Scared of mid-airs

[Jeff Crowell[_1_]]

Jeff Crowell wrote:
>>You have been claiming that the speed of the USAF flight
>>was "480 knots (550 mph) at impact" (your post, 7/14),
>>when actual recorded speed at impact was 356 KCAS
>>per the accident report.

Larry Dighera wrote:
> [That would be Message-ID:
> >]
>
> AIB Report mentions the 480 knot closure speed twice:
> AIB Report:
> "The closure rate of Cessna 829 and Ninja 1 based on
> radar-measured conflict alert data just prior to the collision was
> approximately 480 KTAS."
>
> "Based on their closure rate of approximately 480 knots," ...
>
> With regard to your 356 KCAS airspeed at the time of impact, that is
> not given as Ninja 2's speed in the AIB nor NTSB reports. Here's the
> only reference to that number I was able to find in either document:
>
> AIB Report:
>
> "Ninja 1's displayed airspeed at the time of the midair was
> 356 KCAS" ...
>
> You'll recall that Ninja 1 was not the aircraft that impacted the
> Cessna. (I find the fact that the AIB report equates 'displayed
> airspeed' with calibrated air speed a bit puzzling. Do F-16 airspeed
> indicators actually display calibrated airspeed?)

I certainly grant the difference between Ninjas 1 and 2.
Don't you think that if Ninja 2 was flying form on Ninja 1,
their speeds must have been pretty close? And, I say again,
blithely using closure speed as speed of the mishap aircraft is
purposely deceptive.

As for KCAS versus KIAS in displays, I have no time in
F-16s, so I can't answer that categorically. But since
KCAS corrects for system error, it is more accurate than
KIAS, so why not? It would not surprise me if what's
displayed on the HUD, for example, and therefore
recorded by the tapes, is KCAS, since data displayed
there has been massaged by the aircraft's air data
computer (or some analogous system)...


> So, lacking evidence to the contrary, I used the closing speed as the
> speed at the time of impact. That may be incorrect, but lacking
> better information, it seems reasonable to me, and not an exaggeration
> nor hyperbole.

It doesn't strike you as even a little bit inflammatory in light
of your usage of that number? What the hey, you're only
off by 25%. Close enough, huh?


>>>>Per the F-16 Dash 1 he was allowed to be at 350 knots at
>>>>that altitude, and was traveling only slightly faster at the time
>>>>of the collision. What about that statement (from the
>>>>accident investigation) do you not understand?
>>>
>>> Jeff, I understand that 450 knots within congested terminal airspace
>>> is about one third faster than the 350 knot speed limit you state
>>> above. One third is not 'slightly faster'. It is _significantly_
>>> faster. (The 450 knot figure is quoted from the AIB report at the
>>> beginning of this follow up article.) Perhaps you can provide the
>>> reasoning you used in arriving at your conclusion.
>>
>>Speed of the F-16 at impact was 356 KCAS.
>
> Limiting the discussion to your 356 KCAS speed at the time of impact
> figure disregards this fact:
>
> Final NTSB Report MIA01FA028A:
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001212X22313&ntsbno=MIA01FA028A&akey=1
> "Speeds of up to 450 knots were noted during the descent."
>
> Why would you overlook that 450 knot speed? Does the F-16 Dash 1 only
> pertain to the speed at time of impact? :-)

Somewhere during the entire flight, Ninja 2's speed might
easily have been supersonic; would that have had any influence
on the collision? (other than the cosmic scheduling of it all--
obviously, anything which might have occurred to either F-16
or Cessna to speed or delay their movements throughout their
respective flights that day would have prevented this tragedy).
Seen that way, if Ninja had gone even a little faster then this
would have been nothing more than a close miss.

I never debated that Ninja flight recorded a speed of 450
knots during the flight. I'm simply saying that the speed
that really matters is the speed immediately prior to the
collision. I have not seen any claim other than yours that
Ninja was knocking down 450 knots within that critical
interval. And you are clearly selecting your data to put
your argument in the best possible light.

Similarly, the fact that closure rate was 480 knots of
course has meaning in terms of how much time was
available to both pilots to see and avoid. But to imply or
suggest that this is in any way the same as saying
that Ninja was making almost 500 knots at impact is a
blatant lie.


Jeff

[Jose[_1_]]

> Keep the kid off the racetrack and everybody's happy. Responsible adults do that.

Race cars are not raced =to= the racetrack on side streets. You also
have to keep the race car off the sidestreets to make everybody happy.

>> Airliners aren't known for great visibility either.
>
> And yet they have so few MAC's. Why is that?

Magic. Actually, I think the military also has few MACs (though I
haven't looked at the stats), and the airlines =have= had a few MACs of
note.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 15:25:29 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> wrote in
>::

>On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 14:21:30 GMT, Larry Dighera >
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 04:49:37 GMT, 588 > wrote in
>::
>>
>>>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>>
>>>> An equally onerous solution would be to curtail MTR operations in the
>>>> CONUS.
>>>
>>>No, that would be a far less satisfactory solution than converting
>>>airspace associated with military training routes to Restricted
>>>areas.
>>
>>The more I think about such a conversion, the more appropriate I think
>>it would be. If Restricted airspace were created around MTRs, the
>>hazardous area would be fully depicted on charts. Instead of MTRs
>>being shown as a thin gray line, their true lateral dimensions would
>>be represented. Of course the chart might become so cluttered as to
>>be incomprehensible, but that doesn't seem to be a factor of concern
>>for those charged with designing airspace nor their cartographers.
>
>OK, your homework for this week is to pick a major USAF tactical base.
>You seem familiar with MacDill, but you could use Langley, Luke,
>Nellis, Seymour-Johnson or similar. Now, draw up a minimum of four low
>level MTRs, each a minimum of 300 miles in length. Be sure that entry
>and exit points are close enough to base of origin for local
>operations during a typical 90 minute flight. Have at least two of the
>routes terminate on a weapons range. Consider the routes restricted
>airspace. Now, how does your GA traffic go anywhere? You have
>effectively created boxes that don't allow anyone else to use the
>airspace.

With regard to low-level MTRs, isn't the ceiling 500' AGL to 1,500'
AGL? Why not just fly over top of the proposed MTR restricted
airspace? If that approach should happen to interfere with
navigation, then the pilot would do what he always does to enter R
airspace: Contact ATC. I don't see the problem you apparently do.
What am I overlooking?

>Isn't joint-use under VFR more practical?

Joint use of MTR airspace causes a hazard to air navigation because of
the high speeds involved. Practicality is trumped by air safety in my
mind. Is it not in yours?

>>
>>Of course, military high-speed, low-level MTR operations outside the
>>Restricted airspace bounds would be prohibited. So if a MTR run
>>impaled a civil aircraft outside of R airspace, there would be no
>>ambiguity about who was responsible (and don't give me that
>>see-and-avoid weasel clause; it's absurdly unrealistic at the speeds
>>involved).
>
>How much time do you have driving an airplane at 300 knots or more?
>I've got about 4000 hours of tactical jet operation and never seemed
>to find it too difficult to see-and-avoid other aircraft.

Would you characterize yourself as typical of the skill level attained
by the majority of military fighter pilots?

>Let's also note something regarding your favorite 250 knot restriction
>below 10M'. For a period of time (long ago, galaxy far, far away), I
>operated an aircraft that flew final approach at typical landing
>weight at 205 KIAS. That was landing configuration with gear and flaps
>down. In clean configuration, 350 knots was generally the minimum
>maneuverable speed. At 250 knots clean, my agile fighter suddenly
>became a shuddering block of non-aerodynamic technology with little
>more G available than your Cessna 172. Not practical.
>
>Today, aircraft operate comfortably at lower speeds, but still need
>operational flexibility and therefore the exemption of the 250 knot
>restriction remains necessary.

I don't recall having said the exemption isn't necessary.

My objection is to the _hazard_ operating in excess of the speed limit
the National Airspace System designers chose while creating the
system. If you think the 250 knot limit below 10,000' is unwarranted,
perhaps your credentials are superior to those who designed the
system. Doubtful.

Let's do a little analysis.

VFR minimum visibility: 3 statute miles = 15,480'

250 knots: 417' per second

Time to impact at 250 knots closing: 37 seconds (3 statute miles)

These times do not take into consideration the speed of BOTH aircraft,
and more importantly, they do not allow for the time it takes to
recognize the threat, decide to maneuver out of the path, and the time
it takes for the aircraft to respond and actually finish clearing the
path.

More likely, the exemption was issued as a necessary expedient at a
time when the sky was much bigger (if you know what I mean), and there
was less oversight. Today that exemption creates a negative impact on
air safety, and the whole issue should be objectively reexamined by
qualified engineers.

>>

[...]

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> With regard to low-level MTRs, isn't the ceiling 500' AGL to 1,500'
> AGL? Why not just fly over top of the proposed MTR restricted
> airspace? If that approach should happen to interfere with
> navigation, then the pilot would do what he always does to enter R
> airspace: Contact ATC. I don't see the problem you apparently do.
> What am I overlooking?
>

That contacting ATC doesn't mean you'll be cleared to enter a Restricted
Area.




>>Isn't joint-use under VFR more practical?
>
> Joint use of MTR airspace causes a hazard to air navigation because of
> the high speeds involved. Practicality is trumped by air safety in my
> mind. Is it not in yours?
>
>>>
>>>Of course, military high-speed, low-level MTR operations outside the
>>>Restricted airspace bounds would be prohibited. So if a MTR run
>>>impaled a civil aircraft outside of R airspace, there would be no
>>>ambiguity about who was responsible (and don't give me that
>>>see-and-avoid weasel clause; it's absurdly unrealistic at the speeds
>>>involved).
>>
>>How much time do you have driving an airplane at 300 knots or more?
>>I've got about 4000 hours of tactical jet operation and never seemed
>>to find it too difficult to see-and-avoid other aircraft.
>
> Would you characterize yourself as typical of the skill level attained
> by the majority of military fighter pilots?
>
>>Let's also note something regarding your favorite 250 knot restriction
>>below 10M'. For a period of time (long ago, galaxy far, far away), I
>>operated an aircraft that flew final approach at typical landing
>>weight at 205 KIAS. That was landing configuration with gear and flaps
>>down. In clean configuration, 350 knots was generally the minimum
>>maneuverable speed. At 250 knots clean, my agile fighter suddenly
>>became a shuddering block of non-aerodynamic technology with little
>>more G available than your Cessna 172. Not practical.
>>
>>Today, aircraft operate comfortably at lower speeds, but still need
>>operational flexibility and therefore the exemption of the 250 knot
>>restriction remains necessary.
>
> I don't recall having said the exemption isn't necessary.
>
> My objection is to the _hazard_ operating in excess of the speed limit
> the National Airspace System designers chose while creating the
> system. If you think the 250 knot limit below 10,000' is unwarranted,
> perhaps your credentials are superior to those who designed the
> system. Doubtful.
>
> Let's do a little analysis.
>
> VFR minimum visibility: 3 statute miles = 15,480'
>
> 250 knots: 417' per second
>
> Time to impact at 250 knots closing: 37 seconds (3 statute miles)
>
> These times do not take into consideration the speed of BOTH aircraft,
> and more importantly, they do not allow for the time it takes to
> recognize the threat, decide to maneuver out of the path, and the time
> it takes for the aircraft to respond and actually finish clearing the
> path.
>
> More likely, the exemption was issued as a necessary expedient at a
> time when the sky was much bigger (if you know what I mean), and there
> was less oversight. Today that exemption creates a negative impact on
> air safety, and the whole issue should be objectively reexamined by
> qualified engineers.
>
>>>
>
> [...]

[Jose[_1_]]

> With regard to low-level MTRs, isn't the ceiling 500' AGL to 1,500'
> AGL? Why not just fly over top of the proposed MTR restricted
> airspace?

There may be overlying SUA, or overlying clouds, or GL may already be
pretty high up.

> If that approach should happen to interfere with
> navigation, then the pilot would do what he always does to enter R
> airspace: Contact ATC.

I've attempted that, and also contacting the FSS as printed on the
charts themselves, and often the putative controlling agency doesn't
know whether it's hot or not.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 15:28:47 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 15:25:29 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> wrote in
>::
>
>>OK, your homework for this week is to pick a major USAF tactical base.
>>You seem familiar with MacDill, but you could use Langley, Luke,
>>Nellis, Seymour-Johnson or similar. Now, draw up a minimum of four low
>>level MTRs, each a minimum of 300 miles in length. Be sure that entry
>>and exit points are close enough to base of origin for local
>>operations during a typical 90 minute flight. Have at least two of the
>>routes terminate on a weapons range. Consider the routes restricted
>>airspace. Now, how does your GA traffic go anywhere? You have
>>effectively created boxes that don't allow anyone else to use the
>>airspace.
>
>With regard to low-level MTRs, isn't the ceiling 500' AGL to 1,500'
>AGL? Why not just fly over top of the proposed MTR restricted
>airspace? If that approach should happen to interfere with
>navigation, then the pilot would do what he always does to enter R
>airspace: Contact ATC. I don't see the problem you apparently do.
>What am I overlooking?

You've added a factor not previously in evidence. If you draw the MTR
with those altitude specs, then you MAY be able to create routes that
would be meet training requirements and allow for reasonably
unhindered GA traffic.

You're overlooking the fact that ATC doesn't usually have coverage at
those altitudes in areas typically employed for MTRs. They won't be
able to offer you the desired "no responsibility on the part of the GA
pilot" guarantee of no threat because they can't see traffic at those
altitudes.

Additionally, training maneuvers on an MTR may require formation
repositioning, simulated evasive maneuvers, simulated armed
reconnaisance maneuvering and even simulated weapons delivery
maneuvers and re-attacks. Those requirements could seriously mitigate
your ability to create 500-1500' AGL corridors.
>
>>Isn't joint-use under VFR more practical?
>
>Joint use of MTR airspace causes a hazard to air navigation because of
>the high speeds involved. Practicality is trumped by air safety in my
>mind. Is it not in yours?

If you ask that last sentence question, you must not have been paying
attention throught the last 120 messages here. The (relatively) high
speeds involved are not the problem you continually try to make them.
>
>>How much time do you have driving an airplane at 300 knots or more?
>>I've got about 4000 hours of tactical jet operation and never seemed
>>to find it too difficult to see-and-avoid other aircraft.
>
>Would you characterize yourself as typical of the skill level attained
>by the majority of military fighter pilots?

You demonstrate here that you actually don't know many military
fighter pilots (BTW, there is no other kind--all fighter pilots are
military). Show me a fighter pilot who does not contend that his
personal skill level is above the average and I'll show you a pilot
who will lose tomorrow.

My skill level was generally above the majority. But the training
level I required of those who were my students, those in my squadron
and those in my flights was more than adequate to do the job safely.
>
>>Let's also note something regarding your favorite 250 knot restriction
>>below 10M'. For a period of time (long ago, galaxy far, far away), I
>>operated an aircraft that flew final approach at typical landing
>>weight at 205 KIAS. That was landing configuration with gear and flaps
>>down. In clean configuration, 350 knots was generally the minimum
>>maneuverable speed. At 250 knots clean, my agile fighter suddenly
>>became a shuddering block of non-aerodynamic technology with little
>>more G available than your Cessna 172. Not practical.
>>
>>Today, aircraft operate comfortably at lower speeds, but still need
>>operational flexibility and therefore the exemption of the 250 knot
>>restriction remains necessary.
>
>I don't recall having said the exemption isn't necessary.
>
>My objection is to the _hazard_ operating in excess of the speed limit
>the National Airspace System designers chose while creating the
>system. If you think the 250 knot limit below 10,000' is unwarranted,
>perhaps your credentials are superior to those who designed the
>system. Doubtful.

My credentials may be different than theirs. But, they recognized the
operational and aerodyamic necessity of the exception as well as I do.
You are apparently the only one who does not recognize that some high
performance tactical aircraft require that exemption to operate
safely. 'Tis you Moriarty, not I.
>
>Let's do a little analysis.
>
>VFR minimum visibility: 3 statute miles = 15,480'
>
>250 knots: 417' per second
>
>Time to impact at 250 knots closing: 37 seconds (3 statute miles)

OK, hold your breath for 37 seconds. It's an incredibly long time.
>
>These times do not take into consideration the speed of BOTH aircraft,
>and more importantly, they do not allow for the time it takes to
>recognize the threat, decide to maneuver out of the path, and the time
>it takes for the aircraft to respond and actually finish clearing the
>path.

