Scared of mid-airs

[Frode Berg]

Hi!

I am a PPL, and co owner of an Arrow.

I have just over 250 hours total time, vfr only, and lot's of cross country.

However, during the past 3 years or so, I've constantly been overly alert
towards the possibility of hitting something in the sky.

I know the sky is big, and probability is not very high, but still it nags
me to the point that I feel I would be a better pilot if I could just let it
go. Off course still keeping a proper scan etc.

Now, I'm constantly looking for traffic, instead of relaxing, calmly doing
the checklists etc.

I bought one of the passive collision devices, and every time something
shows up there, I try to figure out where it is, especially if I get a
reading around 1-2 nm away within +-500 feet. I know these things are not
excactly dead on most of the time, but they do tell you somethings out
there.

Maybe it's just adding to my nercousness not seeing most of the traffic it
detects.

Anyone else had "mid-air-ities" and how did you deal with it?

Before I started on my PPL, I witnessed a midair from a cruise ship in
France. Maybe that's why I'm a bit obsessed with it.

I mean, what are the probabilities of hitting someone?

How easy is it really to see another AC once it get's closer than normal?
I'm thinking if it getæs real close it will be rather obvious, since most
traffic I'm able to spot now is 1-2 nm away, and look really small and hard
to see.


Thanks for any input on this.

Frode

[Guy Elden Jr]

My instructor always told me to look for an object in the sky that does
not appear to be moving. If you see that, do something immediately,
because you are dead-on a collision course.

I've had what I consider close calls over the years, the most memorable
being when I saw an SR-22 dart across my field of view from right to
left very quickly. I immediately banked over to the right at a 45
degree angle and pulled hard to insure we'd pass behind the guy - he
appeared to do absolutely nothing.

Basically my theory is that mid-airs can only happen when both pilots
are inattentive, or neither can see the other due to a perfect
alignment obscuring both planes behind wings, struts, or what have you.
Since you seem to be overly cautious, I'd suggest that you have nothing
to worry about... but don't stop being as vigilant as you are - that's
exactly how I think one should approach flying... always be thinking
ahead of the plane, and that includes keeping up your visual see &
avoid scan.

--
Guy

[Jose]

> However, during the past 3 years or so, I've constantly been overly alert
> towards the possibility of hitting something in the sky.
>
> [...] I feel I would be a better pilot if I could just let it go

Nope. If you "just let it go" you would be an accident waiting to
happen. While you are vigilant, you are doing exactly what you should
be doing.

> I bought one of the passive collision devices, and every time something
> shows up there, I try to figure out where it is, especially if I get a
> reading around 1-2 nm away within +-500 feet. I know these things are not
> excactly dead on most of the time, but they do tell you somethings out
> there.

These devices are helpful, but one must be careful that one doesn't keep
their eyeballs inside the cockpit looking at the device instead of
outside. Like you, I don't always see the depicted traffic. Airplanes
look pretty small at two miles, and can easily get lost in ground
clutter or blue sky. They are probably not a collision hazard at that
distance if their track and yours diverge (though they could change
course). At two miles, unless they are moving straight towards you,
there is plenty of time to see and avoid.

> I mean, what are the probabilities of hitting someone?

In the pattern, it's certainly a concern. Lots of people entering and
leaving, a few on odd courses, and some with no radio (or worse, bad
position reports). Eyeballs are put to maximum use. Over VORs is
another congestion point, and low down near airports is another hot
spot. In the mid thousands in cruise, it is far less likely to bump
into surprise aluminum, but it can happen.

Don't let the =fear= rule you, but do keep the =attention= outside
looking for traffic and keeping up with your position. You'll get to
relax and enjoy the view with more time in the air.

Jose




--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Marc J. Zeitlin]

Frode Berg wrote:

> However, during the past 3 years or so, I've constantly been
> overly alert towards the possibility of hitting something in the sky.

There's no such thing as being "overly" alert. The alerter, the better
:-). Sans drugs, of course :-).

> Now, I'm constantly looking for traffic, instead of relaxing,
> calmly doing the checklists etc.

Looking for traffic should be part of your normal scan - in VFR flight,
95% of your attention should be outside the cockpit anyway. Nothing
wrong with that.

> Anyone else had "mid-air-ities" and how did you deal with it?

My wife does - she spends 80% of the time in the plane with me worrying
about hitting the 747 she can see 25 miles away, at 25K ft. I've gotten
her to worry a lot less, but she really doesn't like flying over the LA
basin. If a plane passes by 1 mile away, 500 ft. above us, she's very
concerned. As a long-time glider pilot, used to flying with 4 other 60
ft. wingspan gliders in a 300 ft. diameter thermal, I don't worry about
it much, especially if I can see them.

We used to fly in the Boston/NY corridor all the time - we'd rarely get
within 1-2 miles of anyone. Just the familiarity, and seeing that you
DON'T have near hits on a regular basis helped her.

> I mean, what are the probabilities of hitting someone?

Very small. Read the Nall Report at:

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/nall.html

Midair collisions are a minuscule percentage of total fatal accidents,
and almost all of them happen in the pattern. There were 6 fatal
midairs in 2005, out of 290 fatal accidents. That's 2% of the total
fatals. There were 10 total midairs, out of 1413 total accidents -
that's 0.7% of all accidents.

Showing these statistics to my wife helped her become less nervous about
midairs.

Worry about CFIT or running out of gas, or some of the other stuff that
the Nall Report points out as being far more likely to bite you (most of
which are judgement errors).

--
Marc J. Zeitlin
http://www.cozybuilders.org/
Copyright (c) 2006

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Marc J. Zeitlin wrote:
>> Anyone else had "mid-air-ities" and how did you deal with it?
>
> My wife does - she spends 80% of the time in the plane with me worrying
> about hitting the 747 she can see 25 miles away, at 25K ft. I've gotten
> her to worry a lot less, but she really doesn't like flying over the LA
> basin. If a plane passes by 1 mile away, 500 ft. above us, she's very
> concerned.


I don't know how to break a pilot of the worry but I sure know how to divert a
passenger's attention back inside. Start tapping the oil pressure gauge and
start muttering to yourself until you have her attention. When she asks what's
wrong, tell her you thought you saw the oil pressure gauge flicker out of the
corner of your eye... just can't be sure.

I had an overly talkative passenger once that I shut up completely with that
little technique. Didn't hear another word.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Larry Dighera]

On 4 May 2006 16:45:50 -0700, "Guy Elden Jr" >
wrote in . com>::

>Basically my theory is that mid-airs can only happen when both pilots
>are inattentive, or neither can see the other due to a perfect
>alignment obscuring both planes behind wings, struts, or what have you.

Of course that theory fails to consider the closing speed of the
aircraft.

There was a military/civil MAC on November 16, 2000 in which an F-16
at about 500 knots impacted a C-172. Although the C-172 pilot was
banked 45 degrees away from the F-16 at the time of impact, it only
took one pilot not seeing the other to cause this MAC.

You can read about it here: http://tinyurl.com/jzxhk

The F-16 pilot ejected, and the ATP rated Cessna pilot and his
aircraft were scattered over 4 acres of golf course. The flight lead
received a verbal reprimand despite violating several regulations such
as speeding through congested Class B and C terminal airspace without
a clearance, ...

[Andrew Sarangan]

Frode Berg wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I am a PPL, and co owner of an Arrow.
>
> I have just over 250 hours total time, vfr only, and lot's of cross country.
>
> However, during the past 3 years or so, I've constantly been overly alert
> towards the possibility of hitting something in the sky.
>
> I know the sky is big, and probability is not very high, but still it nags
> me to the point that I feel I would be a better pilot if I could just letit
> go. Off course still keeping a proper scan etc.
>
> Now, I'm constantly looking for traffic, instead of relaxing, calmly doing
> the checklists etc.
>
> I bought one of the passive collision devices, and every time something
> shows up there, I try to figure out where it is, especially if I get a
> reading around 1-2 nm away within +-500 feet. I know these things are not
> excactly dead on most of the time, but they do tell you somethings out
> there.
>
> Maybe it's just adding to my nercousness not seeing most of the traffic it
> detects.
>
> Anyone else had "mid-air-ities" and how did you deal with it?
>
> Before I started on my PPL, I witnessed a midair from a cruise ship in
> France. Maybe that's why I'm a bit obsessed with it.
>
> I mean, what are the probabilities of hitting someone?
>
> How easy is it really to see another AC once it get's closer than normal?
> I'm thinking if it getæs real close it will be rather obvious, since most
> traffic I'm able to spot now is 1-2 nm away, and look really small and hard
> to see.
>
>
> Thanks for any input on this.
>
> Frode


While mid-air collisions are rare, they have a high probability of
being fatal. A healthy fear of mid-airs is a good thing, but not to the
extent of becoming paranoid.

Read the Nall report. It shows that most mid-airs occur near airports.
One should be able to compute the probability of a midair based on
traffic volume, but a better indicator is the NTSB reports. Midairs
during enroute are extremely rare.

If you rank all the things that can go wrong during flight, I suspect
enroute mid-air will rank lower compared to weather, equipment
problems, engine trouble, fuel starvation etc.. It's not to say that
collision avoidance should be taken lightly, but don't ignore the other
factors that may have higher risk factors.

Utilize ATC as much as possible. Although they do not separate VFR
traffic, they do issue advisories if another aircraft gets too close to
you.

[Peter Duniho]

"Frode Berg" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> Anyone else had "mid-air-ities" and how did you deal with it?

Nope, never had an issue with that particular phobia. That said, IMHO
that's what it is. A phobia. Every pilot should be aware of, and take
steps to avoid, the hazard of running into other aircraft. But for that
concern to be at the forefront of your piloting concerns isn't rational.

It's not my place to offer psychological advice here (or anywhere else, for
that matter). But I can tell you that when I run into something like this
(and I have in other areas), it does take a little doing, but by reminding
myself of the irrational nature of my fears, I manage to get my perspective
back on track.

Whether this will work for you, I don't know. I do know you can't go flying
around worrying about running into other aircraft all the time. Don't
forget about the risk, but it doesn't deserve top-billing at the expense of
other piloting duties.

> Before I started on my PPL, I witnessed a midair from a cruise ship in
> France. Maybe that's why I'm a bit obsessed with it.

That certainly could be the catalyst. I saw a mid-air crash at the Reno air
races one year, and it freaked me out for a little while. Oddly enough, not
with respect to mid-airs, but just with respect to the question of crashing
generally.

> I mean, what are the probabilities of hitting someone?

Depends on where you are. In cruise flight out in the middle of nowhere,
pretty slim. On an airway, somewhat higher (especially if you're climbing
or descending or are near an airport where someone else might be). Over a
nav aid, even a little higher. In the traffic pattern, a little higher
again. The risk warrants careful attention to what's going on around you.

But all in all, pilots do a pretty good job of avoiding each other.
Mid-airs constitute a pretty small portion of all accidents. I don't know
what the actual probability is, but the odds of being in ANY accident are
reasonably low, and the odds of being in a mid-air are a fraction of that.

> How easy is it really to see another AC once it get's closer than normal?
> I'm thinking if it getæs real close it will be rather obvious, since most
> traffic I'm able to spot now is 1-2 nm away, and look really small and
> hard to see.

You're not going to want to hear this. :) Based on size, another aircraft
should be relatively easy to see when it's "closer than normal" (whatever
that means :) ). However, an aircraft on a collision course with you will
appear to be motionless, and unless you are looking directly at it, you're
unlikely to notice it. Human vision is hard-wired to do a better job at
detecting moving objects.

The easiest aircraft to see are the ones you don't have to worry about.

Just make sure you spend an appropriate amount of time looking outside, and
you pause for long enough looking at each "slice" of the sky around you.
Don't forget that your airplane likely has blind spots, and that it's
helpful to move your head around in the cockpit, to allow yourself to check
behind structural parts of the cockpit. Allowing yourself the opportunity
to look directly at any aircraft that are a threat is the best way to ensure
that you will see them, and that you will avoid them.

Pete

[Jay Honeck]

> However, during the past 3 years or so, I've constantly been overly alert
> towards the possibility of hitting something in the sky.

We all treat risk differently, and many of us have little foibles and
phobias. I've found that we also go through "phases" where different
things bother us differently.

I've gone through times when the risk of flying was more worrisome than
others. Nothing specific, like you're going through, but more of a
generalized concern (not quite "fear") about flying in general. When
this happened I found myself hyper-alert, gripping the yoke a bit too
hard, and, in general, not enjoying myself much.

That phase passed -- and came back, and passed again -- over time.
I've not found a correlation between anything in my life or flying to
match up with this hyper-alertness, but it's annoying. However, it may
even be healthy.

Mary is going through a phase right now where turbulence really bothers
her. When we're getting bounced around, especially on climb-out, she's
white-knuckled all the way, and trying to get her to relax only
aggravates the situation.

She *knows* we're not going to fall out of the sky -- just like you
*know* you're not about to hit anyone -- but that doesn't matter much.
Unfortunately, things like this don't always follow logic. You just
have to work your way through them.

And you will.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dudley Henriques]

You're right to be concerned. You're wrong to be obsessive about it. The
awareness problem associated with flying is that over concentration on any
single area opens a huge door to potential problems in other areas. In other
words, there is just no room in flying for a mental state that involves an
overpowering obsession with any single factor involved with that flying.
The ideal mental state for a pilot is one of TOTAL awareness. We call it
"situational awareness".
As for your specific "problem", I'll assume you know how to scan for
traffic, and know the blind spots of the specific aircraft you are flying so
I'll simply leave it on the "total awareness" point and hope you see the
importance implied.
Best of luck to you.
Dudley Henriques


"Frode Berg" > wrote in message
...
> Hi!
>
> I am a PPL, and co owner of an Arrow.
>
> I have just over 250 hours total time, vfr only, and lot's of cross
> country.
>
> However, during the past 3 years or so, I've constantly been overly alert
> towards the possibility of hitting something in the sky.
>
> I know the sky is big, and probability is not very high, but still it nags
> me to the point that I feel I would be a better pilot if I could just let
> it go. Off course still keeping a proper scan etc.
>
> Now, I'm constantly looking for traffic, instead of relaxing, calmly doing
> the checklists etc.
>
> I bought one of the passive collision devices, and every time something
> shows up there, I try to figure out where it is, especially if I get a
> reading around 1-2 nm away within +-500 feet. I know these things are not
> excactly dead on most of the time, but they do tell you somethings out
> there.
>
> Maybe it's just adding to my nercousness not seeing most of the traffic it
> detects.
>
> Anyone else had "mid-air-ities" and how did you deal with it?
>
> Before I started on my PPL, I witnessed a midair from a cruise ship in
> France. Maybe that's why I'm a bit obsessed with it.
>
> I mean, what are the probabilities of hitting someone?
>
> How easy is it really to see another AC once it get's closer than normal?
> I'm thinking if it getæs real close it will be rather obvious, since most
> traffic I'm able to spot now is 1-2 nm away, and look really small and
> hard to see.
>
>
> Thanks for any input on this.
>
> Frode
>

[Nathan Young]

On Fri, 5 May 2006 01:32:30 +0200, "Frode Berg" >
wrote:

>Hi!
>
>I am a PPL, and co owner of an Arrow.
>
>I have just over 250 hours total time, vfr only, and lot's of cross country.
>
>However, during the past 3 years or so, I've constantly been overly alert
>towards the possibility of hitting something in the sky.

It is an intimidating feeling, especially if you are flying VFR in a
heavily traffic'd airspace. I fly near Chicago, and my head is on a
swivel at all times.

As a reference, ~12 yrs of flying, and I have had one near mid-air.
We were descending from cruise altitude in a Seneca, and a Bonanza was
either in a slow climb or cruising in the opposite direction. The
rate of closure between the two planes was over 300kts.

There was snow on the ground and it was daytime. The brightness of
the snow made it very difficult to pick out the (white) Bonanza.

There were two pilots in the Seneca (and one more in the rear seat)
and none of us saw the Bonanza until the last few seconds. We were
slightly above, so we each grabbed the yoke and cranked back. We
missed by about 20 feet. The other pilot never altered course, so who
knows if he ever saw us.

The next flight for the Seneca was to the avionics shop to get a TCAD
installed. That doesn't guarantee traffic detection, but it does help
with 99% of it.

The real problem with mid-airs and see/avoid theory is that the human
eye is good at detecting changes in motion. When you are on a
collision course with an object, the position of the colliding object
does not change... The object just gets slightly bigger until the
last few seconds, when it gets big in a hurry.

-Nathan

[B A R R Y]

Nathan Young wrote:
>
> The next flight for the Seneca was to the avionics shop to get a TCAD
> installed. That doesn't guarantee traffic detection, but it does help
> with 99% of it.

Do you ask for traffic advisories or VFR flight following from ATC?

[Doug]

The vast majority of mid airs are near airports. Your device will help
you away from airports, but I wonder how much help it will be near
airports. Also, it helps to be aware of how the IFR approaches interact
with the VFR pattern because sometimes they conflict.

The big sky theory WILL protect you a lot away from airports. Helps
even in close. We've all had close calls though. (I've had 3 and they
were all either in the pattern (2), or on the "normal" approach path 5
miles or so out. The device you have would have helped with the 5 miles
out one.

[Larry Dighera]

On 5 May 2006 10:48:34 -0700, "Doug" >
wrote in . com>::

>The big sky theory WILL protect you a lot away from airports.

That notion is absurd. I disagree completely.

The 'big sky theory' is good at lulling pilots into a FALSE feeling of
security.

Any pilot operating within a hundred miles of LAX will soon learn
that.

Please explain how the 'big sky theory' will PROTECT you from a MAC.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 05 May 2006 17:40:18 GMT, B A R R Y >
wrote in >::

>Do you ask for traffic advisories or VFR flight following from ATC?

I do on EVERY flight at an altitude that permits ATC to provide Radar
Traffic Advisory Service.

--

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

[Jay Honeck]

> Please explain how the 'big sky theory' will PROTECT you from a MAC.

It won't protect you from it -- but the odds of a mid-air collision
happening in many areas are so incredibly small as to be virtually
zero.

Example: If you fly in the mid-levels (4 - 8K feet) over rural Iowa,
your odds of being hit by a meteor are probably greater than your odds
of hitting another aircraft. You could probably fly on autopilot with
your eyes closed for 100 years, and never even come close to a MAC.

Even in the busy airspace around Chicago, the odds are still greatly in
your favor. I read somewhere once (and someone here will have the
exact figure, I'm sure) that if you put EVERY aircraft in America in
the air at once, they would still only occupy a few cubic miles of sky,
with ample air space in between aircraft.

Which is not to say that you shouldn't keep your eyes outside, and that
weird stuff doesn't happen. We were flying over middle-of-no-where
South Dakota once when ATC called out traffic at our altitude (10,500
feet), on a converging course. ATC told the other guy the same thing,
and we gradually merged into a single dot on ATC's radar. In the end,
we were talking to each other on Center frequency, trying to give each
other cues as to our location. ("I'm over that blue water tower at the
intersection -- you see that?")

Nothing worked. ATC eventually gave us different altitudes and
headings -- and we never did see each other. It was very, very
strange.

But, of course, the bottom line: We didn't hit. The "Big Sky" theory
worked again.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[B A R R Y]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Fri, 05 May 2006 17:40:18 GMT, B A R R Y >
> wrote in >::
>
>> Do you ask for traffic advisories or VFR flight following from ATC?
>
> I do on EVERY flight at an altitude that permits ATC to provide Radar
> Traffic Advisory Service.
>

Same here, hence my asking... <G>

I've been told by controllers that even they prefer that we ask for
advisories, 'cause that makes one more aircraft talking to them and not
squawking 1200 and flying in the space incommunicato.

I even use them for sightseeing and practice (stalls, steep turns,
etc...) flights. Only once have I been denied due to workload.

[Jose]

> You could probably fly on autopilot with
> your eyes closed for 100 years, and never even come close to a MAC.

So what's wrong with UAVs?

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 05 May 2006 15:09:40 -0400, T o d d P a t t i s t
> wrote in
>::

>Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>>>The big sky theory WILL protect you a lot away from airports.
>>
>>That notion is absurd. I disagree completely.
>
>It does not seem absurd to me.

Well, I respect your opinion, Todd. But...

>I'm reasonably confident that I'm in more danger of a midair near an
>airport than far away from one.

Of course, that's true, as is the fact that you are more likely to
experience a MAC at a lower altitude. These facts are a result of the
degree of air traffic congestion encountered. No argument from me.

>It strikes me as absurd to think the opposite.

Agreed.

However, it appears that you have failed to discern my issue with
Doug's assertion. It's not that less congested airspace poses less
probability of a MAC; it's the notion that the 'big sky theory' is
able to _protect_ a flight from a MAC. It is the word 'protect' with
which I take issue, not to mention the lack of validity of the 'big
sky theory' in general.

>>The 'big sky theory' is good at lulling pilots into a FALSE feeling of
>>security.
>
>I don't see how a feeling of "insecurity" would help any
>pilot.

When one is complacent, he is less likely to be vigilant. When his
level of apprehension is raised, the prudent person increases his
attention to the factors producing his insecurity. But you knew that.

>I try to manage the risk. Part of doing that is
>keeping the best scan going that I can all the time.
>However, like other pilots, I have to occasionally look at
>charts. I don't do that near airports (or VORs) because I
>think it's safer to do that farther away - where the big sky
>theory gives my vigilant scan a boost.

I'm not comfortable with your choice of words above. In any event,
there is NO REAL PROTECTION occurring, only a change in PROBABILITY.

Anyone who fails to understand the difference between 'protection' and
'probability' is sure to encounter more problems than the one who does
understand the difference.

>>Please explain how the 'big sky theory' will PROTECT you from a MAC.
>
>I take it you don't like his choice of the word "protect."
>He modified it with the phrase "a lot," which to me shows he
>knows it's not a perfect shield.

You are free to infer what you will, of course. But given the
definition of the word protect:

Main Entry:protect
Pronunciation:pr*-*tekt
Function:transitive verb
Etymology:Middle English, from Latin protectus, past participle of
protegere, from pro- in front + tegere to cover more at PRO-,
THATCH
Date:15th century

1 : to cover or shield from exposure, injury, or destruction :
GUARD
2 : to maintain the status or integrity of especially through
financial or legal guarantees: as a : to save from contingent
financial loss b : to foster or shield from infringement or
restriction *salesmen with protected territories*; specifically
: to restrict competition for (as domestic industries) by means of
tariffs or trade controls
synonyms see DEFEND
–protective \-*tek-tiv\ adjective
–protectively adverb
–protectiveness noun

It is clear, there is no shielding, defending nor guaranteeing
occurring as a result of the 'big sky theory'.

