.
>
> I assume most aircraft have a military version of TCAD/TCAS? Does
> this give suficient heads up to keep separation from the slow moving
> GA traffic?

NOPE.. none on the military aircraft when I was flying. Some of the
"fighters" may sweep scan from time to time for GA aircraft.. but not
capable to do that in the B1.

It's called See and Be Seen.. proper use of the Mark1 Eyeball and proper
scanning techniques.

Like I said.. I've seen a few.. had to alter course a couple of times.. but
nothing really close. At least the ones I saw.

BT

[MLenoch]

>"BTIZ"

wrote:>Like I said.. I've seen a few.. had to alter course a couple of times..
but
>nothing really close. At least the ones I saw.

I was about 50 miles behind a scud-running Stearman, who was inbound to Iron
Mountain at 400 AGL. He called out that a 'black shape' just passed below him.
He didn't see it coming or going. Always wanted to ask: how low do you go?
Thx,
VL

[Tony Volk]

Hi Susan. I don't know if I've just missed your previous posts or not,
but I'm not familiar with your military career, and it'd be interesting to
hear from another military pilot in these parts. So what did you fly? For
how long? Cheers,

Tony

"Susan VanCamp" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> I can't comment on the MiG but having fought Eagles many times over the
> years, I can say that both the light and dark gray versions are remarkably
> agile at speeds well below 400KIAS.
>
> As for the "250 below 10" thing, it not only depends on the jet one flies
> but also where you're flying it. MOAs, Restricted Areas and VR/IR routes
> are the most common exceptions, but any high traffic terminal area
warrants
> compliance -- either by regulation or common sense. Most TACAIR use
> 300-400kt climb schedules to intercept an IMN somewhere above 10K'.
>
> "S. Sampson" > wrote in message
> news:lQnQb.6287$ce2.322@okepread03...
> > "Glenn Westfall" > wrote
> > > I'm an Air Force Air Traffic Controller and am currently working in
> > > Okinawa, Japan. We have F-15's here at Kadena and it is not uncommon
> > > for them to come back well above 400 Kts below 10,000. We usually
> > > only worry about slowing them down if they are being sequenced to
> > > follow another aircraft. Close to final, they will usually slow
> > > themselves to 250 Kts or slower unless told otherwise.
> >
> > I've heard that F-15's and Mig-29's are pigs below 400 knots :-)
> > The AOA is probably in the teens by 250 knots...
> >
> >
>
>

[S. Sampson]

"Tony Volk" > wrote
>
> Hi Susan. I don't know if I've just missed your previous posts or not,
> but I'm not familiar with your military career, and it'd be interesting to
> hear from another military pilot in these parts. So what did you fly? For
> how long? Cheers,

I think she meant she was a civilian interacting with the federal boys.

[John R Weiss]

"Glenn Westfall" > wrote...
> I'm an Air Force Air Traffic Controller and am currently working in
> Okinawa, Japan. We have F-15's here at Kadena and it is not uncommon
> for them to come back well above 400 Kts below 10,000.

How far out over the water does the 250-below-10 limit extend in Japan?

[John R Weiss]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote...

> The airspeed limitation he's referring to is found in a Federal Aviation
> Regulation, which is applicable only within the US.

However, similar rules are common in other countries as well.

[Frijoles]

Sorry...actually its "Susan's husband." I was around r.a.m. occasionally
'til lightning strike on the house last September trashed the old desktop.
We just replaced it within the last month and I forgot to update the
newsgroup i.d. I'm an active duty Marine aviator.

"S. Sampson" > wrote in message
news:MIAQb.6578$ce2.1440@okepread03...
> "Tony Volk" > wrote
> >
> > Hi Susan. I don't know if I've just missed your previous posts or
not,
> > but I'm not familiar with your military career, and it'd be interesting
to
> > hear from another military pilot in these parts. So what did you fly?
For
> > how long? Cheers,
>
> I think she meant she was a civilian interacting with the federal boys.
>
>

[Darrell]

If the "Dash One" manual for the military airplane specifies a speed higher
than 250 below 10,000' it's OK to fly that fast. In the B-58 Hustler, after
takeoff we came out of afterburners at 350 KIAS and climbed at 425 KIAS
until reaching Mach .90 for climb speed. That's why other aircraft try to
stay clear of military climb corridors. We flew low level routes at 435
KIAS except for the high speed portion where we flew at 600 KIAS. (and
that's back in the 1960s)

--

B-58 Hustler History: http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/
-

"Tetsuji Rai" > wrote in message
s.com...
> Airspeed limitation below 10000ft is usually 250kts unless you have been
> authorized by the Administrator. However I guess it's a bit slow for
> military fighters. So I am curious how fast military fighters fly in the
> real world. I guess it's very dangerous military aircraft fly much fast
> among civilian planes.
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Darrell" > wrote in message
news:5vBQb.65145$XD5.52941@fed1read06...
>
> If the "Dash One" manual for the military airplane specifies a speed
higher
> than 250 below 10,000' it's OK to fly that fast. In the B-58 Hustler,
after
> takeoff we came out of afterburners at 350 KIAS and climbed at 425 KIAS
> until reaching Mach .90 for climb speed. That's why other aircraft try
to
> stay clear of military climb corridors. We flew low level routes at 435
> KIAS except for the high speed portion where we flew at 600 KIAS. (and
> that's back in the 1960s)
>

I believe military climb corridors ceased being charted in the sixties as
well.

[Ed Rasimus]

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 21:38:18 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:


>I believe military climb corridors ceased being charted in the sixties as
>well.
>
And, even then they were almost exclusively related to active air
defense scrambles. I entered military aviation in 1964 and operated
until 1987 and never, not even once flew a tactical jet in a "military
climb corridor."

We flew published departure routes, later we flew SIDs, we flew
published approaches, we operated in special use airspace including
restricted areas and MOAs, we operated along low level routes, etc.

We went fast a lot, too.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[S. Sampson]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote
>
> I believe military climb corridors ceased being charted in the sixties as
> well.

There was a climb corridor out of Mt. Home well into the 80's. Don't
know if it still exists. I seem to recall it being south-westerly, but the
eyesight is the first to go, and I can't remember what the second thing was...

[John Gaquin]

"Frijoles" > wrote in message news:rmBQb.23275

>..... I'm an active duty Marine aviator.
>

Thank you.

JG

[Darkwing Duck]

"Tetsuji Rai" > wrote in message
s.com...
> Airspeed limitation below 10000ft is usually 250kts unless you have been
> authorized by the Administrator. However I guess it's a bit slow for
> military fighters. So I am curious how fast military fighters fly in the
> real world. I guess it's very dangerous military aircraft fly much fast
> among civilian planes.
>
>

So how fast is short final in a F-14 or whatever? Always wanted to know.

[Darkwing Duck]

"Tetsuji Rai" > wrote in message
s.com...
> Airspeed limitation below 10000ft is usually 250kts unless you have been
> authorized by the Administrator. However I guess it's a bit slow for
> military fighters. So I am curious how fast military fighters fly in the
> real world. I guess it's very dangerous military aircraft fly much fast
> among civilian planes.
>
>

So how fast is short final in a F-14 or whatever? Always wanted to know.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"S. Sampson" > wrote in message
news:1XBQb.6581$ce2.5743@okepread03...
>
> There was a climb corridor out of Mt. Home well into the 80's.
>

I have Salt Lake City sectionals from 1969, 1972, and 1987, none of them
show a climb corridor at Mountain Home AFB. Nor does the current chart,
which can be viewed online at:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?R10722D27

[John Gaquin]

"Darrell" > wrote in message news:5vBQb.65145

> If the "Dash One" manual for the military airplane specifies a speed
higher
> than 250 below 10,000' it's OK to fly that fast.

Same applies to civil craft. Loaded 747 would climb at about 273. We would
just advise ATC of climb speed. Were you required/requested to do that?

JG

[S. Sampson]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote
> "S. Sampson" > wrote
> >
> > There was a climb corridor out of Mt. Home well into the 80's.
> >
>
> I have Salt Lake City sectionals from 1969, 1972, and 1987, none of them
> show a climb corridor at Mountain Home AFB. Nor does the current chart,
> which can be viewed online at:
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?R10722D27

I'm not sure what map it was. Do you have any highs and lows from
back then?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"S. Sampson" > wrote in message
news:%JCQb.6585$ce2.6236@okepread03...
>
> I'm not sure what map it was. Do you have any highs and lows from
> back then?
>

Probably, but these things were charted on sectional charts.

[Glenn Westfall]

Yes, it is a rule here too as we follow the 7110.65 just like in the
U.S. But it is a rule we don't always strickly enforce unless we have
to. I don't like them going that fast, but unless there is a reason
for me to slow them down, I don't usually bother. Now I would never
have one buz an airliner or civilian plane going that fast, but you
get the idea. I'm sure it is different with the FAA boys working in a
busy area, but for us over open water we don't care too much. Our
airspace goes out to 50 miles around Okinawa, so it is 90% over water.

Glenn


On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 21:18:22 GMT, "John R Weiss"
> wrote:

>"Glenn Westfall" > wrote...
>> I'm an Air Force Air Traffic Controller and am currently working in
>> Okinawa, Japan. We have F-15's here at Kadena and it is not uncommon
>> for them to come back well above 400 Kts below 10,000.
>
>How far out over the water does the 250-below-10 limit extend in Japan?
>

[John R Weiss]

"Darkwing Duck" > wrote...
>
> So how fast is short final in a F-14 or whatever? Always wanted to know.

125 to 140 knots, depending on airplane and landing weight.