Three seconds? Maybe five if you can't make a decision quickly.
>
>More likely, the exemption was issued as a necessary expedient at a
>time when the sky was much bigger (if you know what I mean), and there
>was less oversight. Today that exemption creates a negative impact on
>air safety, and the whole issue should be objectively reexamined by
>qualified engineers.

Not engineers you twit. Operators!

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[Jose[_1_]]

>>then the pilot would do what he always does to enter R
>> airspace: Contact ATC. I don't see the problem you apparently do.
>> What am I overlooking?
> That contacting ATC doesn't mean you'll be cleared to enter a Restricted
> Area.

I think there's the implication that one might be able to obtain
permssion to do so via ATC (and if not, one stays away).

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 15:59:33 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
et>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> With regard to low-level MTRs, isn't the ceiling 500' AGL to 1,500'
>> AGL? Why not just fly over top of the proposed MTR restricted
>> airspace? If that approach should happen to interfere with
>> navigation, then the pilot would do what he always does to enter R
>> airspace: Contact ATC. I don't see the problem you apparently do.
>> What am I overlooking?
>>
>
>That contacting ATC doesn't mean you'll be cleared to enter a Restricted
>Area.


True. Wouldn't you presume, that any denial of access into R airspace
would be predicated on the fact that there is training activity
occurring with in that R airspace (it's hot)? If so, it probably
wouldn't be a good idea to enter that MTR at that time even if it
remained joint use. Right?

[Jose[_1_]]

> OK, hold your breath for 37 seconds. It's an incredibly long time.

It's a lot of sky to scan. And if nose to nose, you only have 19 seconds.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 16:02:22 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >:

>then the pilot would do what he always does to enter R
>> airspace: Contact ATC.
>
>I've attempted that, and also contacting the FSS as printed on the
>charts themselves, and often the putative controlling agency doesn't
>know whether it's hot or not.

That is true. Why do you suppose that occurs?

Do you think ATC is so disorganized, that they can't find the military
activity information, or do you think the military has provided
ambiguous information, what? It would seem, that given the system in
place for activating and deactivating Restricted airspace, there
should be a concrete answer available at all times.

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 06:54:23 -0600, "Jeff Crowell"
> wrote:

>As for KCAS versus KIAS in displays, I have no time in
>F-16s, so I can't answer that categorically. But since
>KCAS corrects for system error, it is more accurate than
>KIAS, so why not? It would not surprise me if what's
>displayed on the HUD, for example, and therefore
>recorded by the tapes, is KCAS, since data displayed
>there has been massaged by the aircraft's air data
>computer (or some analogous system)...

Just a refresher for those who have been out of pilot training for a
long time:

ICE-T is the mnemonic for remembering the calculations involving going
from airspeed on the pitot-static gauge (Where's Tarver these days?)
to real, honest-to-God speed through the air.

Indicated airspeed is the uncorrected number of the pitot instrument.

Calibrated AS is corrected for "position error"--in the early days
pitot tubes often were placed conveniently for designers but that
resulted in either boundary layer distortions or plumbing errors along
the tubing to the diaphragm of the gauge. Modern aircraft (since the
'50s) minimize this error and for all practical considerations
Indicated is equal to Calibrated. As Jeff states, data processing
through the air data computer makes this computation.

Equivalent airspeed correct calibrated for "compressibility
error"--the fact that air is an elastic substance and at transonic
speeds creates molecule buildup at the pitot tube that distorts the
reading of the gauge. Typically Equivalent will be slightly lower than
Calibrated. At trans-sonic speeds the error spikes in a narrow regime
but then returns to small error less than Calibrated.

True airspeed is Equivalent airspeed corrected for air density.
Temperature and pressure reduce air density meaning fewer molecules
per cubic unit of atmosphere to register on the pneumatic instrument.
So, an indication is always lower than actual speed through the air.
Rule of thumb for standard day is 2% per thousand feet of altitude.
So, true airspeed is always higher than indicated and at high
altitudes is considerably higher.

This technical data should leave Larry calculating and seeking
further charts and documentation for weeks. When he returns I am sure
the speed of convergence will not be translated into TAS so that the
differentials are the maximum.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> True. Wouldn't you presume, that any denial of access into R airspace
> would be predicated on the fact that there is training activity
> occurring with in that R airspace (it's hot)? If so, it probably
> wouldn't be a good idea to enter that MTR at that time even if it
> remained joint use. Right?
>

Right. Given that one does not need permission to enter when it isn't hot,
what was your point?

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 16:42:07 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 16:02:22 GMT, Jose >
>wrote in >:
>
>>then the pilot would do what he always does to enter R
>>> airspace: Contact ATC.
>>
>>I've attempted that, and also contacting the FSS as printed on the
>>charts themselves, and often the putative controlling agency doesn't
>>know whether it's hot or not.
>
>That is true. Why do you suppose that occurs?
>
>Do you think ATC is so disorganized, that they can't find the military
>activity information, or do you think the military has provided
>ambiguous information, what? It would seem, that given the system in
>place for activating and deactivating Restricted airspace, there
>should be a concrete answer available at all times.

Could it be a level of operational intensity that makes
minute-by-minute update impractical?

Example:

Holloman AFB operating four squadrons (32 airplanes each) conducting
Fighter Lead-In Training for recent graduates of Undergraduate Pilot
Training enroute to fighter assignments. Average of 120 sorties per
day ranging from single ship to two, three and four ship flights. Also
second fighter wing with three more squadrons of 18 aircraft each
conducting complex operations coordinated with ground radar
environments and often requiring supersonic airspace.

Schedule published twelve hours before operations commence. Airspace
activated as scheduled, but morning fog precludes launches. Delays of
thirty minutes--should airspace be turned back? Launch when weather
allows and airspace is hot. Schedule is both slipped and compressed to
keep training flow and meet required completions dates.

Flight aborts because of maintenance problems. Beak B is now empty but
A and C remain "hot". Should GA aircraft be cleared through B or
should airspace remain blocked for fifteen minute late launch of
flight? Scheduled A/G mission cancelled because of unavailability of
properly configured aircraft. Add-on to schedule with available
aircraft to fly A/A sortie. Schedule flexes again.

Afternoon weather builds up in Talon N, so unscheduled Beak C takes
additional sorties from Talon N.

And on and on.

Conversely, Saturday and Sunday no scheduled training, so airspace is
released. Maintenance requires a block for a functional check flight
on a repaired airplane. Flexibility to allow delay waiting for ATC to
clear GA aircraft out of the block is no problem. Life goes on.

Isn't that different than your innuendo laden language above?
"ATC is so disorganized..." "military information is so ambiguous..."


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 16:37:43 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>> OK, hold your breath for 37 seconds. It's an incredibly long time.
>
>It's a lot of sky to scan. And if nose to nose, you only have 19 seconds.
>
>Jose

Great, you've got 19 seconds and I've got 19 seconds. Head-on, unless
we are perfectly aligned with miss each other ("Big Sky theory"), but
if either of us see the other, then we do what? Do you know which way
to turn? It IS spelled out in regs. If both of us see each other, we
both do what is required. Still no problem.

Now, you're driving down the Interstate--look at the car in front of
you, watch it pass a marker and count the interval in seconds that you
are maintaining. There's where the danger lies. Back off to 19 seconds
and think how much safer you'll be.

Look out the window. See and avoid. Don't depend upon someone else to
do it for you. There are no guarantees in life. Buy low, sell high.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:01:59 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
et>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> True. Wouldn't you presume, that any denial of access into R airspace
>> would be predicated on the fact that there is training activity
>> occurring with in that R airspace (it's hot)? If so, it probably
>> wouldn't be a good idea to enter that MTR at that time even if it
>> remained joint use. Right?
>>
>
>Right. Given that one does not need permission to enter when it isn't hot,
>what was your point?
>

So you're saying ATC doesn't grant permission to enter R airspace, and
it is up to the pilot to enter or not based on ATC's information
regarding scheduled activity within it? There's no _clearance_
involved then?

Given:

http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap3/aim0304.html#3-4-3
Section 4. Special Use Airspace
3-4-3. Restricted Areas
Penetration of restricted areas without authorization from the
using or controlling agency may be extremely hazardous to the
aircraft and its occupants.

It would seem that a pilot would require authorization from the
controlling agency (usually ATC) if not a clearance.

Unfortunately, I don't find 'authorization' contained in the
Pilot/Controller Glossary: http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/PCG/A.HTM

What form would that authorization take?


[Clearance is contained in the Pilot/Controller Glossary:

AIR TRAFFIC CLEARANCE- An authorization by air traffic control for
the purpose of preventing collision between known aircraft, for an
aircraft to proceed under specified traffic conditions within
controlled airspace. The pilot-in-command of an aircraft may not
deviate from the provisions of a visual flight rules (VFR) or
instrument flight rules (IFR) air traffic clearance except in an
emergency or unless an amended clearance has been obtained.
Additionally, the pilot may request a different clearance from
that which has been issued by air traffic control (ATC) if
information available to the pilot makes another course of action
more practicable or if aircraft equipment limitations or company
procedures forbid compliance with the clearance issued. Pilots may
also request clarification or amendment, as appropriate, any time
a clearance is not fully understood, or considered unacceptable
because of safety of flight. Controllers should, in such instances
and to the extent of operational practicality and safety, honor
the pilot's request. 14 CFR Part 91.3(a) states: "The pilot in
command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the
final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft." THE PILOT
IS RESPONSIBLE TO REQUEST AN AMENDED CLEARANCE if ATC issues a
clearance that would cause a pilot to deviate from a rule or
regulation, or in the pilot's opinion, would place the aircraft in
jeopardy.

It would seem, that a clearance is only applicable in within
controlled airspace, of which R airspace may or may not be, right?]

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:51:37 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> wrote in
>:

>On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 16:42:07 GMT, Larry Dighera >
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 16:02:22 GMT, Jose >
>>wrote in >:
>>
>>>then the pilot would do what he always does to enter R
>>>> airspace: Contact ATC.
>>>
>>>I've attempted that, and also contacting the FSS as printed on the
>>>charts themselves, and often the putative controlling agency doesn't
>>>know whether it's hot or not.
>>
>>That is true. Why do you suppose that occurs?
>>
>>Do you think ATC is so disorganized, that they can't find the military
>>activity information, or do you think the military has provided
>>ambiguous information, what? It would seem, that given the system in
>>place for activating and deactivating Restricted airspace, there
>>should be a concrete answer available at all times.
>
>Could it be a level of operational intensity that makes
>minute-by-minute update impractical?
>
>Example:
>
>Holloman AFB operating four squadrons (32 airplanes each) conducting
>Fighter Lead-In Training for recent graduates of Undergraduate Pilot
>Training enroute to fighter assignments. Average of 120 sorties per
>day ranging from single ship to two, three and four ship flights. Also
>second fighter wing with three more squadrons of 18 aircraft each
>conducting complex operations coordinated with ground radar
>environments and often requiring supersonic airspace.
>
>Schedule published twelve hours before operations commence. Airspace
>activated as scheduled, but morning fog precludes launches. Delays of
>thirty minutes--should airspace be turned back? Launch when weather
>allows and airspace is hot. Schedule is both slipped and compressed to
>keep training flow and meet required completions dates.
>
>Flight aborts because of maintenance problems. Beak B is now empty but
>A and C remain "hot". Should GA aircraft be cleared through B or
>should airspace remain blocked for fifteen minute late launch of
>flight? Scheduled A/G mission cancelled because of unavailability of
>properly configured aircraft. Add-on to schedule with available
>aircraft to fly A/A sortie. Schedule flexes again.
>
>Afternoon weather builds up in Talon N, so unscheduled Beak C takes
>additional sorties from Talon N.
>
>And on and on.
>
>Conversely, Saturday and Sunday no scheduled training, so airspace is
>released. Maintenance requires a block for a functional check flight
>on a repaired airplane. Flexibility to allow delay waiting for ATC to
>clear GA aircraft out of the block is no problem. Life goes on.
>
>Isn't that different than your innuendo laden language above?
>"ATC is so disorganized..." "military information is so ambiguous..."

Sir, the information you provided does not explain how ATC would not
be aware if the R airspace were hot or not. If the military scheduled
the airspace, ATC should assume it is hot, right?

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 18:37:24 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:


>Sir, the information you provided does not explain how ATC would not
>be aware if the R airspace were hot or not. If the military scheduled
>the airspace, ATC should assume it is hot, right?

Yes, if the military scheduled the airspace, ATC should assume it is
hot. If they wish to make sure, they should check their controllers
and see if anybody was coming or going. IOW, if scheduled it is "Hot"
and even if not active at this minute, one should assume that it will
be active momentarily. You won't get clearance through the airspace
under those conditions.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[[email protected]]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

[stuff snipped]
>
> Schedule published twelve hours before operations commence. Airspace
> activated as scheduled, but morning fog precludes launches. Delays of
> thirty minutes--should airspace be turned back? Launch when weather
> allows and airspace is hot. Schedule is both slipped and compressed to
> keep training flow and meet required completions dates.
>
> Flight aborts because of maintenance problems. Beak B is now empty but
> A and C remain "hot". Should GA aircraft be cleared through B or
> should airspace remain blocked for fifteen minute late launch of
> flight? Scheduled A/G mission cancelled because of unavailability of
> properly configured aircraft. Add-on to schedule with available
> aircraft to fly A/A sortie. Schedule flexes again.
>

In your experience in the USAF who did the actual coordination with the
FAA? In my experience it was a group at a numbered AF HQ, and the time
it took for unit-level schedule changes to make it up to the HQ and hit
the FAA caused a long delay,
with the flying unit assuming that the airspace coordination had been
done when it may or may not have actually occurred, which resulted in
aircraft on MTRs that supposedly were cold, unanticipated arrivals on
ranges, multiple units using the same MTR, etc.
We kept track of specific flight schedules via the frag orders, which
sometimes matched reality and sometimes not. We had a continual
problem with weekend use of MTRs when schedules changed but the USAF
had nobody on duty on Saturday/Sunday coordinating with the FAA in the
region where I worked.


John Hairell )

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 16:08:14 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> wrote in
>:

>On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 15:28:47 GMT, Larry Dighera >
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 15:25:29 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> wrote in
>:
>>
>>With regard to low-level MTRs, isn't the ceiling 500' AGL to 1,500'
>>AGL? Why not just fly over top of the proposed MTR restricted
>>airspace? If that approach should happen to interfere with
>>navigation, then the pilot would do what he always does to enter R
>>airspace: Contact ATC. I don't see the problem you apparently do.
>>What am I overlooking?
>
>You've added a factor not previously in evidence.

Which factor is that?

>If you draw the MTR with those altitude specs, then you MAY be able to
>create routes that would be meet training requirements and allow for
>reasonably unhindered GA traffic.

That seemed obvious to me.

>You're overlooking the fact that ATC doesn't usually have coverage at
>those altitudes in areas typically employed for MTRs.

Agreed. Are you saying there is a requirement for ATC to have radar
coverage of all R airspace? Or are you saying, that if the military
is going to shoulder responsibility for the hazard to air safety their
high-speed, low-level operations create, it would require ATC radar
coverage?

ATC had perfectly good radar coverage in Florida, but it didn't
prevent the MAC. And the Cessna pilot was found to have been
partially responsible as a result of being incapable of avoiding at
the speeds involved.

>They won't be able to offer you the desired "no responsibility on the part
>of the GA pilot" guarantee of no threat because they can't see traffic at
>those altitudes.

First, I never indicated that GA should have 'no responsibility'; I
said the military should bear sole legal responsibility for the
hazards it poses to air safety as a result of operating under its
exemption to the 250 knot speed limit below 10,000' feet.

Next, There would be no necessity for the military to take sole
responsibility as mentioned above, if they were operating in Class R
airspace (unless they failed to schedule it with ATC/FSS).