>While I wouldn't have chosen to use the word "protect," his meaning
>seems clear enough - the aircraft density is greater near airports, and
>MAC risk increases as density of aircraft increases. Do you
>disagree?

If that is what Doug had written, I would not have found his assertion
absurd. However, that is your inference, not what Doug wrote.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> Please explain how the 'big sky theory' will PROTECT you from a MAC.


Easy enough. As an old environmental biology professor once said to me:
"Dilution is the solution to pollution". What are the chances of another
aircraft occupying the exact same airspace at the exact same time as mine?

The odds go way up near natural collecting points such as airports and airways
but go way down out in the middle of nowhere. Certain altitudes are better than
others as well. I find relatively little traffic at 8,000 feet simply because
it's too low for jets to hang around at and higher than most normally aspirated
aircraft bother to climb (at least in this part of the world).

I apply the same theory when I consider whether to worry about getting on a
airliner that may be hijacked. What are the odds that an airliner that *I* am
getting on will be hijacked today? Out of all the airliners flying all day long
from all the places on earth? My airliner?

Only a stupid person totally discounts the possibility. Only a phobic person
focuses on it all the time. I fly VFR with my eyes out as much as possible and
use flight following if I can get it. I do not worry particularly that I might
hit someone.

It's the same thinking I apply in keeping a gun in the car and a fire
extinguisher in my kitchen and garage.

I've only had one near miss and that was on a prearranged formation photo
flight. The other pilot turned into me at the end of the photo portion flight
of the flight, expecting the superior performance of his C-421 to pull him
around my C-210. It did, but only after my standard rate turn to the left
became a maximum effort left turn on my part. My windshield was completely
filled with C-421. Scared the everliving **** out of me....

That is the only near miss since I started flying in 1978.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 05 May 2006 19:09:54 GMT, B A R R Y >
wrote in >::

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Fri, 05 May 2006 17:40:18 GMT, B A R R Y >
>> wrote in >::
>>
>>> Do you ask for traffic advisories or VFR flight following from ATC?
>>
>> I do on EVERY flight at an altitude that permits ATC to provide Radar
>> Traffic Advisory Service.
>>
>
>Same here, hence my asking... <G>
>
>I've been told by controllers that even they prefer that we ask for
>advisories, 'cause that makes one more aircraft talking to them and not
>squawking 1200 and flying in the space incommunicato.
>
>I even use them for sightseeing and practice (stalls, steep turns,
>etc...) flights. Only once have I been denied due to workload.

Watch out with that heretical stance least the true believers in the
Big Sky Theory characterize you a heathen. :-)

[Chris G.]

Yes, I can speak from experience about the aircraft not moving in your
windscreen! I've been involved in a situation once where ATC pointed
out this other aircraft, "N12345, traffic 1 mile, 10:00, indicates 4500"
which happened to be MY altitude. I looked and saw it, was briefly
mesmerized and then nosed down as quickly as I could! I think we had
about 400-500 feet between us! Toooooo close for me! I'd always heard
about the "it doesn't move" theory, but to see it in practice was a good
thing to cement it in my brain...next time, a faster reaction! :) A
GREAT learning experience for me! It also cemented my belief in using
flight following even more firmly!

Chris G.



And, yes, all is well since I am still here to tell about it.

Guy Elden Jr wrote:
> My instructor always told me to look for an object in the sky that does
> not appear to be moving. If you see that, do something immediately,
> because you are dead-on a collision course.

[Frode Berg]

Thanks to all that took time to answer!

I went flying after posting, and tried not to focus on the fear.
It worked, but still sat in the back of my head.

Don't think my scan went down though.

I had a near miss once and The Netherlands.

My wife and I took off in a rented Warrior from Groningen (EHGG) to fly to
Oostende in Belgium (EBOS)

A bit west of the EHGG control zone (don't remember how far west) there is
class A airspace around Schiphol extending from 1500 feet and up.

Thus, all spam cans, UL's etc were having a ball between 1000 and 1450
feet....

:-)

i didn't see anyone until I could pick out the excact antenna formation on
the belly of a C172 thet passed me direct overhead....

And I was scanning, but missed a portion at the wrong moment.

I agree, A airspace from 1500 feet around Sciphol is not excactly the middle
of nowhere, so that fact figures in.

I have decided (for now) to avoid that area until I get my instrument
rating, and can file IFR through that part....

Strange thing was the previous time I flew there, ATC was constantly calling
out traffic to us VFR pilots on the Amsterdam info frequency (seperate from
the class A frequency)

I asked about traffic info after the near miss, and was told no radar
service today....

The rest of our trip (to Cannes in southern France) was uneventful.
Just saw a few sailplanes here and there, but they are generally easy to
pick out with their huge white wingspans.

Some might say it's madness to do a cross country from oslo to Cannes 10
days after getting the PPL, but I think that trip tought me more than I will
ever appreciate about flying. Great experience!


Anyway, thanks again for sharing. I feel better about the statistics, will
still keep a good scan, but will not worry anymore.
Bigger chance of being hit by a falling piano downtown I guess....

Frode


"Larry Dighera" > skrev i melding
...
> On Fri, 05 May 2006 19:09:54 GMT, B A R R Y >
> wrote in >::
>
>>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>> On Fri, 05 May 2006 17:40:18 GMT, B A R R Y >
>>> wrote in >::
>>>
>>>> Do you ask for traffic advisories or VFR flight following from ATC?
>>>
>>> I do on EVERY flight at an altitude that permits ATC to provide Radar
>>> Traffic Advisory Service.
>>>
>>
>>Same here, hence my asking... <G>
>>
>>I've been told by controllers that even they prefer that we ask for
>>advisories, 'cause that makes one more aircraft talking to them and not
>>squawking 1200 and flying in the space incommunicato.
>>
>>I even use them for sightseeing and practice (stalls, steep turns,
>>etc...) flights. Only once have I been denied due to workload.
>
> Watch out with that heretical stance least the true believers in the
> Big Sky Theory characterize you a heathen. :-)

[Doug]

It's just the odds. The density of airplanes is a LOT smaller in areas
not near airports, airways, and VOR intersections. There is maybe one
or two midairs a YEAR not near an airport (if that). I don't have the
exact stastistics. But it is small. Near an airport, yes, there are
more collilsions. But unfortunately (and I am NOT knocking them, I wish
I had one), the devices that warn you against collision, although they
work near airports, there are SO MANY planes nearby, you pretty much
have to ignore it and use traditional techniques.

[Jose]

> As an old environmental biology professor once said to me:
> "Dilution is the solution to pollution". What are the chances of another
> aircraft occupying the exact same airspace at the exact same time as mine?

Well, a mathematics professor will tell you - even a zero probability
event can occur if you give it enough of a chance.

(There is a zero probability that if you pick a random number from zero
to one, you will pick 1/2. Nonetheless, that number =is= there, and it
=can= be picked.)

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> I have decided (for now) to avoid that area until I get my instrument
> rating, and can file IFR through that part....

....where you will still have to engage the Mark I eyeball.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Larry Dighera]

On 5 May 2006 12:09:47 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
in om>::

>> Please explain how the 'big sky theory' will PROTECT you from a MAC.
>
>It won't protect you from it

That is my point.

>-- but the odds of a mid-air collision happening in many areas are so
>incredibly small as to be virtually zero.

Terrific! Then you'd only be "virtually" dead. :-(

Please describe a few of the areas you think have incredibly small
odds of a MAC.

>Example: If you fly in the mid-levels (4 - 8K feet) over rural Iowa,
>your odds of being hit by a meteor are probably greater than your odds
>of hitting another aircraft. You could probably fly on autopilot with
>your eyes closed for 100 years, and never even come close to a MAC.

Doubtful. I'm not convinced. In any event, I'm uncomfortable with
introducing any more probability into flight than necessary.

A competent airman calculates the fuel requirements for a flight,
rather than saying, "there's PROBABLY enough fuel. Nothing to chance
....

>Even in the busy airspace around Chicago, the odds are still greatly in
>your favor.

I'm sure that's what the victims of these MACs thought too:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ANC06FA048A&rpt=p
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ANC06FA048B&rpt=p
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI06FA077B&rpt=p
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI06FA077A&rpt=p
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA06FA022A&rpt=p
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA06FA022B&rpt=p
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=OPS06IA001&rpt=p
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC06FA025B&rpt=p
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC06FA025A&rpt=p

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DFW05LA182A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DFW05LA182B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC05FA117A&rpt=p
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC05FA117B&rpt=p
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DFW05LA134B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DFW05LA134A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA05LA076A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA05LA076B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI05FA055A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI05FA055B&rpt=fa

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX04FA301A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX04FA301B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC04FA185B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC04FA185A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW04LA151A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW04LA151B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=SEA04FA083A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=SEA04FA083B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW04LA123B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW04LA123A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI04LA104A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI04LA104B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA04FA043A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA04FA043B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX04FA095A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX04FA095B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ANC04FA016A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ANC04FA016B&rpt=fa

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA03FA124A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA03FA124B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX03LA129A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX03LA129B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DEN03FA059&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW03LA022A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW03LA022B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA03FA007A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA03FA007B&rpt=fa

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ANC02LA098A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ANC02LA098B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA02LA119A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL02FA076A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL02FA076B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL02FA074A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL02FA074B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL02LA012A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL02LA012B&rpt=fa

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DEN01TA134B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DEN01TA134A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC01WA159A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC01WA159B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=SEA01LA120&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX01FA101A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX01FA101B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA01FA028A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX01FA018A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX01FA018B&rpt=fa

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL00FA091A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL00FA091B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI00IA248A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI00IA248B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX00MA273&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ANC00IA088&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA00FA172A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA00FA172B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA00WA188A&rpt=p
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=IAD00LA027A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=IAD00LA027B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA00FA107A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA00FA107B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC00LA081A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC00LA081B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX00FA041&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI00FA003A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI00FA003B&rpt=fa

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL99FA132A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL99FA132B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX99LA204A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX99LA204B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=IAD99FA041A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=IAD99FA041B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA99FA126A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA99FA126B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DEN99LA048A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA99LA051A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA99LA051B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC99IA036&rpt=fa

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL98GA127A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DCA98RA075A&rpt=p
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DCA98RA075B&rpt=p
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA98FA135A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX98FA118A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX98FA086A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX98FA086B&rpt=fa

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW97FA208A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX97FA075A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX97FA075B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW97LA018A&rpt=fa

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW96FA234A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW96FA208A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ANC96IA065&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX96FA108A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX96FA108B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA96LA027A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA96LA027B&rpt=fa

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC95LA149&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW95IA243A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=BFO95FA058A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI95FA126A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=BFO95FA058A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI95FA126A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL95LA072A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI95IA095&rpt=fa

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX94FA383A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX94FA383B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC94FA119B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC94FA119A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ANC94IA075B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW94FA206&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW94LA151&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW94FA102A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW94FA060A&rpt=fa

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC93FA158A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI93FA302A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX93FA241A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX93FA241B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=SEA93FA094A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=SEA93FA094B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL93FA061A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL93FA061B&rpt=fa

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DCA92MA049A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DCA92MA049B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA92LA086A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA92LA086B&rpt=fa
!
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI90LA201A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI90LA201B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ANC90LA090A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ANC90LA090B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA90FA067A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA90FA067B&rpt=fa

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW89IA168A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW89IA168B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW89FA133A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW89FA133B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI89IA143&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI89IA144&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI89IA145&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC89FA135A&rpt=fa

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI88LA156A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI88LA156B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW88FA114A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW88FA114B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ANC88FA052A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ANC88FA052B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=BFO88LA006A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=BFO88LA006B&rpt=fa

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX87FA296A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX87FA296B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI87LA167A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI87LA167B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=BFO87LA028A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=BFO87LA028B&rpt=fa

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL86IA100A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL86IA100B&rpt=fa

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA85FA247A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA85FA247B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW85FA261A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW85FA261B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI85FA176A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI85FA176B&rpt=fa

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL84FA119B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL84FA119A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC84FA038A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC84FA038B&rpt=fa
....

>I read somewhere once (and someone here will have the
>exact figure, I'm sure) that if you put EVERY aircraft in America in
>the air at once, they would still only occupy a few cubic miles of sky,
>with ample air space in between aircraft.

I don't find that dubious statistic credible.

>Which is not to say that you shouldn't keep your eyes outside, and that
>weird stuff doesn't happen. We were flying over middle-of-no-where
>South Dakota once when ATC called out traffic at our altitude (10,500
>feet), on a converging course.

Thank you.

>ATC told the other guy the same thing,
>and we gradually merged into a single dot on ATC's radar. In the end,
>we were talking to each other on Center frequency, trying to give each
>other cues as to our location. ("I'm over that blue water tower at the
>intersection -- you see that?")
>
>Nothing worked. ATC eventually gave us different altitudes and
>headings -- and we never did see each other. It was very, very
>strange.
>
>But, of course, the bottom line: We didn't hit.

That time. But what if relying on the 'big sky theory' for separation
had convinced you not to request Radar Traffic Advisory Service?

>The "Big Sky" theory worked again.

No; prudence and Radar Traffic Advisory Service saved your lives.

The 'big sky theory' is for fools and "true believers."

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 05 May 2006 21:17:02 GMT, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
> wrote in
>::

>
>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> Please explain how the 'big sky theory' will PROTECT you from a MAC.
>
>
>Easy enough. As an old environmental biology professor once said to me:
>"Dilution is the solution to pollution".

With all due respect, while that may be true for pollution, I don't
believe it is applicable to PROTECTION from a MAC.

>What are the chances of another aircraft occupying the exact same airspace
>at the exact same time as mine?

What are the chances of the cylinder containing a bullet? The only
way a Russian Roulette participant can be PROTECTED from blowing his
head off is if the cylinder is empty or the safety is on. Neither
analogy is available to airmen; there are always aircraft in the NAS.

That deems the 'big sky theory' irrelevant, in my opinion.

>The odds go way up near natural collecting points ...

[Interesting antidotes snipped]

What you describe has nothing to do with PROTECTION and everything to
do with PROBABILITY. Thanks for the effort.

My point is, that there is no PROTECTION; if there were, there
wouldn't be any MACs.

And the 'big sky theory' is a fallacy. It's akin to the Tooth Fairy,
Easter Bunny, imaginary friends, ... Those who rely upon the 'big sky
theory to PROTECT them from a MAC are playing Russian Roulette.

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

To further constrain the discussion of 'big sky theory,' here's a
definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_sky_theory

In aviation, the Big Sky Theory is that two randomly flying bodies
will likely never collide, as the three dimensional space is so
large relative to the bodies. Certain aviation safety rules are
based on this concept. It does not apply (or applies less) when
aircraft are flying along specific narrow routes, such as an
airport traffic pattern.

So the BST seems to have everything to do with probability, but very
little to do with protecting, guaranteeing, or indemnifying against a
MAC.

Additionally, the BST is flawed in that (as defined) it fails to
consider more than two aircraft in the air simultaneously.

[Rob]

Jose wrote:
> Well, a mathematics professor will tell you - even a zero probability
> event can occur if you give it enough of a chance.

A mathematics professor will tell you that while there's not that much
difference between an infinitesimally small probability and zero
probability, there is a difference. The zero probability event can't
occur.

-R

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> [Interesting antidotes snipped]


"Antidotes"? Well, I am a nurse. <G>

>
> What you describe has nothing to do with PROTECTION and everything to
> do with PROBABILITY. Thanks for the effort.
>
> My point is, that there is no PROTECTION; if there were, there
> wouldn't be any MACs.


Then it would be best for you to stay on the ground. Probability has everything
to do with my actions. I think about the probability of a good or bad outcome
and act accordingly. If I was looking for certainty then I would do nothing.
But I prefer to live a somewhat richer life than that.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Doug]

The events in the world have a LOT to do with luck. It is a tough thing
to accept, being taught that we are the captain of our ship, the master
of our soul. But a LOT of what happens to you is due to plain luck. If
there was ONE plane in the sky, then there could be NO MAC's. With MORE
than one plane, the chance of an MAC is now greater than zero. Such is
life...

[Jay Honeck]

> Some might say it's madness to do a cross country from oslo to Cannes 10
> days after getting the PPL, but I think that trip tought me more than I will
> ever appreciate about flying. Great experience!

Good job. I encourage all pilots -- new ones and old -- to hop in the
plane and GO some place! Too danged many pilots never, ever, EVER
leave the pattern, or (at best) their neighboring $100 hamburger stop.

And then we wonder why some pilots quit flying, cuz they're "bored".
D'oh! I'd be bored, too.

Hop in the plane and fly 500 miles. Aim in whatever direction the
weather is best. Don't worry about what you'll do when you get there.
It is really, REALLY fun -- and you'll learn more about flying and
navigating while doing it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose]

> The zero probability event can't occur.

True. But the zero probability items are not not there. One half is
definately there, right between zero and one. The probability of
hitting it is zero.

Ok, so you caught me stretching the truth a bit. Just a bit. A wee
bit. The probability of catching me in an error is zero, but somehow
you did, thus proving my point. :)

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Frode Berg]

"Jose" wrote

>> I have decided (for now) to avoid that area until I get my instrument
>> rating, and can file IFR through that part....
>
> ...where you will still have to engage the Mark I eyeball.
>

Yeah, but the sky will not be full of VFR pilot's and it will be radar
controlled.
So I will not run the risk on flying there the odd day radar is not up for
VFR.

At least ATC will have the legal responsability to give you traffic info.
I feel it's confusing that in someparts, you get loads of traffic info,
other parts none, and nobody really tells you unless you really ask them.

I always add "request traffic information enroute" when I initially contact
ATC. That way, they will at least say "no known traffic in the area" or
something on initial contact, or "no radar cover in your area"

If I'm in A airspace flying IFR on a bright day, there's lesser chance of
hitting another light aircraft than if I'm 50 feet below A airspace with
evry other VFR plane at excactly the same altitude.

I know off course that seperation in VMC while flying IFR is also the
reponsability of the pilot, but A-class airspace has got to have more
traffic sep from ATC than G-class, I think we can agree on that.

Frode

[Frode Berg]

"Jay Honeck" < skrev i melding


>> Some might say it's madness to do a cross country from oslo to Cannes 10
>> days after getting the PPL, but I think that trip tought me more than I
>> will
>> ever appreciate about flying. Great experience!
>
> Good job. I encourage all pilots -- new ones and old -- to hop in the
> plane and GO some place! Too danged many pilots never, ever, EVER
> leave the pattern, or (at best) their neighboring $100 hamburger stop.
>
> And then we wonder why some pilots quit flying, cuz they're "bored".
> D'oh! I'd be bored, too.
>
> Hop in the plane and fly 500 miles. Aim in whatever direction the
> weather is best. Don't worry about what you'll do when you get there.
> It is really, REALLY fun -- and you'll learn more about flying and
> navigating while doing it.
> --


Hear hear!

Excactly what my wife and I have been doing.
On that first trip, we planned the whole thing before leaving home.

We wanted to see the Champagne district, places in Denmark, holland etc.

We saw none of the places we planned because of weather. We did see lot's of
other terrific places though!

And learned the lesson! Have an idea of where you want to end up, but be
open to change intermediate destinations because of weather.

It's more fun to fly a different course and go somewhere else than staying
for the 5th day in "no-where" because the weather 50 nm down your intended
flight is lower than your comfort range.
Off course, you'll need to buy all the maps you "might" use, as it's kind of
hard to find pilot shops with Jepp charts in Rural France, but it's worth
it!

Frode
(taking my son this year on a no-known destination thoughout Europe)

[Ron Lee]

You odds of being in a head on car collision are most likely much
higher and yet you drive. Be vigilant and live.

Ron Lee

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 6 May 2006 15:28:33 +0200, "Frode Berg" >
wrote in >::

>I know off course that seperation in VMC while flying IFR is also the
>reponsability of the pilot, but A-class airspace has got to have more
>traffic sep from ATC than G-class, I think we can agree on that.

Right. In Class A airspace ATC provides separation for all.

[Frode Berg]

Yes, and class A is prohibited for VFR.


Frode


"Larry Dighera" > skrev i melding
...
> On Sat, 6 May 2006 15:28:33 +0200, "Frode Berg" >
> wrote in >::
>
>>I know off course that seperation in VMC while flying IFR is also the
>>reponsability of the pilot, but A-class airspace has got to have more
>>traffic sep from ATC than G-class, I think we can agree on that.
>
> Right. In Class A airspace ATC provides separation for all.
>

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Frode Berg" > said:
>Yes, and class A is prohibited for VFR.

I understand there are exceptions to that rule, especially for sailplanes
riding mountain waves.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"Imagine if every Thursday your shoes exploded if you tied them the
usual way. This happens to us all the time with computers, and nobody
thinks of complaining." -- Jef Raskin, interviewed in Doctor Dobb's Journal

[Jim Logajan]

Jose > wrote:
>> The zero probability event can't occur.
>
> True. But the zero probability items are not not there. One half is
> definately there, right between zero and one. The probability of
> hitting it is zero.

Your last sentence is wrong. Consider this question: for what value of N
does 1/N = 0? (Hint: "infinity" is not a number you can apply numerical
operations on and expect valid results so you can't say "infinity",
infinity is a concept whereas 1, 2, 3.14, etc. are all values you can use
for N.).

If you insist on considering infinity a number, consider the problems you
encounter - for example, what does infinity/2 evaluate to? How about
infinity/3? Or infinity/billion? Or infinity/infinity?

You are probably being confused by the statement often used in pre-calculus
that:

limit 1/N -> 0 as N -> infinity. The ratio 1/N is never zero, it "merely"
tends to zero for ever larger values on N.

So the probability of picking 0.5 is infinitesimally small, as Rob points
out, but not zero. It is a mathematically important distinction.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 06 May 2006 17:04:42 GMT, B A R R Y
> wrote in
>::

>
>In my case, I'd need an airplane that could *get* to A space. <G>

Surely your aircraft will climb above 1,500', but you'd need to be
flying in Amsterdam in this case.



On Sat, 6 May 2006 00:42:33 +0200, "Frode Berg"
> wrote in
>::

A bit west of the EHGG control zone (don't remember how far west)
there is class A airspace around Schiphol extending from 1500 feet
and up.

[Frode Berg]

I did not know this.

On all the definitions of various air classes I've seen, all have stated
"prohibited for VFR" on the class A airspace.

Are you sure about this?

What's the source?