[BTIZ]

depends on the route structure.. some are limited to 500ft.. some places
1000ft and some places.. 0.. but flying at 0 is tough... most times in the
restricted areas and not the IR routes.. we stay between 200-500

I'm guessing if a "black shape" passed below him,.. and scud running.. that
a rather large shadow passed above him and he thought something was below
him

where is Iron Mountain.. I'm thinking the Upper Peninsula of Michigan? Could
have been a B-52 on approach.. but there were some training areas up there
that they would get down to about 500ft or so.

BT

"MLenoch" > wrote in message
...
> >"BTIZ"
>
> wrote:>Like I said.. I've seen a few.. had to alter course a couple of
times..
> but
> >nothing really close. At least the ones I saw.
>
> I was about 50 miles behind a scud-running Stearman, who was inbound to
Iron
> Mountain at 400 AGL. He called out that a 'black shape' just passed below
him.
> He didn't see it coming or going. Always wanted to ask: how low do you go?
> Thx,
> VL

[Jon Woellhaf]

John Gaquin wrote, "... Loaded 747 would climb at about 273. ..."

Makes it all the more amazing that they seem to be standing still while
climbing out!

[Big John]

Ed

Your right. The Climb Corridors were only for ADC Interceptor
Fighters. I negotiated several of them with FAA.

With an unknown, the Interceptors on 5 minute alert could be scrambled
and climb through commercial traffic altitudes without stopping to get
FAA clearance. The Air Force (radar) assumed responsibility for
clearance on scrambled aircraft and also training missions.

Been out of ADC for a long time but believe the corridors would be
eliminated when the base lost it's Air Defense Mission and Aircraft.
Couldn't justify them then to FAA.

Big John


On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 14:49:32 -0700, Ed Rasimus >
wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 21:38:18 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:
>
>
>>I believe military climb corridors ceased being charted in the sixties as
>>well.
>>
>And, even then they were almost exclusively related to active air
>defense scrambles. I entered military aviation in 1964 and operated
>until 1987 and never, not even once flew a tactical jet in a "military
>climb corridor."
>
>We flew published departure routes, later we flew SIDs, we flew
>published approaches, we operated in special use airspace including
>restricted areas and MOAs, we operated along low level routes, etc.
>
>We went fast a lot, too.
>
>
>Ed Rasimus
>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>"When Thunder Rolled"
>Smithsonian Institution Press
>ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Jim Baker]

Bingo, the first fully explained and correct answer. Thanks Darrell.

I'm surprised the Hustler flew so slow low level. I just always assumed
since it was such a hotass machine that it flew faster. We planned/flew the
Bone at 560 KTAS/.8Mach.

For the original poster, the B-1B, for example, flies downwind in the
pattern at 270 KIAS. That's the top of the range (IIRC) given in the "Dash
One" and is what we always flew while I was flying from '86-'97.

Cheers,

JB

"Darrell" > wrote in message
news:5vBQb.65145$XD5.52941@fed1read06...
> If the "Dash One" manual for the military airplane specifies a speed
higher
> than 250 below 10,000' it's OK to fly that fast. In the B-58 Hustler,
after
> takeoff we came out of afterburners at 350 KIAS and climbed at 425 KIAS
> until reaching Mach .90 for climb speed. That's why other aircraft try
to
> stay clear of military climb corridors. We flew low level routes at 435
> KIAS except for the high speed portion where we flew at 600 KIAS. (and
> that's back in the 1960s)
>
> --
>
> B-58 Hustler History: http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/
> -
>
> "Tetsuji Rai" > wrote in message
> s.com...
> > Airspeed limitation below 10000ft is usually 250kts unless you have been
> > authorized by the Administrator. However I guess it's a bit slow for
> > military fighters. So I am curious how fast military fighters fly in
the
> > real world. I guess it's very dangerous military aircraft fly much
fast
> > among civilian planes.
> >
> >
>
>

[Jim Baker]

"Darkwing Duck" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tetsuji Rai" > wrote in message
> s.com...
> > Airspeed limitation below 10000ft is usually 250kts unless you have been
> > authorized by the Administrator. However I guess it's a bit slow for
> > military fighters. So I am curious how fast military fighters fly in
the
> > real world. I guess it's very dangerous military aircraft fly much
fast
> > among civilian planes.
> >
> >
>
> So how fast is short final in a F-14 or whatever? Always wanted to know.
>
B-1B final is approx 155 +/- depending on weight.

JB

[MLenoch]

>"BTIZ"

wrote:>where is Iron Mountain.. I'm thinking the Upper Peninsula of Michigan?

Yes. It wasn't near any AFBs.

Coulda been above him......we don't know anymore today.

Thx,
VL

[Patrick Kormann]

Peter Hovorka wrote:

> Also in germany. 250kt below FL 100 except for planes which need to be
> flown faster.

Probably the same in most ICAO-States? At least it's the same in
Switzerland as well.

[Frijoles]

Nozzles aft, Harrier approach speed will be in the 155kt +/-range. At 20
nozzles and auto flaps(normal for IFR final), you're somewhat slower but to
be honest I don't recall the airspeed because my primary reference was
always AoA. Depending on the type of landing you intend to make, once
you're in the visual environment, you transition to a higher nozzle angle
(60-75 depending...), and in some instances, STOL flaps where the flaps
program automatically as a function of nozzle angle. "On speed" for a
fixed-nozzle slow landing is around 110kts. The *very* slow rolling
landings you occasionaly see are called rolling vertical landings -- 60 kts
ground speed is the target but the transition to that speed will usually be
over the runway, not on approach final.

"Darkwing Duck" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tetsuji Rai" > wrote in message
> s.com...
> > Airspeed limitation below 10000ft is usually 250kts unless you have been
> > authorized by the Administrator. However I guess it's a bit slow for
> > military fighters. So I am curious how fast military fighters fly in
the
> > real world. I guess it's very dangerous military aircraft fly much
fast
> > among civilian planes.
> >
> >
>
> So how fast is short final in a F-14 or whatever? Always wanted to know.
>
>
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"IBM" > wrote in message
...
>
> Back in 1968 my dad took us to Disneyland.
> We flew in to LAX and had some time before the bus left for our
> hotel.
> I wandered along outside the terminal and was watching the aircraft.
> Saw a 747 in action for the first time. I figured it was taxiing into
> position ... then it rotated.
>

I think your family trip was a bit later than that. First flight of the
B747 was February 9, 1969, it entered service in January 1970.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"MLenoch" > wrote in message
...
>
> wrote:>where is Iron Mountain.. I'm thinking the Upper Peninsula of
Michigan?
>
> Yes. It wasn't near any AFBs.
>

I suppose that depends on when this happened and how you define "near".
Iron Mountain is about 44 miles southwest of the former K.I. Sawyer AFB.

[Jim Baker]

You're right Frijoles, in the Bone the correct answer for "What airspeed do
you fly on final" is "I don't know/care. I'm flying 7 AoA as required by
the Dash One". There is however, a chart of airspeed and gross weights that
every pilot has and, IAW the Landing Checklist, every final must have an
airspeed computed.

JB

"Frijoles" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Nozzles aft, Harrier approach speed will be in the 155kt +/-range. At 20
> nozzles and auto flaps(normal for IFR final), you're somewhat slower but
to
> be honest I don't recall the airspeed because my primary reference was
> always AoA. Depending on the type of landing you intend to make, once
> you're in the visual environment, you transition to a higher nozzle angle
> (60-75 depending...), and in some instances, STOL flaps where the flaps
> program automatically as a function of nozzle angle. "On speed" for a
> fixed-nozzle slow landing is around 110kts. The *very* slow rolling
> landings you occasionaly see are called rolling vertical landings -- 60
kts
> ground speed is the target but the transition to that speed will usually
be
> over the runway, not on approach final.
>
> "Darkwing Duck" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tetsuji Rai" > wrote in message
> > s.com...
> > > Airspeed limitation below 10000ft is usually 250kts unless you have
been
> > > authorized by the Administrator. However I guess it's a bit slow for
> > > military fighters. So I am curious how fast military fighters fly in
> the
> > > real world. I guess it's very dangerous military aircraft fly much
> fast
> > > among civilian planes.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > So how fast is short final in a F-14 or whatever? Always wanted to know.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[BTIZ]

That sounds "near enough" to me..

BT

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "MLenoch" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > wrote:>where is Iron Mountain.. I'm thinking the Upper Peninsula of
> Michigan?
> >
> > Yes. It wasn't near any AFBs.
> >
>
> I suppose that depends on when this happened and how you define "near".
> Iron Mountain is about 44 miles southwest of the former K.I. Sawyer AFB.
>
>

[S. Sampson]

"Jim Baker" > wrote
>
> You're right Frijoles, in the Bone the correct answer for "What airspeed do
> you fly on final" is "I don't know/care. I'm flying 7 AoA as required by
> the Dash One".

Is the AOA indicator a piece of string like Wilbur and Orville had?

> There is however, a chart of airspeed and gross weights that
> every pilot has and, IAW the Landing Checklist, every final must have an
> airspeed computed.

That's in case the AOA indicator goes T.U. :-)

[Jim Baker]

Yes, kind of. It's such a fast, heavy airplane that we use yarn rather than
string. ;-)

JB

"S. Sampson" > wrote in message
news:2DSQb.6653$ce2.804@okepread03...
> "Jim Baker" > wrote
> >
> > You're right Frijoles, in the Bone the correct answer for "What airspeed
do
> > you fly on final" is "I don't know/care. I'm flying 7 AoA as required
by
> > the Dash One".
>
> Is the AOA indicator a piece of string like Wilbur and Orville had?
>
> > There is however, a chart of airspeed and gross weights that
> > every pilot has and, IAW the Landing Checklist, every final must have
an
> > airspeed computed.
>
> That's in case the AOA indicator goes T.U. :-)
>
>

[Frijoles]

Good job JB, you compute an airspeed for the Bone. And so your point
is...*what* about landing the Harrier?