>Additionally, training maneuvers on an MTR may require formation
>repositioning, simulated evasive maneuvers, simulated armed
>reconnaisance [sic] maneuvering and even simulated weapons delivery
>maneuvers and re-attacks. Those requirements could seriously mitigate
>your ability to create 500-1500' AGL corridors.

[Mitigate: to cause to become less harsh or hostile]

Not being familiar with those operations, I ask, would it be feasible
to conduct those operations above 10,000'? If not, why not?

I presume formation repositioning, simulated evasive maneuvers,
simulated armed reconnaissance maneuvering and simulated weapons
delivery maneuvers and re-attacks may require larger lateral, and
perhaps vertical, boundaries than are currently provided by MTRs. Is
that correct?

>>>Isn't joint-use under VFR more practical?
>>
>>Joint use of MTR airspace causes a hazard to air navigation because of
>>the high speeds involved. Practicality is trumped by air safety in my
>>mind. Is it not in yours?
>
>If you ask that last sentence question, you must not have been paying
>attention throught the last 120 messages here. The (relatively) high
>speeds involved are not the problem you continually try to make them.

We disagree about that. (And you have evaded the question.)

>>
>>Would you characterize yourself as typical of the skill level attained
>>by the majority of military fighter pilots?
>
>You demonstrate here that you actually don't know many military
>fighter pilots (BTW, there is no other kind--all fighter pilots are
>military)

The Flying Tigers were a civilian group. Anyone who thinks the Flying
Tigers were not fighter pilots is uninformed and/or delusional.

>My skill level was generally above the majority.

Right. So using your own personal experiences as examples in this
discussion is atypical of most military pilots, by your own admission.

>>> [...] therefore the exemption of the 250 knot restriction remains necessary.
>>
>>I don't recall having said the exemption isn't necessary.
>>
>>My objection is to the _hazard_ operating in excess of the speed limit
>>the National Airspace System designers chose while creating the
>>system. If you think the 250 knot limit below 10,000' is unwarranted,
>>perhaps your credentials are superior to those who designed the
>>system. Doubtful.
>
>My credentials may be different than theirs. But, they recognized the
>operational and aerodyamic necessity of the exception as well as I do.
>You are apparently the only one who does not recognize that some high
>performance tactical aircraft require that exemption to operate
>safely. 'Tis you Moriarty, not I.

You'll find it impossible to locate a single instance in which I
advocated operating an aircraft below its safe minimum speed.

My issue is the operation in excess of the 250 knot speed limit in
joint use airspace, and the hazard it causes to civil aviation.

>>
>>Let's do a little analysis.
>>
>>VFR minimum visibility: 3 statute miles = 15,480'
>>
>>250 knots: 417' per second
>>
>>Time to impact at 250 knots closing: 37 seconds (3 statute miles)
>
>OK, hold your breath for 37 seconds. It's an incredibly long time.

I am able to hold my breath for 1.5 minutes. Other's have done so
recently for nearly 9 minutes.

Of course, fast-movers operate in excess of 250 knots, and the
equation does not consider head-on situations as occurred in Florida.
The closing speed was 480 knots in that instance, which works out to a
little over 19 seconds to visually identify the conflicting traffic at
3 statute miles, decide to take evasive action, and have the aircraft
clear of the path of impact.

>>
>>These times do not take into consideration the speed of BOTH aircraft,
>>and more importantly, they do not allow for the time it takes to
>>recognize the threat, decide to maneuver out of the path, and the time
>>it takes for the aircraft to respond and actually finish clearing the
>>path.
>
>Three seconds? Maybe five if you can't make a decision quickly.

Okay. Four seconds to make the decision to take evasive action, and a
couple of seconds to input control commands and for the aircraft to
actually clear the path, that leaves 13 seconds to visually identify
the head-on traffic at 3 statute miles in minimum VMC.

Now, if you consider a fighter at 300 knots approaching a 250 knot
airliner head on, the closure rate would be 550 knots permitting only
17 seconds until impact. Subtracting six seconds for decision and
maneuvering, leaves 11 seconds to visually identify the threat. That's
precious little time to see-and-avoid in single pilot operations.

>>More likely, the exemption was issued as a necessary expedient at a
>>time when the sky was much bigger (if you know what I mean), and there
>>was less oversight. Today that exemption creates a negative impact on
>>air safety, and the whole issue should be objectively reexamined by
>>qualified engineers.
>
>Not engineers you twit. Operators!
>

[Ah. Invective and deprecation: the last refuge of the unarmed. Are
you aware of how such loss of civility diminishes any respect you may
have had? I don't expect you capable of apologizing. Disappointing.]

Operators are not skilled in the disciplines of engineering. Operators
have a vested interest in the decisions. Engineers use objective
calculations to discover system limitations, not necessity nor emotion
to arrive at unrealistic conclusions.

--

DISCLAIMER If you find a posting or message from me
offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it.
If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to
me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate... ;-)
--

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> So you're saying ATC doesn't grant permission to enter R airspace, and
> it is up to the pilot to enter or not based on ATC's information
> regarding scheduled activity within it? There's no _clearance_
> involved then?
>

I'm saying ATC doesn't grant permission to enter Restricted Areas when
they're not hot. Have you ever asked ATC for permission to enter a
Restricred Area you knew to be inactive? If so, why?


>
> Given:
>
> http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap3/aim0304.html#3-4-3
> Section 4. Special Use Airspace
> 3-4-3. Restricted Areas
> Penetration of restricted areas without authorization from the
> using or controlling agency may be extremely hazardous to the
> aircraft and its occupants.
>
> It would seem that a pilot would require authorization from the
> controlling agency (usually ATC) if not a clearance.
>

It would seem that paragraph refers to a Restricted Area that is hot.

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On 3 Aug 2006 12:40:33 -0700, "
> wrote:

>
>In your experience in the USAF who did the actual coordination with the
>FAA? In my experience it was a group at a numbered AF HQ, and the time
>it took for unit-level schedule changes to make it up to the HQ and hit
>the FAA caused a long delay,
>with the flying unit assuming that the airspace coordination had been
>done when it may or may not have actually occurred, which resulted in
>aircraft on MTRs that supposedly were cold, unanticipated arrivals on
>ranges, multiple units using the same MTR, etc.

It would vary with the unit and the mission. Typically the airspace
for training was local to the base--i.e. Holloman airspace was theirs
and not shared for example with Cannon. Nellis airspace belonged to
Nellis and George airspace belonged to George.

Very little went through numbered AF. Coordination of daily schedules
and airspace requirements would flow from the Wing to the ARTCC.

Ranges were controlled by the military.

MTRs could be used by multiple units although a majority of the routes
that I saw were base dedicated. Some could be used by other bases and
that was coordinated between the bases and ARTCC. There was no such
thing as an "unanticipated arrival on ranges"--you had a scheduled
range time before takeoff. If you didn't have scheduled range time you
didn't go.

>We kept track of specific flight schedules via the frag orders, which
>sometimes matched reality and sometimes not.

Frag orders are "frag"ments of the total operations order. This is a
real operations term, not a training document. You get a frag at a
unit in combat. It is part of the total operations plan for the day
generated at the component command Hq level. It, by defnition, IS
reality.

> We had a continual
>problem with weekend use of MTRs when schedules changed but the USAF
>had nobody on duty on Saturday/Sunday coordinating with the FAA in the
>region where I worked.

From the time I entered active duty (which was 1964) I was never at an
installation that did not have a command post which operated 24/7.
Even units which did not conduct operations on weekends had such a
function. In those days the point-of-contact was the "airdrome
officer" who typically was located in base operations. There was
always someone on duty.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 20:50:20 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 16:08:14 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> wrote in
>:
>
>>On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 15:28:47 GMT, Larry Dighera >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 15:25:29 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> wrote in
>:
>>>
>>>With regard to low-level MTRs, isn't the ceiling 500' AGL to 1,500'
>>>AGL? Why not just fly over top of the proposed MTR restricted
>>>airspace? If that approach should happen to interfere with
>>>navigation, then the pilot would do what he always does to enter R
>>>airspace: Contact ATC. I don't see the problem you apparently do.
>>>What am I overlooking?
>>
>>You've added a factor not previously in evidence.
>
>Which factor is that?

The factor described in the next sentence--a specific and very limited
altitude block.
>
>>If you draw the MTR with those altitude specs, then you MAY be able to
>>create routes that would be meet training requirements and allow for
>>reasonably unhindered GA traffic.
>
>That seemed obvious to me.

Note the capitalized qualifier. You most probably will not be able to
create satisfactory training conditions and you will still very likely
impinge on GA traffic's ability to move unhindered.
>
>>You're overlooking the fact that ATC doesn't usually have coverage at
>>those altitudes in areas typically employed for MTRs.
>
>Agreed. Are you saying there is a requirement for ATC to have radar
>coverage of all R airspace? Or are you saying, that if the military
>is going to shoulder responsibility for the hazard to air safety their
>high-speed, low-level operations create, it would require ATC radar
>coverage?

You keep seeking foolproof deconfliction. There is NO requirement for
ATC to have radar coverage anywhere. It is desired, but procedural
control is in effect in large areas of the world. And there is NO
requirement for the military to shoulder responsibility for a hazard
that is nothing more than your repeated assertions. And there is NO
requirement for the military to have ATC radar coverage to conduct
flight operations anywhere. It is desireable, but not an absolute
necessity.
>
>ATC had perfectly good radar coverage in Florida, but it didn't
>prevent the MAC. And the Cessna pilot was found to have been
>partially responsible as a result of being incapable of avoiding at
>the speeds involved.
>
>>They won't be able to offer you the desired "no responsibility on the part
>>of the GA pilot" guarantee of no threat because they can't see traffic at
>>those altitudes.
>
>First, I never indicated that GA should have 'no responsibility'; I
>said the military should bear sole legal responsibility for the
>hazards it poses to air safety as a result of operating under its
>exemption to the 250 knot speed limit below 10,000' feet.

If the military bears "sole responsibility" there is then "no
responsibility" for anyone else. Q.E.D.
>
>Next, There would be no necessity for the military to take sole
>responsibility as mentioned above, if they were operating in Class R
>airspace (unless they failed to schedule it with ATC/FSS).
>
>>Additionally, training maneuvers on an MTR may require formation
>>repositioning, simulated evasive maneuvers, simulated armed
>>reconnaisance [sic] maneuvering and even simulated weapons delivery
>>maneuvers and re-attacks. Those requirements could seriously mitigate
>>your ability to create 500-1500' AGL corridors.
>
>[Mitigate: to cause to become less harsh or hostile]

Mitigate---to lessen. Add training requirements, not simply a path
from A to B and you lessen your ability to create a MTR within
restricted narrow altitude blocks that doesn't interfere with GA
traffic.
>
>Not being familiar with those operations, I ask, would it be feasible
>to conduct those operations above 10,000'? If not, why not?

No. You can't do effective low altitude training at high altitude.
>
>I presume formation repositioning, simulated evasive maneuvers,
>simulated armed reconnaissance maneuvering and simulated weapons
>delivery maneuvers and re-attacks may require larger lateral, and
>perhaps vertical, boundaries than are currently provided by MTRs. Is
>that correct?

Yes.
>
>>>>Isn't joint-use under VFR more practical?
>>>
>>>Joint use of MTR airspace causes a hazard to air navigation because of
>>>the high speeds involved. Practicality is trumped by air safety in my
>>>mind. Is it not in yours?
>>
>>If you ask that last sentence question, you must not have been paying
>>attention throught the last 120 messages here. The (relatively) high
>>speeds involved are not the problem you continually try to make them.
>
>We disagree about that. (And you have evaded the question.)

Your question is based on an untrue presumption. The speeds involved
do not preclude safe operations. That has been stated repeatedly by a
number of experienced pilots and you continue to ignore it.
>
>>>
>>>Would you characterize yourself as typical of the skill level attained
>>>by the majority of military fighter pilots?
>>
>>You demonstrate here that you actually don't know many military
>>fighter pilots (BTW, there is no other kind--all fighter pilots are
>>military)
>
>The Flying Tigers were a civilian group. Anyone who thinks the Flying
>Tigers were not fighter pilots is uninformed and/or delusional.

The Flying Tigers (AVG) were military pilots. They were trained by the
military and operating beyond the umbrella of national authority.
Similarly the Air America/Raven operations of SEA were military pilots
operating out of uniform.

If someone is flying a fighter aircraft, they are not necessarily a
fighter pilot. But, if someone is a fighter pilot you can pretty much
guarantee that they will tell you they are better than the average.
>
>>My skill level was generally above the majority.
>
>Right. So using your own personal experiences as examples in this
>discussion is atypical of most military pilots, by your own admission.

Fighter pilots are confident to the point of arrogance. If you are
going to enter combat alone in a complex system, you had better think
you are pretty damn good. If you aren't and you know it, you'd better
change jobs. If you are and you don't know it, you won't get the job
done and you'll endanger your leader or your wingmen.

I flew 250 combat missions--over 150 of them over North Vietnam
without ever losing a leader in front of me or a wingman that I was
leading. I'm good and that's not bragging it's fact.

Using my personal experiences in this discussion to this point has
been merely to point out professional facts. If you were talking about
medicine you would listen to a doctor. If you are talking about flying
fighters, please have the grace to listen.
>
>>>> [...] therefore the exemption of the 250 knot restriction remains necessary.
>>>
>>>I don't recall having said the exemption isn't necessary.
>>>
>>>My objection is to the _hazard_ operating in excess of the speed limit
>>>the National Airspace System designers chose while creating the
>>>system. If you think the 250 knot limit below 10,000' is unwarranted,
>>>perhaps your credentials are superior to those who designed the
>>>system. Doubtful.
>>
>>My credentials may be different than theirs. But, they recognized the
>>operational and aerodyamic necessity of the exception as well as I do.
>>You are apparently the only one who does not recognize that some high
>>performance tactical aircraft require that exemption to operate
>>safely. 'Tis you Moriarty, not I.
>
>You'll find it impossible to locate a single instance in which I
>advocated operating an aircraft below its safe minimum speed.
>
>My issue is the operation in excess of the 250 knot speed limit in
>joint use airspace, and the hazard it causes to civil aviation.

The proximate paragraph above this seems to provide the single
instance requested in the next paragraph further above.
>
>>>
>>>Let's do a little analysis.
>>>
>>>VFR minimum visibility: 3 statute miles = 15,480'
>>>
>>>250 knots: 417' per second
>>>
>>>Time to impact at 250 knots closing: 37 seconds (3 statute miles)
>>
>>OK, hold your breath for 37 seconds. It's an incredibly long time.
>
>I am able to hold my breath for 1.5 minutes. Other's have done so
>recently for nearly 9 minutes.
>
>Of course, fast-movers operate in excess of 250 knots, and the
>equation does not consider head-on situations as occurred in Florida.
>The closing speed was 480 knots in that instance, which works out to a
>little over 19 seconds to visually identify the conflicting traffic at
>3 statute miles, decide to take evasive action, and have the aircraft
>clear of the path of impact.
>
>>>
>>>These times do not take into consideration the speed of BOTH aircraft,
>>>and more importantly, they do not allow for the time it takes to
>>>recognize the threat, decide to maneuver out of the path, and the time
>>>it takes for the aircraft to respond and actually finish clearing the
>>>path.
>>
>>Three seconds? Maybe five if you can't make a decision quickly.
>
>Okay. Four seconds to make the decision to take evasive action, and a
>couple of seconds to input control commands and for the aircraft to
>actually clear the path, that leaves 13 seconds to visually identify
>the head-on traffic at 3 statute miles in minimum VMC.
>
>Now, if you consider a fighter at 300 knots approaching a 250 knot
>airliner head on, the closure rate would be 550 knots permitting only
>17 seconds until impact. Subtracting six seconds for decision and
>maneuvering, leaves 11 seconds to visually identify the threat. That's
>precious little time to see-and-avoid in single pilot operations.

If you can't make see-and-avoid decisions in less time than that, I
wonder how you drive to work in the morning.
>
>>>More likely, the exemption was issued as a necessary expedient at a
>>>time when the sky was much bigger (if you know what I mean), and there
>>>was less oversight. Today that exemption creates a negative impact on
>>>air safety, and the whole issue should be objectively reexamined by
>>>qualified engineers.
>>
>>Not engineers you twit. Operators!
>>
>
>[Ah. Invective and deprecation: the last refuge of the unarmed. Are
>you aware of how such loss of civility diminishes any respect you may
>have had? I don't expect you capable of apologizing. Disappointing.]