Frode


"Paul Tomblin" > skrev i melding
...
> In a previous article, "Frode Berg" > said:
>>Yes, and class A is prohibited for VFR.
>
> I understand there are exceptions to that rule, especially for sailplanes
> riding mountain waves.
>
>
> --
> Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
> "Imagine if every Thursday your shoes exploded if you tied them the
> usual way. This happens to us all the time with computers, and nobody
> thinks of complaining." -- Jef Raskin, interviewed in Doctor Dobb's
> Journal

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Frode Berg" > said:
>I did not know this.
>
>On all the definitions of various air classes I've seen, all have stated
>"prohibited for VFR" on the class A airspace.
>
>Are you sure about this?
>
>What's the source?

In the Canadian regulations, it says

601.06(1) No person shall operate a VFR aircraft in Class A airspace
unless the aircraft is operated in accordance with an authorization
issued by the Minister.
(2) The Minister may issue an authorization referred to in
subsection (1) where the operation of the aircraft is in the public
interest and not likely to affect aviation safety.

In the FARs, it says:

Section 91.135: Operations in Class A airspace.

Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, each person operating
an aircraft in Class A airspace must conduct that operation under
instrument flight rules (IFR) and in compliance with the following:

(a) Clearance. Operations may be conducted only under an ATC clearance
received prior to entering the airspace.

(b) Communications. Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, each aircraft
operating in Class A airspace must be equipped with a two-way radio
capable of communicating with ATC on a frequency assigned by ATC. Each
pilot must maintain two-way radio communications with ATC while operating
in Class A airspace.

(c) Transponder requirement. Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, no person
may operate an aircraft within Class A airspace unless that aircraft is
equipped with the applicable equipment specified in §91.215.

(d) ATC authorizations. An operator may deviate from any provision of this
section under the provisions of an ATC authorization issued by the ATC
facility having jurisdiction of the airspace concerned. In the case of an
inoperative transponder, ATC may immediately approve an operation within a
Class A airspace area allowing flight to continue, if desired, to the
airport of ultimate destination, including any intermediate stops, or to
proceed to a place where suitable repairs can be made, or both. Requests
for deviation from any provision of this section must be submitted in
writing, at least 4 days before the proposed operation. ATC may authorize
a deviation on a continuing basis or for an individual flight.

Note that both regulations have an "out" that allows you to operate in
Class A under VFR if you have authorization. Like I said before, I've
heard of these authorizations being granted to sailplanes trying to reach
high altitudes on mountain waves.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"We sealed our federal pact without bloodshed and without exploitation of
the weak by the strong. All it took was fairness, justice and some
compromises on both sides." - George-Etienne Cartier.

[Larry Dighera]

>"Paul Tomblin" > skrev i melding
...
>> In a previous article, "Frode Berg" > said:
>>>Yes, and class A is prohibited for VFR.
>>
>> I understand there are exceptions to that rule, especially for sailplanes
>> riding mountain waves.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
>> "Imagine if every Thursday your shoes exploded if you tied them the
>> usual way. This happens to us all the time with computers, and nobody
>> thinks of complaining." -- Jef Raskin, interviewed in Doctor Dobb's
>> Journal
>
On Sun, 7 May 2006 11:17:04 +0200, "Frode Berg" >
wrote in >::

>I did not know this.
>
>On all the definitions of various air classes I've seen, all have stated
>"prohibited for VFR" on the class A airspace.
>
>Are you sure about this?
>
>What's the source?
>
>Frode
>

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=1de74710b574072d8d35f1c6c7a7f4e8&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10&idno=14#14:2.0.1.3.10.2.4.20

§ 91.135 Operations in Class A airspace.
top
Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, each person
operating an aircraft in Class A airspace must conduct that operation
under instrument flight rules (IFR) and in compliance with the
following:

(a) Clearance. Operations may be conducted only under an ATC clearance
received prior to entering the airspace.

(b) Communications. Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, each aircraft
operating in Class A airspace must be equipped with a two-way radio
capable of communicating with ATC on a frequency assigned by ATC. Each
pilot must maintain two-way radio communications with ATC while
operating in Class A airspace.

(c) Transponder requirement. Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, no
person may operate an aircraft within Class A airspace unless that
aircraft is equipped with the applicable equipment specified in
§91.215.

(d) ATC authorizations. An operator may deviate from any provision of
this section under the provisions of an ATC authorization issued by
the ATC facility having jurisdiction of the airspace concerned. In the
case of an inoperative transponder, ATC may immediately approve an
operation within a Class A airspace area allowing flight to continue,
if desired, to the airport of ultimate destination, including any
intermediate stops, or to proceed to a place where suitable repairs
can be made, or both. Requests for deviation from any provision of
this section must be submitted in writing, at least 4 days before the
proposed operation. ATC may authorize a deviation on a continuing
basis or for an individual flight.

[Doc. No. 24458, 56 FR 65659, Dec. 17, 1991]

[Thomas Borchert]

Jose,

> These devices are helpful, but one must be careful that one doesn't keep
> their eyeballs inside the cockpit looking at the device instead of
> outside.
>

Absolutely. That's why the display needs to be as simple as possible and
audio alerts are a must.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Doug,

> But a LOT of what happens to you is due to plain luck.
>

"Luck" is nothing but an expression for the probability of something to
happen.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Larry,

> Those who rely upon the 'big sky
> theory to PROTECT them from a MAC are playing Russian Roulette.
>

IMHO, your view of risk management is seriously flawed. You are asking
for zero risk, everything else is Russian Roulette, you say. However,
nothing in flying (and life) is 100-percent-risk free - there's never a
probability of zero for something undesirable to happen. The only way
to manage this risk is to look at the probability of something
happening and then decide if that probability is low enough for you to
live with it. And I guess we can all agree that there are many much
higher risks in GA flying than MACs.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Frode,

> What's the source?
>

Personal experience. FL300 in a glider above Minden, NV, after
coordination with ATC and opening of their "wave box". Radio contact
required, too.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 07 May 2006 17:27:45 +0200, Thomas Borchert
> wrote in
>::

>Larry,
>
>> Those who rely upon the 'big sky
>> theory to PROTECT them from a MAC are playing Russian Roulette.
>>
>
>IMHO, your view of risk management is seriously flawed.

If that were my view, I'd agree with you.

But if you had read Doug's article to which I had originally taken
exception, you'd know that it was his fallacious use of the word
'protect' that I was attempting to expose as implying the Big Sky
Theory had some ability to indemnify or guarantee any exposure to a
MAC.

[george]

B A R R Y wrote:
> On Sat, 06 May 2006 15:21:21 GMT, Larry Dighera >
> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 6 May 2006 15:28:33 +0200, "Frode Berg" >
> >wrote in >::
> >
> >>I know off course that seperation in VMC while flying IFR is also the
> >>reponsability of the pilot, but A-class airspace has got to have more
> >>traffic sep from ATC than G-class, I think we can agree on that.
> >
> >Right. In Class A airspace ATC provides separation for all.
>
>
> In my case, I'd need an airplane that could *get* to A space. <G>
ROTFL
I wonder how these people feel as they barrel along the road only
inches away from oncoming traffic...
Flying is so much safer

[Matt Barrow]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> On 7 May 2006 13:50:55 -0700, "george" > wrote:
>
>>I wonder how these people feel as they barrel along the road only
>>inches away from oncoming traffic...
>
> From someone changing the CD, dialing the phone, lighting a smoke,
> IM'ing the chick at work, or checking the makeup in the rear view.
>
> At least most pilots are probably taking the operation of the machine
> seriously.

Fiddling with the GPS, IM'ing the chick at work, reading a chart....

Never happens :~)

>

[Mike Schumann]

This is an example of how incredibly difficult it is to see converging
traffic, even if you know where it is and you are looking for it. If I ever
bought my own plane my top priorities would be to install ADS-B so I can see
all of the traffic around me, and a ballistic recover chut to give me a
second chance in case I hit something that didn't show up (like a glider
without a transponder).

Mike Schumann

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> Please explain how the 'big sky theory' will PROTECT you from a MAC.
>
> It won't protect you from it -- but the odds of a mid-air collision
> happening in many areas are so incredibly small as to be virtually
> zero.
>
> Example: If you fly in the mid-levels (4 - 8K feet) over rural Iowa,
> your odds of being hit by a meteor are probably greater than your odds
> of hitting another aircraft. You could probably fly on autopilot with
> your eyes closed for 100 years, and never even come close to a MAC.
>
> Even in the busy airspace around Chicago, the odds are still greatly in
> your favor. I read somewhere once (and someone here will have the
> exact figure, I'm sure) that if you put EVERY aircraft in America in
> the air at once, they would still only occupy a few cubic miles of sky,
> with ample air space in between aircraft.
>
> Which is not to say that you shouldn't keep your eyes outside, and that
> weird stuff doesn't happen. We were flying over middle-of-no-where
> South Dakota once when ATC called out traffic at our altitude (10,500
> feet), on a converging course. ATC told the other guy the same thing,
> and we gradually merged into a single dot on ATC's radar. In the end,
> we were talking to each other on Center frequency, trying to give each
> other cues as to our location. ("I'm over that blue water tower at the
> intersection -- you see that?")
>
> Nothing worked. ATC eventually gave us different altitudes and
> headings -- and we never did see each other. It was very, very
> strange.
>
> But, of course, the bottom line: We didn't hit. The "Big Sky" theory
> worked again.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Jeff]

> I mean, what are the probabilities of hitting someone?
>
> How easy is it really to see another AC once it get's closer than normal?
> I'm thinking if it getæs real close it will be rather obvious, since most
> traffic I'm able to spot now is 1-2 nm away, and look really small and
> hard to see.
>

I was recently on a flight from Orlando to Nashville. About 50 minutes into
the flight we did some rather interesting banking (especially to be at 30k
ft). It wasn't the normal course correction stuff, it was full power
banking to the left at 30deg. After we leveled off I saw what looked like a
Citation shoot down our right wing in the opposite direction at no more than
1/2 a mile (which, in my understanding, would be much closer that Class A
seperation allows for). We landed with no troubles and nothing was ever
said.

So, I guess that doesn't help your fears, but know that even the big boys do
it sometimes.

jf

[B A R R Y]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "B A R R Y" > wrote in message
>>
>> At least most pilots are probably taking the operation of the machine
>> seriously.
>
> Fiddling with the GPS, IM'ing the chick at work, reading a chart....
>
> Never happens :~)
>


Is the airplane 1/10 of a second and 8 feet from a head-on?

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 08 May 2006 09:00:56 -0400, T o d d P a t t i s t
> wrote in
>::

>Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>>Well, I respect your opinion, Todd. But...
>
>I respect yours as well. ....
>
>>>I take it you don't like his choice of the word "protect."
>>
>>given the definition of the word protect: ...
>>It is clear, there is no shielding, defending nor guaranteeing
>>occurring as a result of the 'big sky theory'.
>>
>>>While I wouldn't have chosen to use the word "protect," his meaning
>>>seems clear enough - the aircraft density is greater near airports, and
>>>MAC risk increases as density of aircraft increases.
>>
>>If that is what Doug had written, I would not have found his assertion
>>absurd.
>
>Then we are in basic agreement, despite our differing
>opinions on the use of the word "protect."

I think we agree, that decreasing the density of air traffic reduces
the probability of a MAC, but it is the fallacy of implying such a
reduced probability in any way provides protection or shielding, or
guarantees indemnification from a MAC that I am attempting to correct.
It does not.

>I'm comfortable
>with using the word for decreasing risk in both ways - 1) by
>adding something that shields against the hazard (TCAS),

Of course, TCAS (Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System) doesn't
'shield' against a MAC anymore than night vision goggles 'shield'
against incoming enemy fire. TCAS is only capable of alerting, not
shielding, in my humble opinion.

If TCAS were actually able to provide a _shield_ against a MAC, this
wouldn't have occurred:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bashkirian_Airlines_Flight_2937

>or
>2) by removing some portion of the hazard (decreasing
>traffic density by moving it away from VORs or flying
>farther from congested airports.

Removing a portion of the hazard is not protecting or shielding.

Again, decreasing traffic density surely decreases the probability of
a MAC in those areas in which reduced traffic density occurs, but
decreasing traffic density in no way 'shields' nor 'protects' against
a MAC. To think otherwise is an invitation to disaster.

To my thinking, the words 'protect' and 'shield' imply some physical
barrier to impact. Of course, reducing the probability of a MAC
provides no such barrier.

>We're just reflecting the two ends of the discussion of the
>phrase "big sky theory."

I don't think so.

>On the one hand that phrase can be
>used as a justification for not vigilantly scanning.

That is my point.

For an airman reading this newsgroup to see that his fellows rely upon
the 'big sky theory' for separation and "protection" from a MAC does
us all harm to the extent that it fosters erroneous thinking and less
safe aircraft operation, and in the eyes of the public reading this
worldwide forum who may infer that pilots trust in the 'big sky
theory' for air safety. Competent, prudent pilots don't.

>I agree that's bad. On the other hand that phrase refers to a
>valid method of improving safety by decreasing traffic
>density.

Personally, I have not seen the phrase 'big sky theory' used to refer
to any _method_ of improving air safety; I have only seen it used as
faith in the delusion, that a lack of _perceived_ air traffic density
can be used as an excuse to relax vigilance. (Perhaps you are able to
provide a citation that supports your assertion of such a _method_?)

Take, for instance, the pilot who finds himself out in the desert,
away from Victor airways, navaids, and ground congestion. He may
think he has the sky to himself; he doesn't see any air traffic
around, nor signs of civilization, so he relaxes his traffic scan.
Then this happens:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001213X33340&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X12242&key=1

These MACs occurred as a result of reliance on the 'big sky theory' of
air traffic separation; obviously the 'big sky theory' of air traffic
separation doesn't work. The 'big sky theory' of air traffic
separation only serves to insidiously entrap airmen with a false sense
of security.

>Our current air traffic system funnels traffic
>along designated airways from VOR to VOR to the final
>airport. That method inherently increases traffic density
>and does increase MAC risk.

I absolutely agree with your statement above.

Unfortunately, there is little alternative to the resulting increased
traffic density caused by defining airspace sectors.

[Mike Schumann]

Does the glider pilot need to be IFR certified to fly in the wave box?

Mike Schumann

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
> Thomas Borchert > wrote:
>
>>>On all the definitions of various air classes I've seen, all have stated
>>>"prohibited for VFR" on the class A airspace.
>>>Are you sure about this?
>>>What's the source?
>>
>>Personal experience. FL300 in a glider above Minden, NV, after
>>coordination with ATC and opening of their "wave box". Radio contact
>>required, too.
>
> A "wave box" is glider pilot slang for a volume of Class A
> airspace over a defined ground area that is subject to a
> prearranged written waiver of some of the applicable IFR
> rules. The waiver typically allows operations by VFR
> equipped aircraft (no instrument rating required, no gyro
> instruments required, etc.) but imposes other specific
> requirements, such as: they must be radio equipped, must
> continuously monitor a specific frequency and exit the "box"
> within a period of time after ATC makes a phone call to a
> defined telephone number, must be familiar with the rules of
> the waiver that apply, etc.
>
> The wave box remains Class A, and the operations are
> technically still IFR, despite the waiver. The aircraft are
> still under ATC control and other IFR flights are provided
> separation services (by exclusion from the wave box). The
> area is under the control of the "military desk" at ATC.
> The guy sitting at the military desk opens and closes the
> wave box for glider pilots and handles other prearranged and
> defined block airspace assignments when the military wants
> to play in the Class A airspace. If ATC wants the airspace
> back, they call the defined phone number, which the waiver
> mandates to be manned, the person at the phone calls the
> gliders by radio, and since they are required to monitor and
> be aware of their obligations, they then have a defined
> period of time (typically 15 minutes) to descend.
>
> The separation services and ATC control make this IFR flight
> despite the waiver of many IFR rules, but it's about as
> close to VFR flight in Class A as you can get.
>
> --
> Do not spin this aircraft. If the aircraft does enter a spin it will
> return to earth without further attention on the part of the aeronaut.
>
> (first handbook issued with the Curtis-Wright flyer)

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 08 May 2006 11:59:03 -0400, T o d d P a t t i s t
> wrote in
>::

>I consider the "Big Sky Theory" to be shorthand for the
>statement that decreased traffic density decreases MAC risk.
>There are lots of examples of the practical implementation
>of that theory. Two that come to mind are:
>
>Gene Whitt has some nice comments about choosing less-common
>altitudes below 3000 AGL during cruise or avoiding flying
>directly over the local reporting point because the even
>altitudes and directly over the reporting point are more
>heavily trafficked.

I presume that is contained somewhere here: http://tinyurl.com/f5ck6

<http://www.whittsflying.com/Page3.42Avoiding%20other%20aircraft.htm#Avoiding
Other Aircraft>

There's lots of good advice and information there.

Thanks for making me aware of Mr. Whitt's contributions:
http://www.whittsflying.com

>The FAA has discussed this issue in several contexts,
>including: GPS direct routing, increased vigilance at VOR
>station passage, increased incidence of MACs near airports
>and the implementation of WAAS systems.

I wasn't able to locate links specific to those FAA references.

[Ron Lee]

While flying this morning two aircraft were pointed out to me by
direction only. I don't recall hearing an altitude. Never saw
either. After scanning close to my altitude I gave up. A Lear jet
5-8 miles from me was not seen until it was on final. Several days
ago I picked up a Cessna 2-3 miles out 15-30 seconds before ATC
advised me of it. This is in an area of 50 mile plus visibility.

Ron Lee

[Ol Shy & Bashful]

I read several of the posts regarding the fear of mid-airs. If it is
that much concern, perhaps its best if the original poster just stayed
home and died in bed.
Has anyone else here noticed how many near disasters take place on a
very regular basis with cars hurtling at each other at a closing speed
of 120mph with nothing more than perhaps 3 feet separation and only a
white line to delineate the separation?
Fear of mid-airs? Come give me a break! sheeesh

[Larry Dighera]

On 10 May 2006 09:57:27 -0700, "Ol Shy & Bashful"
> wrote in
om>::

>Fear of mid-airs? Come give me a break! sheeesh



I'm sure that's what the victims of these MACs thought too:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ANC06FA048A&rpt=p
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ANC06FA048B&rpt=p
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI06FA077B&rpt=p
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI06FA077A&rpt=p
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA06FA022A&rpt=p
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA06FA022B&rpt=p
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=OPS06IA001&rpt=p
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC06FA025B&rpt=p
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC06FA025A&rpt=p

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DFW05LA182A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DFW05LA182B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC05FA117A&rpt=p
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC05FA117B&rpt=p
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DFW05LA134B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DFW05LA134A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA05LA076A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA05LA076B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI05FA055A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI05FA055B&rpt=fa

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX04FA301A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX04FA301B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC04FA185B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC04FA185A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW04LA151A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW04LA151B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=SEA04FA083A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=SEA04FA083B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW04LA123B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW04LA123A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI04LA104A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI04LA104B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA04FA043A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA04FA043B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX04FA095A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX04FA095B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ANC04FA016A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ANC04FA016B&rpt=fa

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA03FA124A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA03FA124B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX03LA129A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX03LA129B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DEN03FA059&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW03LA022A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW03LA022B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA03FA007A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA03FA007B&rpt=fa

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ANC02LA098A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ANC02LA098B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA02LA119A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL02FA076A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL02FA076B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL02FA074A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL02FA074B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL02LA012A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL02LA012B&rpt=fa

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DEN01TA134B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DEN01TA134A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC01WA159A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC01WA159B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=SEA01LA120&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX01FA101A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX01FA101B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA01FA028A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX01FA018A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX01FA018B&rpt=fa

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL00FA091A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL00FA091B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI00IA248A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI00IA248B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX00MA273&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ANC00IA088&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA00FA172A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA00FA172B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA00WA188A&rpt=p
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=IAD00LA027A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=IAD00LA027B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA00FA107A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA00FA107B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC00LA081A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC00LA081B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX00FA041&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI00FA003A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI00FA003B&rpt=fa

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL99FA132A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL99FA132B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX99LA204A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX99LA204B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=IAD99FA041A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=IAD99FA041B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA99FA126A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA99FA126B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DEN99LA048A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA99LA051A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA99LA051B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC99IA036&rpt=fa

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL98GA127A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DCA98RA075A&rpt=p
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DCA98RA075B&rpt=p
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA98FA135A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX98FA118A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX98FA086A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX98FA086B&rpt=fa

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW97FA208A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX97FA075A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX97FA075B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW97LA018A&rpt=fa

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW96FA234A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW96FA208A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ANC96IA065&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX96FA108A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX96FA108B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA96LA027A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA96LA027B&rpt=fa

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC95LA149&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW95IA243A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=BFO95FA058A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI95FA126A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=BFO95FA058A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI95FA126A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL95LA072A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI95IA095&rpt=fa

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX94FA383A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX94FA383B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC94FA119B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC94FA119A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ANC94IA075B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW94FA206&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW94LA151&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW94FA102A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW94FA060A&rpt=fa

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC93FA158A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI93FA302A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX93FA241A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX93FA241B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=SEA93FA094A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=SEA93FA094B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL93FA061A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL93FA061B&rpt=fa

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DCA92MA049A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DCA92MA049B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA92LA086A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA92LA086B&rpt=fa
!
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI90LA201A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI90LA201B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ANC90LA090A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ANC90LA090B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA90FA067A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA90FA067B&rpt=fa

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW89IA168A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW89IA168B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW89FA133A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW89FA133B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI89IA143&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI89IA144&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI89IA145&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC89FA135A&rpt=fa

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI88LA156A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI88LA156B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW88FA114A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW88FA114B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ANC88FA052A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ANC88FA052B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=BFO88LA006A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=BFO88LA006B&rpt=fa

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX87FA296A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX87FA296B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI87LA167A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI87LA167B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=BFO87LA028A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=BFO87LA028B&rpt=fa

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL86IA100A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL86IA100B&rpt=fa

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA85FA247A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA85FA247B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW85FA261A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW85FA261B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI85FA176A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI85FA176B&rpt=fa

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL84FA119B&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL84FA119A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC84FA038A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC84FA038B&rpt=fa
....

[Ol Shy & Bashful]

Larry
I've been flying over 50 years and have about 23,000 hours logged. I
can count the number of near misses with aircraft on one finger.
Ya WANNA LIVE FOREVER?
sheeesh
Rocky aka Ol Shy & Bashful

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On 10 May 2006 09:57:27 -0700, "Ol Shy & Bashful"
> > wrote in
> om>::
>
>> Fear of mid-airs? Come give me a break! sheeesh
>
>
>
> I'm sure that's what the victims of these MACs thought too:
>


You have entirely too much free time on your hands. Ever go flying?