"Jim Baker" > wrote in message
...
> You're right Frijoles, in the Bone the correct answer for "What airspeed
do
> you fly on final" is "I don't know/care. I'm flying 7 AoA as required by
> the Dash One". There is however, a chart of airspeed and gross weights
that
> every pilot has and, IAW the Landing Checklist, every final must have an
> airspeed computed.
>
> JB
>
> "Frijoles" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > Nozzles aft, Harrier approach speed will be in the 155kt +/-range. At
20
> > nozzles and auto flaps(normal for IFR final), you're somewhat slower but
> to
> > be honest I don't recall the airspeed because my primary reference was
> > always AoA. Depending on the type of landing you intend to make, once
> > you're in the visual environment, you transition to a higher nozzle
angle
> > (60-75 depending...), and in some instances, STOL flaps where the flaps
> > program automatically as a function of nozzle angle. "On speed" for a
> > fixed-nozzle slow landing is around 110kts. The *very* slow rolling
> > landings you occasionaly see are called rolling vertical landings -- 60
> kts
> > ground speed is the target but the transition to that speed will usually
> be
> > over the runway, not on approach final.
> >
> > "Darkwing Duck" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Tetsuji Rai" > wrote in message
> > > s.com...
> > > > Airspeed limitation below 10000ft is usually 250kts unless you have
> been
> > > > authorized by the Administrator. However I guess it's a bit slow
for
> > > > military fighters. So I am curious how fast military fighters fly
in
> > the
> > > > real world. I guess it's very dangerous military aircraft fly much
> > fast
> > > > among civilian planes.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > So how fast is short final in a F-14 or whatever? Always wanted to
know.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Jim Baker]

Sorry, I thought it was clear I was speaking about AoA to fly final and land
the Bone, as you said you use in the Harrier.


"Frijoles" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Good job JB, you compute an airspeed for the Bone. And so your point
> is...*what* about landing the Harrier?
>
>
> "Jim Baker" > wrote in message
> ...
> > You're right Frijoles, in the Bone the correct answer for "What airspeed
> do
> > you fly on final" is "I don't know/care. I'm flying 7 AoA as required
by
> > the Dash One". There is however, a chart of airspeed and gross weights
> that
> > every pilot has and, IAW the Landing Checklist, every final must have
an
> > airspeed computed.
> >
> > JB
> >
> > "Frijoles" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > > Nozzles aft, Harrier approach speed will be in the 155kt +/-range. At
> 20
> > > nozzles and auto flaps(normal for IFR final), you're somewhat slower
but
> > to
> > > be honest I don't recall the airspeed because my primary reference was
> > > always AoA. Depending on the type of landing you intend to make, once
> > > you're in the visual environment, you transition to a higher nozzle
> angle
> > > (60-75 depending...), and in some instances, STOL flaps where the
flaps
> > > program automatically as a function of nozzle angle. "On speed" for a
> > > fixed-nozzle slow landing is around 110kts. The *very* slow rolling
> > > landings you occasionaly see are called rolling vertical landings --
60
> > kts
> > > ground speed is the target but the transition to that speed will
usually
> > be
> > > over the runway, not on approach final.
> > >
> > > "Darkwing Duck" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Tetsuji Rai" > wrote in message
> > > > s.com...
> > > > > Airspeed limitation below 10000ft is usually 250kts unless you
have
> > been
> > > > > authorized by the Administrator. However I guess it's a bit slow
> for
> > > > > military fighters. So I am curious how fast military fighters
fly
> in
> > > the
> > > > > real world. I guess it's very dangerous military aircraft fly
much
> > > fast
> > > > > among civilian planes.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > So how fast is short final in a F-14 or whatever? Always wanted to
> know.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Leadfoot]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "IBM" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Back in 1968 my dad took us to Disneyland.
> > We flew in to LAX and had some time before the bus left for our
> > hotel.
> > I wandered along outside the terminal and was watching the aircraft.
> > Saw a 747 in action for the first time. I figured it was taxiing
into
> > position ... then it rotated.
> >
>
> I think your family trip was a bit later than that. First flight of the
> B747 was February 9, 1969, it entered service in January 1970.

They operated out of Vandenberg AFB for initial aircrew training in 1969.
Quite possible they landed at LAX for training.


>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Leadfoot" > wrote in message
news:6QTQb.55888$Xq2.3761@fed1read07...
>
> They operated out of Vandenberg AFB for initial aircrew training in 1969.
> Quite possible they landed at LAX for training.
>

He said the family trip to Disneyland was in 1968.

[Frijoles]

Roger that...

I was ready to dig out my copy of the FARs dealing with powered lift :).

"Jim Baker" > wrote in message
...
> Sorry, I thought it was clear I was speaking about AoA to fly final and
land
> the Bone, as you said you use in the Harrier.
>
>
> "Frijoles" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > Good job JB, you compute an airspeed for the Bone. And so your point
> > is...*what* about landing the Harrier?
> >
> >
> > "Jim Baker" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > You're right Frijoles, in the Bone the correct answer for "What
airspeed
> > do
> > > you fly on final" is "I don't know/care. I'm flying 7 AoA as required
> by
> > > the Dash One". There is however, a chart of airspeed and gross
weights
> > that
> > > every pilot has and, IAW the Landing Checklist, every final must have
> an
> > > airspeed computed.
> > >
> > > JB
> > >
> > > "Frijoles" > wrote in message
> > > ink.net...
> > > > Nozzles aft, Harrier approach speed will be in the 155kt +/-range.
At
> > 20
> > > > nozzles and auto flaps(normal for IFR final), you're somewhat slower
> but
> > > to
> > > > be honest I don't recall the airspeed because my primary reference
was
> > > > always AoA. Depending on the type of landing you intend to make,
once
> > > > you're in the visual environment, you transition to a higher nozzle
> > angle
> > > > (60-75 depending...), and in some instances, STOL flaps where the
> flaps
> > > > program automatically as a function of nozzle angle. "On speed" for
a
> > > > fixed-nozzle slow landing is around 110kts. The *very* slow rolling
> > > > landings you occasionaly see are called rolling vertical landings --
> 60
> > > kts
> > > > ground speed is the target but the transition to that speed will
> usually
> > > be
> > > > over the runway, not on approach final.
> > > >
> > > > "Darkwing Duck" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Tetsuji Rai" > wrote in message
> > > > > s.com...
> > > > > > Airspeed limitation below 10000ft is usually 250kts unless you
> have
> > > been
> > > > > > authorized by the Administrator. However I guess it's a bit
slow
> > for
> > > > > > military fighters. So I am curious how fast military fighters
> fly
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > real world. I guess it's very dangerous military aircraft fly
> much
> > > > fast
> > > > > > among civilian planes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > So how fast is short final in a F-14 or whatever? Always wanted to
> > know.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Tarver Engineering]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Leadfoot" > wrote in message
> news:6QTQb.55888$Xq2.3761@fed1read07...
> >
> > They operated out of Vandenberg AFB for initial aircrew training in
1969.
> > Quite possible they landed at LAX for training.

> He said the family trip to Disneyland was in 1968.

So IBM was lying, not any different than most of the trolls of ram.

[John R Weiss]

"S. Sampson" > wrote03...
>
> Is the AOA indicator a piece of string like Wilbur and Orville had?

No, but the yaw indicator on the F-14 is!

[Frijoles]

I've known generally what (the string) was for a long time but never
bothered to ask when it was referenced (primarily)? High alpha stuff?
Landing pattern? Single engine would be an obvious case...anything else?
More for "departure prevention," TF 30 "management" or both?

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:ZMXQb.146068$I06.1467724@attbi_s01...
> "S. Sampson" > wrote03...
> >
> > Is the AOA indicator a piece of string like Wilbur and Orville had?
>
> No, but the yaw indicator on the F-14 is!
>

[John R Weiss]

"Frijoles" > wrote...

> > No, but the yaw indicator on the F-14 is!

> I've known generally what (the string) was for a long time but never
> bothered to ask when it was referenced (primarily)? High alpha stuff?
> Landing pattern? Single engine would be an obvious case...anything else?
> More for "departure prevention," TF 30 "management" or both?

I never flew the Turkey, but probably all of the above.

I flew gliders with them, and they replaced the turn balance ball -- "step on
the knot".

[BTIZ]

ok Jim... lets do a no flap approach...

IIRC.. I believe the airspeed and proper AoA will now be around 210..
correct..