At this point, Scarlett, I don't give a damn.
>
>Operators are not skilled in the disciplines of engineering. Operators
>have a vested interest in the decisions. Engineers use objective
>calculations to discover system limitations, not necessity nor emotion
>to arrive at unrealistic conclusions.

Engineers do a lot of foolish things--one needed only to see the
polyester double-knits they wore to work at Northrop when I was there
working on YF-23. What they don't do is operate the equipment. That's
why establishing OPERATING rules and limitations is a function of
operators. You can get an engineer to tell you how slow an aircraft
can fly and he can tell you what G is available at what bank angle to
create what rate of turn. But, if you want to know if that is
practical or safe as a minimum for operations, you'd better ask the
pilot.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[Jose[_1_]]

>>I've attempted that, and also contacting the FSS as printed on the
>>charts themselves, and often the putative controlling agency doesn't
>>know whether it's hot or not.
>
> That is true. Why do you suppose that occurs?
>
> Do you think ATC is so disorganized, that they can't find the military
> activity information, or do you think the military has provided
> ambiguous information, what? It would seem, that given the system in
> place for activating and deactivating Restricted airspace, there
> should be a concrete answer available at all times.

It doesn't really matter why I suppose that is. I don't know why that
is. I could speculate.

Hell, this is Usenet, why not. :) I suspect that there just isn't all
that much communication between the military and ATC. I suspect the
military doesn't want to say much, and ATC has learned to live with it.

But maybe some controllers would know more.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

> Great, you've got 19 seconds and I've got 19 seconds. Head-on, unless
> we are perfectly aligned with miss each other ("Big Sky theory"), but
> if either of us see the other, then we do what?

That's not the point. We have ninteen seconds to notice each other.
For much of that time we each are just a grey dot in a busy grey
landscape, and aren't where the other pilot happened to be looking.

The F16 is also probably in camouflage colors.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[588]

Bob Noel wrote:

>>> Airliners aren't known for great visibility either.

>> And yet they have so few MAC's. Why is that?

> ATC Radar
>
> TCAS

There must be a lesson there, somewhere.


> Big ugly airplanes are easy to spot.

The F-4 and the A-6 and the P-3 should have a clean MAC record then.


Jack

[588]

Jose wrote:
>> OK, hold your breath for 37 seconds. It's an incredibly long time.
>
> It's a lot of sky to scan. And if nose to nose, you only have 19 seconds.


Nineteen seconds?

I sure as hell hope nobody who thinks nineteen seconds is too short
a time to find and recognize a threat and then take appropriate
action is driving on my street or flying in my sky (but of course
they are).

There's way too many passengers with pilot certificates sitting in
the front seats these days. How people scan and how they should scan
are often two different things. Flying an aircraft is work, Jose,
when done properly. Enjoyable, also? Yes, but it's the "work" part
that adds to longevity.


Jack

[Jose[_1_]]

> I sure as hell hope nobody who thinks nineteen seconds is too short
> a time to find and recognize a threat and then take appropriate action is driving on my street or flying in my sky (but of course they are).
>
> There's way too many passengers with pilot certificates sitting in the front seats these days. How people scan and how they should scan are often two different things. Flying an aircraft is work, Jose, when done properly. Enjoyable, also? Yes, but it's the "work" part that adds to longevity.

If you are looking at the encroaching aircraft, then nineteen seconds is
probably plenty of time. The point is, usually you are not. You just
scanned that part of the sky. You are now scanning other parts of the
sky. You can't scan it all at the same time. It takes time. You may
not return to that part of the sky for nineteen seconds, except in
general. Conflicts can come from any direction, and you can only see
(well) in a field 10 or 15 degrees wide. It only takes a few seconds
per "block" but there are 24 to 36 blocks, and we are not even counting
what is above or below by more than 15 degrees. So, at two seconds per
look, and 24 looks, we have forty-eight seconds before you get another
shot at the same 10-15 degree area.

Depending on conditions, it may take as much as TEN SECONDS to actually
see the traffic that you are looking right at. The implication of this
is that if you allow two seconds per look, and it takes you ten seconds
to see traffic in the configuration in question, you'll miss it four
times out of five.

But enough theory. How many times have you not seen traffic that was
pointed out to you (2 o'clock and four miles) by ATC? How long did it
take you to find the traffic you =did= see?

http://www.alaska.faa.gov/ata/MACA.htm

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[588]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> The Flying Tigers were a civilian group. Anyone who thinks the Flying
> Tigers were not fighter pilots is uninformed and/or delusional.

Anyone who thinks Chennault's Flying Tigers were civilians is
uninformed and/or delusional.


Jack

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> >
> >You demonstrate here that you actually don't know many military
> >fighter pilots (BTW, there is no other kind--all fighter pilots are
> >military)
> >
>
> The Flying Tigers were a civilian group. Anyone who thinks the Flying
> Tigers were not fighter pilots is uninformed and/or delusional.
>

The Flying Tigers were a military group.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/military

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 23:31:06 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>It doesn't really matter why I suppose that is. I don't know why that
>is. I could speculate.
>
>Hell, this is Usenet, why not. :) I suspect that there just isn't all
>that much communication between the military and ATC. I suspect the
>military doesn't want to say much, and ATC has learned to live with it.
>
>But maybe some controllers would know more.
>
>Jose

Maybe you would pay attention to the posters here who have indicated
that they are experienced military aviators. Then what you "suspect"
could be adjusted to fit what you have learned.

Every flight, every day, by the military is on a flight plan. All
operations are conducted under IFR flight plans, which means that
before the aircraft rolls down the runway the flight has an ATC
clearance.

The military has learned to live with ATC.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 04:55:32 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >:

>http://www.alaska.faa.gov/ata/MACA.htm

PROPER CLEARING/SCANNING TECHNIQUES

An efficient scan pattern is paramount to visual collision
avoidance procedures. In developing a proper scan technique,
remember that when your head is in motion, vision is blurred and
the brain will not be able to identify conflicting traffic.
Therefore a constant motion scan across the windscreen is
practically useless.

A proper scan technique is to divide your field of vision into
blocks approximately 10 to 15 degrees wide. Examine each block
individually using a system that you find comfortable (e g. from
left to right or starting from the left and moving to the right,
then back to the left again). This method enables you to detect
any movement in a single block. It takes only a few seconds to
focus on a single block and detect conflicting traffic.

A moving target attracts attention and is relatively easy to see.
A stationary target or one that is not moving in your windscreen
is very difficult to detect and is the one that can result in a
MIDAIR COLLISION.

The time to perceive and recognize an aircraft, become aware of a
collision potential and decide on appropriate action, may vary
from as little as 2 seconds to as much as 10 seconds or more
depending on the pilot, type of aircraft and geometry of the
closing situation. Aircraft reaction time must also be added. By
the way, any evasive maneuver contemplated should include
maintaining visual contact with the other aircraft if practical.

There you have it. The FAA telling pilots, that for a 90 degree wide
scan field (45 degrees each side of center), it takes more than two
seconds per 15 degree scan block (at 3 seconds per block, that's 18
seconds per full scan), for a pilot to see a stationary traffic
conflict aircraft growing larger, and it can take up to ten seconds
see-and-avoid (for a total of 28 seconds per full scan).

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 13:28:28 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> wrote in
>:

>Every flight, every day, by the military is on a flight plan.

Even those flights on VFR MTRs?

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 14:49:54 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 13:28:28 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> wrote in
>:
>
>>Every flight, every day, by the military is on a flight plan.
>
>Even those flights on VFR MTRs?

Yes.
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 15:12:37 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> wrote in
>:

>On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 14:49:54 GMT, Larry Dighera >
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 13:28:28 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> wrote in
>:
>>
>>>Every flight, every day, by the military is on a flight plan.
>>
>>Even those flights on VFR MTRs?
>
>Yes.

Then why are there IFR MTRs and VFR MTRs?

[Jose[_1_]]

>>>Every flight, every day, by the military is on a flight plan.
>>Even those flights on VFR MTRs?
> Yes.

Does ATC track those flights in real time, at least with non-radar
position reporting? If so, then ATC should be able to provide better
information that a civilian pilot could use to determine whether or not
to transition a route at a particular point at a particular time.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 15:59:32 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 15:12:37 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> wrote in
>:
>
>>On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 14:49:54 GMT, Larry Dighera >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 13:28:28 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> wrote in
>:
>>>
>>>>Every flight, every day, by the military is on a flight plan.
>>>
>>>Even those flights on VFR MTRs?
>>
>>Yes.
>
>Then why are there IFR MTRs and VFR MTRs?

Because some can be flown in visual conditions and some can be flown
in instrument conditions as well. Regardless of weather conditions,
IAW regulations all military flights are conducted on an IFR flight
plan ("to the maximum extent practicable" -- which is regulation-speak
for all of them).

A "flight plan" is merely a record of your intended route of
flight--it can be a VFR or IFR flight plan. Flight plans are filed
with Flight Service Stations--an entity of the FAA, but not an air
traffic controlling agency.

Regardless, the flight plan type for the military is IFR. (I use the
term "military" with some trepidation as I do not know if Army rotary
wing craft do that.)

You really don't know a lot about this do you? Yet, you are steadfast
in your opinions.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 16:01:36 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>>>>Every flight, every day, by the military is on a flight plan.
>>>Even those flights on VFR MTRs?
>> Yes.
>
>Does ATC track those flights in real time, at least with non-radar
>position reporting? If so, then ATC should be able to provide better
>information that a civilian pilot could use to determine whether or not
>to transition a route at a particular point at a particular time.

See the post to LD regarding what a flight plan is.

Departures are conducted under ATC. Recoveries are conducted under
ATC. Training time along an MTR, within a MOA, in restricted airspace,
or on a range is usually done without ATC involvement.

If your hypothetical civilian pilot wants ATC to provide him safe
separation from other IFR aircraft, he/she should file an IFR flight
plan, obtain an IFR clearance, and operate in controlled airspace
under ATC's control. They should also look out the window as best they
can.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[Walt]

Jose wrote:
> >>>Every flight, every day, by the military is on a flight plan.
> >>Even those flights on VFR MTRs?
> > Yes.
>
> Does ATC track those flights in real time, at least with non-radar
> position reporting? If so, then ATC should be able to provide better
> information that a civilian pilot could use to determine whether or not
> to transition a route at a particular point at a particular time.
>
> Jose

When I was an air traffic controller at the Denver Enroute Center we
would get a flight strip for, say, a B-52 entering a MTR. It's been a
while but the flight strip would have his entry time for the MTR and a
calculated exit time along with the altitude he'd be climbing to at the
exit point. We didn't track him at all while he was on the route; he
wasn't on radar and, given the nature of an MTR, it would be nearly
impossible to give a civilian pilot an accurate position report of the
B-52.

It's been several years since I've been a controller so things may have
changed.

--Walt Weaver

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Jose wrote:
> >>>
> >>>Every flight, every day, by the military is on a flight plan.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Even those flights on VFR MTRs?
> >>
> >
> > Yes.
> >
>
> Does ATC track those flights in real time, at least with non-radar
> position reporting?
>

No.

[Newps]

> On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 13:28:28 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>
>>Every flight, every day, by the military is on a flight plan.

Not an FAA flight plan.

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 12:05:07 -0600, Newps > wrote:

>
>
>> On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 13:28:28 GMT, Ed Rasimus
>> > wrote in
>> >:
>>
>>
>>>Every flight, every day, by the military is on a flight plan.
>
>Not an FAA flight plan.

Within the USA they certainly are.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 21:54:16 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> wrote in
>:

>On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 20:50:20 GMT, Larry Dighera >
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 16:08:14 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> wrote in
>:
>>
>>>On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 15:28:47 GMT, Larry Dighera >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 15:25:29 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> wrote in
>:
>>>>
>>>>With regard to low-level MTRs, isn't the ceiling 500' AGL to 1,500'
>>>>AGL? Why not just fly over top of the proposed MTR restricted
>>>>airspace? If that approach should happen to interfere with
>>>>navigation, then the pilot would do what he always does to enter R
>>>>airspace: Contact ATC. I don't see the problem you apparently do.
>>>>What am I overlooking?
>>>
>>>You've added a factor not previously in evidence.
>>
>>Which factor is that?
>
>The factor described in the next sentence--a specific and very limited
>altitude block.

That 'factor' is just the current height of low-level MTRs; it's not
new.

>>>If you draw the MTR with those altitude specs, then you MAY be able to
>>>create routes that would be meet training requirements and allow for
>>>reasonably unhindered GA traffic.
>>
>>That seemed obvious to me.
>
>Note the capitalized qualifier. You most probably will not be able to
>create satisfactory training conditions and you will still very likely
>impinge on GA traffic's ability to move unhindered.

Are you saying that the current dimensions of low-level MTRs do not
meet military training needs?
>>
>>>You're overlooking the fact that ATC doesn't usually have coverage at
>>>those altitudes in areas typically employed for MTRs.
>>
>>Agreed. Are you saying there is a requirement for ATC to have radar
>>coverage of all R airspace? Or are you saying, that if the military
>>is going to shoulder responsibility for the hazard to air safety their
>>high-speed, low-level operations create, it would require ATC radar
>>coverage?
>
>You keep seeking foolproof deconfliction.

Actually, I keep saying the those flights that are not exempt from the
250 knot speed limit below 10,000' should be separated from high-speed
military flights enjoying the exemption. I don't for a minute regard
that as foolproof.

>There is NO requirement for ATC to have radar coverage anywhere.

Then why did you think I was " overlooking the fact that ATC doesn't
usually have coverage at those altitudes in areas typically employed
for MTRs?"

>>>They won't be able to offer you the desired "no responsibility on the part
>>>of the GA pilot" guarantee of no threat because they can't see traffic at
>>>those altitudes.
>>
>>First, I never indicated that GA should have 'no responsibility'; I
>>said the military should bear sole legal responsibility for the
>>hazards it poses to air safety as a result of operating under its
>>exemption to the 250 knot speed limit below 10,000' feet.
>
>If the military bears "sole responsibility" there is then "no
>responsibility" for anyone else. Q.E.D.

Obviously, if a GA pilot is violating regulations, he is responsible
for the hazard to air safety those violations may pose to other
flights and those over whom he operates, right?

>>
>>Next, There would be no necessity for the military to take sole
>>responsibility as mentioned above, if they were operating in Class R
>>airspace (unless they failed to schedule it with ATC/FSS).
>>
>>>Additionally, training maneuvers on an MTR may require formation
>>>repositioning, simulated evasive maneuvers, simulated armed
>>>reconnaisance [sic] maneuvering and even simulated weapons delivery
>>>maneuvers and re-attacks. Those requirements could seriously mitigate
>>>your ability to create 500-1500' AGL corridors.
>>
>>[Mitigate: to cause to become less harsh or hostile]
>
>Mitigate---to lessen. Add training requirements, not simply a path
>from A to B and you lessen your ability to create a MTR within
>restricted narrow altitude blocks that doesn't interfere with GA
>traffic.

Are these 'training requirements' you mention currently conducted
outside the confines of the MTR routes as defined in the National
Imaging and Mapping Agency MTR database?
http://164.214.2.62/products/webchum/QryChoice.cfm

>>
>>Not being familiar with those operations, I ask, would it be feasible
>>to conduct those operations above 10,000'? If not, why not?
>
>No. You can't do effective low altitude training at high altitude.
>>
>>I presume formation repositioning, simulated evasive maneuvers,
>>simulated armed reconnaissance maneuvering and simulated weapons
>>delivery maneuvers and re-attacks may require larger lateral, and
>>perhaps vertical, boundaries than are currently provided by MTRs. Is
>>that correct?
>
>Yes.