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Frode Berg]

OK.

I will not speak my mind on this forum if this is what happens.

Thanks to all the insightful posts by all you other people!

I just needed to put some statistics into perspective.
After all, I witnessed a mid air right before starting my PPL.

However, tha last week I've flown a few times, and haven't thought much
about it anymore.

I guess mr Ol Shy here is flying around his farm in the middle of nowhere at
300 feet in his ultralight.

I only have 250 hours total, and have had 3 close encounters. Not really
"near misses" apart from one of them, but they were still to me
uncomfortably close, so you claiming 23.000 hours with none....?
Hmmm...makes you wonder...

Frode

"Ol Shy & Bashful" > skrev i melding
oups.com...
> Larry
> I've been flying over 50 years and have about 23,000 hours logged. I
> can count the number of near misses with aircraft on one finger.
> Ya WANNA LIVE FOREVER?
> sheeesh
> Rocky aka Ol Shy & Bashful
>

[Ol Shy & Bashful]

Frode
Care to come take a look at my logbooks? I've been flying all over the
world and much of it, about 13000 hours, crop dusting.
If the thought of a midair scares you, stay on the ground, or in
bed.....
If you have had several near miisses in your brief career, please let
me know where you will be flying so I can avoid the area?

[Mark Hansen]

On 05/10/06 15:02, Ol Shy & Bashful wrote:
> Frode
> Care to come take a look at my logbooks? I've been flying all over the
> world and much of it, about 13000 hours, crop dusting.
> If the thought of a midair scares you, stay on the ground, or in
> bed.....

I assume what you meant was that no one should let the thought of
a mid-air collision scare them to the point they cannot fly safely?

If any person is *not* afraid of a mid-air collision, they shouldn't be
flying.

> If you have had several near miisses in your brief career, please let
> me know where you will be flying so I can avoid the area?
>



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[Jim Logajan]

"Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote:
> I've been flying all over the
> world and much of it, about 13000 hours, crop dusting.

I could see running into tall scarecrows, birds, or the occasional semi-
trailer Magnum Oil truck while you try to kill Cary Grant, but I can't see
you encountering many other planes at the low altitudes you probably spent
all that time flying. :-)

By the way, are you the pilot flying this plane:
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3024/1358/1600/NBN12.jpg

;-)

[houstondan]

i've had a number of near-misses (near-hits??) but i usually manage to
dodge at the last second before it can run into my tail. i think those
geese are just show-offs.

dan...my car and motorcycle are each faster than my plane.

[James Ricks]

Larry et al, mid-air collisions DO happen. Fortunately, they are rare. So
rare in fact that when one occurs, it makes news, and there are government
agencies all over the world to examine 'why?' and try to eliminate the
causes. One should worry that they are not as common as lost-life
collisions between motor vehicles. So common are they, that they hardly
make a couple of column inches in the middle of section 'D' of your local
newspaper. but let a couple of light aircraft get together 2000 miles away,
it's right there on page 1.

Pilots have fairly elaborate, yet simple, easy-to-remember procedures that
govern who has the 'right-of-way' under any circumstances. While you are
training, these will, or should be, drilled into you.

If this fear is really keeping you from flying, there are fairly reasonable
devices that will 'listen' for other aircraft's transponder signals and
alert you to the direction and range to other traffic. Not totally
fail-safe, because not all aircraft have, or use, transponders, but when
you know where the ones are that do have 'em, it's easier to look for those
who don't.

Don't let fear of something so rare stand in the way of what you really
want to do

My $.02

Jim Ricks

[Dudley Henriques]

"Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
...
> On 05/10/06 15:02, Ol Shy & Bashful wrote:
>> Frode
>> Care to come take a look at my logbooks? I've been flying all over the
>> world and much of it, about 13000 hours, crop dusting.
>> If the thought of a midair scares you, stay on the ground, or in
>> bed.....
>
> I assume what you meant was that no one should let the thought of
> a mid-air collision scare them to the point they cannot fly safely?
>
> If any person is *not* afraid of a mid-air collision, they shouldn't be
> flying.

I totally agree with your comment, and in fact have taught every student
I've ever had in an airplane, and I mean EVERY student, to spend every
second in the air scanning for airplanes that in 99.9% of the time won't be
there.
It's that extra .1% that will kill you, EVERY TIME!! :-))
Dudley Henriques

[Roger]

On Wed, 10 May 2006 15:20:32 -0700, Mark Hansen
> wrote:

>On 05/10/06 15:02, Ol Shy & Bashful wrote:
>> Frode
>> Care to come take a look at my logbooks? I've been flying all over the
>> world and much of it, about 13000 hours, crop dusting.
>> If the thought of a midair scares you, stay on the ground, or in
>> bed.....
>
>I assume what you meant was that no one should let the thought of
>a mid-air collision scare them to the point they cannot fly safely?
>
>If any person is *not* afraid of a mid-air collision, they shouldn't be
>flying.

We may be dealing in semantics, but fear reduces our ability to
function. In some people to the point of being unable to function.

I am well aware of the possibility of a collision and I try to remain
vigilant and concerned, but I would use the same words old Shy used.
No one who is afraid/scared of part of flying should be flying.
Address the fear in a realistic manner so it becomes no more than a
concern. Then fly.

Many students have fears and those are addressed in training and
should become things of which we are aware and for which we conduct
ourselves in a manner which should reduce or eliminate the chance of
the collision.
>
>> If you have had several near miisses in your brief career, please let
>> me know where you will be flying so I can avoid the area?
>>

I've had thee close encounters since 1963. The last was nearly 10
years ago when landing. It was nearly dark and an ultralight pulled
right in front of me just a few hundred feet off the ground when I was
on final. The two previous "close encounters" were back in the 60's
and within a couple of weeks of each other.

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

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

James Ricks wrote:
> If this fear is really keeping you from flying, there are fairly reasonable
> devices that will 'listen' for other aircraft's transponder signals and
> alert you to the direction and range to other traffic


If this fear is really keeping him from flying, there's always fishing. I put
the same effort to avoid other aircraft that I put into avoiding other cars when
I drive. If that's too scary for him he just needs to take up something he can
handle.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Dudley Henriques]

You're right, it IS a semantics issue.
The issue of handling fear in flight as that pertains to a potential mid-air
is far too complicated an issue to draw down into an axiom that suggests a
student stay on the ground or in bed if the thought of a mid air "scares
them". I just wouldn't handle this situation this way.
It can be logically assumed that a pilot should never be in the air
"consumed" with a fear of a mid air collision. Anything that even approaches
the level of true fear is something no pilot can afford to entertain. But
there is another side to this double edged sword, and that is the simple
fact that although a pilot should never be experiencing true fear, the same
pilot must fly in a constant state of what I will call for the lack of a
better term, "an extremely high state of awareness to a possible mid-air".
So what the instructor has here is the rather difficult task of suppressing
actual fear as we define fear in the accurate sense, while at the same time
impressing the student with the absolute importance of maintaining a
constant airborne vigil as protection against a possible mid-air.
This is an instructional tap dance that can leave a student confused about
the issue if nothing else, and it's important that instructors see this and
deal with it properly.
A pilot stating he is developing a "fear" of having a mid-air after 200 odd
hours of flying is a pilot who needs to be shown the difference between
fear, which is a negative for him, and constant awareness, which is the
positive desired.
You can of course sum all this up by simply saying to that pilot;
"Keep your damn eyes open, but don't get carried away with it" :-) But I
think this issue deserves some airing out, so that the pilot is able to come
to a better understanding of himself and his flying.
Just my opinion on this FWIW.
Dudley

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 10 May 2006 15:20:32 -0700, Mark Hansen
> > wrote:
>
>>On 05/10/06 15:02, Ol Shy & Bashful wrote:
>>> Frode
>>> Care to come take a look at my logbooks? I've been flying all over the
>>> world and much of it, about 13000 hours, crop dusting.
>>> If the thought of a midair scares you, stay on the ground, or in
>>> bed.....
>>
>>I assume what you meant was that no one should let the thought of
>>a mid-air collision scare them to the point they cannot fly safely?
>>
>>If any person is *not* afraid of a mid-air collision, they shouldn't be
>>flying.
>
> We may be dealing in semantics, but fear reduces our ability to
> function. In some people to the point of being unable to function.
>
> I am well aware of the possibility of a collision and I try to remain
> vigilant and concerned, but I would use the same words old Shy used.
> No one who is afraid/scared of part of flying should be flying.
> Address the fear in a realistic manner so it becomes no more than a
> concern. Then fly.
>
> Many students have fears and those are addressed in training and
> should become things of which we are aware and for which we conduct
> ourselves in a manner which should reduce or eliminate the chance of
> the collision.
>>
>>> If you have had several near miisses in your brief career, please let
>>> me know where you will be flying so I can avoid the area?
>>>
>
> I've had thee close encounters since 1963. The last was nearly 10
> years ago when landing. It was nearly dark and an ultralight pulled
> right in front of me just a few hundred feet off the ground when I was
> on final. The two previous "close encounters" were back in the 60's
> and within a couple of weeks of each other.
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

[Ol Shy & Bashful]

Dudley
I too teach all my students to keep their head on a swivel. That
doesn't mean they are in fear of mid-airs to the point of
incapacitation or night sweats!
Regards
Rocky

[Ol Shy & Bashful]

Jim
Nah...I'm not quite THAT old!! Well, maybe I am but it wasn't me
flying. I didn't start crop dusting until 1966.<g>
Cheers

[Ol Shy & Bashful]

Mark
I spent about 15 years ag flying there near Modesto before I decided to
get out of the PRC. I'm merely trying to illustrate the point that in a
lot of hours flying I've never had any near mid-airs. I have seen the
aftermath of a number of them however and have talked to pilots who
were involved. So far they haven't given me nightmares nor do I expect
them to.
As Dudley and others have mentioned, I also train every pilot I fly
with to keep their heads on a swivel looking out for the pilot who
isn't! Sometimes they happen in spite of the best avoidance efforts.
Cheers
Ol Shy & Bashful

[Dave Stadt]

"Frode Berg" > wrote in message
...
> OK.
>
> I will not speak my mind on this forum if this is what happens.
>
> Thanks to all the insightful posts by all you other people!
>
> I just needed to put some statistics into perspective.
> After all, I witnessed a mid air right before starting my PPL.
>
> However, tha last week I've flown a few times, and haven't thought much
> about it anymore.
>
> I guess mr Ol Shy here is flying around his farm in the middle of nowhere
> at 300 feet in his ultralight.
>
> I only have 250 hours total, and have had 3 close encounters. Not really
> "near misses" apart from one of them, but they were still to me
> uncomfortably close, so you claiming 23.000 hours with none....?
> Hmmm...makes you wonder...
>
> Frode

If you have had three close encounters in 250 hours you might benefit from
spending time with an instructor going over scan techniques.

[Matt Barrow]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
m...
> Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On 10 May 2006 09:57:27 -0700, "Ol Shy & Bashful"
>> > wrote in
>> om>::
>>
>>> Fear of mid-airs? Come give me a break! sheeesh
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm sure that's what the victims of these MACs thought too:
>>
>
>
> You have entirely too much free time on your hands. Ever go flying?
>
No, of course not - he spends his every waking hour worrying about that
..0001%!

[Matt Barrow]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
...
> James Ricks wrote:
>> If this fear is really keeping you from flying, there are fairly
>> reasonable
>> devices that will 'listen' for other aircraft's transponder signals and
>> alert you to the direction and range to other traffic
>
>
> If this fear is really keeping him from flying, there's always fishing. I
> put the same effort to avoid other aircraft that I put into avoiding other
> cars when I drive. If that's too scary for him he just needs to take up
> something he can handle.

In fishing, there's always the possibility of falling out of the boat and
getting eaten by alligators, piranha, sharks, bluegill...

[Frode Berg]

Well, neither have I.

However, nid air is one thing not too easy to recover from if it happens.

Engine out, suddenly IMC while VFR etc, all is survivable, but if a mid air
occurs (that famous .1% chance) then you can have all pilot skills and all
the hours logged you like. Your most likely toast.

That's what I feel is more scary about them. But I still fly my plane well,
and don't spend all my time thinking of them, off course not.

And Rocky, I fly thoughout Europe. I have 250 hours total, probably half of
them are long cross country trips covering most of Europe from Norway to
Italy.

I just phrased my comments becuase I felt your post was a bit harsh.
If you did not mean it that way, fine.

Frode

"Ol Shy & Bashful" > skrev i melding
ups.com...
> Dudley
> I too teach all my students to keep their head on a swivel. That
> doesn't mean they are in fear of mid-airs to the point of
> incapacitation or night sweats!
> Regards
> Rocky
>

[Frode Berg]

To the group.


My original posting has developed beyond intentions.

Let me be presise:

I am NOT terrified of having a mid air every time I fly.
I realise my original post is misleading in this regard.

I fly as much as I can, and I scan for traffic the best I can with the
techniques I've learnt, and picked up along the way.

However, from time to time, I think more about this than other times.

Much like the way one might think more about hitting another motor vehicle
going around a bend in 80 mph somewhere. Sure, you don't think of this all
the time, but occasionally after seeing reckless drivers out there, the
thought creeps in.

I just posted to get some opinions on the subject, and some raw statistics.

I'm sorry if my original post offends any pilots out there.

Be assured, I do not fly around being afraid, and I do not intend to in the
future either. It's just been a few times the past 2-3 years that I've
experienced the odd minute or two of nervousness enroute, but it doesn't
last.

Maybe it even makes my scan technique better!

And 3 times close encounters (not meaning near misses) is not much I believe
if you do any flying near any sort of congested airspace like I do.

Only once was I uncomfortably close to another plane, and that was in the
airspace around Amsterdam Schiphol.
Does the fact that this happened before I reached 230.000.567.983.574.000
hours total time holding an ATPL, being knighted by the FAA etc etc etc AND
being the best crop duster in the world make me a careless pilot?

I don't believe it does. Everyone has the right to his/her opinion though.

Thanks for all the input on this matter, and safe flying to you all!

Frode



"Ol Shy & Bashful" > skrev i melding
oups.com...
> Frode
> Care to come take a look at my logbooks? I've been flying all over the
> world and much of it, about 13000 hours, crop dusting.
> If the thought of a midair scares you, stay on the ground, or in
> bed.....
> If you have had several near miisses in your brief career, please let
> me know where you will be flying so I can avoid the area?
>

[Ol Shy & Bashful]

Frode
No sense in us getting hot and lathered about it. The comments I read
created my response to them. Your comment about me flying around the
farm in an ultralight was cute even if very inaccurate. They bother me
with all the accidents I've seen them involved in.
I recognize the fact that sometimes those of european extract speak in
a slightly different way and can seem abrasive without meaning to can
be misunderstood.
I've talked to a number of pilots who survived mid-airs and they were
all professional pilots. I also know, or knew, several pro pilots who
were killed in mid-airs. Same can be said for people I knew who were
killed in autos or on motorcycles. Also knew more than a few who were
dead by other means. That doesn't mean I'm gonna just quit life or quit
flying.
I get quite enough scares during a normal spray season to last the rest
of the year. I'll be doing it again this year with helicopters and
probably get crap scared out of me at least once or twice. The normal
season I'll fly 500 hours in 3 1/2 months and often near other aircraft
that are also spraying. We just pay attention to the location of the
other and their spray direction so we don't interfere. I suspect your
idea of a near mid-air and mine are different simply by reason of
experience and exposure.
Cheers
Rocky

[Frode Berg]

"Ol Shy & Bashful" > skrev i melding
oups.com...
> Frode
> No sense in us getting hot and lathered about it. The comments I read
> created my response to them. Your comment about me flying around the
> farm in an ultralight was cute even if very inaccurate. They bother me
> with all the accidents I've seen them involved in.
> I recognize the fact that sometimes those of european extract speak in
> a slightly different way and can seem abrasive without meaning to can
> be misunderstood.
> I've talked to a number of pilots who survived mid-airs and they were
> all professional pilots. I also know, or knew, several pro pilots who
> were killed in mid-airs. Same can be said for people I knew who were
> killed in autos or on motorcycles. Also knew more than a few who were
> dead by other means. That doesn't mean I'm gonna just quit life or quit
> flying.
> I get quite enough scares during a normal spray season to last the rest
> of the year. I'll be doing it again this year with helicopters and
> probably get crap scared out of me at least once or twice. The normal
> season I'll fly 500 hours in 3 1/2 months and often near other aircraft
> that are also spraying. We just pay attention to the location of the
> other and their spray direction so we don't interfere. I suspect your
> idea of a near mid-air and mine are different simply by reason of
> experience and exposure.
> Cheers
> Rocky
>

Thanks for taking time to post this.

I feel better now. Hope you will have a great season of flying! I am a hobby
pilot (for now) and will be doing hopefully some flying to and from work, if
I can figure out a way to collapse my back seat to transport my instrument
(I am a pro double bass player) as well as a 2 week vacation with my son
hopping around Europe.

Again, thanks for clearing things up, and hopefully we'll never meet in the
air, but a coffe or beer on the ground would always be welcome!

:-)

Frode

[Ol Shy & Bashful]

Frode
What is a double bass player? Interesting in that I played cello and
string bass professionally for years. I was with a symphony many years
ago (50's) playing cello and was doing jazz licks when the conductor
told me that was not professional. So, I began playing string bass and
had a lot of fun while making money. Amazing how many pilots are also
musicians and that is something I've commented on many times over the
years.
Did you ever have a near miss with a drummer? <ggg>
BTW....early last year I hit a pine tree while crop spraying in Oregon.
It damaged the boom and one rotor blade. I didn't know about the blade
until I shut down and we saw the damage. Unfortunately that grounded
the helicopter until new blades were put on. One of those deals where
you had to have been there? Like I said, close to you, may be two miles
to me. Again, experience and exposure.
Cheers
Rocky

[Frode Berg]

Double bass is the same as string bass.

I do a lot of travelling, and use the airlines a lot.
However it's a pain to travel with the instrument, and ground crew are not
always nice to my bass.
I've just assumed the bass would not fit in my Arrow until yesterday.
I took it to the hangar, and found out that it fits perfectly though the
door, but I need to be able to fold the back seat to avoid it obstructing
the flap and trim.

Also, by laying it over the back seat, the bass is not resting in a good
position. It's got too much weight on the headstock, but if I can figure out
an easy way to fold down the seatback, like an estate car for example, the
Cherokee will be a perfect cargo hauler for me! :-)

At least on VFR days......

Frode



"Ol Shy & Bashful" > skrev i melding
oups.com...
> Frode
> What is a double bass player? Interesting in that I played cello and
> string bass professionally for years. I was with a symphony many years
> ago (50's) playing cello and was doing jazz licks when the conductor
> told me that was not professional. So, I began playing string bass and
> had a lot of fun while making money. Amazing how many pilots are also
> musicians and that is something I've commented on many times over the
> years.
> Did you ever have a near miss with a drummer? <ggg>
> BTW....early last year I hit a pine tree while crop spraying in Oregon.
> It damaged the boom and one rotor blade. I didn't know about the blade
> until I shut down and we saw the damage. Unfortunately that grounded
> the helicopter until new blades were put on. One of those deals where
> you had to have been there? Like I said, close to you, may be two miles
> to me. Again, experience and exposure.
> Cheers
> Rocky
>

[Larry Dighera]

>
>"Ol Shy & Bashful" > skrev i melding
oups.com...
>> Larry
>> I've been flying over 50 years and have about 23,000 hours logged. I
>> can count the number of near misses with aircraft on one finger.
>> Ya WANNA LIVE FOREVER?
>> sheeesh
>> Rocky aka Ol Shy & Bashful
>>
>

On Wed, 10 May 2006 23:52:34 +0200, "Frode Berg" >
wrote in >::

>OK.
>
>I will not speak my mind on this forum if this is what happens.

Please don't be too sensitive to what is said here. Most folks don't
intend to offend anyone.

>Thanks to all the insightful posts by all you other people!
>
>I just needed to put some statistics into perspective.
>After all, I witnessed a mid air right before starting my PPL.
>
>However, tha last week I've flown a few times, and haven't thought much
>about it anymore.
>
>I guess mr Ol Shy here is flying around his farm in the middle of nowhere at
>300 feet in his ultralight.

I think you've identified the difference in your and Rocky's
experiences. A higher air traffic density leads to a higher
probability of a MAC.

I have no idea how the traffic density over Europe compares to that
over various areas of the US, but I can unequivocally state from
personal experience, that the traffic density in the skies within 100
miles of LAX can be intimidating.

When I was in France few years ago, I got the feeling that aside from
Charles De Gaulle, Le Borget and Orly most airports were not very
busy.

>I only have 250 hours total, and have had 3 close encounters. Not really
>"near misses" apart from one of them, but they were still to me
>uncomfortably close, so you claiming 23.000 hours with none....?
>Hmmm...makes you wonder...
>
>Frode

Rocky's a good guy with a lot of experience to share. He's just
stating his view on this subject (a bit tongue-in-cheek I suspect), as
are we all. Take what you find useful, and overlook the rest.

[Larry Dighera]

On 10 May 2006 22:57:27 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
in om>::

>We ALWAYS plan three separate vacations, in three different directions.

Unfortunately, those of us based in cities along the coasts have our
possible destinations halved compared with those in the Midwest.

[Peter Duniho]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On 10 May 2006 22:57:27 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
> in om>::
>
>>We ALWAYS plan three separate vacations, in three different directions.
>
> Unfortunately, those of us based in cities along the coasts have our
> possible destinations halved compared with those in the Midwest.

And there are, of course, other problems associated with planning multiple
vacations, with the intent to actually DO only one. Such as
late-cancellation penalties for hotels, and the difficulty in arranging
lodging when one is traveling with a pet. For example.

On top of that, once you commit to a direction, you still have the problem
of dealing with weather. Unless your vacation takes you only one flight leg
away from home, you could potentially have to deal with weather after your
first leg, and regardless there's the question of getting home. Most people
don't have the luxury of picking which direction to fly AFTER the vacation.

That said, even with an instrument rating, I've found that any vacation
planned around a general aviation flight has to include plenty of
flexibility. Without an instrument rating, things get more difficult but
there's certainly no reason to think you can't take advantage of an airplane
without one. You just need to build different kinds of alternate choices
into your plans than you would with an instrument rating.