BT
B-1 GIB

"Jim Baker" > wrote in message
...
> Sorry, I thought it was clear I was speaking about AoA to fly final and
land
> the Bone, as you said you use in the Harrier.
>
>
> "Frijoles" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > Good job JB, you compute an airspeed for the Bone. And so your point
> > is...*what* about landing the Harrier?
> >
> >
> > "Jim Baker" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > You're right Frijoles, in the Bone the correct answer for "What
airspeed
> > do
> > > you fly on final" is "I don't know/care. I'm flying 7 AoA as required
> by
> > > the Dash One". There is however, a chart of airspeed and gross
weights
> > that
> > > every pilot has and, IAW the Landing Checklist, every final must have
> an
> > > airspeed computed.
> > >
> > > JB
> > >
> > > "Frijoles" > wrote in message
> > > ink.net...
> > > > Nozzles aft, Harrier approach speed will be in the 155kt +/-range.
At
> > 20
> > > > nozzles and auto flaps(normal for IFR final), you're somewhat slower
> but
> > > to
> > > > be honest I don't recall the airspeed because my primary reference
was
> > > > always AoA. Depending on the type of landing you intend to make,
once
> > > > you're in the visual environment, you transition to a higher nozzle
> > angle
> > > > (60-75 depending...), and in some instances, STOL flaps where the
> flaps
> > > > program automatically as a function of nozzle angle. "On speed" for
a
> > > > fixed-nozzle slow landing is around 110kts. The *very* slow rolling
> > > > landings you occasionaly see are called rolling vertical landings --
> 60
> > > kts
> > > > ground speed is the target but the transition to that speed will
> usually
> > > be
> > > > over the runway, not on approach final.
> > > >
> > > > "Darkwing Duck" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Tetsuji Rai" > wrote in message
> > > > > s.com...
> > > > > > Airspeed limitation below 10000ft is usually 250kts unless you
> have
> > > been
> > > > > > authorized by the Administrator. However I guess it's a bit
slow
> > for
> > > > > > military fighters. So I am curious how fast military fighters
> fly
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > real world. I guess it's very dangerous military aircraft fly
> much
> > > > fast
> > > > > > among civilian planes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > So how fast is short final in a F-14 or whatever? Always wanted to
> > know.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Jim Baker]

Bill, as you no doubt remember, no flap approaches and landings were done at
6 AoA versus 7 AoA with flaps/slats. But the airspeeds for a no flapper
were typically about 40 knots faster than with flaps/slats. You'd try to
get down to about 20K lbs of fuel for a no flap landing which gave an
approach/landing speed of 184 KIAS for a 210K lb. airplane.

Cheers,

Jim

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:fs0Rb.61523$zs4.18646@fed1read01...
> ok Jim... lets do a no flap approach...
>
> IIRC.. I believe the airspeed and proper AoA will now be around 210..
> correct..
>
> BT
> B-1 GIB
>
> "Jim Baker" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Sorry, I thought it was clear I was speaking about AoA to fly final and
> land
> > the Bone, as you said you use in the Harrier.
> >
> >
> > "Frijoles" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > > Good job JB, you compute an airspeed for the Bone. And so your point
> > > is...*what* about landing the Harrier?
> > >
> > >
> > > "Jim Baker" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > You're right Frijoles, in the Bone the correct answer for "What
> airspeed
> > > do
> > > > you fly on final" is "I don't know/care. I'm flying 7 AoA as
required
> > by
> > > > the Dash One". There is however, a chart of airspeed and gross
> weights
> > > that
> > > > every pilot has and, IAW the Landing Checklist, every final must
have
> > an
> > > > airspeed computed.
> > > >
> > > > JB
> > > >
> > > > "Frijoles" > wrote in message
> > > > ink.net...
> > > > > Nozzles aft, Harrier approach speed will be in the 155kt +/-range.
> At
> > > 20
> > > > > nozzles and auto flaps(normal for IFR final), you're somewhat
slower
> > but
> > > > to
> > > > > be honest I don't recall the airspeed because my primary reference
> was
> > > > > always AoA. Depending on the type of landing you intend to make,
> once
> > > > > you're in the visual environment, you transition to a higher
nozzle
> > > angle
> > > > > (60-75 depending...), and in some instances, STOL flaps where the
> > flaps
> > > > > program automatically as a function of nozzle angle. "On speed"
for
> a
> > > > > fixed-nozzle slow landing is around 110kts. The *very* slow
rolling
> > > > > landings you occasionaly see are called rolling vertical
landings --
> > 60
> > > > kts
> > > > > ground speed is the target but the transition to that speed will
> > usually
> > > > be
> > > > > over the runway, not on approach final.
> > > > >
> > > > > "Darkwing Duck" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Tetsuji Rai" > wrote in message
> > > > > > s.com...
> > > > > > > Airspeed limitation below 10000ft is usually 250kts unless you
> > have
> > > > been
> > > > > > > authorized by the Administrator. However I guess it's a bit
> slow
> > > for
> > > > > > > military fighters. So I am curious how fast military
fighters
> > fly
> > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > real world. I guess it's very dangerous military aircraft
fly
> > much
> > > > > fast
> > > > > > > among civilian planes.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So how fast is short final in a F-14 or whatever? Always wanted
to
> > > know.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Ed Rasimus]

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:53:22 GMT, "Frijoles" >
wrote:

>I've known generally what (the string) was for a long time but never
>bothered to ask when it was referenced (primarily)? High alpha stuff?
>Landing pattern? Single engine would be an obvious case...anything else?
>More for "departure prevention," TF 30 "management" or both?
>
We had a "yaw string" on F-4s in USAF. I don't recall if there was on
for the F-105. The main purpose in operational aircraft was during
weapons deliver and the most important weapons delivery with a yaw
concern was strafe or rockets.

Any yaw at the moment of release means the sight is pointing left or
right of the flight path and the weapons will go in the direction the
aircraft has imparted, not the place that the sight tells you. Yaw
left, shoot right.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Frijoles]

Thanks -- had forgotten about sideslip and FF ordnance realignment with the
relative wind...

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:53:22 GMT, "Frijoles" >
> wrote:
>
> >I've known generally what (the string) was for a long time but never
> >bothered to ask when it was referenced (primarily)? High alpha stuff?
> >Landing pattern? Single engine would be an obvious case...anything else?
> >More for "departure prevention," TF 30 "management" or both?
> >
> We had a "yaw string" on F-4s in USAF. I don't recall if there was on
> for the F-105. The main purpose in operational aircraft was during
> weapons deliver and the most important weapons delivery with a yaw
> concern was strafe or rockets.
>
> Any yaw at the moment of release means the sight is pointing left or
> right of the flight path and the weapons will go in the direction the
> aircraft has imparted, not the place that the sight tells you. Yaw
> left, shoot right.
>
>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> Smithsonian Institution Press
> ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Larry Dighera]

>"Tetsuji Rai" > wrote in message
s.com...
>> Airspeed limitation below 10000ft is usually 250kts unless you have been
>> authorized by the Administrator. However I guess it's a bit slow for
>> military fighters. So I am curious how fast military fighters fly in the
>> real world. I guess it's very dangerous military aircraft fly much fast
>> among civilian planes.
>>
>>
>
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 20:41:45 -0800, "BTIZ" >
wrote in Message-Id: <9ImQb.59286$zs4.54931@fed1read01>:

>"it depends"..
>
>When I was flying the B-1, we would accelerate to 360 knots on climb out..
>Coming back down into traffic pattern it was 300knts below 10K
>Our flap / gear speed is 240knt (the buzzer comes on below 240knts if the
>flaps are not out)
>
>But for low level in IR training routes, we planned 540knt, 500-1500ft AGL
>Those IR routes are not in MOA or restricted airspace, but can be, and they
>are on the VFR charts for a reason.
>
>BT
>



Oh, you mean like the military pilot who, on November 16, 2000, lead
his flight in excess of 450 knots through busy Miami Class B and Tampa
C airspace without a clearance ending in a midair collision with a
Cessna 172 under positive air traffic control and its ATP rated flight
instructor pilot scattered over four acres of golf course?* The
Associated Press reported that the military found verbal reprimand to
be appropriate reprimand for the irresponsible conduct of the lead
airman whose unbelievable hubris left the Cessna pilot's daughter an
orphan.


*
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001212X22313&ntsbno=MIA01FA028A&akey=1

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 06:51:55 GMT, Nathan Young
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>I assume most aircraft have a military version of TCAD/TCAS? Does
>this give suficient heads up to keep separation from the slow moving
>GA traffic?

Think again. Military pilots flying in excess of 250 knots below
10,000' not only lack TCAD/TCAS, but are NOT REQUIRED to employ
they're on-board radar (which you and I purchased) to scan for GA
traffic! When a GA flight is disintegrated by a meteoric F-16, the
airman (ir)responsible for the "mishap" is given a verbal reprimand!
Unfortunately, it's impossible for a GA pilot to avoid a high-speed
F-16 on a collision course; by the time the traffic is perceptible in
the windscreen, there is inadequate time to maneuver clear. The FAA
has abrogated their responsibility to provide a safe NAS, in favor of
renegade military aviation.


--
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while
bad people will find a way around the laws. -- Plato

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 15:02:57 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in Message-Id:
et>:

>
>"N. Funk" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Yes, but the problems occur when us insects splatter on the windshield
>> of those fast moving "space-ships". Even though it rarely occurs, it is
>> usually catastrophic for the insects. Remember the incident several
>> years ago in around Manatee County, Florida when a Cessna and a fighter
>> collided.
>>
>
>It's usually catastrophic for the "space-ships" as well.
>

So far, it's been 50/50. The first high-speed low-level military
flight, that collided with a glider, was able to make it safely to its
original destination. Miraculously, the glider safely landed missing
several feet of wing and aileron! If I recall correctly, the NTSB
found the glider pilot to be at fault, despite the see-and-avoid
regulations!

The F-16 involved in the Florida MAC became uncontrollable; its
military pilot safely ejected and walked away. It was reported, that
the Commanding Officer (Gen. Rosa) of the airman responsible for the
military flight (Parker) stated, that the flight leader (Parker) would
receive a verbal reprimand for splattering the ATP rated Cessna pilot
over four acres of golf course.


--

For instance, a pilot who has no fear of a mid-air is an idiot. A
pilot who flies without being constantly aware that he/she is the main
aspect of the mid-air avoidance equation is misguided.
--Dudley Henriques

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 08:56:39 -0800, "BTIZ" >
wrote in Message-Id: <7txQb.59481$zs4.25455@fed1read01>:

>It's called See and Be Seen.. proper use of the Mark1 Eyeball and proper
>scanning techniques.