Are those maneuvers conducted within MOAs or R airspace?
[...]
>>Okay. Four seconds to make the decision to take evasive action, and a
>>couple of seconds to input control commands and for the aircraft to
>>actually clear the path, that leaves 13 seconds to visually identify
>>the head-on traffic at 3 statute miles in minimum VMC.
>>
>>Now, if you consider a fighter at 300 knots approaching a 250 knot
>>airliner head on, the closure rate would be 550 knots permitting only
>>17 seconds until impact. Subtracting six seconds for decision and
>>maneuvering, leaves 11 seconds to visually identify the threat. That's
>>precious little time to see-and-avoid in single pilot operations.
>
>If you can't make see-and-avoid decisions in less time than that, I
>wonder how you drive to work in the morning.

I don't drive to work.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 06:54:23 -0600, "Jeff Crowell"
> wrote in >:

[...]

>>>Speed of the F-16 at impact was 356 KCAS.
>>
>> Limiting the discussion to your 356 KCAS speed at the time of impact
>> figure disregards this fact:
>>
>> Final NTSB Report MIA01FA028A:
>>
>> http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001212X22313&ntsbno=MIA01FA028A&akey=1
>> "Speeds of up to 450 knots were noted during the descent."
>>
>> Why would you overlook that 450 knot speed? Does the F-16 Dash 1 only
>> pertain to the speed at time of impact? :-)
>
>Somewhere during the entire flight, Ninja 2's speed might
>easily have been supersonic;

Perhaps. But any speed in excess of the minimum safe speed is a
violation of regulations below 10,000'.

>would that have had any influence
>on the collision? (other than the cosmic scheduling of it all--
>obviously, anything which might have occurred to either F-16
>or Cessna to speed or delay their movements throughout their
>respective flights that day would have prevented this tragedy).
>Seen that way, if Ninja had gone even a little faster then this
>would have been nothing more than a close miss.

That analysis disregards the fact that there were other aircraft
present in the congested Class B and C terminal airspace that could
have been impacted just as easily by the Ninja flight.

>I never debated that Ninja flight recorded a speed of 450
>knots during the flight. I'm simply saying that the speed
>that really matters is the speed immediately prior to the
>collision.

That conclusion is debatable. If we're discussing time to deconflict,
we'd need to know at what point the Ninja flight achieved 450 knots.

>I have not seen any claim other than yours that
>Ninja was knocking down 450 knots within that critical
>interval. And you are clearly selecting your data to put
>your argument in the best possible light.

Perhaps. At any rate, I commend you for taking the time to analyze
all the data available. That has to be an enlightening experience.

And I'm reassured that by the limited discrepancies you have provided,
the vast majority of what I have said is correct.

>Similarly, the fact that closure rate was 480 knots of
>course has meaning in terms of how much time was
>available to both pilots to see and avoid. But to imply or
>suggest that this is in any way the same as saying
>that Ninja was making almost 500 knots at impact is a
>blatant lie.
>

That conclusion is dependent on malice of intent, which I feel is
unwarranted, and unsupported by the facts. We just choose to
interpret the facts differently.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>Every flight, every day, by the military is on a flight plan.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Even those flights on VFR MTRs?
>>>
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>
> Then why are there IFR MTRs and VFR MTRs?
>

Are there IFR and VFR flight plans?

[Jim Macklin]

If the weather is good VMC, they can fly by pilotage at low
altitude. If the weather is IMC, they fly an IFR rules, at
low altitude using instruments.

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=183



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote
in message
.net...
|
| "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
| ...
| >>>>
| >>>>Every flight, every day, by the military is on a
flight plan.
| >>>>
| >>>
| >>>Even those flights on VFR MTRs?
| >>>
| >>
| >>Yes.
| >>
| >
| > Then why are there IFR MTRs and VFR MTRs?
| >
|
| Are there IFR and VFR flight plans?
|
|

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:HxcBg.85464$ZW3.64724@dukeread04...
>
> If the weather is good VMC, they can fly by pilotage at low
> altitude. If the weather is IMC, they fly an IFR rules, at
> low altitude using instruments.
>
> http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=183
>

Was that an attempt to answer my question?

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 00:27:47 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>Every flight, every day, by the military is on a flight plan.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Even those flights on VFR MTRs?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yes.
>>>
>>
>> Then why are there IFR MTRs and VFR MTRs?
>>
>
>Are there IFR and VFR flight plans?
>
Of course.

How else would a pilot without an instrument rating file a flight
plan?

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[Jose[_1_]]

> A "flight plan" is merely a record of your intended route of
> flight-- [...]
> Regardless, the flight plan type for the military is IFR.

Well, an IFR flight plan is a little more than that because it causes a
clearance to be issued before I take off (at least in controlled
airspace). A clearance involves coordination with ATC.

> Departures are conducted under ATC. Recoveries are conducted under
> ATC. Training time along an MTR, within a MOA, in restricted airspace,
> or on a range is usually done without ATC involvement.

Well, then maybe it would be a good idea for training time outside of
restricted airspace to involve ATC. That would help make the joint use
of joint use airspace safer, especially if the military is running
camoflaged jets at four hundred knots, and then blaming anybody who
happens to be in the way for the MAC.

> If your hypothetical civilian pilot wants ATC to provide him safe
> separation from other IFR aircraft...

Thank you for the flying lesson. What I was hoping for however was a
little more assistance in avoiding camoflauged F16s operating at warp
speeds in airspace civilians also use, and are fully entitled to use.

Remember, by your own admission, you are one of the best fighter pilots
there is. Fighter pilots are among the best pilots there are. This
means that, next to your abilities, most everyone else in the air is a
turkey. They do not have anywhere near the judgement, stick skills,
eyeballs, abilities, or aptitudes that you have. But, you have to live
with them. (the alternative is that, for a short while, you'd be one of
only ten pilots in the sky, after which you'd run out of gas and
refineries won't make any more). That =is= the price of being the best.

Even if you can find traffic at 400 knots, the other guy can't see you
running that fast. So if you are going to do that, you need to provide
the other guy, the hoi polloi in the sky, with some better way to avoid
you than a big "keep out" sign or a "catch me if you can" attitude.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 15:17:25 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>> A "flight plan" is merely a record of your intended route of
>> flight-- [...]
>> Regardless, the flight plan type for the military is IFR.
>
>Well, an IFR flight plan is a little more than that because it causes a
>clearance to be issued before I take off (at least in controlled
>airspace). A clearance involves coordination with ATC.

A flight plan is an expression of intention to fly. It tells who you
are and where/when you are going. If it is IFR, it allows ATC to
integrate you with other existing known traffic. If VFR, it merely
tells folks to start looking at you when fail to reach your
destination by a certain time.

Military flight plans for local training sorties are usually "canned",
meaning that the route and duration are on file. Additional details
such as call-sign, crew, time of day, are added with the filing of the
daily schedule. When the flight launches, ATC then provides services.
>
>> Departures are conducted under ATC. Recoveries are conducted under
>> ATC. Training time along an MTR, within a MOA, in restricted airspace,
>> or on a range is usually done without ATC involvement.
>
>Well, then maybe it would be a good idea for training time outside of
>restricted airspace to involve ATC. That would help make the joint use
>of joint use airspace safer, especially if the military is running
>camoflaged jets at four hundred knots, and then blaming anybody who
>happens to be in the way for the MAC.

Did you miss the part where I said ALL MILITARY FLIGHTS ARE OPERATING
ON FLIGHT PLANS AND IFR?

The takeoff is controlled by the tower (some are military and some, at
joint-use airports are shared control). The departure is controlled by
an ATC agency. Hand-off is made to the regional ARTCC. Open entering a
training area, which might or might not be restricted airspace, a
flight plan delay is exercised for the training period. Upon
completion of the training mission, ARTCC is contacted and once again
provides IFR routing to destination where approach control picks up
the route and eventually hands off to tower.

And, the military is NOT "blaming anybody who happens to be in the way
for the MAC."
>
>> If your hypothetical civilian pilot wants ATC to provide him safe
>> separation from other IFR aircraft...
>
>Thank you for the flying lesson. What I was hoping for however was a
>little more assistance in avoiding camoflauged F16s operating at warp
>speeds in airspace civilians also use, and are fully entitled to use.

"Warp speeds" are 250 KCAS or higher based on operational requirements
of the aircraft. Civilians operate under the same rules. Civilians are
equally responsible for safe conduct of their flights and maintaining
clearance from other aircraft. All players are under the same rules.
>
>Remember, by your own admission, you are one of the best fighter pilots
>there is. Fighter pilots are among the best pilots there are. This
>means that, next to your abilities, most everyone else in the air is a
>turkey. They do not have anywhere near the judgement, stick skills,
>eyeballs, abilities, or aptitudes that you have. But, you have to live
>with them. (the alternative is that, for a short while, you'd be one of
>only ten pilots in the sky, after which you'd run out of gas and
>refineries won't make any more). That =is= the price of being the best.

Oh boy! In terms of accidents (all kinds, not just MACs), the rate per
100,000 flying hours for military aviation is lower than GA. I will
agree fully that GA pilots, as a class, don't have the judgement,
stick skills, eyeballs, abilities or aptitudes of the professionals.

Yet, year after year, they operate together and the sky does not seem
to be raining airplanes. If fact, most GA pilots don't see a military
aircraft in flight for months or even years at a time.
>
>Even if you can find traffic at 400 knots, the other guy can't see you
>running that fast. So if you are going to do that, you need to provide
>the other guy, the hoi polloi in the sky, with some better way to avoid
>you than a big "keep out" sign or a "catch me if you can" attitude.
>
>Jose

Ever been on an airliner? Did you look out the window? Did you see
other airplanes? They were traveling at faster than 400 knots if you
were at cruising altitude and you could see them. All you had to do
was look. I believe you are capable of that.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 00:27:47 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>Every flight, every day, by the military is on a flight plan.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Even those flights on VFR MTRs?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yes.
>>>
>>
>> Then why are there IFR MTRs and VFR MTRs?
>>
>
>Are there IFR and VFR flight plans?
>

Yes, but our resident fighter pilot asserts:

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 16:34:22 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> wrote in
>:

>Regardless, the flight plan type for the military is IFR.

If that were true, it prompts my questioning the need for VFR MTRs.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
>
> Of course.
>
> How else would a pilot without an instrument rating file a flight
> plan?
>

Yes, I know, I was trying to help Larry understand.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Well, an IFR flight plan is a little more than that because it causes a
> clearance to be issued before I take off (at least in controlled
> airspace).

Not so. Lots of IFR flight plans are filed without causing any clearance to
be issued.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>
>>Are there IFR and VFR flight plans?
>>
>
> Yes, but our resident fighter pilot asserts:
>
> On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 16:34:22 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>Regardless, the flight plan type for the military is IFR.
>
> If that were true, it prompts my questioning the need for VFR MTRs.
>

But he wrote that in response to your question. So what prompted you to ask
it?

[Jose[_1_]]

> A flight plan is an expression of intention to fly.

Obviously you are being difficult. "Flying on an IFR flight plan"
implies either uncontrolled airspace, or a clearance. The former is an
invitation to an FAA hearing. The latter implies ATC coordination.

Guess which one I'm referring to.

> When the flight launches, ATC then provides services.

Exactly.

> Did you miss the part where I said ALL MILITARY FLIGHTS ARE OPERATING
> ON FLIGHT PLANS AND IFR?

No. But you seem to be dodging the issue by hiding behind stuff like "A
flight plan is an expression of intention to fly." Did you miss the
part where you yourself said "Training time along an MTR, within a MOA,
in restricted airspace, or on a range is usually done without ATC
involvement."? The IFR I am familiar with always has ATC involvement.

Are you on an ATC clearance at that point? Are you on an ATC clearance
in an MTR (IR or VR)?

> ...they operate together and the sky does not seem
> to be raining airplanes.

> And, the military is NOT "blaming anybody who happens to be in the way
> for the MAC."

Who was responsible for the MAC where the cessna, while attempting to
turn away, was speared by an F-something at 350 knots or so?

Yes, one example, but an egregious one in my book, and one you seem to
be defending.

> Ever been on an airliner?

Ever flown a bug smasher?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

> Lots of IFR flight plans are filed without causing any clearance to
> be issued.

All the IFR flight plans I filed caused a clearance to be issued before
I took off. (for the other ones I didn't take off).

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Obviously you are being difficult. "Flying on an IFR flight plan" implies
> either uncontrolled airspace, or a clearance. The former is an invitation
> to an FAA hearing. The latter implies ATC coordination.
>
> Guess which one I'm referring to.
>

How is the former an invitation to an FAA hearing?

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
>
> All the IFR flight plans I filed caused a clearance to be issued before I
> took off. (for the other ones I didn't take off).
>

You didn't limit your statement to IFR flight plans that you filed.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 16:49:53 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
et>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>
>>>Are there IFR and VFR flight plans?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, but our resident fighter pilot asserts:
>>
>> On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 16:34:22 GMT, Ed Rasimus
>> > wrote in
>> >:
>>
>>>Regardless, the flight plan type for the military is IFR.
>>
>> If that were true, it prompts my questioning the need for VFR MTRs.
>>
>
>But he wrote that in response to your question. So what prompted you to ask
>it?
>

It was largely rhetorical.

If Mr. Rasimus' assertion, that the flight plan type for the military
is IFR is correct, and MTRs are created for military use, why are
there VFR MTRs? Presumably the military won't be operating VFR on VFR
MTRs.

[Jose[_1_]]

> How is the former an invitation to an FAA hearing?

There was a case where a pilot took off on an IFR flight plan in
uncontrolled airspace (yes I'm aware of the uncontrolled airspace below
700') and was cited for careless and reckless. I don't remember the
details, but somebody here will probably recognize the case.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

> You didn't limit your statement to IFR flight plans that you filed.

You are correct. I did limit it to "before I take off", but I suppose
that doesn't quite pass muster here. :)

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 17:24:00 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>> A flight plan is an expression of intention to fly.
>
>Obviously you are being difficult. "Flying on an IFR flight plan"
>implies either uncontrolled airspace, or a clearance. The former is an
>invitation to an FAA hearing. The latter implies ATC coordination.
>
>Guess which one I'm referring to.

If you are intending to fly in uncontrolled airspace you will not get
ATC services. You might be flying in IMC, but you provide your own
separation. Whether or not you have ATC involved has NO RELATION to
whether or not a flight plan is filed.

A flight plan is an expression of an intent to fly. It is filed,
whether IFR or VFR with a Flight Service Station, which has no control
authority.

Don't mix flight plans with ATC clearances.

>
>> When the flight launches, ATC then provides services.
>
>Exactly.
>
>> Did you miss the part where I said ALL MILITARY FLIGHTS ARE OPERATING
>> ON FLIGHT PLANS AND IFR?
>
>No. But you seem to be dodging the issue by hiding behind stuff like "A
>flight plan is an expression of intention to fly." Did you miss the
>part where you yourself said "Training time along an MTR, within a MOA,
>in restricted airspace, or on a range is usually done without ATC
>involvement."? The IFR I am familiar with always has ATC involvement.

And you seem to have snipped the part where I spelled out a typical
training sortie on an IFR flight plan. Maybe you didn't read it. Maybe
you didn't understand it. Maybe you are simply being difficult.

Let me repeat--upon reaching the training airspace, the flight is
dropped from ATC control and exercises a delay enroute. They are still
on an IFR flight plan and will resume ATC control after completion of
their delay period.

And, since you have apparent comprehension issues, let me repeat what
I pointed out above:

A flight plan is an expression of an intent to fly. It is filed,
whether IFR or VFR with a Flight Service Station, which has no control
authority.

Don't mix flight plans with ATC clearances.
>
>Are you on an ATC clearance at that point? Are you on an ATC clearance
>in an MTR (IR or VR)?
>
>> ...they operate together and the sky does not seem
>> to be raining airplanes.
>
>> And, the military is NOT "blaming anybody who happens to be in the way
>> for the MAC."
>
>Who was responsible for the MAC where the cessna, while attempting to
>turn away, was speared by an F-something at 350 knots or so?

The investigation determines who is responsible. There was an
investigation. It was conducted in great detail. Mr. Dighera is
unwilling to accept the outcome of the investigation. I am unwilling
to accept the outcome of the OJ trial.

The Cessna could be responsible even if turning away. In the case
under discussion, the investigation indicated that the Cessna was not
responsible. Merely because an airplane is involved in a mid-air with
a faster aircraft is not prima facie evidence that it was the faster
aircraft's fault.
>
>Yes, one example, but an egregious one in my book, and one you seem to
>be defending.
>
>> Ever been on an airliner?
>
>Ever flown a bug smasher?