Pete

[Journeyman]

In article >, Frode Berg wrote:
>
> I've just assumed the bass would not fit in my Arrow until yesterday.
> I took it to the hangar, and found out that it fits perfectly though the
> door, but I need to be able to fold the back seat to avoid it obstructing
> the flap and trim.

Frode,

Turns out, it's fairly easy to remove the rear seats from an Arrow. There
are 4 attach points. The rear 2 are spring-loaded and you just pull
forward/up. The front 2 are on a slide and come out easily when the rear
mounts are up. No tools required.

HTH,

Morris
(BTW, welcome back. I remember you used to post a lot around here)

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 11 May 2006 12:52:22 -0500, Journeyman
> wrote in
>::

>Turns out, it's fairly easy to remove the rear seats from an Arrow.

What does the Arrow POH say about operating with the rear seats
removed? Is it approved? Does removing the rear seats require the
use of a different weight and balance chart for calculations? Does it
change the category from/to utility/normal? How is performance
affected?

[Roger]

On Thu, 11 May 2006 00:57:11 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> wrote:

>You're right, it IS a semantics issue.
>The issue of handling fear in flight as that pertains to a potential mid-air
>is far too complicated an issue to draw down into an axiom that suggests a
>student stay on the ground or in bed if the thought of a mid air "scares
>them". I just wouldn't handle this situation this way.
>It can be logically assumed that a pilot should never be in the air
>"consumed" with a fear of a mid air collision. Anything that even approaches
>the level of true fear is something no pilot can afford to entertain. But
>there is another side to this double edged sword, and that is the simple
>fact that although a pilot should never be experiencing true fear, the same
>pilot must fly in a constant state of what I will call for the lack of a
>better term, "an extremely high state of awareness to a possible mid-air".

That reminds me... In all my years of flying I've never been lost.
Now I have, on the ground, been extremely "positionally
challenged"<:-)). Now knowing where you have to be even though you
don't recognize any landmarks has *almost* all the criteria to call it
being lost, but not quite. However even knowing where you have to be
but not being able to verify it can bring a feeling of panic that
takes effort to suppress. Fear is unreasoning.

I have done the same thing flying by intention, (I'm mentioned this
before) down low, lots of maneuvering until I lost all sense of
direction. Then attempted to find land marks and this is in an area
where you have to work to get lost. I made two wide circles and could
not spot the edge of Saginaw Bay which had to be SSE of me. Two full
turns and I could not spot it and there is was, that feeling of unease
building toward panic. However I was still in a state where I could
reason with myself and I knew if all else failed I could use the
radios which were already on two nearby VORs. (Saginaw and West
Branch) However I refused to give in and was determined to find my way
back with nothing more than looking out the windows.

According to the time the sun should be just west of due south. So I
turned until it was in a position that should have me going due south.
Sure enough, off to the SSE was the edge of Saginaw Bay on the
horizon. So I turned to the SW and in about 10 to 12 minutes could
spot Midland on the horizon.

>So what the instructor has here is the rather difficult task of suppressing
>actual fear as we define fear in the accurate sense, while at the same time
>impressing the student with the absolute importance of maintaining a
>constant airborne vigil as protection against a possible mid-air.
>This is an instructional tap dance that can leave a student confused about
>the issue if nothing else, and it's important that instructors see this and
>deal with it properly.

My primary instructors put me through about every situation they could
think of to ease any doubts, or rater prevent them from surfacing.

>A pilot stating he is developing a "fear" of having a mid-air after 200 odd
>hours of flying is a pilot who needs to be shown the difference between
>fear, which is a negative for him, and constant awareness, which is the
>positive desired.

It's that "developing" that concerns me and I have to wonder what
would have triggered such a response after several hundred hours. Of
course there is such a thing as thinking about negative consequences
too much and conditioning one's self to reinforce feelings we didn't
realize were there. It would be my opinion that it's time to spend
some time with a good instructor to find out why and to allay those
fears and turn them into thoughtful concern. Done early this sort of
thing is far, far easier to handle than later after it's had a chance
to become entrenched.

Over the years I've had some hair raising experiences. Although the
worst ones were in cars I have had some close calls in airplanes as
well and I've seen some really bad ones.

When I totaled the Transam by broadsiding an SUV I had just enough
time to see it coming, but no where to go except through him and being
as I was outweighed over two to one while the SUV was mostly steel and
the TA was largely plastic the odds were not in my favor.

My thoughts in plain language as I watched the hood fold up and the
top of the SUV disappear out of sight above the top of the windshield
was :"Ohhh ****! I'll bet this is gonna hurt!" and a sad "Is this all
there is?" just the instant before the air bags went off. The next
thing I remember is the car spinning across the road and me unable to
see out due to the dust from the air bags. However it did cross my
mind that it might be better that I couldn't see out. Strange how
some of those thoughts pop up. However there was nothing that I would
call fear. Certainly I was concerned, but I remained in control as
long as I physically could. After that I still hung on and rode it
out rather than trying to curl up into a ball.

>You can of course sum all this up by simply saying to that pilot;
>"Keep your damn eyes open, but don't get carried away with it" :-) But I
>think this issue deserves some airing out, so that the pilot is able to come
>to a better understanding of himself and his flying.

In this particular case I think he needs to understand that
unreasoning fears can develop and "if possible" discover why he has
developed this fear, how ever on some occasions we never do really
find the triggering event or cause. Still it's usually possible to
turn the fear into a reasonable concern that can be addressed.


>Just my opinion on this FWIW.

In my estimation; as usual it's worth quite a bit.

Regards,

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

>Dudley
>
>"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 10 May 2006 15:20:32 -0700, Mark Hansen
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>On 05/10/06 15:02, Ol Shy & Bashful wrote:
>>>> Frode
>>>> Care to come take a look at my logbooks? I've been flying all over the
>>>> world and much of it, about 13000 hours, crop dusting.
>>>> If the thought of a midair scares you, stay on the ground, or in
>>>> bed.....
>>>
>>>I assume what you meant was that no one should let the thought of
>>>a mid-air collision scare them to the point they cannot fly safely?
>>>
>>>If any person is *not* afraid of a mid-air collision, they shouldn't be
>>>flying.
>>
>> We may be dealing in semantics, but fear reduces our ability to
>> function. In some people to the point of being unable to function.
>>
>> I am well aware of the possibility of a collision and I try to remain
>> vigilant and concerned, but I would use the same words old Shy used.
>> No one who is afraid/scared of part of flying should be flying.
>> Address the fear in a realistic manner so it becomes no more than a
>> concern. Then fly.
>>
>> Many students have fears and those are addressed in training and
>> should become things of which we are aware and for which we conduct
>> ourselves in a manner which should reduce or eliminate the chance of
>> the collision.
>>>
>>>> If you have had several near miisses in your brief career, please let
>>>> me know where you will be flying so I can avoid the area?
>>>>
>>
>> I've had thee close encounters since 1963. The last was nearly 10
>> years ago when landing. It was nearly dark and an ultralight pulled
>> right in front of me just a few hundred feet off the ground when I was
>> on final. The two previous "close encounters" were back in the 60's
>> and within a couple of weeks of each other.
>>
>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>

[Morgans]

"Frode Berg" > wrote

> Also, by laying it over the back seat, the bass is not resting in a good
> position. It's got too much weight on the headstock, but if I can figure
> out an easy way to fold down the seatback, like an estate car for example,
> the Cherokee will be a perfect cargo hauler for me! :-)

You could get a big block of stiff Styrofoam, and carve out the shape of
your bass, and angle it needs on one side, and the floor on the other side.
It would be the very best way, since it would totally spread out the
pressures on it from any "air bumps," or hard landings. I know you don't do
any of them, though. <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Frode Berg]

It doesn't say anything in my POH, so I guess it wasn't considered...

Does this mean I need an STC for it?

Frode


"Larry Dighera" > skrev i melding
...
> On Thu, 11 May 2006 12:52:22 -0500, Journeyman
> > wrote in
> >::
>
>>Turns out, it's fairly easy to remove the rear seats from an Arrow.
>
> What does the Arrow POH say about operating with the rear seats
> removed? Is it approved? Does removing the rear seats require the
> use of a different weight and balance chart for calculations? Does it
> change the category from/to utility/normal? How is performance
> affected?

[Larry Dighera]

>"Larry Dighera" > skrev i melding
...
>> On Thu, 11 May 2006 12:52:22 -0500, Journeyman
>> > wrote in
>> >::
>>
>>>Turns out, it's fairly easy to remove the rear seats from an Arrow.
>>
>> What does the Arrow POH say about operating with the rear seats
>> removed? Is it approved? Does removing the rear seats require the
>> use of a different weight and balance chart for calculations? Does it
>> change the category from/to utility/normal? How is performance
>> affected?
>
On Thu, 11 May 2006 22:37:30 +0200, "Frode Berg" >
wrote in >::

>It doesn't say anything in my POH, so I guess it wasn't considered...
>
>Does this mean I need an STC for it?
>
>Frode
>

I'm guessing, but if operation with the rear seats removed isn't
mentioned in the POH, it's not approved.

[Jim Macklin]

You need to make a logbook entry for the preventative
maintenance of removing and re-installing the seats. The
weight and balance data needs to be there, if not you need
an A&P the first time to make the entry.


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

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Journeyman" > wrote in message
. ..
|
| In article >, Frode
Berg wrote:
| >
| > I've just assumed the bass would not fit in my Arrow
until yesterday.
| > I took it to the hangar, and found out that it fits
perfectly though the
| > door, but I need to be able to fold the back seat to
avoid it obstructing
| > the flap and trim.
|
| Frode,
|
| Turns out, it's fairly easy to remove the rear seats from
an Arrow. There
| are 4 attach points. The rear 2 are spring-loaded and you
just pull
| forward/up. The front 2 are on a slide and come out
easily when the rear
| mounts are up. No tools required.
|
| HTH,
|
| Morris
| (BTW, welcome back. I remember you used to post a lot
around here)

[Newps]

Larry Dighera wrote:


>
>
> I'm guessing, but if operation with the rear seats removed isn't
> mentioned in the POH, it's not approved.

The POH isn't necessarily relavant. My 182 didn't mention a word about
it. The more important document is the equipment list.

[Journeyman]

In article <RAN8g.18382$ZW3.4772@dukeread04>, Jim Macklin wrote:
> You need to make a logbook entry for the preventative
> maintenance of removing and re-installing the seats. The
> weight and balance data needs to be there, if not you need
> an A&P the first time to make the entry.

Good point. It hadn't occurred to me because the only time
I've removed the seats was for inspection.

Of course, European rules are likely to be different.


Morris

[Journeyman]

In article >, Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>>Turns out, it's fairly easy to remove the rear seats from an Arrow.
>
> What does the Arrow POH say about operating with the rear seats
> removed? Is it approved? Does removing the rear seats require the
> use of a different weight and balance chart for calculations? Does it
> change the category from/to utility/normal? How is performance
> affected?

Honestly, I don't know. I've never actually flown with the rear seats
removed. I've removed them for access during maintenance, but always
put them back. Given how easy they are to remove, I assumed it should
not be a problem flying without them, modulo the weight/balance change.
I've heard of people flying with the rear seats removed, but never
specifically in the Arrow.


Morris

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 11 May 2006 15:47:58 -0600, Newps > wrote
in >::

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm guessing, but if operation with the rear seats removed isn't
>> mentioned in the POH, it's not approved.
>
>The POH isn't necessarily relavant. My 182 didn't mention a word about
>it. The more important document is the equipment list.

Was the revised W&B located in the equipment list also?

[Newps]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> On Thu, 11 May 2006 15:47:58 -0600, Newps > wrote
> in >::
>
>
>>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I'm guessing, but if operation with the rear seats removed isn't
>>>mentioned in the POH, it's not approved.
>>
>>The POH isn't necessarily relavant. My 182 didn't mention a word about
>>it. The more important document is the equipment list.
>
>
> Was the revised W&B located in the equipment list also?

I carried one weight and balance form with three W+B scenarios. All
seats in, rear seat removed and rear and copilot seats removed. The
equipment list gave weights and stations for the seats. I used the
station listed but used actual weight since the seats weighed a little
more with the leather interior I had installed.

[Dudley Henriques]

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 11 May 2006 00:57:11 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> > wrote:

> It's that "developing" that concerns me and I have to wonder what
> would have triggered such a response after several hundred hours. Of
> course there is such a thing as thinking about negative consequences
> too much and conditioning one's self to reinforce feelings we didn't
> realize were there. It would be my opinion that it's time to spend
> some time with a good instructor to find out why and to allay those
> fears and turn them into thoughtful concern. Done early this sort of
> thing is far, far easier to handle than later after it's had a chance
> to become entrenched.

This is true.
I have had several occasions in my career when I began to have doubts about
my ability to survive the airshow demonstration venue. I know it happens to
"normal" pilots as well. Usually it's exposure to an element of risk that
for some reason you never actually considered as a high risk factor before.
It causes you to step back and re-evaluate your exposure to risk.
This is a key moment in a pilot's career if it ever happens. Most of the
time it doesn't happen and you just continue on flying, but if you are
exposed suddenly to something traumatic like witnessing a crash, the effect
can be profound in some pilots. This is a point where individual
personalities take hold. Most of us who fly, especially those of us who have
flown professionally are deeply into deductive reasoning (even if we don't
know it :-) and adjust to this kind of exposure by rationalization.
I know I've watched many of my friends killed in airshow crashes. My
rationalization of these incidents was such that I recognized the errors
involved and took necessary steps to avoid making these same errors myself,
or in the case of structrual failures, I rethought my own maintainence
program and adjusted. My bottom line on fear was that I avoided it through
rationalization that barring catestrophic events, I was in control of my own
fate in the air.
I think this works well for the everyday pilot also.
Any normal deductive reasoning by a pilot should yield the rationalization
that if a serious effort is made by a pilot to avoid trouble, barring
catestrophic event, the odds are extremely favorable that one can fly an
airplane through an entire lifetime and emerge safely at the other end of
the road.
For the pilot concerned about the possibility of a mid-air; the best way to
avoid having a mid-air is simply to AVOID having a mid-air.
Dudley

Y'All,
Getting there late again. Every time I find someone has read my site talk
about traffic avoidance by selected altitudes and checkpoint avoidance I
find that I have increased my risk of a mid-air.

I have found a way to prove the validity of flying at selected altitudes.

Fly at 2750 feet AGL and watch the number of aircraft that pass above and
below you. Problem is that pretty soon everyone will be doing it and coming
at you from any direction.

Reasons not to worry are statistically great but one factor not mentioned in
this thread is that of the people involved in mid-air accidents 50% are
likely
to become survivors. Aside from the airport vicinity hazards, you must
listen and use the radio to wake up those who are coming at your rear with a
greater airspeed.
Gene Whitt

[Roger]

On Wed, 10 May 2006 22:20:58 -0000, Jim Logajan >
wrote:

>"Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote:
>> I've been flying all over the
>> world and much of it, about 13000 hours, crop dusting.
>
>I could see running into tall scarecrows, birds, or the occasional semi-
>trailer Magnum Oil truck while you try to kill Cary Grant, but I can't see
>you encountering many other planes at the low altitudes you probably spent
>all that time flying. :-)

You do generally have to pull up to make the turns and that puts you
into Piper Cub territory.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>By the way, are you the pilot flying this plane:
>http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3024/1358/1600/NBN12.jpg
>
>;-)

[Highflyer]

"Frode Berg" > wrote in message
...
> OK.
>
> I will not speak my mind on this forum if this is what happens.
>
> Thanks to all the insightful posts by all you other people!
>
> I just needed to put some statistics into perspective.
> After all, I witnessed a mid air right before starting my PPL.
>
> However, tha last week I've flown a few times, and haven't thought much
> about it anymore.
>
> I guess mr Ol Shy here is flying around his farm in the middle of nowhere
> at 300 feet in his ultralight.
>
> I only have 250 hours total, and have had 3 close encounters. Not really
> "near misses" apart from one of them, but they were still to me
> uncomfortably close, so you claiming 23.000 hours with none....?
> Hmmm...makes you wonder...
>
> Frode
>

Nope. Old Shy, like I did, started flying about fifty years ago when you
learned to fly by looking out the windows. As a result looking out the
windows becomes a habit when flying. As a result you can see the other
traffic and "near misses" just don't happen very darned often. I have also
been flying about fifty some odd years all over the country includeing some
years flying charters in the NYC area ( yes, it was busy there forty years
ago also ) . In that time I have had two near misses. Both were high
performance turboprops climbing up beneath me on my same course where I had
a hard time seeing them and they were so busy fiddleing with radios and
instruments that neither of them was paying any attention to where they were
going until they looked up and saw my belly filling their windshield.

The other common spot for midairs is short final. You get a high wing on a
straight in approach and a low wing in a tight steep pattern and the low
wing guy can land on top of the high winger. Be especially vigilant around
airports. That is where airplanes often are! :-) Avoid straight in
approachs and always roll level for a short spell on base and look to the
incoming courseline. Be sure to look high and low because you never know
what kind of a glideslope they might be using.

It has worked well for me.

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

[Jim Macklin]

The closest near miss I've ever had was on final approach
into Wichita [ICT] while giving dual to a student pilot. We
were about number 5 or 6 in the pattern for 19R flying a
Beech Sundowner N18873. These are low-wing with fair
dihedral [for those not familiar]. We were told to extend
downwind by the tower to allow several departures and an
arrival into the pattern. The tower called our base about 4
miles north of the airport. One about a mile final I told
my student that he needed to compensate for the drift as the
wind was changing. I suggested a slip to get aligned and he
dropped the right wing. As is my practice and habit, I
looked in that direction and saw a Cessna 150 about 20 feet
off our wing and just slightly below our altitude. I took
the plane and began a miss and advised the tower. I asked
about the traffic and they told me about the plane I was
following 1/4-1/2 mile ahead I told him about the C150.
Turned out he was to follow us and about 3 miles or so on
downwind his instructor had him turn base. He never saw us
and the tower didn't see the convergence. He turned onto a
collision course and remained under our wing all the way on
base and turning final. I was under radar control and was
probably a little lax, certainly the tower was lax and the
pilots in the C150 had me at 12 O'clock for quite a while
and never saw us. They should have reported to the tower
that they didn't have us and that they were turning base
[w/o clearance].
The pilot had blue eyes and never looked left. The rivets
on a C150 are real big.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P
--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.



"Highflyer" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Frode Berg" > wrote in message
| ...
| > OK.
| >
| > I will not speak my mind on this forum if this is what
happens.
| >
| > Thanks to all the insightful posts by all you other
people!
| >
| > I just needed to put some statistics into perspective.
| > After all, I witnessed a mid air right before starting
my PPL.
| >
| > However, tha last week I've flown a few times, and
haven't thought much
| > about it anymore.
| >
| > I guess mr Ol Shy here is flying around his farm in the
middle of nowhere
| > at 300 feet in his ultralight.
| >
| > I only have 250 hours total, and have had 3 close
encounters. Not really
| > "near misses" apart from one of them, but they were
still to me
| > uncomfortably close, so you claiming 23.000 hours with
none....?
| > Hmmm...makes you wonder...
| >
| > Frode
| >
|
| Nope. Old Shy, like I did, started flying about fifty
years ago when you
| learned to fly by looking out the windows. As a result
looking out the
| windows becomes a habit when flying. As a result you can
see the other
| traffic and "near misses" just don't happen very darned
often. I have also
| been flying about fifty some odd years all over the
country includeing some
| years flying charters in the NYC area ( yes, it was busy
there forty years
| ago also ) . In that time I have had two near misses.
Both were high
| performance turboprops climbing up beneath me on my same
course where I had
| a hard time seeing them and they were so busy fiddleing
with radios and
| instruments that neither of them was paying any attention
to where they were
| going until they looked up and saw my belly filling their
windshield.
|
| The other common spot for midairs is short final. You get
a high wing on a
| straight in approach and a low wing in a tight steep
pattern and the low
| wing guy can land on top of the high winger. Be
especially vigilant around
| airports. That is where airplanes often are! :-) Avoid
straight in
| approachs and always roll level for a short spell on base
and look to the
| incoming courseline. Be sure to look high and low because
you never know
| what kind of a glideslope they might be using.
|
| It has worked well for me.
|
| Highflyer
| Highflight Aviation Services
| Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )
|
|
|

[Euan Kilgour]

My advice is this, do your best to see and be seen. Turn your lights
on even on good vis days. Give concise and regular position reports
when you are in non controlled airspace. If you are going to have a
mid air then its one of those unlikely times where you were looking in
the wrong place at the wrong time. I've only been flying about 60
hours and the one near miss I had was when there were only two aircraft
(NORDO aircraft notwithstanding) airborne in 30 square miles. We heard
the other guy broadcast his intentions and knew he was nearby but quick
thinking by my instructor averted disaster. We missed each other by a
fair margin but ATC still radioed us for a position report as they got
a radar alert.

[Bob Chilcoat]

The closest call I've had was returning solo from RDG (Reading, PA) to SMQ
(Somerset, NJ) in a borrowed school Cherokee 140. My flight took me right
through our local practice area at letdown, so I kept my eyes particularly
open. I entered a very extended 45 for 30, and continued to descend, all
the time watching for traffic. When I was a couple of miles out, I
announced that I was "over route 22 on the 45 for 30, Somerset", and by this
time, had descended to 1,200 feet. For some reason, I decided to go ahead
and descend to 1,100 feet (pattern altitude) at that point, which was what
my first instructor (a 79-year-old veteran) had always insisted on, but was
lower than what every other instructor I had after Lou wanted. When I got
to the "horse farm", our standard reporting point on the 45 for SMQ, I was
about to make a second call when one of the other school Cherokees announced
that he was "over the horse farm at 1,200 feet". While grabbing the mike,
I looked up very carefully and could still see no one. I immediately
announced that I was "directly over the horse farm at 1,100 feet, where are
you?" There was a pause, and he then announced that he was "climbing". I
had dropped down to 1,000 feet instinctively, but didn't have a lot of room
to maneuver, so I made my turn to downwind a bit lower than usual. Someone
at the FBO said "good job, guys". As I turned, I could finally see him
continuing on the 45 over the field. I landed and then waited for him to
park it, too. We figured out that we had probably been within 100 feet of
each other, one directly above the other, all the way from the practice
area. He'd heard my position report over 22, but because he couldn't see
me, decided that it must have been somewhere else (he was a student and we
share the CTAF with five or six airports in the area). He couldn't see me
because of his wing, and I couldn't see him because of the roof overhead.
Even leaning out over the glare shield and jamming my head against the side
window, in the seconds before my "where are you?" announcement, I could not
see him. Scary.