Unfortunately, F-16s are incapable of displaying a landing light in
flight, so their conspicuity is greatly reduced. Worse than that is
the inability of the GA flight to successfully avoid a high-speed
low-leval military flight by the time it is perceptible in his
windscreen.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> So far, it's been 50/50. The first high-speed low-level military
> flight, that collided with a glider, was able to make it safely to its
> original destination. Miraculously, the glider safely landed missing
> several feet of wing and aileron! If I recall correctly, the NTSB
> found the glider pilot to be at fault, despite the see-and-avoid
> regulations!
>
> The F-16 involved in the Florida MAC became uncontrollable; its
> military pilot safely ejected and walked away.
>

Those are the only two incidents?

[M. Tettnanger]

"Jim Baker" > wrote...
> get down to about 20K lbs of fuel for a no flap landing which gave an
> approach/landing speed of 184 KIAS for a 210K lb. airplane.

If I'm figuring this right, that's 225 mph groundspeed at the
elevation of Ellsworth AFB. Holy smoke!

Mark

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 12:08:47 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in Message-Id:
. net>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> So far, it's been 50/50. The first high-speed low-level military
>> flight, that collided with a glider, was able to make it safely to its
>> original destination. Miraculously, the glider safely landed missing
>> several feet of wing and aileron! If I recall correctly, the NTSB
>> found the glider pilot to be at fault, despite the see-and-avoid
>> regulations!
>>
>> The F-16 involved in the Florida MAC became uncontrollable; its
>> military pilot safely ejected and walked away.
>>
>
>Those are the only two incidents?
>

Those two are the only two military v civil MACs of which I am aware.
Granted, the universe of my search has been limited to the USA. I
would welcome information about others that you, or anyone else, may
be able to provide.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Those two are the only two military v civil MACs of which I am aware.
>

Well, then you're not in a position to declare, "So far, it's been 50/50."

[Tex Houston]

"M. Tettnanger" > wrote in message
m...
> "Jim Baker" > wrote...
> > get down to about 20K lbs of fuel for a no flap landing which gave an
> > approach/landing speed of 184 KIAS for a 210K lb. airplane.
>
> If I'm figuring this right, that's 225 mph groundspeed at the
> elevation of Ellsworth AFB. Holy smoke!
>
> Mark

I once saw a B-52D land at Ellsworth AFB in zero feet. The nine crewmembers
survived, the aircraft didn't. Their problem was lack of airspeed.

Tex

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 16:03:55 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in Message-Id:
. net>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Those two are the only two military v civil MACs of which I am aware.
>>
>
>Well, then you're not in a position to declare, "So far, it's been 50/50."
>

Okay. Given the reasoning you espouse above, you are in no better
position to state, "It's usually catastrophic for the "space-ships" as
well." unless you have knowledge of additional military v civil MACs.

[Paul Sengupta]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> Those two are the only two military v civil MACs of which I am aware.
> Granted, the universe of my search has been limited to the USA. I
> would welcome information about others that you, or anyone else, may
> be able to provide.

From the UK:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_avsafety/documents/page/dft_avsafe
ty_502737.hcsp
(or http://makeashorterlink.com/?C15155637 )

Paul

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 19:55:59 -0000, "Paul Sengupta"
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> Those two are the only two military v civil MACs of which I am aware.
>> Granted, the universe of my search has been limited to the USA. I
>> would welcome information about others that you, or anyone else, may
>> be able to provide.
>
>From the UK:
>http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_avsafety/documents/page/dft_avsafe
>ty_502737.hcsp
>(or http://makeashorterlink.com/?C15155637 )
>
>Paul
>

Many thanks for the information.

Here's an excerpt for other readers who don't want to wade through the
excellent and complete report:

------------------------------------------------------

Thecollision occurred at a height of 655 feet agl, 300 metres from the
westernedge of the village of Matttersey, Nottinghamshire. The Tornado
was flying atan IAS of 434 kt on a heading of 045ûM. Eyewitnesses
describe the Cessna in astabilised turn to the left with about 30û
AOB. Its speed is unknown, but wasprobably close to the cruise speed
of 90 kt since this was the pilots normalmethod of operation. In the
final few seconds of flight the pilot would nothave been able to see
the Tornado which would have been obscured by thestructure of the
Cessna. Eyewitnesses report the Tornado going straight throughthe
Cessna with the initial impact just behind the right wing root of
theCessna. Neither aircraft made any alteration to its flight path in
the finalfew seconds and there was no perceived change in the engine
noise from eitheraircraft.

TheCessna pilot and his passenger received fatal injuries in the
collision. Theaircraft wreckage fell into open ground below the point
of collision. Bothmilitary pilots received fatal injuries in the
collision. The impact alsoinitiated the ejection sequence of the front
seat by mechanically removing themain gun sear. The student pilot was
ejected from the aircraft and his bodycame to rest in a field 300
metres beyond the point of collision. Theinstructor of the Tornado
remained in the aircraft, which then commenced ashallow descent and
flew into the ground 3 km north-east from the point of thecollision.
The Tornado disintegrated on impact.

....

1.16 Tests and research

1.16.1 Detection and recognition

Statisticsshow that the majority of mid-air collisions occur in good
weather and goodvisibility. The problems of the visual detection of
another aircraft, and therecognition that it is on a collision course
have long been acknowledged andmuch research has been carried out into
ways of avoiding such accidents. TheAAIB Aircraft Accident Report
(AAR) 2/94 recommended that the Ministry ofDefence (MOD) should
commission an operational analysis of Fast Jet (FJ) lowflying training
in the UK to determine whether the use of see and avoid asthe primary
means of collision avoidance is satisfactory from the point of viewof
flight safety. The MOD accepted this recommendation and commissioned
theDefence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) to conduct the
analysis and toevaluate various measures that might further enhance
flight safety. Theexecutive summary of the study is at Appendix C. The
study concluded that theprinciple of see and avoid in the open Flight
Information Region (FIR) below2,000 feet is generally more than 99%
effective in resolving conflictions. Atcurrent flying rates (military
and civil) this implies an expected collisionrate of 0.118 per 10,000
flying hours for military fast jet aircraft and of0.005 per 10,000
flying hours (by military fast jets) for fast jet/generalaviation
aircraft. This predicts a random collision between a military fast
jetand a general aviation aircraft about once every 6 years.

1.16.1.1 Conspicuity

Thestudy considered the effectiveness of three measures currently
available whichmight enhance conspicuity: high intensity strobe lights
(HISLs), forward facinglights and the use of gloss black paint
schemes. The use of HISLs, rated at2,000 candela, on military aircraft
was calculated to produce a reduction inthe expected collision rate
from 2.202 to 1.870 per annum. HISLs are now fittedto all military low
flying aircraft. Adding HISLs to all non-sports civilaircraft is
estimated to reduce the expected rate of collision rate by afurther
0.445 per annum. There is no current requirement for light
civilaircraft to be fitted with HISLs. The use of high powered forward
facing lightswas evaluated by the RAF and, whilst effective, has been
found to be viableonly on the Hawk aircraft. All RAF training aircraft
are now painted black, butfast jet aircraft retain their camouflage
paint scheme. Using these conspicuitymeasures reduces the calculated
collision rate by about 49%.

1.16.1.2 CollisionWarning System

Thestudy also considered the effect of fitting a Collision Warning
System (CWS) tofast jets other than the Hawk and the Tucano. It
assumed that all lightaircraft were fitted with an operating radar
transponder (SSR). The studyconcluded that a CWS would reduce the
collision rate by about 66%. The RAFcompleted a technology
demonstration programme in 1997, which concluded that atransponder
based system would be technically feasible for fast jet aircraft.The
MOD has since decided to procure a CWS for the Tornado GR4 fleet
(anupdated variant of the Tornado GR1). The implementation and
introduction intoservice will be dependent upon the selected technical
solution but the currentplanned in service date is 2004. The RAF also
had a requirement for an airborneinstrumented debrief system and the
selected system already incorporated abasic CWS capability. This
equipment is expected to be in service in 2002.Unfortunately, this
system, once introduced into service, will only detectother similarly
equipped aircraft. Therefore, if the Tornado involved in thisaccident
had been carrying such equipment it would not have detected theCessna,
even if, as a pre-requisite, the Cessnas transponder had been
selectedto ON.

TheCivil Aviation Authority (CAA) have also been pursuing the
development of alightweight, battery powered transponder that could be
carried in lightaircraft, gliders or microlights. A feasibility study
has been completed withencouraging conclusions, but component
production difficulties for use in aproduction unit have resulted in
further delays to the programme.

1.16.1.3 Strobedetection equipment

TheCAA have conducted an extensive study, including field trials, on
thedevelopment of a strobe detector. This utilises modern optical
components todetect the strobe lights fitted to all military and many
civil aircraft. Anoperational evaluation was carried out and confirmed
the technical viabilityand operational effectiveness of the system.
The prototype system was evaluatedby the RAF with encouraging results.
However, it has not yet been possible tomanufacture commercially
viable products.

1.16.2 Probability of detection

Astudy to estimate the detectability of each aircraft from the point
of view ofthe other was commissioned from the Centre for Human
Sciences at Farnborough.This study is presented at Appendix D. The
conclusions of this study are thatthe nature of the Cessna aircrafts
final manoeuvre presented those on boardwith only a limited
opportunity for detecting the Tornado, and it is likelythat their
attention was confined to ground references during this
criticalperiod. The instructor pilot, in the rear seat of the Tornado
aircraft, had anobstructed view in the forward sector and had no
opportunity to detect theconfliction. Only the student pilot, in the
front seat of the Tornado, had anyopportunity to detect the
confliction. In principle, in the prevailingconditions, a diligent
visual scan would have had a moderate probability ofrevealing the
Cessna in time to allow avoiding action to be taken. Thisprinciple was
undermined by the student pilots attention to a routine
checkprocedure. Whilst conducting this routine check it is difficult
to believe thathe was able to give more than scant attention to visual
look out. His lack ofexperience in the use of the HUD probably
contributed to his inability todetect the other aircraft. It is also
possible that the effects of clutter inthe HUD reduced the probability
of detection at a critical moment.