Yes. But, that doesn't relate to the example I gave (creative snipping
on your part again.) You imply some sort of invisibility of aircraft
operating at 400 knots and I pointed out how easy it is to see them in
a circumstance that you were likely to encounter.
>
>Jose

Do you have an aeronautical rating? How many hours have you accrued?

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 16:36:41 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 00:27:47 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>:
>
>>
>>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Every flight, every day, by the military is on a flight plan.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Even those flights on VFR MTRs?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yes.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Then why are there IFR MTRs and VFR MTRs?
>>>
>>
>>Are there IFR and VFR flight plans?
>>
>
>Yes, but our resident fighter pilot asserts:
>
>On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 16:34:22 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> wrote in
>:
>
>>Regardless, the flight plan type for the military is IFR.
>
>If that were true, it prompts my questioning the need for VFR MTRs.

It is possible to fly on an IFR flight plan in VFR. VFR MTRs are
established because they cannot be flown in IMC (Instrument
Meterological Conditions, i.e. bad weather.) Low level routes are
usually VFR routes. The flight will still be conducted on an IFR
flight plan.

Are you dense or merely difficult?


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 17:32:18 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 16:49:53 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
et>:
>
>>
>>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Are there IFR and VFR flight plans?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, but our resident fighter pilot asserts:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 16:34:22 GMT, Ed Rasimus
>>> > wrote in
>>> >:
>>>
>>>>Regardless, the flight plan type for the military is IFR.
>>>
>>> If that were true, it prompts my questioning the need for VFR MTRs.
>>>
>>
>>But he wrote that in response to your question. So what prompted you to ask
>>it?
>>
>
>It was largely rhetorical.
>
>If Mr. Rasimus' assertion, that the flight plan type for the military
>is IFR is correct, and MTRs are created for military use, why are
>there VFR MTRs? Presumably the military won't be operating VFR on VFR
>MTRs.

The military can and does operated on VFR routes, but they are still
on an IFR flight plan.

Why would you doubt my "assertion"? Do you have any military aviation
experience? Would I lie to you?


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> It was largely rhetorical.
>
> If Mr. Rasimus' assertion, that the flight plan type for the military
> is IFR is correct, and MTRs are created for military use, why are
> there VFR MTRs? Presumably the military won't be operating VFR on VFR
> MTRs.
>

Let's cut this short. There are VFR flight plans and the military operates
VFR on VFR MTRs.

[Newps]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> Yes, but our resident fighter pilot asserts:
>
> On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 16:34:22 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>
>>Regardless, the flight plan type for the military is IFR.
>
>
> If that were true, it prompts my questioning the need for VFR MTRs.

Oh heavens no. It's not uncommon for the F16's around here to show up
VFR unannounced, do a few approaches and then a few patterns and then
disappear VFR. And of course the helicopters are always flitting around
VFR. They may stop, they may just get flight following for awhile as
long as we can see them.

[Newps]

Larry Dighera wrote:


>
> If Mr. Rasimus' assertion, that the flight plan type for the military
> is IFR is correct, and MTRs are created for military use, why are
> there VFR MTRs? Presumably the military won't be operating VFR on VFR
> MTRs.

The military often flies on an IFR flight plan and then takes
responsibility for its own separation from other military aircraft and
the ground. It's really nothing more than flight following. ATC just
waits for them to get done playing, get separated and then we take over.
However to say they are always IFR is ridiculous. Ya can't fly at 200
agl in yer B52 IFR.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 22:20:04 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
et>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> It was largely rhetorical.
>>
>> If Mr. Rasimus' assertion, that the flight plan type for the military
>> is IFR is correct, and MTRs are created for military use, why are
>> there VFR MTRs? Presumably the military won't be operating VFR on VFR
>> MTRs.
>>
>
>Let's cut this short. There are VFR flight plans and the military operates
>VFR on VFR MTRs.
>

So you're contradicting Mr. Rasimus' assertion that the military only
flies IFR flight plans?

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 16:55:12 -0600, Newps > wrote
in >:

>
>
>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>> Yes, but our resident fighter pilot asserts:
>>
>> On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 16:34:22 GMT, Ed Rasimus
>> > wrote in
>> >:
>>
>>
>>>Regardless, the flight plan type for the military is IFR.
>>
>>
>> If that were true, it prompts my questioning the need for VFR MTRs.
>
>Oh heavens no. It's not uncommon for the F16's around here to show up
>VFR unannounced, do a few approaches and then a few patterns and then
>disappear VFR. And of course the helicopters are always flitting around
>VFR. They may stop, they may just get flight following for awhile as
>long as we can see them.

So it would seem, that in your experience with F-16s (not helos with
which Mr. Rasimus was uncertain), Mr. Rasimus' assertion "the flight
plan type for the military is IFR" is not always the case.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 16:59:21 -0600, Newps > wrote
in >:

>
>
>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>
>>
>> If Mr. Rasimus' assertion, that the flight plan type for the military
>> is IFR is correct, and MTRs are created for military use, why are
>> there VFR MTRs? Presumably the military won't be operating VFR on VFR
>> MTRs.
>
>The military often flies on an IFR flight plan and then takes
>responsibility for its own separation from other military aircraft and
>the ground. It's really nothing more than flight following. ATC just
>waits for them to get done playing, get separated and then we take over.
>However to say they are always IFR is ridiculous. Ya can't fly at 200
>agl in yer B52 IFR.


Well, I thought it was an exaggeration if not ridiculous. But he may
know something I don't. :-)

[Mike Williamson]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 22:20:04 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote in
> et>:
>
>
>>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>It was largely rhetorical.
>>>
>>>If Mr. Rasimus' assertion, that the flight plan type for the military
>>>is IFR is correct, and MTRs are created for military use, why are
>>>there VFR MTRs? Presumably the military won't be operating VFR on VFR
>>>MTRs.
>>>
>>
>>Let's cut this short. There are VFR flight plans and the military operates
>>VFR on VFR MTRs.
>>
>
>
> So you're contradicting Mr. Rasimus' assertion that the military only
> flies IFR flight plans?
>

Ed was incorrect- the military does fly at least some missions under
IFR. MOST missions, however, are filed and flown under VFR, and indeed
the regulations state that IFR will be used to the maximum extent
possible without impacting mission requirements. When I say most,
I mean more than probably 90% of military missions are flown IFR. The
only time I've been VFR in the past 3 years in the CONUS is when I'm in
the traffic pattern at an airfield where they don't offer continuous
IFR services. Even in those cases, an IFR flight plan was filed for
the flight.

Mike

[Newps]

Larry Dighera wrote:


>
>
> So it would seem, that in your experience with F-16s (not helos with
> which Mr. Rasimus was uncertain), Mr. Rasimus' assertion "the flight
> plan type for the military is IFR" is not always the case.

It's a ridiculous assertion.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> So you're contradicting Mr. Rasimus' assertion that the military only
> flies IFR flight plans?
>

I'm saying there are VFR flight plans and the military operates VFR on VFR
MTRs.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 00:23:01 GMT, Mike Williamson
> wrote in
>:

>the regulations state that IFR will be used to the maximum extent
>possible without impacting mission requirements.

That's the way I understood it to be also.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 01:00:31 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> So you're contradicting Mr. Rasimus' assertion that the military only
>> flies IFR flight plans?
>>
>
>I'm saying there are VFR flight plans and the military operates VFR on VFR
>MTRs.
>

Thanks.

[Jeff Crowell[_1_]]

Jeff Crowell wrote:
>>>>Speed of the F-16 at impact was 356 KCAS.

Larry Dighera wrote:
>>> Limiting the discussion to your 356 KCAS speed at the time of impact
>>> figure disregards this fact:
>>> http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001212X22313&ntsbno=MIA01FA028A&akey=1
>>> "Speeds of up to 450 knots were noted during the descent."
>>>
>>> Why would you overlook that 450 knot speed? Does the F-16 Dash 1 only
>>> pertain to the speed at time of impact? :-)

Jeff Crowell:
>>Somewhere during the entire flight, Ninja 2's speed might
>>easily have been supersonic;

Larry Dighera:
> Perhaps. But any speed in excess of the minimum safe speed is a
> violation of regulations below 10,000'.

Of course. But hardly a smoking gun.


>>would that have had any influence
>>on the collision? (other than the cosmic scheduling of it all--
>>obviously, anything which might have occurred to either F-16
>>or Cessna to speed or delay their movements throughout their
>>respective flights that day would have prevented this tragedy).
>>Seen that way, if Ninja had gone even a little faster then this
>>would have been nothing more than a close miss.

> That analysis disregards the fact that there were other aircraft
> present in the congested Class B and C terminal airspace that could
> have been impacted just as easily by the Ninja flight.

But they were not, were they?


>>I never debated that Ninja flight recorded a speed of 450
>>knots during the flight. I'm simply saying that the speed
>>that really matters is the speed immediately prior to the
>>collision.

> That conclusion is debatable. If we're discussing time to deconflict,
> we'd need to know at what point the Ninja flight achieved 450 knots.

For starters, if the accident investigation report does not
specifically say that the 450 knot speed phases of the
flight were not a proximate cause of the mishap, we can
be sure it was not.


>>I have not seen any claim other than yours that
>>Ninja was knocking down 450 knots within that critical
>>interval. And you are clearly selecting your data to put
>>your argument in the best possible light.

> Perhaps. At any rate, I commend you for taking the time to analyze
> all the data available. That has to be an enlightening experience.

Excuse me? Care to say what you mean here?


> And I'm reassured that by the limited discrepancies you have provided,
> the vast majority of what I have said is correct.

That would be just one more example of you making a
conclusion that is not supported by facts. I have been
attempting to limit our discussion to a limited set of data
so that it is easier to keep up.


>>Similarly, the fact that closure rate was 480 knots of
>>course has meaning in terms of how much time was
>>available to both pilots to see and avoid. But to imply or
>>suggest that this is in any way the same as saying
>>that Ninja was making almost 500 knots at impact is a
>>blatant lie.

> That conclusion is dependent on malice of intent, which I feel is
> unwarranted, and unsupported by the facts. We just choose to
> interpret the facts differently.

"Malice of intent"?

You are convinced, in the face of data to the contrary
(and with no data in support), that the mishap pilot got
up with the specific intention of killing a civil air pilot
that day.

You cast away entire chunks of data from the mishap
investigation report just because they do not fit with
your preconceived notion.


Jeff

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 00:23:01 GMT, Mike Williamson
> wrote:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 22:20:04 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
>> > wrote in
>> et>:
>>
>>
>>>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>It was largely rhetorical.
>>>>
>>>>If Mr. Rasimus' assertion, that the flight plan type for the military
>>>>is IFR is correct, and MTRs are created for military use, why are
>>>>there VFR MTRs? Presumably the military won't be operating VFR on VFR
>>>>MTRs.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Let's cut this short. There are VFR flight plans and the military operates
>>>VFR on VFR MTRs.
>>>
>>
>>
>> So you're contradicting Mr. Rasimus' assertion that the military only
>> flies IFR flight plans?
>>
>
> Ed was incorrect- the military does fly at least some missions under
>IFR. MOST missions, however, are filed and flown under VFR, and indeed
>the regulations state that IFR will be used to the maximum extent
>possible without impacting mission requirements. When I say most,
>I mean more than probably 90% of military missions are flown IFR. The
>only time I've been VFR in the past 3 years in the CONUS is when I'm in
>the traffic pattern at an airfield where they don't offer continuous
>IFR services. Even in those cases, an IFR flight plan was filed for
>the flight.
>
>Mike

MIke,

Without getting into quibbling, let me note that your last sentence
supports what I said in the first post and pretty much makes your
first comment regarding my correctness invalid.

In the tactical community (and the UPT training environment as well),
the IFR flight plan is always filed and the VFR portions are conducted
as a delay enroute. The aircrew involved on local sorties usually does
not handle the flight plan at all, but simply "signs out" with crew
and tail number and call-sign. The "canned flight plan" was filed with
ATC with the day's schedule. It is, however, an IFR flight plan.

Long ago (in a galaxy...) we used to take T-37s on X-country flights
VFR on VFR flight plans. I did it so regularly that I could pretty
much find my way from Willy to Nellis without a map. But, that sort of
flexibility went away and with VERY RARE exceptions, the flights are
always going to be on an IFR flight plan.
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 16:59:21 -0600, Newps > wrote:

>
>
>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>
>>
>> If Mr. Rasimus' assertion, that the flight plan type for the military
>> is IFR is correct, and MTRs are created for military use, why are
>> there VFR MTRs? Presumably the military won't be operating VFR on VFR
>> MTRs.
>
>The military often flies on an IFR flight plan and then takes
>responsibility for its own separation from other military aircraft and
>the ground. It's really nothing more than flight following. ATC just
>waits for them to get done playing, get separated and then we take over.
>However to say they are always IFR is ridiculous. Ya can't fly at 200
>agl in yer B52 IFR.

Do not confuse IFR--the rules, with IMC--the weather. You can drive
yer BUFF along the low level route under visual rules in visual
weather--but you departed the home drome on an IFR flight plan and
when you complete the route you will resume your IFR flight plan for
recovery.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 00:10:54 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 16:55:12 -0600, Newps > wrote
>in >:
>
>>
>>
>>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, but our resident fighter pilot asserts:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 16:34:22 GMT, Ed Rasimus
>>> > wrote in
>>> >:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Regardless, the flight plan type for the military is IFR.
>>>
>>>
>>> If that were true, it prompts my questioning the need for VFR MTRs.
>>
>>Oh heavens no. It's not uncommon for the F16's around here to show up
>>VFR unannounced, do a few approaches and then a few patterns and then
>>disappear VFR. And of course the helicopters are always flitting around
>>VFR. They may stop, they may just get flight following for awhile as
>>long as we can see them.
>
>So it would seem, that in your experience with F-16s (not helos with
>which Mr. Rasimus was uncertain), Mr. Rasimus' assertion "the flight
>plan type for the military is IFR" is not always the case.

Let's establish some things with Newp. Where is "here" and who is
"we"? Where did the F-16s come from? Does he work at an ATC facility?
At a military or joint-use airport?

The Vipers departed their home station on an IFR flight plan--they
most likely conduct most of their mission in visual conditions and
under visual flight rules--but they depart the home station and
recover on an IFR flight plan. The departed on an instrument
departure, whether to a training area or a range or another airport.
The will recover on an instrument penetration which may terminate in
an instrument approach or a VFR hand-off to tower.

It is still an IFR flight plan.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 18:37:17 -0600, Newps > wrote:

>
>
>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>> So it would seem, that in your experience with F-16s (not helos with
>> which Mr. Rasimus was uncertain), Mr. Rasimus' assertion "the flight
>> plan type for the military is IFR" is not always the case.
>
>It's a ridiculous assertion.

Can you establish some credentials. If I am wrong, I will admit it.
But right now we have you with a pseudonym and posting from
.

Are you a controller? Military? A pilot? Civilian or military? Are you
part of the ATC structure? Do you handle the flight plans? Work in
base ops? Are you in scheduling?

I have made mistakes in the past--my first wife comes to mind. But, I
flew fasts jets for the company for 23 years at various locations
around the world. That gives me a leg up on Mr. Dighera and unless you
possess some currency qualifications, it would seem to give me some
insight over you as well. If wrong, I'm happy to admit it.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 18:17:30 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> wrote in
>:

>
>>If Mr. Rasimus' assertion, that the flight plan type for the military
>>is IFR is correct, and MTRs are created for military use, why are
>>there VFR MTRs? Presumably the military won't be operating VFR on VFR
>>MTRs.
>
>The military can and does operated on VFR routes, but they are still
>on an IFR flight plan.

Okay. That's reasonable, if non intuitive.

>Why would you doubt my "assertion"?

Surely you must agree, that are all fellable, even you.

>Do you have any military aviation experience?

I got caught at 500' over the approach end of George AFB in a glider
once in the '70s.* :-) I'm not proud of it, but we all make
mistakes. Some are more grievous than others. Unfortunately, my
choices were between landing among the Joshua Trees or on a runway.
Fortunately, the tower personnel were generous.