Ever since then I make some S turns before starting my decent. While doing
this I look both up and down for aircraft overhead and underneath.

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)


"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:N9S9g.20788$ZW3.17105@dukeread04...
> The closest near miss I've ever had was on final approach
> into Wichita [ICT] while giving dual to a student pilot. We
> were about number 5 or 6 in the pattern for 19R flying a
> Beech Sundowner N18873. These are low-wing with fair
> dihedral [for those not familiar]. We were told to extend
> downwind by the tower to allow several departures and an
> arrival into the pattern. The tower called our base about 4
> miles north of the airport. One about a mile final I told
> my student that he needed to compensate for the drift as the
> wind was changing. I suggested a slip to get aligned and he
> dropped the right wing. As is my practice and habit, I
> looked in that direction and saw a Cessna 150 about 20 feet
> off our wing and just slightly below our altitude. I took
> the plane and began a miss and advised the tower. I asked
> about the traffic and they told me about the plane I was
> following 1/4-1/2 mile ahead I told him about the C150.
> Turned out he was to follow us and about 3 miles or so on
> downwind his instructor had him turn base. He never saw us
> and the tower didn't see the convergence. He turned onto a
> collision course and remained under our wing all the way on
> base and turning final. I was under radar control and was
> probably a little lax, certainly the tower was lax and the
> pilots in the C150 had me at 12 O'clock for quite a while
> and never saw us. They should have reported to the tower
> that they didn't have us and that they were turning base
> [w/o clearance].
> The pilot had blue eyes and never looked left. The rivets
> on a C150 are real big.
>
>
> --
> James H. Macklin
> ATP,CFI,A&P
> --
> The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
> But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
> some support
> http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
> See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.
>
>
>
> "Highflyer" > wrote in message
> ...
> |
> | "Frode Berg" > wrote in message
> | ...
> | > OK.
> | >
> | > I will not speak my mind on this forum if this is what
> happens.
> | >
> | > Thanks to all the insightful posts by all you other
> people!
> | >
> | > I just needed to put some statistics into perspective.
> | > After all, I witnessed a mid air right before starting
> my PPL.
> | >
> | > However, tha last week I've flown a few times, and
> haven't thought much
> | > about it anymore.
> | >
> | > I guess mr Ol Shy here is flying around his farm in the
> middle of nowhere
> | > at 300 feet in his ultralight.
> | >
> | > I only have 250 hours total, and have had 3 close
> encounters. Not really
> | > "near misses" apart from one of them, but they were
> still to me
> | > uncomfortably close, so you claiming 23.000 hours with
> none....?
> | > Hmmm...makes you wonder...
> | >
> | > Frode
> | >
> |
> | Nope. Old Shy, like I did, started flying about fifty
> years ago when you
> | learned to fly by looking out the windows. As a result
> looking out the
> | windows becomes a habit when flying. As a result you can
> see the other
> | traffic and "near misses" just don't happen very darned
> often. I have also
> | been flying about fifty some odd years all over the
> country includeing some
> | years flying charters in the NYC area ( yes, it was busy
> there forty years
> | ago also ) . In that time I have had two near misses.
> Both were high
> | performance turboprops climbing up beneath me on my same
> course where I had
> | a hard time seeing them and they were so busy fiddleing
> with radios and
> | instruments that neither of them was paying any attention
> to where they were
> | going until they looked up and saw my belly filling their
> windshield.
> |
> | The other common spot for midairs is short final. You get
> a high wing on a
> | straight in approach and a low wing in a tight steep
> pattern and the low
> | wing guy can land on top of the high winger. Be
> especially vigilant around
> | airports. That is where airplanes often are! :-) Avoid
> straight in
> | approachs and always roll level for a short spell on base
> and look to the
> | incoming courseline. Be sure to look high and low because
> you never know
> | what kind of a glideslope they might be using.
> |
> | It has worked well for me.
> |
> | Highflyer
> | Highflight Aviation Services
> | Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )
> |
> |
> |
>
>

[Highflyer]

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 10 May 2006 15:20:32 -0700, Mark Hansen
> > wrote:
>
> I've had thee close encounters since 1963. The last was nearly 10
> years ago when landing. It was nearly dark and an ultralight pulled
> right in front of me just a few hundred feet off the ground when I was
> on final. The two previous "close encounters" were back in the 60's
> and within a couple of weeks of each other.
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

Most midair collisions seem to happen on a line aligned with the center of
the runway and on an approach course. The classic midair, and probably the
most common, is a low wing airplane making a steep final above a highwing
airplane making a shallow final. Once they turn final, neither can see the
other.

The best cure is a thorough scan of the airport traffic area when
approaching and a good look all around during all of the turns in the
pattern. I also STRONGLY recommend at least a short wings level portion on
the base leg when you can excercise the opportunity to thoroughly scan to
your right for aircraft on a straight in approach. Remember, they can be on
just about any approach slope from 2 degrees up to around 10 degrees. More
than 10 degrees and it is probably a space shuttle and you are landing on
the wrong runway! :-)

Always look for people 100 feet or so above or below the pattern altitude.
Also remember that the former "standard" pattern altitude was 800 feet AGL
while the current "standard" pattern altitude seems to be 1000 feet AGL.
Most airports use one or the other for their pattern altitude. At a strange
airport you may easily find yourself proudly using the wrong one, or, if you
are useing the correct one someone else may be using the other. Always
check both carefully.

Also check the pattern on BOTH sides of the runway. Someone may think there
is a right/left hand pattern in effect and be using the incorrect one.
When winds are light and variable virtually any runway may be in use.

I remember one time starting my flare at the Flying W Ranch in New Jersey
and looking up and seeing a Cessna 310 doing the exact same thing at the
other end of the runway! It got MY attention! :-)

Also be extremely careful if there are intersecting runways. Even if they
only intersect or almost intersect at one end. I remember one very
interesting landing at Philadelphia Internation back in the sixties. I was
in a Piper Apache landing to the west. I was number two after a Boeing 720
landing to the south. Those runways kinda intersect at the east end of the
EW runway and the north end of the NS runway. The big Boeing went by and
touched down off to my left. I was on short final over the river when I
suddenly found my self rolling at a very rapid rate well past ninety
degrees. I didn't see anyway possible that I could stop the roll and roll
back before I landed so I pushed and cranked in the direction of the roll.
I completed the roll and came wings level and then the mains touched down.
I really hadn't intended an aileron roll on short final, but that's what
happened. My charter pax were two airline pilots flying in for their ride.
They were a bit pale when they climbed out of that Peachy Apache! Of
course I was the cool calm and collected high time charter jock. I thanked
them for the business, closed the door, and proceeded to get takeoff
clearance back the way I came in, and took off to the east. As I got out
over the river the door popped open. The cool, calm and collected high time
charter jock hadn't remembered to latch the darn door. I can say from
experience that if you are solo in a Piper Apache and the door pops open you
are NOT going to get it closed and latched unless you land. There was no
way I was going to turn around and go back into PHL! I flew on down to
Bridgeton, NJ and landed there and closed and latched the door. Then I flew
on home to MIV. Another day in the life of a charter jock! :-)

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

[Dudley Henriques[_1_]]

"Highflyer" > wrote in message
...
> I remember one time starting my flare at the Flying W Ranch in New Jersey
> and looking up and seeing a Cessna 310 doing the exact same thing at the
> other end of the runway! It got MY attention! :-)

That was probably Bill Whitesell!
:-)
Dudley

[Stefan]

Highflyer schrieb:

>> I've had thee close encounters since 1963. The last was nearly 10
>> years ago when landing.

The most dangerous near misses are those which you'll never know.

Stefan

[Roger[_4_]]

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 10:01:50 +0200, Stefan >
wrote:

>Highflyer schrieb:
>
>>> I've had thee close encounters since 1963. The last was nearly 10
>>> years ago when landing.
>
>The most dangerous near misses are those which you'll never know.

Near miss. No, I've never had one that almost missed me.
The closest was about a foot with the top of the tail of a Comanche
under my seat. Although that vertical stabilizer had to be closer to
that to the wheels on the old Piper Colt. He was flying the express
way low and I do mean low. He had to gain altitude for the overpass
and there we were on final for 36.

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

[[email protected]]

Stefan wrote:
>
> The most dangerous near misses are those which you'll never know.
>
> Stefan


I can see where the original poster's apprehension stems from, having
flown once, from the FO's seat. I wasn't at all inhibited in doing a
stall, steepish banks and other jiggles - in fact, I did them all
merrily. But I was petrified throughout the ride because the craft, a
JetFox, didn't have a radar and the only way of recognizing traffic in
the immediate neighborhood was by actually looking out the window. Just
felt a sense of being helplessly vulnerable in an open sky. It might go
away if I fly more, because the Capn seemed very assured :)

Is it correct to assume that one can always be whacked by traffic
coming from between the 4 and 8 o'clock positions, especially if the
other craft is faster and climbing?

Ramapriya

[Jim Macklin]

Military fighter radar sees other airplanes that are in the
area (a small area) in front of the fighter. That's why the
has ground based surveillance radar and airborne
surveillance radar, such as AWACS, so somebody can tell the
fighter pilot that there is a target at his 2 or 3 o'clock
position, 20 miles.

The radar in civilian airplanes does not see other airplanes
because the radar is on a frequency band designed to see
water droplets and the antenna is too small to have a
resolution high enough to see things like airplanes or cars.
Why does it see water, because the water droplet resonates
and returns a good return to the radar, if it is liquid.
Ice in the form of hail is hard for an airborne radar to see
since the solid water doesn't have the same properties.

Bottom line is that, you can't use weather radar to detect
targets, you might be able to see an oil tanker broadside at
5 miles, but not head on. What does work is systems that
detect the transponder in the other airplane and present a
warning display.


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

> wrote in message
oups.com...
| Stefan wrote:
| >
| > The most dangerous near misses are those which you'll
never know.
| >
| > Stefan
|
|
| I can see where the original poster's apprehension stems
from, having
| flown once, from the FO's seat. I wasn't at all inhibited
in doing a
| stall, steepish banks and other jiggles - in fact, I did
them all
| merrily. But I was petrified throughout the ride because
the craft, a
| JetFox, didn't have a radar and the only way of
recognizing traffic in
| the immediate neighborhood was by actually looking out the
window. Just
| felt a sense of being helplessly vulnerable in an open
sky. It might go
| away if I fly more, because the Capn seemed very assured
:)
|
| Is it correct to assume that one can always be whacked by
traffic
| coming from between the 4 and 8 o'clock positions,
especially if the
| other craft is faster and climbing?
|
| Ramapriya
|

[[email protected]]

Jim Macklin wrote:
>
> What does work is systems that detect the transponder in the other airplane and present
> a warning display.
> --
> James H. Macklin
> ATP,CFI,A&P


That's what I went, a tad naively, expecting to find, although Bob
Moore had given me a sneak peek at what I could reasonably hope to see,
which was *not* an A320 layout :)

But nothing could prepare me from the vulnerability I felt when
airborne.

Ramapriya

[Jim Macklin]

It is a big sky. Years ago the FAA [it is said] did a study
to show how safe aviation would be if all their ATC plans
were fully funded and they could control every airplane from
taxi to shutdown in the US airspace system. They came up
with some tens of millions of flight hours between mid-air
collisions, something like a chance every hour of
0.000000015 collisions per hour. Somebody asked what kind
of improvement this was over no control at all. They had a
university do a study and the number came back...
0.000000019.

Big sky, few airplanes. The hazards at and near the busy,
big airports. To a degree, the rules that say all traffic
flies at cardinal altitudes concentrates traffic at certain
places, such as 17,500 feet or 10,000 feet because those
altitudes [in the USA] are where rules change.

You do clearing turns, shallow turns and you look for other
airplanes. Airplanes at your altitude look to be on the
horizon, airplanes above you are above the horizon and
airplanes below you are below the horizon and are harder to
see because of the ground. But you look for moving shadows
on the ground at low altitude. You run all you lights and
hope the other guy is also. You look out the windows. You
look for small dark spots that don't seem to move because
things on a collision course have zero relative motion.

But the human eye seems motion better than it does small
dark spots.

In areas of high traffic, there are often radio procedures
used to announce intentions. There are IR detectors that
can "see" the strobe lights on an airplane and they do have
systems that can detect the transponder of other aircraft.
And they are developing data-link systems that will put a
ground based radar display in the cockpit of those airplanes
and countries that can afford the cost.


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

> wrote in message
ps.com...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| >
| > What does work is systems that detect the transponder in
the other airplane and present
| > a warning display.
| > --
| > James H. Macklin
| > ATP,CFI,A&P
|
|
| That's what I went, a tad naively, expecting to find,
although Bob
| Moore had given me a sneak peek at what I could reasonably
hope to see,
| which was *not* an A320 layout :)
|
| But nothing could prepare me from the vulnerability I felt
when
| airborne.
|
| Ramapriya
|

[Jose[_1_]]

> Near miss. No, I've never had one that almost missed me.

That would be a "nearly miss". A near miss is a miss. A deep lake is a
lake. A red rose is a rose. A heavy rain is a rain.

A near miss is a miss.

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

[Jim Macklin]

ATC has a box around each IFR airplane, no other airplane
should be in that box. The size of the box changes, but in
general [somebody will surely correct me] is 1,000 above and
below within a distance of from 5 to 20 miles. Anything
closer and it is a near-miss. When you are close enough to
see the individual rivets or make out the color of the other
pilot's eyes, it is also a near-miss.

{I know, loss of separation}



"Jose" > wrote in message
...
|> Near miss. No, I've never had one that almost missed me.
|
| That would be a "nearly miss". A near miss is a miss. A
deep lake is a
| lake. A red rose is a rose. A heavy rain is a rain.
|
| A near miss is a miss.
|
| 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 Sun, 30 Jul 2006 08:28:06 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote in
<Mt2zg.84637$ZW3.19317@dukeread04>::

>You do clearing turns, shallow turns and you look for other
>airplanes. Airplanes at your altitude look to be on the
>horizon, airplanes above you are above the horizon and
>airplanes below you are below the horizon and are harder to
>see because of the ground. But you look for moving shadows
>on the ground at low altitude. You run all you lights and
>hope the other guy is also. You look out the windows. You
>look for small dark spots that don't seem to move because
>things on a collision course have zero relative motion.
>
>But the human eye seems motion better than it does small
>dark spots.
>
>In areas of high traffic, there are often radio procedures
>used to announce intentions. There are IR detectors that
>can "see" the strobe lights on an airplane and they do have
>systems that can detect the transponder of other aircraft.
>And they are developing data-link systems that will put a
>ground based radar display in the cockpit of those airplanes
>and countries that can afford the cost.

Military flights, though exempt from FAR § 91.117's 250 knot maximum
speed restriction below 10,000', do not detect Mode C transponder
beacons (no TCAS).


[rec.aviation.military added]

[Jim Macklin]

True, but often they have an AWACS or military ground radar.



"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
| On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 08:28:06 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
| > wrote in
| <Mt2zg.84637$ZW3.19317@dukeread04>::
|
| >You do clearing turns, shallow turns and you look for
other
| >airplanes. Airplanes at your altitude look to be on the
| >horizon, airplanes above you are above the horizon and
| >airplanes below you are below the horizon and are harder
to
| >see because of the ground. But you look for moving
shadows
| >on the ground at low altitude. You run all you lights
and
| >hope the other guy is also. You look out the windows.
You
| >look for small dark spots that don't seem to move because
| >things on a collision course have zero relative motion.
| >
| >But the human eye seems motion better than it does small
| >dark spots.
| >
| >In areas of high traffic, there are often radio
procedures
| >used to announce intentions. There are IR detectors that
| >can "see" the strobe lights on an airplane and they do
have
| >systems that can detect the transponder of other
aircraft.
| >And they are developing data-link systems that will put a
| >ground based radar display in the cockpit of those
airplanes
| >and countries that can afford the cost.
|
| Military flights, though exempt from FAR § 91.117's 250
knot maximum
| speed restriction below 10,000', do not detect Mode C
transponder
| beacons (no TCAS).
|
|
| [rec.aviation.military added]

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 11:35:46 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote:

>True, but often they have an AWACS or military ground radar.
>

No kidding? They also often have their own radar and have been trained
to look at it and interpret it with greater detail than following an
up/down arrow on a TCAS. They've also been trained to provide their
own separation and to operate in areas without the
all-seeing/all-knowing motherliness of Air Traffic Control.

Nevertheless as Mr. Dighera incessantly points out, "stuff"
happens--but it ain't murder.

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

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article <5Z2zg.84642$ZW3.6823@dukeread04>,
"Jim Macklin" > wrote:

> ATC has a box around each IFR airplane, no other airplane
> should be in that box. The size of the box changes, but in
> general [somebody will surely correct me] is 1,000 above and
> below within a distance of from 5 to 20 miles. Anything
> closer and it is a near-miss. When you are close enough to
> see the individual rivets or make out the color of the other
> pilot's eyes, it is also a near-miss.
>
> {I know, loss of separation}


The above posting is not correct. IFR planes have a unique box *only*
against other IFR traffic -- VFR traffic is not mentioned. That is why
you *have* to keep a lookout for traffic when you are under IFR.

An IFR may report a "near miss" when a VFR does not consider it to be a
threat. The "1000 above or below within 5 to 20 miles" applie only to
Class A airspace, *not* to B, C, D, etc.; else traffic flow would
trickle to a halt.

[Tom McQuinn]

Orval Fairbairn wrote:

>
> The above posting is not correct. IFR planes have a unique box *only*
> against other IFR traffic -- VFR traffic is not mentioned. That is why
> you *have* to keep a lookout for traffic when you are under IFR.
>
> An IFR may report a "near miss" when a VFR does not consider it to be a
> threat. The "1000 above or below within 5 to 20 miles" applie only to
> Class A airspace, *not* to B, C, D, etc.; else traffic flow would
> trickle to a halt.

That's the way I understand it. My closest encounter ever was while IFR
in VMC. My instructor said, "I have the airplane", and we went into a
steep dive. I pulled off the hood to see a Cessna pass over that we
would have hit head on. We complained to ATC and they showed no
interest. I did some reading and came to the conclusion that their
primary job is to keep IFR traffic separated. If they have time, then
yeah, they can and should route you around a storm cell or some VFR
traffic but those tasks are not their primary mission.

I'm sure any errors and omissions in the above will be taken care of by
folks more knowledgeable than I am in this area.

Tom

[Jim Macklin]

With a few possible exceptions, fighter aircraft radar is
two types, a search and a fire control radar. Both have a
fairly small cone in which to detect a target. They depend
on being vectored in the general direction of a threat in
order to detect a target. Also, military aircraft have
radar detectors that warn the pilot/crew that they are being
painted by somebody's radar.

But it isn't really a system designed for anti-collision
use, but to keep from being shot down or to find a target to
shoot. The F14 even has a telescope to allow visual
confirmation of targets that are 100 miles away after the
radar has found the target, rules of engagement require
visual confirmation.


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

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
| On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 11:35:46 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
| > wrote:
|
| >True, but often they have an AWACS or military ground
radar.
| >
|
| No kidding? They also often have their own radar and have
been trained
| to look at it and interpret it with greater detail than
following an
| up/down arrow on a TCAS. They've also been trained to
provide their
| own separation and to operate in areas without the
| all-seeing/all-knowing motherliness of Air Traffic
Control.
|
| Nevertheless as Mr. Dighera incessantly points out,
"stuff"
| happens--but it ain't murder.
|
| Ed Rasimus
| Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
| "When Thunder Rolled"
| www.thunderchief.org
| www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 11:35:46 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote in
<sm5zg.84645$ZW3.36876@dukeread04>::

>
>True, but often they have an AWACS or military ground radar.
>

True. But how often can military ground radar paint low level
targets?

To me, if the military is going to train at high-speed in joint use
airspace in the same sky as civil aircraft (most all of which are
equipped with Mode C transponders), it would be prudent for those
aircraft to be TCAS equipped. But, I suppose we'll have to wait for
more military/civil midair collisions before anything is done about,
if then.

[[email protected]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 11:35:46 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
> > wrote in
> <sm5zg.84645$ZW3.36876@dukeread04>::
>
> >
> >True, but often they have an AWACS or military ground radar.
> >
>
> True. But how often can military ground radar paint low level
> targets?
>
> To me, if the military is going to train at high-speed in joint use
> airspace in the same sky as civil aircraft (most all of which are
> equipped with Mode C transponders), it would be prudent for those
> aircraft to be TCAS equipped. But, I suppose we'll have to wait for
> more military/civil midair collisions before anything is done about,
> if then.

Larry, how about once getting your facts straight? All current
production US fighters (and most operational ones - except A-10s, early
F-16s, and early F-18s) have transponder interrogators perfectly
capable of detecting Mode 3/C transponders, using any squawk. Most
also have PD radars that can easily detect conflicting traffic over a
120 degree cone in front - at low altitude. And AWACS can see both.
So what is your problem, other than a pathological hatred of the
military? You seem to think military aviators are oblivious to the
threat of mid-airs. Newsflash, dude - they are much better trained,
more professional, and safer than any civilian bug-smasher driver - and
I've been on both sides.

If civilians read the NOTAMS, checked their charts (oh yeah - remember
those?), and did a little preflight planning, they could easily avoid
conflict with military traffic. But that would take some precious time
and effort, wouldn't it.

How about getting civilian pilots to stay current, not fly in IMC
without a clearance or training, and maintain their aircraft to minimum
levels of safety - then you would possibly see a decrease in GA
accidents and fatalities.

Kirk
2000 hrs in F-4s
100 hours in AWACS
600 hours in ASEL
2000 hours in gliders

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 17:01:33 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> wrote in
>::

>On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 11:35:46 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote:
>
>>True, but often they have an AWACS or military ground radar.
>>
>
>No kidding? They also often have their own radar and have been trained
>to look at it and interpret it with greater detail than following an
>up/down arrow on a TCAS.

Unfortunately, military pilots often have their on-board radar set to
reject slow moving targets like light GA aircraft, so it isn't being
used for collision avoidance with civil aircraft. That should change.

>They've also been trained to provide their
>own separation and to operate in areas without the
>all-seeing/all-knowing motherliness of Air Traffic Control.

Some have;some haven't:

Civil aircraft to the right of military aircraft:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20050126X00109&key=1

F-16s lacked required ATC clearance:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X22313&key=1

A6 pilot expected to exit MTR eight minutes after route closure:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X12242&key=1

A6 hit glider that had right of way:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001213X33340&key=1

>Nevertheless as Mr. Dighera incessantly points out, "stuff"
>happens--

If I infer your intent correctly, the 'stuff' to which you
euphemistically refer are the deaths of civil pilots due to being
impaled in midair collisions by high-speed, low-level military
aircraft often on MTR runs.