1.16.3 Radar coverage

Analysisof the recordings of local military and civil radars failed to
show traces ofthe tracks of either aircraft. It is considered that
this was because bothaircraft were below the base of primary radar
cover and neither aircraftappeared to be using its secondary radar
transponder. This device produces anenhanced radar return together
with a data tag that can identify a specificaircraft and its altitude.
The IFF equipment in the Tornado was identified asbeing unserviceable
immediately after take off. The secondary radar transponderin the
Cessna was found to be selected to the 'OFF' position.

....

1.17.4 Mid-air collision statistics

Since1990 there have been three mid-air collisions between low flying
military fastjets and civil aircraft within the UK FIR, including this
accident. They are:

29August 1991

RAFJaguar TA2 / Cessna 152

Carno,Wales

AAIBReport 2/92

23June 1993

RAFTornado GR1 / Bell 206B helicopter

Kendal,Cumbria

AAIBReport 2/94

21January 1999

RAFTornado GR1 / Cessna 152

Everton,Nottinghamshire

Thesubject of this report.

Thesehave resulted in a total of eight fatalities. No people on the
ground have beeninjured.

------------------------------------------------------

[Laurence Doering]

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 16:01:00 GMT, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 12:08:47 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in Message-Id:
. net>:
>
>>
>>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> So far, it's been 50/50. The first high-speed low-level military
>>> flight, that collided with a glider, was able to make it safely to its
>>> original destination. Miraculously, the glider safely landed missing
>>> several feet of wing and aileron! If I recall correctly, the NTSB
>>> found the glider pilot to be at fault, despite the see-and-avoid
>>> regulations!
>>>
>>> The F-16 involved in the Florida MAC became uncontrollable; its
>>> military pilot safely ejected and walked away.
>>
>>Those are the only two incidents?
>
> Those two are the only two military v civil MACs of which I am aware.
> Granted, the universe of my search has been limited to the USA. I
> would welcome information about others that you, or anyone else, may
> be able to provide.

The worst military vs civil midair in the US was probably the
one between a Navy F-4 and a Hughes Airwest DC-9 near Duarte, CA
on 6 June 1971. Both aircraft were destroyed, with 49 fatalities
aboard the DC-9. One of the F-4 crewmembers survived.

According to the NTSB accident database there have been more.
Their online database is searchable back to 1962. I didn't
feel like searching for every type of military aircraft I could
think of, but since 1962 there have been the following midair
collisions between civil aircraft and military F-4s, F-14s, and
F-16s in the United States:

06 Jun 1971
The above midair between a Navy F-4 and a DC-9.

16 May 1975:
A USAF RF-4C collided with a Schweitzer 2-32 near Colorado Springs,
CO. Both aircraft landed safely (this is probably the first incident
you refer to above.)

09 Jan 1983
An ANG F-4C collided with a Beech Baron in the Atlantic
Coastal ADIZ about 30 miles from Cherry Point, NC. All
7 aboard the Baron were lost at sea, and the F-4 landed
safely. The F-4 was attempting to intercept and identify
the Baron, which was flying direct from Nassau in the Bahamas
to Norfolk, VA even though the pilot had filed a flight plan
from Nassau to clear customs in Fort Pierce, FL and then on
to Norfolk.

20 Jun 1985
An ANG RF-4C collided with a Beech 18 at Birmingham, AL after the
tower controller cleared the Beech 18 onto the runway,
then forgot about it and cleared the F-4 to land.

28 Jun 1990
A Navy F-14 took evasive action to avoid a Bellanca Viking near
Ojai, CA. The Viking suffered structural damage to the rear
wing spar when it flew into wake turbulence from the F-14 (OK,
not quite a collision, but close.)

16 Nov 2000
A USAF F-16 collided with a Cessna 172 near Bradenton, FL
(this is the second accident you refer to above.)

Not exactly military-civilian, but kind of close: there was a midair
between a Grumman F6F Hellcat and a Cessna 182 near Parker, AZ on
11 Jan 2003.

Outside the United States, there have been at least two other
midairs between military aircraft and airliners:

06 Jun 1971
A Japanese Air Self-Defense Force F-86 collided with an
All Nippon Airways Boeing 727 over northern Honshu. There
were 162 fatalities aboard the 727. The F-86 pilot survived.

22 Dec 1992
A Libyan Arab Airlines Boeing 727 collided with a Libyan
Air Force MiG-23 near Tripoli. 157 fatalities aboard the 727,
no information seems to be available about the fate of the
MiG-23's pilot.


ljd

[WaltBJ]

Interesting fact: A DC10-30, no slats, no flaps, eats up more runway
than a Bone in the same configuration. Our Flight Manual stated it
could not be stopped on any commercial runway in the USA. Even more
interesting is that an F104A could be stopped in 3000 feet (using the
chute) if there was no crosswind (the ailerons were weak at 135 KIAS).
Walt BJ

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Okay. Given the reasoning you espouse above, you are in no better
> position to state, "It's usually catastrophic for the "space-ships" as
> well." unless you have knowledge of additional military v civil MACs.
>

Well, I admit I don't have any hard numbers on them, but I recall reading
about a number of these incidents that happened over the last fifty years or
so and in most of them the military aircraft was lost as well.

[IBM]

"Leadfoot" > wrote in
news:6QTQb.55888$Xq2.3761@fed1read07:

[snip]

> They operated out of Vandenberg AFB for initial aircrew training in
> 1969. Quite possible they landed at LAX for training.

My bad, it was actually 1970, November to be more specific.
I'm trying to figure where we went in '68 though.
Obviously not as exciting as Disnayland....

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[curious12357]

On 29 Jan 2004 12:14:11 -0800, (WaltBJ) wrote:

>Interesting fact: A DC10-30, no slats, no flaps, eats up more runway
>than a Bone in the same configuration. Our Flight Manual stated it
>could not be stopped on any commercial runway in the USA. Even more
>interesting is that an F104A could be stopped in 3000 feet (using the
>chute) if there was no crosswind (the ailerons were weak at 135 KIAS).
>Walt BJ


There are many runways that a DC10-30 can land on with no slats, so
flaps.

The Vref / Vga / Vma speeds for example would be as follows:

Landing weight 290,000 lbs : 178 / 195 / 202
Landing weight 411,000 lbs : 211 / 232 / 241

[Greg Copeland]

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:54:38 +0000, Larry Dighera wrote:
> So far, it's been 50/50. The first high-speed low-level military
> flight, that collided with a glider, was able to make it safely to its
> original destination. Miraculously, the glider safely landed missing
> several feet of wing and aileron! If I recall correctly, the NTSB
> found the glider pilot to be at fault, despite the see-and-avoid
> regulations!
>

Perhaps I'm daft, but how is a glider supposed to get out of the way of a
high-speed military craft? Was he flying in a area he wasn't supposed to
be?

[Greg Copeland]

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 23:58:40 -0600, S. Sampson wrote:

> "Glenn Westfall" > wrote
>> I'm an Air Force Air Traffic Controller and am currently working in
>> Okinawa, Japan. We have F-15's here at Kadena and it is not uncommon
>> for them to come back well above 400 Kts below 10,000. We usually
>> only worry about slowing them down if they are being sequenced to
>> follow another aircraft. Close to final, they will usually slow
>> themselves to 250 Kts or slower unless told otherwise.
>
> I've heard that F-15's and Mig-29's are pigs below 400 knots :-)
> The AOA is probably in the teens by 250 knots...

I'm certainly not an authority on this, but I thought dog fights normally
took place in the 300 - 400 knot range. If that's the case, I
doubt performance is pig-like below 400.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 09:05:25 -0500, Greg Copeland >
wrote in Message-Id: >:

>On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:54:38 +0000, Larry Dighera wrote:
>> So far, it's been 50/50. The first high-speed low-level military
>> flight, that collided with a glider, was able to make it safely to its
>> original destination. Miraculously, the glider safely landed missing
>> several feet of wing and aileron! If I recall correctly, the NTSB
>> found the glider pilot to be at fault, despite the see-and-avoid
>> regulations!
>>
>
>Perhaps I'm daft, but how is a glider supposed to get out of the way of a
>high-speed military craft?

See 91.113:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=ae1d5a6bbe39017a1896196750f16d63&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10.2.4.7&idno=14

A glider has the right of way over a powered aircraft. It is the
powered aircraft that regulations require avoid the glider, not the
other way round.

>Was he flying in a area he wasn't supposed to
>be?

The glider was in class G airspace as far as I can tell, albeit
apparently within a Military Training Route. It is my understanding
that aircraft operating there are still governed by the see-and-avoid
mandate.

[Greg Copeland]

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 14:36:05 +0000, Larry Dighera wrote:

> On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 09:05:25 -0500, Greg Copeland >
> wrote in Message-Id: >:
>
>>On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:54:38 +0000, Larry Dighera wrote:
>>> So far, it's been 50/50. The first high-speed low-level military
>>> flight, that collided with a glider, was able to make it safely to its
>>> original destination. Miraculously, the glider safely landed missing
>>> several feet of wing and aileron! If I recall correctly, the NTSB
>>> found the glider pilot to be at fault, despite the see-and-avoid
>>> regulations!
>>>
>>
>>Perhaps I'm daft, but how is a glider supposed to get out of the way of a
>>high-speed military craft?
>
> See 91.113:
> http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=ae1d5a6bbe39017a1896196750f16d63&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10.2.4.7&idno=14
>
> A glider has the right of way over a powered aircraft. It is the
> powered aircraft that regulations require avoid the glider, not the
> other way round.
>
>>Was he flying in a area he wasn't supposed to
>>be?
>
> The glider was in class G airspace as far as I can tell, albeit
> apparently within a Military Training Route. It is my understanding
> that aircraft operating there are still governed by the see-and-avoid
> mandate.