>Would I lie to you?

Lacking any historic evidence that might support that notion, I am
comfortable giving you the benefit of the doubt initially extended to
all.

*
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting/msg/ebe03e7297f6ac4e?dmode=source&hl=en

[Jose[_1_]]

> Don't mix flight plans with ATC clearances.

Ok, I won't. But then your statement that every military flight is on a
flight plan is disengenuous.

> Let me repeat--upon reaching the training airspace, the flight is
> dropped from ATC control and exercises a delay enroute.

That's the part that counts. Never mind the flight plan stuff, that's a
red herring.

> The investigation determines who is responsible. There was an
> investigation. It was conducted in great detail.

Was this investigation conducted by a disinterested third party?

More to the point, what would the outcome (consequences to the pilot)
have been had the pilot of the fighter been, say, a civilian on his way
to an airshow? Yes, I'm asking you to speculate, but it doesn't seem to
be a very difficult speculation.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 06:41:29 -0600, "Jeff Crowell"
> wrote in >:

>Jeff Crowell wrote:
>>>>>Speed of the F-16 at impact was 356 KCAS.
>
>Larry Dighera wrote:

[...]

>>>I never debated that Ninja flight recorded a speed of 450
>>>knots during the flight. I'm simply saying that the speed
>>>that really matters is the speed immediately prior to the
>>>collision.
>
>> That conclusion is debatable. If we're discussing time to deconflict,
>> we'd need to know at what point the Ninja flight achieved 450 knots.
>
>For starters, if the accident investigation report does not
>specifically say that the 450 knot speed phases of the
>flight were not a proximate cause of the mishap, we can
>be sure it was not.
>

So, you never question the conclusions reached in AIB reports? How
about NTSB reports?

>>>I have not seen any claim other than yours that
>>>Ninja was knocking down 450 knots within that critical
>>>interval. And you are clearly selecting your data to put
>>>your argument in the best possible light.
>
>> Perhaps. At any rate, I commend you for taking the time to analyze
>> all the data available. That has to be an enlightening experience.
>
>Excuse me? Care to say what you mean here?

I mean, from your detailed remarks, it is apparent that you have
applied more than a cursory perusal to the data contained in the AIB
report and the Usenet articles I have written on this subject, and in
so doing, you surely learned a lot about the facts concerning this
MAC. I seriously doubt many other Usenet readers have invested that
degree of effort.

>
>> And I'm reassured that by the limited discrepancies you have provided,
>> the vast majority of what I have said is correct.
>
>That would be just one more example of you making a
>conclusion that is not supported by facts. I have been
>attempting to limit our discussion to a limited set of data
>so that it is easier to keep up.
>

Keep up?

Feel free to expand your critique. You've got nearly six years of my
comments on this MAC to research.

>
>>>Similarly, the fact that closure rate was 480 knots of
>>>course has meaning in terms of how much time was
>>>available to both pilots to see and avoid. But to imply or
>>>suggest that this is in any way the same as saying
>>>that Ninja was making almost 500 knots at impact is a
>>>blatant lie.
>
>> That conclusion is dependent on malice of intent, which I feel is
>> unwarranted, and unsupported by the facts. We just choose to
>> interpret the facts differently.
>
>"Malice of intent"?

For my comment to be considered a "blatant lie" implies that it was a
deliberate attempt to mislead; I had no such intent.

>
>You are convinced, in the face of data to the contrary
>(and with no data in support), that the mishap pilot got
>up with the specific intention of killing a civil air pilot
>that day.

Sir, that is your inference. You will not find, that any of my
comments support that ridiculous conclusion of yours. That statement
causes me to suspect your intentions. Until you are able to present a
quotation of my words that supports your allegation, I will refrain
from further comment on it.

Here's a question (or two) for you:

Why did the USAF wait eight days (per the AIB report) before
administering a medical examination to Parker? Would such a late
medical exam limped the ability to ascertain if he were under the
influence of judgment impairing substances at the time of the MAC?

>You cast away entire chunks of data from the mishap
>investigation report just because they do not fit with
>your preconceived notion.
>

Which "entire chunks" would those be?

Perhaps you'll be good enough to answer this question:

Can you could explain how Parker could have been unaware of a
chunk of terminal airspace 60 miles in diameter and 10,000' feet
high on a clear day? He surely must have been able to see the
large international airport beneath him. Every pilot knows there
is controlled terminal airspace around such airports.
Additionally, Parker was attempting to contact ATC to obtain a
clearance to enter the Class B airspace immediately before he
chose to descend without the required ATC clearance. Given those
facts, how could Parker possibly have been unaware of what he was
doing?

Lacking an answer to that question, in light of the circumstances,
logic and reason demand, that I conclude, that Parker _deliberately_
chose to violate regulations prohibiting his 450 knot descent into
congested terminal airspace without the required ATC clearance.


And, one last question:

Do you believe that a verbal or written reprimand is a just
sentence for killing the Cessna Pilot?

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 15:20:25 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>> Don't mix flight plans with ATC clearances.
>
>Ok, I won't. But then your statement that every military flight is on a
>flight plan is disengenuous.

The question was regarding FLIGHT PLANS. I answered, based on my
experience in the military as a pilot. I stated that ALL military
flights are on a FLIGHT PLAN. I confirmed that there are both VFR and
IFR FLIGHT PLANS. I stated that in the USAF, the governing regulations
specify that flights will be on an IFR FLIGHT PLAN "to the maximum
extent practicable." I further indicated, in direct response to
queries, that with very few exceptions all USAF military flights are
on IFR FLIGHT PLANS.

Exactly how is that statement of facts based on experience and in
reply to a direct and specific series of questions being in any way
disingenuous?
>
>> Let me repeat--upon reaching the training airspace, the flight is
>> dropped from ATC control and exercises a delay enroute.
>
>That's the part that counts. Never mind the flight plan stuff, that's a
>red herring.

The questions involved confusion regarding how military flights manage
to do all of their VFR maneuvering if they are on IFR FLIGHT PLANS. I
described the procedure.

If you are unfamiliar with terminology, that isn't my problem.
Providing specific answers to specific questions, even when they are
asked by those without clue, isn't introducing red herrings.
>
>> The investigation determines who is responsible. There was an
>> investigation. It was conducted in great detail.
>
>Was this investigation conducted by a disinterested third party?

An accident investigation is convened based on very specific
regulations. Composition of that board is IAW those regs. A board will
always have a presiding officer (usually O-6) and always from another
organization than the unit which had the accident. There will also be
a trained Flying Safety Officer (graduate of flight safety school
which used to be at Univ. of Southern Calif.--dunno if it's still
there.) There will be a flight surgeon--to provide medical expertise.
And there will be a "pilot officer" member of the board--a pilot
qualified in the aircraft, but not a member of the unit. And, there
will be a maintenance officer qualified in the aircraft type. There
may be additional members based on expertise required to make
determinations.

The principle reason for the accident board is to determine cause and
therefore to prevent future occurences of mishaps from the same cause.
The interest is safety. Findings usually involve a primary cause and
one or more secondary or contributing causes.

Should there be evidence of pilot error or malfeasance, there will be
an additional board convened to deal with those specific issues. This
is called a corollary board. The corollary board can and does assess
damages.

Depending upon board findings, there may be an Article 34
hearing--similar to an arraignment in civil court which could lead to
a court-martial. There could also be a recommendation for a
FEB--Flight Evaluation Board, which would make a determination
regarding continuation of involved crew-members on flight status.
>
>More to the point, what would the outcome (consequences to the pilot)
>have been had the pilot of the fighter been, say, a civilian on his way
>to an airshow? Yes, I'm asking you to speculate, but it doesn't seem to
>be a very difficult speculation.
>
>Jose

You are asking if a civilian flying a fighter aircraft would be
subject to similar proceedings? That would be such as a "war-bird"
enthusiast? Or a manufacturer employed test or demo pilot?

Those individuals would not be involved in the military process, but
would be subject to NTSB accident investigation. Outcome would
probably be very similar with the principal difference being that if
there were suspicion of criminal behavior (flying under influence of
drugs/alcohol for example leading to a mishap), the proceedings would
take place in civil court.

Now, I can only sit back and wonder what of the above will be
considered disingenuous or red herring.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[Montblack[_1_]]

("Ed Rasimus" wrote)
> Let's establish some things with Newp. Where is "here" and who is "we"?
> Where did the F-16s come from? Does he work at an ATC facility? At a
> military or joint-use airport?


ATC ...out west.

Google/Groups/RAP/Newps/First thread.../Second thread.../etc


Montblack

[Jose[_1_]]

> Exactly how is that statement of facts based on experience and in
> reply to a direct and specific series of questions being in any way
> disingenuous?

I obviously was asking the question in the context of information
available to ATC, which could be passed on to an itinerant GA pilot.
You knew that what was important was a CLEARANCE (which I failed to ask
directly about, but merely implied, in my question). Instead of saying
that such flights have sections that are NOT UNDER ATC CONTROL (while
still on a flight plan), you stated that all flights ARE ON A FLIGHT
PLAN (even though they may not be under ATC control).

Further, you kept focusing on the idea that a FLIGHT PLAN (even after
you knew it was irrelevant) is just an "intention to fly", thus
underlying its irrelevance.

The reply is disingenuous in the same sense as the joke whose punchline
is "you are in an airplane".

>>Was this investigation conducted by a disinterested third party?
>
> An accident investigation is convened based on very specific
> regulations. Composition of that board is IAW those regs. A board will...

In other words, no, the investigation was not conducted by a
disinterested third party. (and for somebody who, in this thread,
prides himself on answering =just= the question asked, you did not do so
here; the answer was either "yes" or "no".

> You are asking if a civilian flying a fighter aircraft would be
> subject to similar proceedings? That would be such as a "war-bird"
> enthusiast? Or a manufacturer employed test or demo pilot?

Either of the above.

> Those individuals would not be involved in the military process, but
> would be subject to NTSB accident investigation. Outcome would
> probably be very similar with the principal difference being that if
> there were suspicion of criminal behavior (flying under influence of
> drugs/alcohol for example leading to a mishap), the proceedings would
> take place in civil court.

I suspect there would be another proceeding, akin to the Article 34
hearing. That one would be conducted by the FAA (or under its
auspicies), and would determine what penalties would be applied to the
pilot found at fault. If the fighter pilot were found at fault, in the
case under discussion as I understand it, I expect that the FAA would
suspend and probably revoke his certificate.

I would expect the civil proceeding to find the pilot liable for
millions of dollars in damages to the dead Cesesna pilot and his estate.

I would find it inconcievable that the (civilian) fighter pilot would
get away with a "reprimand" from the FAA, and no financial
responsibility towards the pilot of the Cessna he crashed into.

Do you disagree?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 02:12:04 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>> Exactly how is that statement of facts based on experience and in
>> reply to a direct and specific series of questions being in any way
>> disingenuous?
>
>I obviously was asking the question in the context of information
>available to ATC, which could be passed on to an itinerant GA pilot.
>You knew that what was important was a CLEARANCE (which I failed to ask
>directly about, but merely implied, in my question). Instead of saying
>that such flights have sections that are NOT UNDER ATC CONTROL (while
>still on a flight plan), you stated that all flights ARE ON A FLIGHT
>PLAN (even though they may not be under ATC control).

If you do not know or understand the language and terminology well
enough to ask a meaningful question, you will continually get answers
which you may deem ingenuous, but it is the fault of the query not the
reply.

There is no obligation for ATC to pass information on to "an itinerant
GA pilot". None at all.

If the GA pilot is IFR, he gets a route and altitude assignment and is
expected to follow it. He MIGHT get traffic advisories if ATC work
load permits. No guarantee.

If a military pilot is on an enroute delay during his ALWAYS IFR
Flight Plan, he would be operating in a MOA, a restricted area, a
warning area, on a low-level training route, or in a VFR traffic
pattern. The "itinerant GA pilot" if he is on an IFR flight plan will
be routed around those airspaces (except for the VFR traffic
pattern--in which case he will be sequenced.)
>
>Further, you kept focusing on the idea that a FLIGHT PLAN (even after
>you knew it was irrelevant) is just an "intention to fly", thus
>underlying its irrelevance.

It was a true statement and an attempt to educate you so that you
could at some point ask the question you really wanted to ask.
>
>The reply is disingenuous in the same sense as the joke whose punchline
>is "you are in an airplane".
>
>>>Was this investigation conducted by a disinterested third party?
>>
>> An accident investigation is convened based on very specific
>> regulations. Composition of that board is IAW those regs. A board will...
>
>In other words, no, the investigation was not conducted by a
>disinterested third party. (and for somebody who, in this thread,
>prides himself on answering =just= the question asked, you did not do so
>here; the answer was either "yes" or "no".

This is a not a court of law, so the answers to complex questions can
be given in detail in an attempt to inform.

If you understand the objective of the accident board, the composition
of the board made up of outside-the-unit individuals, and the
follow-on alternatives based on the findings of the board, and still
insist that the board is somehow not a "disinterested third party"
there is little help for you.
>
>> You are asking if a civilian flying a fighter aircraft would be
>> subject to similar proceedings? That would be such as a "war-bird"
>> enthusiast? Or a manufacturer employed test or demo pilot?
>
>Either of the above.
>
>> Those individuals would not be involved in the military process, but
>> would be subject to NTSB accident investigation. Outcome would
>> probably be very similar with the principal difference being that if
>> there were suspicion of criminal behavior (flying under influence of
>> drugs/alcohol for example leading to a mishap), the proceedings would
>> take place in civil court.
>
>I suspect there would be another proceeding, akin to the Article 34
>hearing.

The equivalent to an Art. 34 is a grand jury investigation or an
indictment by federal prosecutor.

> That one would be conducted by the FAA (or under its
>auspicies),

No, the FAA is a regulatory agency. They exercise only adminstrative
authority. They are not a court of law nor a prosecuting agency.

> and would determine what penalties would be applied to the
>pilot found at fault. If the fighter pilot were found at fault, in the
>case under discussion as I understand it, I expect that the FAA would
>suspend and probably revoke his certificate.

Suspension of license is an administrative proceeding.

Now, pay attention here because this will again confuse you. A
military pilot does not have an FAA issued pilot certificate.

Most do, but that is because they choose to obtain one under the
provisions of "Military competence". You simply pass a written exam on
FARs and get a commercial license for SMEL with instrument rating. You
can get a type rating for any heavy with a similar civilian aircraft
by simply presenting your military flight record of successful
completion of a military check flight.

But, the military pilot does not possess nor exercise an FAA
certificate.

(I've got a commercial SMEL/Inst. with Convair 240/340/440 type
rating--a relic of the very short period when I flew the T-29 during a
Hq staff tour.)
>
>I would expect the civil proceeding to find the pilot liable for
>millions of dollars in damages to the dead Cesesna pilot and his estate.

Why? The FAA wouldn't bring that proceeding. The accident board from
the NTSB wouldn't. And, you seem to be demanding a "guilty until
proven innocent" verdict.

Your prejudice and unwillingness to consider an alternative to your
interpretation of events is blatant.
>
>I would find it inconcievable that the (civilian) fighter pilot would
>get away with a "reprimand" from the FAA, and no financial
>responsibility towards the pilot of the Cessna he crashed into.
>
>Do you disagree?

If you've followed through all of these posts and still ask that
question, my saying "YES, I disagree" today will probably also escape
your comprehension.

How someone who has demonstrated so little understanding of so many
relevant issues in this or any other accident could hold such a strong
opinion on culpability truly is amazing.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 17:59:50 -0500, "Montblack"
> wrote:

>("Ed Rasimus" wrote)
>> Let's establish some things with Newp. Where is "here" and who is "we"?
>> Where did the F-16s come from? Does he work at an ATC facility? At a
>> military or joint-use airport?
>
>
>ATC ...out west.
>
>Google/Groups/RAP/Newps/First thread.../Second thread.../etc
>
>
>Montblack

So, are Newp and Montblack the same person? Can Newp really work in an
ATC facility and not know how those Vipers got to a VFR traffic
pattern somewhere?


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[Montblack[_1_]]

("Ed Rasimus" wrote)
[snip]
> So, are Newp and Montblack the same person?