>but it ain't murder.

Some are, and some aren't.

But the military's miserable record in reprimanding its airmen who
wrongfully kill innocent pilots, and shortsighted safety initiatives
are pathetic. You've got to agree, that rocketing through congested
terminal airspace at 500 knots without the required ATC clearance,
lopping 9' of wingtip from a glider with an A6, and failing to see and
avoid a crop duster are manslaughter, which is called Third Degree
Murder in Florida.

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 13:11:22 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote:

>With a few possible exceptions, fighter aircraft radar is
>two types, a search and a fire control radar.

Actually that's only one weapon system radar. The radar searches, if
necessary a target is designated and data is fed to weapons, and if
necessary the radar is focussed on a sub-set of the entire scan
envelope to track the target. Some systems allow for multiple track,
some for continuous scanning while simultaneously tracking, some
hand-off to autonomous weapons which don't need updates from the
launch platform.

> Both have a
>fairly small cone in which to detect a target.

Well, if you call 45-60 degrees left and right of center and multiple
bar width scan a small cone, I guess you're right. But if we are
discussing clearing your own flight path, the scan is very adequate.

> They depend
>on being vectored in the general direction of a threat in
>order to detect a target.

Quite simply NO! While GCI vectoring is fine (or AWACS), older systems
worked quite nicely with dedicated search sectors for flight members
(fighters don't fly alone,) and new systems have data fusion systems
that integrate data from multiple sources in the aircraft display.

> Also, military aircraft have
>radar detectors that warn the pilot/crew that they are being
>painted by somebody's radar.

RHAW or RWR is not relevant to the discussion of flight path clearance
here. It also is dependent upon antennae and programming to detect the
appropriate frequency and pulse rates of threat radars for
presentation.
>
>But it isn't really a system designed for anti-collision
>use, but to keep from being shot down or to find a target to
>shoot.

Or for navigation or for mutual support or for flight path clearance
or for weather avoidance, etc. etc.

> The F14 even has a telescope to allow visual
>confirmation of targets that are 100 miles away after the
>radar has found the target, rules of engagement require
>visual confirmation.

Some F-4E aircraft had TISEO and some F-15s had a system called Eagle
Eye (might have had other nomenclature or been updated later) but
these weren't reaching out to 100 miles.

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

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 19:14:53 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 17:01:33 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> wrote in
>::
>
>>On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 11:35:46 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote:
>>
>>>True, but often they have an AWACS or military ground radar.
>>>
>>
>>No kidding? They also often have their own radar and have been trained
>>to look at it and interpret it with greater detail than following an
>>up/down arrow on a TCAS.
>
>Unfortunately, military pilots often have their on-board radar set to
>reject slow moving targets like light GA aircraft, so it isn't being
>used for collision avoidance with civil aircraft. That should change.

And what military aircraft radars are using MTI with thresholds above
GA aircraft speeds? Stick with what you know, Larry. Avoid discussions
of specific military equipment, training, tactics, procedures, are
even attitudes.
>
>>They've also been trained to provide their
>>own separation and to operate in areas without the
>>all-seeing/all-knowing motherliness of Air Traffic Control.
>
>Some have;some haven't:

How much training experience in the military aviation business do you
have? Stick with what you know--apparently Google searches are your
forte:
>
> Civil aircraft to the right of military aircraft:
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20050126X00109&key=1
>
> F-16s lacked required ATC clearance:
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X22313&key=1
>
> A6 pilot expected to exit MTR eight minutes after route closure:
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X12242&key=1
>
> A6 hit glider that had right of way:
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001213X33340&key=1
>
>>Nevertheless as Mr. Dighera incessantly points out, "stuff"
>>happens--
>
>If I infer your intent correctly, the 'stuff' to which you
>euphemistically refer are the deaths of civil pilots due to being
>impaled in midair collisions by high-speed, low-level military
>aircraft often on MTR runs.

Or, conversely the numbers of deaths of military pilots due to
mid-airs with GA pilots operating cluelessly in restricted, warning,
prohibited airspace, MOAs and oil burner routes. It's a two-edged
sword, Larry.
>
>>but it ain't murder.
>
>Some are, and some aren't.

Mid-airs aren't murder. Accidents happen. Most accident boards find
causative factors. But it isn't murder.
>
>But the military's miserable record in reprimanding its airmen who
>wrongfully kill innocent pilots, and shortsighted safety initiatives
>are pathetic.

You are the pathetic one with innuendo, hyperbole, exaggeration and
disgusting rhetoric. No one goes out to have a mid-air.

> You've got to agree, that rocketing through congested
>terminal airspace at 500 knots without the required ATC clearance,
>lopping 9' of wingtip from a glider with an A6, and failing to see and
>avoid a crop duster are manslaughter, which is called Third Degree
>Murder in Florida.

Until you can show me some experience in flying a military tactical
aircraft in a leadership position of a flight of four in congested
airspace with weather factors involved, I'll simply discount your
commentary as someone with a fixation.



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

[Larry Dighera]

On 30 Jul 2006 12:01:10 -0700, wrote in
. com>::

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 11:35:46 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
>> > wrote in
>> <sm5zg.84645$ZW3.36876@dukeread04>::
>
>> To me, if the military is going to train at high-speed in joint use
>> airspace in the same sky as civil aircraft (most all of which are
>> equipped with Mode C transponders), it would be prudent for those
>> aircraft to be TCAS equipped. But, I suppose we'll have to wait for
>> more military/civil midair collisions before anything is done about,
>> if then.
>
>Larry, how about once getting your facts straight?

I try, but it's difficult for a civilian to get information on
military aircraft.

>All current production US fighters (and most operational ones -
>except A-10s, early F-16s, and early F-18s) have transponder
>interrogators perfectly capable of detecting Mode 3/C transponders,
>using any squawk.

Thank you for this information. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be
the entire story.

On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 04:20:45 GMT, "Lego" >
wrote:

Interpreting the scope is a different matter (see above post). It
requires a great deal of training and targets can be missed.
(especially slow moving low flying aircraft for which the
radar isn't optimized) The radar isn't magic... it isn't like a
video game. >The radar will sweep until ... 1- The air to ground
radar is selected. This is used to update the system. 2 - A
visual fix is being updated . We don't fly in air to ground mode
as it is worthless unless you are updating your system or doing
some kind of weapon employment. It is a fact that the radar is
always on. Ask any F-16 pilot

In the four military/civil MACs at the links below, you'll find no
mention of military radar use for traffic deconfliction.

>Most also have PD radars that can easily detect conflicting traffic over a
>120 degree cone in front - at low altitude.

While the aircraft may be so equipped, is the radar to which you refer
required to be used for _collision_avoidance_ during the time military
aircraft are operating in joint use airspace? Can you cite a
regulation that so mandates it?

>And AWACS can see both.

Both, transponders and targets?

How common is it for AWACS to be employed for MTR training flights?

>So what is your problem, other than a pathological hatred of the
>military?

I have absolutely no enmity toward military pilots; in fact I respect
them for their bravery and skill.

The source of my concern is strictly a matter of self preservation.

Military fighter aircraft pilots have little physical harm to fear
from colliding with a typical GA aircraft due to the weight and speed
differential as well as a much more robust airframe and ejection seat
to provide them with a safe landing. The GA pilot is like a
fluttering moth poised hovering above the rush hour traffic in such a
situation. His chances of survival in a collision are slight at best.
I have to share the sky with the military, and their military/civil
MAC record isn't as good as one would expect.

Please take the time to objectively research these mishaps, and see if
you don't begin to understand my point of view:

Civil aircraft to the right of military aircraft:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20050126X00109&key=1

F-16s lacked required ATC clearance:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X22313&key=1

A6 pilot expected to exit MTR eight minutes after route closure:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X12242&key=1

A6 hit glider that had right of way:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001213X33340&key=1


>You seem to think military aviators are oblivious to the
>threat of mid-airs.

I believe their commanders do not appreciate the hazard to the public
their high-speed, low-level operations pose to civil aviation. And I
think their safety procedures lack due prudence. But what I find most
troubling is the lack of consequences a military aviator faces as a
result of carelessness, incompetence, recklessness, and regulation
violations. If the military pilot thinks he can disintegrate a civil
flight, punch out, and live to fly another day without loss of rank,
pay, or freedom, what incentive does he have to watch out for us
little guys with whom he shares the skies?

>Newsflash, dude - they are much better trained,
>more professional, and safer than any civilian bug-smasher driver - and
>I've been on both sides.

I would expect nothing less.

Most civil aircraft are incapable of achieving any where near the
speed of military aircraft, so the same level of skill isn't required
of civil pilots. The cost of military aircraft is hundreds of times
more than the typical civil aircraft, so the pilots are not selected
as carefully. And civil pilots are not screened and tested to the
same standards as military pilots. Thanks for the flash. :-(

>If civilians read the NOTAMS, checked their charts (oh yeah - remember
>those?), and did a little preflight planning, they could easily avoid
>conflict with military traffic. But that would take some precious time
>and effort, wouldn't it.

There are those civil airmen who do the things you suggest, and there
are those who are negligent, but none of those actions would have
prevented the for mishaps above.

And it is completely unreasonable and negligent for the FAA to expect
a Cessna 172 pilot to have adequate time to search his windscreen for
conflicting traffic, identify it, and take effective evasive action
when the closing speed is in excess of 500 knots.

Further, the inequity in expecting the civil pilot to evade the hazard
caused by high-speed, low-level military operations is unjust. The
military should be _solely_ responsible for the hazards they create.

>How about getting civilian pilots to stay current, not fly in IMC
>without a clearance or training, and maintain their aircraft to minimum
>levels of safety - then you would possibly see a decrease in GA
>accidents and fatalities.

You can attempt to steer the discussion toward civil airman
incompetence, but this message thread is about MACs.

>Kirk
>2000 hrs in F-4s
>100 hours in AWACS
>600 hours in ASEL
>2000 hours in gliders

I'm impressed by those numbers, but not by your attitude.

I would expect to see some true safety consciousness, and remorse for
the carnage and destruction of civil pilots and aircraft caused by
military/civil mishaps. Oh well...

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 17:25:32 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote in >::

>He is sometimes a little..... Humm, I don't know which word to use, here. <g>

How about 'honest'?

[Morgans[_3_]]

> wrote

> Larry, how about once getting your facts straight?

> So what is your problem, other than a pathological hatred of the
> military? You seem to think military aviators are oblivious to the
> threat of mid-airs. Newsflash, dude - they are much better trained,
> more professional, and safer than any civilian bug-smasher driver - and
> I've been on both sides.
>

You'll have to excuse Larry. He is sometimes a little..... Humm, I don't
know which word to use, here. <g>

Thanks for the info, though!
--
Jim in NC

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Ed Rasimus > wrote:

(snip)>
> Or, conversely the numbers of deaths of military pilots due to
> mid-airs with GA pilots operating cluelessly in restricted, warning,
> prohibited airspace, MOAs and oil burner routes. It's a two-edged
> sword, Larry.

IIRC, Ed, only in prohibited airspace can a mil pilot not expect to
encounter a civil VFR. Restricted airspace can be "cold," thus available
to VFR use. MOAs and oil Burner routes are *NOT* protected airspace!

They may, or may not be charted -- only ATC knows if the military is
active in them, so the responsibility of collision avoidance falls on
all pilots -- especially those operating beyond 250 KIAS.


>
> Mid-airs aren't murder. Accidents happen. Most accident boards find
> causative factors. But it isn't murder.

It depends on the nature of caution exercised in their avoidance.
Blasting through Class B or C airspace at 500 KIAS, without a clearance
is certainly highly negligent.

(snip)

> > You've got to agree, that rocketing through congested
> >terminal airspace at 500 knots without the required ATC clearance,
> >lopping 9' of wingtip from a glider with an A6, and failing to see and
> >avoid a crop duster are manslaughter, which is called Third Degree
> >Murder in Florida.
>
> Until you can show me some experience in flying a military tactical
> aircraft in a leadership position of a flight of four in congested
> airspace with weather factors involved, I'll simply discount your
> commentary as someone with a fixation.


That is what we have restricted areas for -- not to be done in congested
airspace.

[WaltBJ]

You want somebody with experience leading a flight of four in congested
airspace? Voila - here I am. 1967-1971 and 1976-1980 at Homestead AFB
as an RTU instructor pilot going from Homestead to Avon Park and back
with 4 F4s. Most the time leading the flight; sometimes in the back
seat of #3 as a back-up flight lead, to the tune of about 800 hours.
Most flights were on an IFR clearance up around 25000 (depending on
ATC); others VFR down at 1000 feet and 360K as the WSOs learned about
low-level nav and radar mapping. Once inside Avon Park Range, skipping
about between 15,000 and the deck from 300 to 500K; eyes peeled for
careless or ignorant GA birds tooling through our private airspace.
Note that all rpt all fighter crews are graded on visual and radar
lookout. When leader spots a bogey in your sector before you do - you
will hear about it during debrief. Bogey-spotting equals life to a
fighter crew member even in these days of good radar. And I notice Mr.
Dighera omits any mention of air transport aircraft running into GA
aircraft and vice-versa; as occurred several times on the West Coast to
the loss of several hundred lives.
Walt BJ

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 21:04:46 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>On 30 Jul 2006 12:01:10 -0700, wrote in
. com>::
>
>>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 11:35:46 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
>>> > wrote in
>>> <sm5zg.84645$ZW3.36876@dukeread04>::
>>
>>> To me, if the military is going to train at high-speed in joint use
>>> airspace in the same sky as civil aircraft (most all of which are
>>> equipped with Mode C transponders), it would be prudent for those
>>> aircraft to be TCAS equipped. But, I suppose we'll have to wait for
>>> more military/civil midair collisions before anything is done about,
>>> if then.
>>
>>Larry, how about once getting your facts straight?
>
>I try, but it's difficult for a civilian to get information on
>military aircraft.

That's what we've been trying to point out to you. You don't know what
you are talking about. Lacking information on systems, training,
procedures, responsibilities, attitudes, etc. you are simply asserting
an unfounded opinion.
>
>>All current production US fighters (and most operational ones -
>>except A-10s, early F-16s, and early F-18s) have transponder
>>interrogators perfectly capable of detecting Mode 3/C transponders,
>>using any squawk.
>
>Thank you for this information. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be
>the entire story.

You following cut/paste doesn't have squat to do with what was said.
>
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 04:20:45 GMT, "Lego" >
> wrote:

Wait, your source is "Lego" at earthlink????
>
> Interpreting the scope is a different matter (see above post). It
> requires a great deal of training and targets can be missed.

OF course it requires a great deal of training! That's why folks who
get to drive the expensive iron get so much training.

> (especially slow moving low flying aircraft for which the
> radar isn't optimized)

You don't seem to get the concept of pulse doppler radar. Low-flying
aircraft are just as visible today as high flyers. The old days of
lost in ground clutter went away more than 25 years ago.

>The radar isn't magic... it isn't like a
> video game.

Smartest thing you said this year. It isn't a video game. It's a
complex weapon system.

>The radar will sweep until ...

....until the operator selects "stand-by" or "off".

> 1- The air to ground
> radar is selected. This is used to update the system.

"Lego" apparently doesn't know that the radar will still sweep in A/G
modes. It will "update" if an update mode is selected for weapons or
nav by the operator. Changing from A/G to A/A modes doesn't usually
impact system updates.

> 2 - A
> visual fix is being updated .

Updating nav visually will have nothing to do with radar sweeping or
not. "Lego" seems out to lunch again.

>We don't fly in air to ground mode
> as it is worthless unless you are updating your system or doing
> some kind of weapon employment.

Typically a tactical aircraft will be maneuvering in an A/A mode. The
A/G modes will be employed for low-level nav routes, for A/G weapons
delivery, or for long range mapping as a verification of position or
route guidance. A/G modes would be used for nav system (INS) update.
Anyone who says A/G modes are worthless sounds like they are not
familiar with the weapons system.

> It is a fact that the radar is
> always on. Ask any F-16 pilot

Profound!
>
>In the four military/civil MACs at the links below, you'll find no
>mention of military radar use for traffic deconfliction.

This is the second posting of the list in this thread. You're becoming
repititous and redundant. The last time and this time, the links were
not relevant to the point being addressed.
>
>>Most also have PD radars that can easily detect conflicting traffic over a
>>120 degree cone in front - at low altitude.
>
>While the aircraft may be so equipped, is the radar to which you refer
>required to be used for _collision_avoidance_ during the time military
>aircraft are operating in joint use airspace? Can you cite a
>regulation that so mandates it?

Common sense, rather than regulations, mandates that the operator use
every method at his/her disposal to deconflict the flight path.
Situational awareness requires you to make your best effort to know
the disposition of all of the player which might influence your
flight. This isn't TCAS. It isn't meant to be.
>
>>And AWACS can see both.
>
>Both, transponders and targets?

Another admission of cluelessness? Two in one post? YES! BOTH!
>
>How common is it for AWACS to be employed for MTR training flights?

Not common at all. The reason being that ATC and military approach
control facilities are available. AWACS is used to control battle
zones where full ground environment control is not available. Do you
feel you might learn something here?
>
>>So what is your problem, other than a pathological hatred of the
>>military?
>
>I have absolutely no enmity toward military pilots; in fact I respect
>them for their bravery and skill.
>
>The source of my concern is strictly a matter of self preservation.

Then look out the window. Use common sense. Fly 20-30 hours per month
in day, night and weather conditions.
>
>Military fighter aircraft pilots have little physical harm to fear
>from colliding with a typical GA aircraft due to the weight and speed
>differential as well as a much more robust airframe and ejection seat
>to provide them with a safe landing.

Bull****! A mid-air in a high performance aircraft isn't a dented
fender. An ejection isn't a "safe" procedure and jettisoning a $50
million dollar aircraft, particularly in a populated area is not done
lightly.

> The GA pilot is like a
>fluttering moth poised hovering above the rush hour traffic in such a
>situation.

Not very wise of the fluttering moth to be in such a precarious
situation. Seems like the moth should take some personal
responsibility.

> His chances of survival in a collision are slight at best.
>I have to share the sky with the military, and their military/civil
>MAC record isn't as good as one would expect.

How many mid-air collisions per year does the military have? You've
repeatedly cited four, but let's go back over 25 years. How many? How
many were with your fluttering moths? Oh, not many, heh.

I flew fighters for 23 years in combat, in training, in Asia, Europe
and the US. I never had a mid-air. No one in my squadron ever had a
mid-air. No one in my wing ever had a mid-air. I know of one mid-air
at a base where I was located. It took place in 1967 and was between
an F-5A and an F-5B in an A/A engagement.
>
>Please take the time to objectively research these mishaps, and see if
>you don't begin to understand my point of view:
>
> Civil aircraft to the right of military aircraft:
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20050126X00109&key=1
>
> F-16s lacked required ATC clearance:
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X22313&key=1
>
> A6 pilot expected to exit MTR eight minutes after route closure:
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X12242&key=1
>
> A6 hit glider that had right of way:
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001213X33340&key=1
>
>
>>You seem to think military aviators are oblivious to the
>>threat of mid-airs.
>
>I believe their commanders do not appreciate the hazard to the public
>their high-speed, low-level operations pose to civil aviation.

Commanders of flying units actively fly the aircraft with the members
of their unit. They rise to command after years in the profession. If
you believe they "do not appreciate the hazard" you once again
demonstrate that you don't have a clue.


> And I
>think their safety procedures lack due prudence.

Have you attended a military flying safety course? A flying safety
meeting? Know a flying safety officer? Seen a local procedures manual?
Sat through an operational training course? Have you done any similar
things as a civilian pilot--they are generally non-existant. What you
"think" is irrelevant and unencumbered by facts.

> But what I find most
>troubling is the lack of consequences a military aviator faces as a
>result of carelessness, incompetence, recklessness, and regulation
>violations.

A detailed investigation, an accident board and a corollary board,
plus possible court martial don't satisfy you? You can be troubled if
you want, but you're still an ignorant twit.

> If the military pilot thinks he can disintegrate a civil
>flight, punch out, and live to fly another day without loss of rank,
>pay, or freedom, what incentive does he have to watch out for us
>little guys with whom he shares the skies?

That is such an outrageous statement that I feel I would be taking
advantage of someone to point out its ridiculousness.
>
>>Newsflash, dude - they are much better trained,
>>more professional, and safer than any civilian bug-smasher driver - and
>>I've been on both sides.
>
>I would expect nothing less.
>
>Most civil aircraft are incapable of achieving any where near the
>speed of military aircraft, so the same level of skill isn't required
>of civil pilots. The cost of military aircraft is hundreds of times
>more than the typical civil aircraft, so the pilots are not selected
>as carefully.

I assume you left out "civilian" pilots are not selected as carefully.
The cost isn't the issue. The life or death consequences are the
issue.

> And civil pilots are not screened and tested to the
>same standards as military pilots. Thanks for the flash. :-(
>
>>If civilians read the NOTAMS, checked their charts (oh yeah - remember
>>those?), and did a little preflight planning, they could easily avoid
>>conflict with military traffic. But that would take some precious time
>>and effort, wouldn't it.
>
>There are those civil airmen who do the things you suggest, and there
>are those who are negligent, but none of those actions would have
>prevented the for mishaps above.

The point being made was that there have been many more than four
instances of civilian errors leading to mishaps with military
aircraft. You don't seem as upset by them.
>
>And it is completely unreasonable and negligent for the FAA to expect
>a Cessna 172 pilot to have adequate time to search his windscreen for
>conflicting traffic, identify it, and take effective evasive action
>when the closing speed is in excess of 500 knots.

Yet, unreasonable and negligent or not that is EXACTLY what the FAA
requires you to do. Unfair, but if you don't like it stay on the
ground.
>
>Further, the inequity in expecting the civil pilot to evade the hazard
>caused by high-speed, low-level military operations is unjust. The
>military should be _solely_ responsible for the hazards they create.

Anyone who causes a mid-air is responsible. Assigning "sole"
responsibility indicates you live in some sort of fantasy world. You
can't be irresponsible on your side of the equation.