I understand that. And that was pretty much the basis of my question.
The glider had right of way. Yet, "found the glider pilot to be at
fault". To me, that says they expected a glider to get the heck out of
the way of a highspeed aircraft. Thusly, my paraphrased statement of,
"I'm crazy because I don't understand how they could expect that to happen."

[Mary Shafer]

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:54:17 -0500, Greg Copeland >
wrote:

> On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 14:36:05 +0000, Larry Dighera wrote:

> > The glider was in class G airspace as far as I can tell, albeit
> > apparently within a Military Training Route. It is my understanding
> > that aircraft operating there are still governed by the see-and-avoid
> > mandate.

> I understand that. And that was pretty much the basis of my question.
> The glider had right of way. Yet, "found the glider pilot to be at
> fault". To me, that says they expected a glider to get the heck out of
> the way of a highspeed aircraft. Thusly, my paraphrased statement of,
> "I'm crazy because I don't understand how they could expect that to happen."

I get the feeling you don't understand that a "Military Training
Route" is not ordinary see-and-avoid airspace. Rather, it's airspace
used in a special way, with military aircraft given exclusive use when
the airspace is active.

Other aircraft, including gliders, are supposed to stay out of the
route when it's active. This glider pilot didn't, and so was at
fault.

He was in an airspace forbidden to him then, an airspace dedicated at
that time to the use of high-speed aircraft. He wasn't expected to
dodge the fast-mover but to stay away from the airspace reserved for
that fast-mover. The reason the space is reserved is that it's hard
to get out of the way of a fast-mover, because there isn't enough time
between when you see it and when it's where you are for you to be
elsewhere. And the fast-mover doesn't have any more time to maneuver.
Maybe less, as gliders are smaller and, maybe, harder to see.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Boomer]

F-15 pulling 7-8 Gs at 400kts at sealevel is hardly pig-like

--



Curiosity killed the cat, and I'm gonna find out why!
"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 23:58:40 -0600, S. Sampson wrote:
>
> > "Glenn Westfall" > wrote
> >> I'm an Air Force Air Traffic Controller and am currently working in
> >> Okinawa, Japan. We have F-15's here at Kadena and it is not uncommon
> >> for them to come back well above 400 Kts below 10,000. We usually
> >> only worry about slowing them down if they are being sequenced to
> >> follow another aircraft. Close to final, they will usually slow
> >> themselves to 250 Kts or slower unless told otherwise.
> >
> > I've heard that F-15's and Mig-29's are pigs below 400 knots :-)
> > The AOA is probably in the teens by 250 knots...
>
> I'm certainly not an authority on this, but I thought dog fights normally
> took place in the 300 - 400 knot range. If that's the case, I
> doubt performance is pig-like below 400.
>
>

[EDR]

In article >, Mary Shafer
> wrote:

> I get the feeling you don't understand that a "Military Training
> Route" is not ordinary see-and-avoid airspace. Rather, it's airspace
> used in a special way, with military aircraft given exclusive use when
> the airspace is active.
> Other aircraft, including gliders, are supposed to stay out of the
> route when it's active. This glider pilot didn't, and so was at
> fault.
> He was in an airspace forbidden to him then, an airspace dedicated at
> that time to the use of high-speed aircraft. He wasn't expected to
> dodge the fast-mover but to stay away from the airspace reserved for
> that fast-mover. The reason the space is reserved is that it's hard
> to get out of the way of a fast-mover, because there isn't enough time
> between when you see it and when it's where you are for you to be
> elsewhere. And the fast-mover doesn't have any more time to maneuver.
> Maybe less, as gliders are smaller and, maybe, harder to see.

What??? Who gave you the misinformation? Tell me where in the FARs it
describes MTRs as PROHIBITED or RESTRICTED or EXCLUSIVE or RESERVED
airspace.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:54:17 -0500, Greg Copeland >
wrote in Message-Id: >:

>I understand that. And that was pretty much the basis of my question.
>The glider had right of way. Yet, "found the glider pilot to be at
>fault". To me, that says they expected a glider to get the heck out of
>the way of a highspeed aircraft. Thusly, my paraphrased statement of,
>"I'm crazy because I don't understand how they could expect that to happen."
>

The Navy compensated the glider pilot for damages. But fortune was
smiling on him. He could have just as easily ended up splattered
across four acres of golf course as occurred in another military/civil
'mishap' November 16, 2000 in Florida.

[Mike Beede]

In article >, Mary Shafer > wrote:

> On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:54:17 -0500, Greg Copeland >
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 14:36:05 +0000, Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> > > The glider was in class G airspace as far as I can tell, albeit
> > > apparently within a Military Training Route. It is my understanding
> > > that aircraft operating there are still governed by the see-and-avoid
> > > mandate.
>
> > I understand that. And that was pretty much the basis of my question.
> > The glider had right of way. Yet, "found the glider pilot to be at
> > fault". To me, that says they expected a glider to get the heck out of
> > the way of a highspeed aircraft. Thusly, my paraphrased statement of,
> > "I'm crazy because I don't understand how they could expect that to happen."
>
> I get the feeling you don't understand that a "Military Training
> Route" is not ordinary see-and-avoid airspace. Rather, it's airspace
> used in a special way, with military aircraft given exclusive use when
> the airspace is active.
>

Sorry, Mary, but you are wrong. You're thinking of
an MOA. The Airman's Information Manual has this to say about Military
Training Routes:

> Nonparticipating aircraft are not prohibited from flying within an
> MTR; however, extreme vigilance should be exercised when conducting
> flight through or near these routes.

So, in the absence of other information, I assume he was found at fault
because he didn't "exercise extreme vigilance." And my suspicious
nature assumes because the FAA can't do anything to a military pilot
anyway. It would be interesting to know the altitude, because most
MTR traffic above 1500 AGL (I think) is IFR, which kind of guarantees
they won't be looking outside much.

Mike Beede

[Teacherjh]

>>
I get the feeling you don't understand that a "Military Training
Route" is not ordinary see-and-avoid airspace. Rather, it's airspace
used in a special way, with military aircraft given exclusive use when
the airspace is active.
<<

This is not true.

To the best of my knowledge, MTRs are "ordniary see-and-avoid" airspace, whose
routes are charted on VFR charts for the edification of VFR pilots, like alert
areas and MOAs. However, they are in no way prohibited, active or not.

If you have a reference to contradict this, I would be VERY interested in
seeing it.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Teacherjh]

>>
Sorry, Mary, but you are wrong. You're thinking of
an MOA.
<<

Even MOAs are not prohibited. Only Prohibited areas (P-51) are prohibited.
Restricted areas (R-3004A) are prohibited, I believe, only when they are hot
and you are not coordinated through them. I've flown through them, after
getting what passes for a clearance.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[BTIZ]

Mary... you are WRONG... I've flown both sides of this issue.

"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:54:17 -0500, Greg Copeland >
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 14:36:05 +0000, Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> I get the feeling you don't understand that a "Military Training
> Route" is not ordinary see-and-avoid airspace. Rather, it's airspace
> used in a special way, with military aircraft given exclusive use when
> the airspace is active.

It is ordinary SEE AND AVOID airspace, there is not any airspace other than
possibly ClassA that is not. MTRs whether IR or VR are still see and avoid.
An IR route can be flown in IFR/IMC conditions and has ATC IFR seperation
from other IFR traffic.

If the weather in the IR is VFR, there can be VFR traffic in or crossing the
route and SEE AND AVOID applies.

A VR route can only be flown in VFR/VMC conditions and does not have ATC
seperation from IFR traffic.

>
> Other aircraft, including gliders, are supposed to stay out of the
> route when it's active. This glider pilot didn't, and so was at
> fault.
>

B*** S***, see comments above.

> He was in an airspace forbidden to him then, an airspace dedicated at
> that time to the use of high-speed aircraft. He wasn't expected to
> dodge the fast-mover but to stay away from the airspace reserved for

more BS, MTRs are not "forbidden airspace", the only "forbidden" airspace is
"Restricted or Prohibited". I can be VFR in a MOA if I want.. just not
smart to do it without talking to the controlling agency. We cross MOAs out
here all the time with "controllying agency" contact, and can even get
cleared through restriced airspace if it is not in use. If we did not, we
would add 100s of miles to the trip.


> that fast-mover. The reason the space is reserved is that it's hard
> to get out of the way of a fast-mover, because there isn't enough time
> between when you see it and when it's where you are for you to be
> elsewhere. And the fast-mover doesn't have any more time to maneuver.
> Maybe less, as gliders are smaller and, maybe, harder to see.
>

I've flown IR and VR MTRs in VMC at speeds in excess of 0.9M from 200ft to
2000ft AGL. And yes, I've had to dodge a few VFR general aviation
transients.

It is every pilots responsiblility to be aware of IR and VR routes, know if
they are "active" and to be more dilligent for high speed low altitude
traffic in the area.

>
> --
> Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
>

[John R Weiss]

"Mike Beede" > wrote...
>>
>> I get the feeling you don't understand that a "Military Training
>> Route" is not ordinary see-and-avoid airspace. Rather, it's airspace
>> used in a special way, with military aircraft given exclusive use when
>> the airspace is active.
>
> Sorry, Mary, but you are wrong. You're thinking of
> an MOA. The Airman's Information Manual has this to say about Military
> Training Routes:
>
>> Nonparticipating aircraft are not prohibited from flying within an
>> MTR; however, extreme vigilance should be exercised when conducting
>> flight through or near these routes.