Hmm? At an FAA average of 170 lbs each ...that would explain, much.


Montblack :-)(-:

[Jose[_1_]]

> There is no obligation for ATC to pass information on to "an itinerant
> GA pilot".

.... but there is also no =ability= to do so either. Were the military
pilot on an appropriate CLEARANCE, that ability would exist. We'd be
further along towards safer shared use.

> If a military pilot is on an enroute delay during his ALWAYS IFR
> Flight Plan, he would be operating in a MOA, a restricted area, a
> warning area, on a low-level training route, or in a VFR traffic
> pattern.

There you go again with the flight plan nonsense. This military pilot
(unless he's in a bona fide restricted area) would be operating in
JOINT-USE airspace.

> It was a true statement and an attempt to educate you so that you
> could at some point ask the question you really wanted to ask.

You are beginning to resemble another poster here.

> If you understand the objective of the accident board, the composition
> of the board made up of outside-the-unit individuals, and the
> follow-on alternatives based on the findings of the board, and still
> insist that the board is somehow not a "disinterested third party"
> there is little help for you.

It is a military board judging a military pilot who killed a civilian
pilot. This is not a disinterested board.

> Suspension of license is an administrative proceeding.

This doesn't matter much to the pilot whose license is suspended or revoked.

> Now, pay attention here because this will again confuse you. A
> military pilot does not have an FAA issued pilot certificate.

I know. I knew. It doesn't matter.

>>I would expect the civil proceeding to find the pilot liable for
>>millions of dollars in damages to the dead Cesesna pilot and his estate.
>
> Why? The FAA wouldn't bring that proceeding.

It doesn't matter whether the FAA brings that proceeding or not. It
will be brought. Need I educate you about lawyers?

Now, is the military pilot immune from civil prosecution?
Would a civilian pilot who did the same thing be immune?

>>I would find it inconcievable that the (civilian) fighter pilot would
>>get away with a "reprimand" from the FAA, and no financial
>>responsibility towards the pilot of the Cessna he crashed into.
>>
>>Do you disagree?
>
>
> If you've followed through all of these posts and still ask that
> question, my saying "YES, I disagree" today will probably also escape
> your comprehension.

So, you think that if a civilian pilot had done the same thing that
military pilot did, it would not be surprising for him to get away with
a reprimand from the FAA and no liability for the death of the Cessna pilot?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Newps]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

>
>
> So, are Newp and Montblack the same person?

Yep, both from the Twin Cities. One smart enough to leave.


Can Newp really work in an
> ATC facility and not know how those Vipers got to a VFR traffic
> pattern somewhere?

They got to the VFR traffic pattern after calling me up about 30 miles
out and requesting touch and go's. They were VFR at the time. They do
a few touch and go's and then depart VFR. About 10 miles out I
terminate them and they go on their merry way. This is SOP.

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 12:43:16 -0600, Newps > wrote:

>
>
>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> So, are Newp and Montblack the same person?
>
>Yep, both from the Twin Cities. One smart enough to leave.
>
>
> Can Newp really work in an
>> ATC facility and not know how those Vipers got to a VFR traffic
>> pattern somewhere?
>
>They got to the VFR traffic pattern after calling me up about 30 miles
>out and requesting touch and go's. They were VFR at the time. They do
>a few touch and go's and then depart VFR. About 10 miles out I
>terminate them and they go on their merry way. This is SOP.

Trust me, they departed their home station on an IFR flight plan. And
when their "merry way" got them back to home station, they were
handled by approach control and either routed into an instrument
recovery or enroute descent to VFR traffic.

There is a lot of VFR operation by the military. Training couldn't be
conducted any other way. And, as you know, a lot of military training
is done in airspace that is other than "Restricted"--When the other
airspace is above the positive control altitude, it really isn't an
issue, since all other traffic will be on IFR routing and will not
transit the airspace. It's only below APC where GA traffic can wander
along VFR, off-airways and with possible conflict.

When those GA aircraft are aware of the other users of the airspace,
the conflicts are minimal. Accidents can and do happen, and when
someone dies it is unfortunate.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[Newps]

Ed Rasimus wrote:


>
> Trust me, they departed their home station on an IFR flight plan.

No, they do not always do this.



And
> when their "merry way" got them back to home station, they were
> handled by approach control and either routed into an instrument
> recovery or enroute descent to VFR traffic.

Right they descended to their airport like they descended into mine. VFR.

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 15:31:59 -0600, Newps > wrote:

>
>
>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>>
>> Trust me, they departed their home station on an IFR flight plan.
>
>No, they do not always do this.

Can you give me a basis for this assurance? I flew for the USAF for 23
years from Williams, Nellis, Luke, Davis-Monthan, Holloman, Randolph,
Eglin, McConnell, George, Patrick, and a few other spots in between. I
did it from the perspective a student to IP to flight commander to ops
officer and with a bit of staff time thrown in on the side.

I will agree that they do not "always" do it, but the exceptions are
very few and far between. For most scheduled training flights, the
aircrew isn't even involved in the filing of the flight plan behind
the "signing out" at the duty desk. The option to file VFR isn't
available for routine operations. It "could be done" but generally
isn't.

If you have some new insights, I'd sure appreciate them.

> And
>> when their "merry way" got them back to home station, they were
>> handled by approach control and either routed into an instrument
>> recovery or enroute descent to VFR traffic.
>
>Right they descended to their airport like they descended into mine. VFR.

Sorry, no. Go to any military base and you'll find local operating
procedures that specify departures from the base and recoveries. Those
procedures are designed with ATC coordination and proceed from fix to
fix along a specified route of flight. This routing allows for
unimpeded operation whether the current weather is IMC or VMC.
Anything else would be unworkable.

Consider for a moment, at Holloman we had four AT-38 squadrons flying
on average 130 sorties per training day and three F-15 squadrons
running about 60 sorties/day plus various drone operations. The
intensity of operations simply doesn't allow for random VFR roaming to
funnel traffic in and out of the airdrome.

Again, if you've got some direct experience in this area beyond
opinion gleaned from watching pop-up traffic at your station, I'm
willing to listen.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[Jose[_1_]]

>>>Trust me, they departed their home station on an IFR flight plan.
>>No, they do not always do this.
> Can you give me a basis for this assurance? ...
> I will agree that they do not "always" do it, but the exceptions are
> very few and far between.

Uh... for one who is both arrogant and picky, don't you see the
contradiction here?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Newps]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 15:31:59 -0600, Newps > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>>
>>>Trust me, they departed their home station on an IFR flight plan.
>>
>>No, they do not always do this.
>
>
> Can you give me a basis for this assurance?


Yeah, they call me up VFR and we sequence them into the pattern. What's
so hard to understand?






>
>
> Sorry, no.

Yep, your right. I can't tell the difference between IFR and VFR.



Go to any military base and you'll find local operating
> procedures that specify departures from the base and recoveries.

I don't work at a military base.



Those
> procedures are designed with ATC coordination and proceed from fix to
> fix along a specified route of flight. This routing allows for
> unimpeded operation whether the current weather is IMC or VMC.
> Anything else would be unworkable.

Sounds reasonable at busy places. Does not apply here.





>
> Again, if you've got some direct experience in this area beyond
> opinion gleaned from watching pop-up traffic at your station, I'm
> willing to listen.

I've already posted my experience.

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 18:32:20 -0600, Newps > wrote:

>
>
>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 15:31:59 -0600, Newps > wrote:

>>>
>>>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>>>
>>>>Trust me, they departed their home station on an IFR flight plan.
>>>
>>>No, they do not always do this.
>>
>>
>> Can you give me a basis for this assurance?
>
>
>Yeah, they call me up VFR and we sequence them into the pattern. What's
>so hard to understand?

Does "call me up VFR" and "departed their home station on an IFR
flight plan" indicate some sort of incompatibility? My statement
remains, that virtually ALL USAF flights in the US operate on an IFR
flight plan remains. They depart IFR, they either terminate the IFR
(always an option) or take an enroute delay for training, then when
they recover they resume IFR.

You have not indicated anything in conflict with what I stated.
>
>> Sorry, no.
>
>Yep, your right. I can't tell the difference between IFR and VFR.

You talk about VFR at your location for a flight already airborne that
neither originated or recovered there. Do you understand that a flight
can be on an IFR flight plan and still operate for a period VFR?
>
> Go to any military base and you'll find local operating
>> procedures that specify departures from the base and recoveries.
>
>I don't work at a military base.

That isn't the point here, is it? You are challenging my statement
that virtually all USAF military flights originate on an IFR flight
plan. Where you work doesn't make much difference to that, except that
it might indicate your lack of exposure to the facts in the issue.
>
> Those
>> procedures are designed with ATC coordination and proceed from fix to
>> fix along a specified route of flight. This routing allows for
>> unimpeded operation whether the current weather is IMC or VMC.
>> Anything else would be unworkable.
>
>Sounds reasonable at busy places. Does not apply here.

Who cares what applies "here"?
>>
>> Again, if you've got some direct experience in this area beyond
>> opinion gleaned from watching pop-up traffic at your station, I'm
>> willing to listen.
>
>I've already posted my experience.

Which doesn't qualify you for more than an opinion.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[Jose[_1_]]

> they either terminate the IFR
> (always an option)

After they "terminate the IFR", are they no longer "on an IFR flight
plan"? You stated that they are always "on an IFR flight plan".

Certainly (and more to the point) they are no longer on an ATC clearance.


--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Skylune[_1_]]

>>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>>
>>[stuff snipped]
>>
>>> Nah, I'd rather just go out hunting for civilians to run into
>>> willy-nilly. I'll smash a couple of Cessnas before lunch, then bail
>>> out by the golf course before taking the rest of the day off.

<<

Now that would be a more appropriate use of our tax dollars than
continually subsidizing these GA airports that are used mainly by
recreational, amateur pilots.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article
utaviation.com>,
"Skylune" > wrote:

> >>Ed Rasimus wrote:
> >>
> >>[stuff snipped]
> >>
> >>> Nah, I'd rather just go out hunting for civilians to run into
> >>> willy-nilly. I'll smash a couple of Cessnas before lunch, then bail
> >>> out by the golf course before taking the rest of the day off.
>
> <<
>
> Now that would be a more appropriate use of our tax dollars than
> continually subsidizing these GA airports that are used mainly by
> recreational, amateur pilots.


..... as posted by a GA washout.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
>
> Now that would be a more appropriate use of our tax dollars than
> continually subsidizing these GA airports that are used mainly by
> recreational, amateur pilots.
>

What GA airports are being subsidized?

[Roger[_4_]]

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 16:35:38 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
>>
>> Now that would be a more appropriate use of our tax dollars than
>> continually subsidizing these GA airports that are used mainly by
>> recreational, amateur pilots.
>>
>
>What GA airports are being subsidized?

Most of them!

We're doing a runway resurfacing. Actually it's more of a rebuilding
of 18/36. Out of about 3/4 million I think the state pays 10%, we
(The city) pay 5% and the Feds the rest.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>What GA airports are being subsidized?
>>
>
> Most of them!
>

What airport? What data did you use to support that conclusion?


>
> We're doing a runway resurfacing. Actually it's more of a rebuilding
> of 18/36. Out of about 3/4 million I think the state pays 10%, we
> (The city) pay 5% and the Feds the rest.
>

But the 85% the Feds pay is from taxes on aviation. Where's the subsidy?

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 09:21:25 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
et>:

>But the 85% the Feds pay is from taxes on aviation.

What data did you use to come to that conclusion?

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 09:21:25 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote in
> et>:
>
>>But the 85% the Feds pay is from taxes on aviation.
>
> What data did you use to come to that conclusion?
>

FAA Order 5100.38C

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 16:10:00 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
et>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 09:21:25 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
>> > wrote in
>> et>:
>>
>>>But the 85% the Feds pay is from taxes on aviation.
>>
>> What data did you use to come to that conclusion?
>>
>
>FAA Order 5100.38C
>

That 318 page document is available on-line here:
http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/aip/aip_handbook/


From what I read in that document, it seems you are correct, despite
my recollection of reading someplace that the fuel/ticket tax only
funded about half of annual ATC costs.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 18:13:39 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> wrote in
>:

>
>The investigation determines who is responsible. There was an
>investigation. It was conducted in great detail. Mr. Dighera is
>unwilling to accept the outcome of the investigation. I am unwilling
>to accept the outcome of the OJ trial.

So the "justice" applied in the OJ trial is the level the military
aspires to:


http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/15314278.htm
Posted on Sat, Aug. 19, 2006
Some prosecutors, victims seeking justice outside military system
MARTHA MENDOZA
Associated Press

Dissatisfied with the military's handling of sexual assault cases
involving recruiters, some local prosecutors and victims are
challenging the misconduct on their own, charging everything from
a violation of an Indian treaty to racketeering.

Most such cases are handled administratively by the military - for
example, 13 of the 19 Air Force recruiters whose misconduct was
confirmed since 2004 received letters of reprimand in their
personnel files and fines that ranged from $200 to $1,200.

In seeking greater penalties, victims and local authorities have
taken unusual tacks.

...

In another case, prosecutor Barbara Trathen of Hamilton County,
Ind., has charged National Guard recruiter Sgt. Eric Vetesy -
accused of assaulting seven young women - with racketeering along
with 31 charges of rape and sexual battery. His trial is scheduled
for later this summer.

Vetesy, a married father of three, met most of his alleged
victims, ages 16 to 20, while recruiting at Indianapolis-area high
schools, according to the indictment. Victims told the grand jury
he threw them against a wall of the armory, raped them on a
countertop and forced them to fondle him.

...

One of the victims, 17, shared portions of her handwritten journal
with the AP.

"I lost my virginity to (the recruiter) ... in the back room on
the sofa. I didn't want to have sex but I didn't want him to be
upset with me and make me go all the way back to my old recruiter.
He was also the type of guy to bad mouth a person if he didn't get
what he wanted," she wrote about their first encounter.

Both recruiters were demoted after court-martial proceedings, but
acquitted of the most serious charges they faced. Both have since
left the military.


More here:
http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=104&sid=886674
Military Recruiters Cited for Misconduct
Aug 20th - 1:12am

By MARTHA MENDOZA
AP National Writer

(AP) - More than 100 young women who expressed interest in joining
the military in the past year were preyed upon sexually by their
recruiters. Women were raped on recruiting office couches,
assaulted in government cars and groped en route to entrance
exams.

A six-month Associated Press investigation found that more than 80
military recruiters were disciplined last year for sexual
misconduct with potential enlistees. The cases occurred across all
branches of the military and in all regions of the country.

"This should never be allowed to happen," said one 18-year-old
victim. "The recruiter had all the power. He had the uniform. He
had my future. I trusted him."

At least 35 Army recruiters, 18 Marine Corps recruiters, 18 Navy
recruiters and 12 Air Force recruiters were disciplined for sexual
misconduct or other inappropriate behavior with potential
enlistees in 2005, according to records obtained by the AP under
dozens of Freedom of Information Act requests. That's
significantly more than the handful of cases disclosed in the past
decade.

The AP also found:

_The Army, which accounts for almost half of the military, has had
722 recruiters accused of rape and sexual misconduct since 1996.

_Across all services, one out of 200 frontline recruiters _ the
ones who deal directly with young people _ was disciplined for
sexual misconduct last year.

_Some cases of improper behavior involved romantic relationships,
and sometimes those relationships were initiated by the women.

_Most recruiters found guilty of sexual misconduct are disciplined
administratively, facing a reduction in rank or forfeiture of pay;
military and civilian prosecutions are rare.

_The increase in sexual misconduct incidents is consistent with
overall recruiter wrongdoing, which has increased from just over
400 cases in 2004 to 630 cases in 2005, according to a General
Accounting Office report released this week.

...

Not all of the victims are young women. Former Navy recruiter
Joseph Sampy, 27, of Jeanerette, La., is serving a 12-year
sentence for molesting three male recruits.

"He did something wrong, something terrible to people who were the
most vulnerable," State District Judge Lori Landry said before
handing down the sentence in July, 2005. "He took advantage of his
authority."

One of Sampy's victims is suing him and the Navy for $1.25
million. The trial is scheduled for next spring.

___



http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/15314281.htm