Actually, MOAs are not exclusive-use, either. Only active Restricted or
Prohibited areas (FAR 91.133) disallow non-participating aircraft altogether --
oh yeah... I almost forgot those "Temporary" TFRs (91.137)...

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 18:55:33 -0700, "BTIZ" >
wrote in Message-Id: <mOjic.20347$432.4898@fed1read01>:

>It is every pilots responsiblility to be aware of IR and VR routes, know if
>they are "active" and to be more dilligent for high speed low altitude
>traffic in the area.

In my experience, FSS more often than not knows very little about MTR
activity despite the mandate for the military to notify them when they
plan MTR activity. Like you said, if a pilot's mission takes him into
MTR territory, it is his responsibility to contact each military
authority and coordinate transit. Less than that, and he's inviting
grim consequences. Because radio communications are difficult down
low, and it can be difficult to find the right person to talk to about
MTR activity, it is best accomplished on the ground before launch by
telephone.

[Mary Shafer]

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 03:00:52 GMT, "John R Weiss"
> wrote:

> "Mike Beede" > wrote...
> >>
> >> I get the feeling you don't understand that a "Military Training
> >> Route" is not ordinary see-and-avoid airspace. Rather, it's airspace
> >> used in a special way, with military aircraft given exclusive use when
> >> the airspace is active.
> >
> > Sorry, Mary, but you are wrong. You're thinking of
> > an MOA. The Airman's Information Manual has this to say about Military
> > Training Routes:
> >
> >> Nonparticipating aircraft are not prohibited from flying within an
> >> MTR; however, extreme vigilance should be exercised when conducting
> >> flight through or near these routes.
>
> Actually, MOAs are not exclusive-use, either. Only active Restricted or
> Prohibited areas (FAR 91.133) disallow non-participating aircraft altogether --
> oh yeah... I almost forgot those "Temporary" TFRs (91.137)...

Sorry, my mistake. Too many years in R-2508 and environs.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Mary Shafer]

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 18:57:48 -0500, Mike Beede > wrote:

> In article >, Mary Shafer > wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:54:17 -0500, Greg Copeland >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 14:36:05 +0000, Larry Dighera wrote:
> >
> > > > The glider was in class G airspace as far as I can tell, albeit
> > > > apparently within a Military Training Route. It is my understanding
> > > > that aircraft operating there are still governed by the see-and-avoid
> > > > mandate.
> >
> > > I understand that. And that was pretty much the basis of my question.
> > > The glider had right of way. Yet, "found the glider pilot to be at
> > > fault". To me, that says they expected a glider to get the heck out of
> > > the way of a highspeed aircraft. Thusly, my paraphrased statement of,
> > > "I'm crazy because I don't understand how they could expect that to happen."
> >
> > I get the feeling you don't understand that a "Military Training
> > Route" is not ordinary see-and-avoid airspace. Rather, it's airspace
> > used in a special way, with military aircraft given exclusive use when
> > the airspace is active.
> >
>
> Sorry, Mary, but you are wrong. You're thinking of
> an MOA.

No, I was thinking of R-2508, which is a restricted area. My mistake.
I'm sorry.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 16:18:47 -0700, Mary Shafer >
wrote in Message-Id: >:

>On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:54:17 -0500, Greg Copeland >
>wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 14:36:05 +0000, Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>> > The glider was in class G airspace as far as I can tell, albeit
>> > apparently within a Military Training Route. It is my understanding
>> > that aircraft operating there are still governed by the see-and-avoid
>> > mandate.
>
>> I understand that. And that was pretty much the basis of my question.
>> The glider had right of way. Yet, "found the glider pilot to be at
>> fault". To me, that says they expected a glider to get the heck out of
>> the way of a highspeed aircraft. Thusly, my paraphrased statement of,
>> "I'm crazy because I don't understand how they could expect that to happen."
>
>I get the feeling you don't understand that a "Military Training
>Route" is not ordinary see-and-avoid airspace. Rather, it's airspace
>used in a special way, with military aircraft given exclusive use when
>the airspace is active.

I have a feeling that the misapprehension you hold is common among
military personnel. Please inform your base safety officer of this
area of misunderstanding, so that the word gets out to the pilots who
fly MTRs.

>Other aircraft, including gliders, are supposed to stay out of the
>route when it's active. This glider pilot didn't, and so was at
>fault.
>
>He was in an airspace forbidden to him then, an airspace dedicated at
>that time to the use of high-speed aircraft. He wasn't expected to
>dodge the fast-mover but to stay away from the airspace reserved for
>that fast-mover. The reason the space is reserved is that it's hard
>to get out of the way of a fast-mover, because there isn't enough time
>between when you see it and when it's where you are for you to be
>elsewhere. And the fast-mover doesn't have any more time to maneuver.
>Maybe less, as gliders are smaller and, maybe, harder to see.
>
>Mary

I completely agree with your assessment of the impossibility of
see-and-avoid in these situations.

[BTIZ]

> > Sorry, Mary, but you are wrong. You're thinking of
> > an MOA.
>
> No, I was thinking of R-2508, which is a restricted area. My mistake.
> I'm sorry.
>
> Mary

Mary... I fly general aviation, power and gliders, through R-2508 on regular
occasions... mostly on weekends, and while talking to the controlling
agency. Some times I get cleared through it, and some times I have to stay
clear, in the MOA and shoot the gap at Trona.

BT

[Mary Shafer]

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 21:48:16 -0700, "BTIZ" >
wrote:

> > > Sorry, Mary, but you are wrong. You're thinking of
> > > an MOA.
> >
> > No, I was thinking of R-2508, which is a restricted area. My mistake.
> > I'm sorry.
> >
> > Mary
>
> Mary... I fly general aviation, power and gliders, through R-2508 on regular
> occasions... mostly on weekends, and while talking to the controlling
> agency. Some times I get cleared through it, and some times I have to stay
> clear, in the MOA and shoot the gap at Trona.

That's because NASA Dryden and AFFTC don't have the money for
overtime, so they don't fly much on the weekends. Makes it convenient
for everyone else.

Actually, there's not nearly as much flying these days as there has
been in the past. I can remember when we'd have to loiter to get into
the PIRA, the spin areas, and even the supersonic corridors. These
days you can ask for them on the fly and get them, rather than
requesting them a week in advance.

Although having a restricted area doesn't always do that much good. I
can remember one Wednesday before Thanksgiving when we were flying the
F-8 DFBW and saw a GA airplane fly right in front of it on the tail
camera, downlinked to the control room. The pilot of the safety chase
promptly dashed off and got the guy's tail number for Sport (that's
the RAPCON at Edwards) and when the guy landed in Bishop the FAA was
waiting for him. The guy was just sneaking through the area, taking a
chance that no one would be out there on the day before the holiday, I
guess.

I've always wondered what the guy thought when he saw the F-104 chase
plane circling him. Actually we all wondered if he ever even saw the
zipper, as the chase pilot reported that he never turned his head.

That gap at Trona is a long way off, isn't it? I guess the airline
pilots have a real problem when the Daggett Shelf is hot, as it was
when we were flying the SR-71, because that gap on the southeast
corner gets a lot smaller, particularly when Garry Owen is hot. If it
wasn't a Blackbird you were dodging, it was an artillery shell. ATC
must have been really glad when we finally retired the SRs in '99.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[BTIZ]

Military people and the gov't like their weekends off too.

Trona is not so far off if you are going from Las Vegas to Cal City or
Tehachapi

BT

"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 21:48:16 -0700, "BTIZ" >
> wrote:
>
> > > > Sorry, Mary, but you are wrong. You're thinking of
> > > > an MOA.
> > >
> > > No, I was thinking of R-2508, which is a restricted area. My mistake.
> > > I'm sorry.
> > >
> > > Mary
> >
> > Mary... I fly general aviation, power and gliders, through R-2508 on
regular
> > occasions... mostly on weekends, and while talking to the controlling
> > agency. Some times I get cleared through it, and some times I have to
stay
> > clear, in the MOA and shoot the gap at Trona.
>
> That's because NASA Dryden and AFFTC don't have the money for
> overtime, so they don't fly much on the weekends. Makes it convenient
> for everyone else.
>
> Actually, there's not nearly as much flying these days as there has
> been in the past. I can remember when we'd have to loiter to get into
> the PIRA, the spin areas, and even the supersonic corridors. These
> days you can ask for them on the fly and get them, rather than
> requesting them a week in advance.
>
> Although having a restricted area doesn't always do that much good. I
> can remember one Wednesday before Thanksgiving when we were flying the
> F-8 DFBW and saw a GA airplane fly right in front of it on the tail
> camera, downlinked to the control room. The pilot of the safety chase
> promptly dashed off and got the guy's tail number for Sport (that's
> the RAPCON at Edwards) and when the guy landed in Bishop the FAA was
> waiting for him. The guy was just sneaking through the area, taking a
> chance that no one would be out there on the day before the holiday, I
> guess.
>
> I've always wondered what the guy thought when he saw the F-104 chase
> plane circling him. Actually we all wondered if he ever even saw the
> zipper, as the chase pilot reported that he never turned his head.
>
> That gap at Trona is a long way off, isn't it? I guess the airline
> pilots have a real problem when the Daggett Shelf is hot, as it was
> when we were flying the SR-71, because that gap on the southeast
> corner gets a lot smaller, particularly when Garry Owen is hot. If it
> wasn't a Blackbird you were dodging, it was an artillery shell. ATC
> must have been really glad when we finally retired the SRs in '99.
>
> Mary
>
> --
> Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
>