>>How about getting civilian pilots to stay current, not fly in IMC
>>without a clearance or training, and maintain their aircraft to minimum
>>levels of safety - then you would possibly see a decrease in GA
>>accidents and fatalities.
>
>You can attempt to steer the discussion toward civil airman
>incompetence, but this message thread is about MACs.
>
>>Kirk
>>2000 hrs in F-4s
>>100 hours in AWACS
>>600 hours in ASEL
>>2000 hours in gliders
>
>I'm impressed by those numbers, but not by your attitude.

And, I've not seen any numbers of yours and I'm sick and tired of your
attitude.
>
>I would expect to see some true safety consciousness, and remorse for
>the carnage and destruction of civil pilots and aircraft caused by
>military/civil mishaps. Oh well...

Carnage and destruction my ass. Get over it. Look out the window. If
you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Flying is inherently
dangerous. That's what makes it so thrilling.


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

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:41:50 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> wrote in
>::

>On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 19:14:53 GMT, Larry Dighera >
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 17:01:33 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> wrote in
>::
>>
>>Unfortunately, military pilots often have their on-board radar set to
>>reject slow moving targets like light GA aircraft, so it isn't being
>>used for collision avoidance with civil aircraft. That should change.
>
>And what military aircraft radars are using MTI with thresholds above
>GA aircraft speeds?

As I recall, it was during the discussion of the November 16, 2000
MAC, that a military pilot mentioned in rec.aviation.military, that
military radars were not appropriate for traffic deconfliction (my
paraphrase).

>>
>>>They've also been trained to provide their
>>>own separation and to operate in areas without the
>>>all-seeing/all-knowing motherliness of Air Traffic Control.
>>
>>Some have;some haven't:
>
>How much training experience in the military aviation business do you
>have? Stick with what you know--apparently Google searches are your
>forte:

You can bluster all you like, but failing to acknowledge the
culpability of the military in each of the military/civil MAC NTSB
reports I cited, is tacit agreement that each was the fault of the
military flight.

>>
>> Civil aircraft to the right of military aircraft:
>> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20050126X00109&key=1
>>
>> F-16s lacked required ATC clearance:
>> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X22313&key=1
>>
>> A6 pilot expected to exit MTR eight minutes after route closure:
>> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X12242&key=1
>>
>> A6 hit glider that had right of way:
>> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001213X33340&key=1
>>
>>>Nevertheless as Mr. Dighera incessantly points out, "stuff"
>>>happens--
>>
>>If I infer your intent correctly, the 'stuff' to which you
>>euphemistically refer are the deaths of civil pilots due to being
>>impaled in midair collisions by high-speed, low-level military
>>aircraft often on MTR runs.
>
>Or, conversely the numbers of deaths of military pilots due to
>mid-airs with GA pilots operating cluelessly in restricted, warning,
>prohibited airspace, MOAs and oil burner routes.

That is interesting. I hadn't considered that, especially MOAs,
Warning, and Oil Burner Routes.

If civil flights cause a MAC in Restricted or Prohibited airspace due
to lack of a ATC clearance, they are culpable. But the others are
joint use airspace. Each civil and military flight within them is by
regulation responsible for visual see-and-avoid separation in VMC.

The military doesn't own MOAs, Warning, and Oil Burner Routes. The
source of the hazard, in my opinion, is the high speed of the military
aircraft affording insufficient time for successful traffic
deconfliction. That has to be acknowledged, and modifications made to
assure some likelihood of avoiding a MAC.

Perhaps you'd be good enough to invest the requisite time to research
representative NTSB reports that illustrate the types of MACs to which
you refer. That might be productive.

>It's a two-edged sword, Larry.

Indeed.

>>>but it ain't murder.
>>
>>Some are, and some aren't.
>
>Mid-airs aren't murder. Accidents happen. Most accident boards find
>causative factors. But it isn't murder.

Florida law defines third-degree murder as the killing of a person
without intent or premeditation, a terminology that in other states
would closely match the interpretation of manslaughter crimes.

That makes it murder in Florida. Out.

>>But the military's miserable record in reprimanding its airmen who
>>wrongfully kill innocent pilots, and shortsighted safety initiatives
>>are pathetic.
>
>You are the pathetic one with innuendo, hyperbole, exaggeration and
>disgusting rhetoric.

I am unaware of any deliberate innuendo.

I would have to see examples of hyperbole to be able to find facts
that support those statements.

Perhaps it is your prejudice that obstructs your objective
comprehension of the facts, and makes you so incredulous as to think
you needn't bother with them.

>No one goes out to have a mid-air.

I'll agree with you there. Just like no one intends to cause an auto
accident.

But certain flaws in judgment can constitute criminal negligence. And,
the FAA's regulatory exemption to system limitations can easily
precipitate a high-speed, low-level MAC. It's time the whole issue
were reexamined.

>> You've got to agree, that rocketing through congested
>>terminal airspace at 500 knots without the required ATC clearance,
>>lopping 9' of wingtip from a glider with an A6, and failing to see and
>>avoid a crop duster are manslaughter, which is called Third Degree
>>Murder in Florida.
>
>Until you can show me some experience in flying a military tactical
>aircraft in a leadership position of a flight of four in congested
>airspace with weather factors involved, I'll simply discount your
>commentary as someone with a fixation.
>

The flight to which that statement referred was a flight of two,
visibility >10 miles.

I am unable to find any reasonable excuse for what Parker did. It was
a clear day. He was descending into Class B airspace, canceled IFR,
and dove his flight of two into the terminal airspace at twice the
speed limit imposed on all other aircraft in that airspace without ATC
clearance. He may have lost situational awareness, but I find it
impossible to believe he didn't know that continuing his descent would
put him within Class B airspace without a clearance and without
communications with ATC. That's against regulations.

He broke other regulations in preparation for the flight. His failure
to comply with regulations resulted in the death of an ATP rated
airman, and the destruction of a $30-million aircraft, not to mention
the hazard he caused to those on the ground, his wingman, and other
flights. For this, he did not lose any pay, rank, nor have to pay a
fine nor restitution, nor was he incarcerated, as a civilian might be.
That is a public example of injustice. It does not endear the
military to the public, nor does it strike fear in the hearts of other
military airmen who would commit similar acts of hubris or
incompetence. Face it.

To turn a blind eye to the facts on the grounds that you have military
fighter experience, and I don't, is patently ridiculous, and telling.
Take the time to cool down a bit. Read the NTSB reports; they're
short and interesting. Invest the requisite time to mentally put
yourself in the position of the command pilot of each flight. Try to
envision what could be done to prevent that type of MAC from occurring
in the future.

Offer some constructive insight and information. You won't look so
shaken. And with your experience and additional point of view, we'll
ALL learn something.

Perhaps safety can be enhanced. What do you think?

[Larry Dighera]

On 30 Jul 2006 15:10:51 -0700, "WaltBJ" >
wrote in om>::

>And I notice Mr. Dighera omits any mention of air transport aircraft running into GA
>aircraft and vice-versa; as occurred several times on the West Coast to
>the loss of several hundred lives.

If you are referring to the Cerritos midair of 1986, it caused a
regulation change that resulted in all GA aircraft with electrical
systems being equipped with Mode C transponders for use in terminal
airspace.

What is being done as a result of the MACs caused by the military's
hazardous, high-speed, low-level operations? Nothing.

[Red Rider[_2_]]

A telescope, ROTFLMAO. "Shiver me timbers mate's, pieces of eight on dead
men's chest" and all that other pirate talk, The telescope must have been
introduced by the "Jolly Rogers". The mental image of a GIB from
VF-84/VF-103 standing up in the back seat scanning the sky with a spyglass
and shouting to the pilot, "Thar be the target!" was just too much for me to
bear.

It's an "AN/AXX-1 Television Camera Set (TCS)". Even with enhancements and
under the best of conditions you can probably ID a DC-10 at 80 miles, F-111
at 40 miles, C-130 at 35 miles and F-5 at 10 miles. However there are newer
designs that may be able to do better, especially with all the computing
power available today in smaller packages.


"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:FF6zg.84651$ZW3.43673@dukeread04...
> With a few possible exceptions, fighter aircraft radar is
> two types, a search and a fire control radar. Both have a
> fairly small cone in which to detect a target. They depend
> on being vectored in the general direction of a threat in
> order to detect a target. Also, military aircraft have
> radar detectors that warn the pilot/crew that they are being
> painted by somebody's radar.
>
> But it isn't really a system designed for anti-collision
> use, but to keep from being shot down or to find a target to
> shoot. The F14 even has a telescope to allow visual
> confirmation of targets that are 100 miles away after the
> radar has found the target, rules of engagement require
> visual confirmation.
>
>
> --
> James H. Macklin
> ATP,CFI,A&P
>
> "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> ...
> | On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 11:35:46 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
> | > wrote:
> |
> | >True, but often they have an AWACS or military ground
> radar.
> | >
> |
> | No kidding? They also often have their own radar and have
> been trained
> | to look at it and interpret it with greater detail than
> following an
> | up/down arrow on a TCAS. They've also been trained to
> provide their
> | own separation and to operate in areas without the
> | all-seeing/all-knowing motherliness of Air Traffic
> Control.
> |
> | Nevertheless as Mr. Dighera incessantly points out,
> "stuff"
> | happens--but it ain't murder.
> |
> | Ed Rasimus
> | Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> | "When Thunder Rolled"
> | www.thunderchief.org
> | www.thundertales.blogspot.com
>
>

[588]

Orval al wrote:
> In article >,
> Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>
> (snip)>
>> Or, conversely the numbers of deaths of military pilots due to
>> mid-airs with GA pilots operating cluelessly in restricted, warning,
>> prohibited airspace, MOAs and oil burner routes. It's a two-edged
>> sword, Larry.
>
> IIRC, Ed, only in prohibited airspace can a mil pilot not expect to
> encounter a civil VFR.

> That is what we have restricted areas for -- not to be done in congested
> airspace.


Which is it, Orv?



Jack

[[email protected]]

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
> The above posting is not correct. IFR planes have a unique box *only*
> against other IFR traffic -- VFR traffic is not mentioned. That is why
> you *have* to keep a lookout for traffic when you are under IFR.


Er... what do you mean by "keep a lookout for traffic under IFR"?
Lookout on the radar, surely??

Ramapriya

[588]

Larry Dighera wrote:

>> Larry, how about once getting your facts straight?
>
> I try, but it's difficult for a civilian to get information on
> military aircraft.

It never seems to stop you from pretending that you do know.


> Military fighter aircraft pilots have little physical harm to fear
> from colliding with a typical GA aircraft....

An unwarranted assumption, apparently based on an obsessive
ignorance, considering your perennial ranting on this subject and
lack of regard for information that has been provided to you
repeatedly over a period of years.

I've never known a fighter pilot to have anything but respect for
the potential of a midair -- more, in fact than the average
transport pilot, and immensely more than the average light plane
pilot, in my experience.

Apparently, all your "experience" was bought at the news stand,
considering how little relevance your complaints have to the real world.


Jack

[588]

Larry Dighera wrote:


> ...failing to acknowledge the
> culpability of the military in each of the military/civil MAC NTSB
> reports I cited, is tacit agreement that each was the fault of the
> military flight.


Failing to acknowledge culpability is the same as admitting fault,
in your world?

This explains a lot.


Jack

[588]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> What is being done as a result of the MACs caused by the military's
> hazardous, high-speed, low-level operations?

Perhaps we should consider some of the alternatives.

How about we turn all the airspace associated with the low level
training routes into restricted airspace?

That works for me.


Jack

[Jim Macklin]

With a telephoto lens, all telescopes have electronic
displays, but many pilots carry [ied] binoculars.


"Red Rider" > wrote in message
m...
|A telescope, ROTFLMAO. "Shiver me timbers mate's, pieces of
eight on dead
| men's chest" and all that other pirate talk, The telescope
must have been
| introduced by the "Jolly Rogers". The mental image of a
GIB from
| VF-84/VF-103 standing up in the back seat scanning the sky
with a spyglass
| and shouting to the pilot, "Thar be the target!" was just
too much for me to
| bear.
|
| It's an "AN/AXX-1 Television Camera Set (TCS)". Even with
enhancements and
| under the best of conditions you can probably ID a DC-10
at 80 miles, F-111
| at 40 miles, C-130 at 35 miles and F-5 at 10 miles.
However there are newer
| designs that may be able to do better, especially with all
the computing
| power available today in smaller packages.
|
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:FF6zg.84651$ZW3.43673@dukeread04...
| > With a few possible exceptions, fighter aircraft radar
is
| > two types, a search and a fire control radar. Both have
a
| > fairly small cone in which to detect a target. They
depend
| > on being vectored in the general direction of a threat
in
| > order to detect a target. Also, military aircraft have
| > radar detectors that warn the pilot/crew that they are
being
| > painted by somebody's radar.
| >
| > But it isn't really a system designed for anti-collision
| > use, but to keep from being shot down or to find a
target to
| > shoot. The F14 even has a telescope to allow visual
| > confirmation of targets that are 100 miles away after
the
| > radar has found the target, rules of engagement require
| > visual confirmation.
| >
| >
| > --
| > James H. Macklin
| > ATP,CFI,A&P
| >
| > "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in
message
| > ...
| > | On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 11:35:46 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
| > | > wrote:
| > |
| > | >True, but often they have an AWACS or military ground
| > radar.
| > | >
| > |
| > | No kidding? They also often have their own radar and
have
| > been trained
| > | to look at it and interpret it with greater detail
than
| > following an
| > | up/down arrow on a TCAS. They've also been trained to
| > provide their
| > | own separation and to operate in areas without the
| > | all-seeing/all-knowing motherliness of Air Traffic
| > Control.
| > |
| > | Nevertheless as Mr. Dighera incessantly points out,
| > "stuff"
| > | happens--but it ain't murder.
| > |
| > | Ed Rasimus
| > | Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
| > | "When Thunder Rolled"
| > | www.thunderchief.org
| > | www.thundertales.blogspot.com
| >
| >
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

If you're not in a cloud, you are required to look out the
windows.



> wrote in message
oups.com...
| Orval Fairbairn wrote:
| >
| > The above posting is not correct. IFR planes have a
unique box *only*
| > against other IFR traffic -- VFR traffic is not
mentioned. That is why
| > you *have* to keep a lookout for traffic when you are
under IFR.
|
|
| Er... what do you mean by "keep a lookout for traffic
under IFR"?
| Lookout on the radar, surely??
|
| Ramapriya
|

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 05:45:01 GMT, 588 > wrote in
>::

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>> What is being done as a result of the MACs caused by the military's
>> hazardous, high-speed, low-level operations?
>
>Perhaps we should consider some of the alternatives.
>
>How about we turn all the airspace associated with the low level
>training routes into restricted airspace?
>
>That works for me.
>

That repugnant solution occurred to me also. Great minds ...

But, that is only one alternative.

An equally onerous solution would be to curtail MTR operations in the
CONUS.

In my opinion, a more just and equitable solution to the hazard caused
by MTR operations, would be to:

1. Have the military assume sole responsibility for the hazard
their speed regulation exemption causes.

2. Equip military aircraft operating on MTRs with collision
avoidance equipment. (this is actually being done slowly).

3. Actually prosecute military pilots who collide with civil
aircraft not participating in their maneuvers.

One would remove the inequity imposed on civil pilots by the speed
regulation exemption that permits the military to cause this hazard to
civil aviation operations.

Two is a simple technical fix that is so obvious as to make its
omission a glaring example of governmental inelegance. While the cost
may deter its implementation, the cost of the destroyed military
aircraft and law suit settlements has to exceed the cost of
implementing it.

Three is an attempt to get the military to actually discipline its
ranks. And it would send a clear message to those hot shot military
pilots who ignore regulations, that they will face personal
consequences for their transgressions. The reprimand received by the
flight lead who led his wingman into a fatal collision with the Cessna
in Florida is an affront to the concept of justice, a public black eye
for military justice, and encourages other military pilots to flout
regulations.

(I know you were just venting, but perhaps you can tap that great mind
of yours, and come up with some constructive comments. It is easy to
be destructive like a suicide bomber, but it takes effort to be
constructive like those who built what the bombers' explosives
destroy. Hopefully, the effort won't be too difficult for you.)

--

There is no expedient to which a man will not resort
to avoid the real labor of thinking.
-- Sir Joshua Reynolds

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 05:39:05 GMT, 588 > wrote in
>::

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>
> > ...failing to acknowledge the
>> culpability of the military in each of the military/civil MAC NTSB
>> reports I cited, is tacit agreement that each was the fault of the
>> military flight.
>
>
>Failing to acknowledge culpability is the same as admitting fault,
>in your world?
>

Deliberately failing to even read the NTSB reports of military/civil
MACs shows a fear of facing the facts. If one fears facing facts, he
has tacitly implied he is uncomfortable acknowledging the truth, and
thus implied he believes the military culpable.

The truth is, that the military pilots in those MACs:

1. Collided with a glider that had the right of way.

2. Violated regulations resulting in the death of a civil pilot.

3. Failed to see-and-avoid a crop duster while operating on a MTR
beyond the active time period submitted to the FAA.

4. Collided with a civil aircraft approaching from the right, and
thus had the right-of-way.

Given those facts, as contained in the NTSB reports, it's easy to see
why Mr. Rasimus shied away from informing himself about them.

You can attempt to discredit me personally by deliberately
misinterpreting my words, but you will not be successful if you fail
to discuss the issues I have raised. So far you haven't even
attempted to do that in good faith. I think that says a lot more
about your honesty and integrity than I could ever manage.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 05:23:24 GMT, 588 > wrote in
>::

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>>> Larry, how about once getting your facts straight?
>>
>> I try, but it's difficult for a civilian to get information on
>> military aircraft.
>
>It never seems to stop you from pretending that you do know.

Without an example of that to which you are referring, I am unable to
comment.

>> Military fighter aircraft pilots have little physical harm to fear
>> from colliding with a typical GA aircraft....
>
>An unwarranted assumption, apparently based on an obsessive
>ignorance, considering your perennial ranting on this subject and
>lack of regard for information that has been provided to you
>repeatedly over a period of years.

I am unaware of any information presented to me in the past years that
contradicts my statement.

A fighter pilots ejects and lives. The steaming remains of the pilot
of the aircraft he hit are splattered over four square miles of
country club fairways and greens. Those are the facts. They are not
hyperbole. They were reported by eye witnesses. If you have
contradictory information, please present it. Otherwise, you look
foolish.

>I've never known a fighter pilot to have anything but respect for
>the potential of a midair -- more, in fact than the average
>transport pilot, and immensely more than the average light plane
>pilot, in my experience.

That is a result of the limited set of fighter pilots with whom you
have been in contact. You obviously hadn't known those military
pilots involved in the four military/civil MACs whose NTSB links I
posted.

How would you characterize the respect for a potential midair
demonstrated by Parker when he violated regulations by failing to
brief terminal airspace, and dove into congested Class B and C
airspace with the required ATC clearance? (I don't expect you to
answer that, it would require some courage on your part.)

>Apparently, all your "experience" was bought at the news stand,
>considering how little relevance your complaints have to the real world.

If you consider NTSB and military accident reports, and eye witness
reports unreliable, what information sources meet your criteria for
relevance?

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 05:07:37 GMT, 588 > wrote in
>::

>Orval al wrote:
>> In article >,
>> Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>>
>> (snip)>
>>> Or, conversely the numbers of deaths of military pilots due to
>>> mid-airs with GA pilots operating cluelessly in restricted, warning,
>>> prohibited airspace, MOAs and oil burner routes. It's a two-edged
>>> sword, Larry.
>>
>> IIRC, Ed, only in prohibited airspace can a mil pilot not expect to
>> encounter a civil VFR.
>
>> That is what we have restricted areas for -- not to be done in congested
>> airspace.
>
>
>Which is it, Orv?
>

I'm sure you are intelligent enough to parse Orval's meaning; you're
just being deliberately obtuse, right?

GA aircraft don't enter Prohibited Areas, thus they aren't found
there. Restricted areas were created for hazardous military
operations; terminal airspace is congested and inappropriate for
hazardous military operations.

If I can understand his meaning, surely someone who possesses your
towering intellect should have no trouble comprehending his meaning.

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 01:03:19 GMT, "Red Rider" >
wrote:

>It's an "AN/AXX-1 Television Camera Set (TCS)". Even with enhancements and
>under the best of conditions you can probably ID a DC-10 at 80 miles, F-111
>at 40 miles, C-130 at 35 miles and F-5 at 10 miles. However there are newer
>designs that may be able to do better, especially with all the computing
>power available today in smaller packages.

The F-5 at ten miles with the TCS gave me a flashback moment (and at
my age they are always appreciated.)

Mission was out of Holloman with me leading a T-38 four-ship to the
Red Rio tactical range. Escorted by a pair of F-15As out of the 49th
TFW. Target area defended by a pair of Nellis Aggressor F-5s. Run in
at low altitude at 450 knots (Attn Mr. Dighera--this is what we do.
It's a training situation in controlled restricted airspace. Light
planes HAVE blundered into it despite restrictions.)

Eagles flying out-rigger and slightly aft of my flight. I called
visual on "MiGs, left 11 slightly high at four miles". Eagles with
their cosmic radar and A/A specialization hadn't seen them.

GCI over-seeing the mission confirmed during debrief play-back that
the actual contact distance was 11 miles. Mark 1/Mod O eyeball!!!

Them was the good ol' days.


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

[Jeff Crowell[_1_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> I would have to see examples of hyperbole to be able to find facts
> that support those statements.

also Larry Dighera:
>>> You've got to agree, that rocketing through congested
>>>terminal airspace at 500 knots without the required ATC clearance,

If you speak here of the Florida mishap, there's your example--
the CLOSURE rate was near 500 knots, but not the speed of
the USAF aircraft.

And since he was not aware that he was in terminal airspace
(per a cite you named), there's a deliberate misstatement
to boot.


> I am unable to find any reasonable excuse for what Parker did. It was
> a clear day. He was descending into Class B airspace, canceled IFR,
> and dove his flight of two into the terminal airspace at twice the
> speed limit imposed on all other aircraft in that airspace without ATC
> clearance. He may have lost situational awareness, but I find it
> impossible to believe he didn't know that continuing his descent would
> put him within Class B airspace without a clearance and without
> communications with ATC. That's against regulations.

His nav system position error was sufficient that he was not
aware he was entering terminal airspace. What about that
do you not understand? Or do you simply refuse to believe
it because it isn't convenient?

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

[Mark Hansen]

On 07/30/06 22:22, wrote:
> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>>
>> The above posting is not correct. IFR planes have a unique box *only*
>> against other IFR traffic -- VFR traffic is not mentioned. That is why
>> you *have* to keep a lookout for traffic when you are under IFR.
>
>
> Er... what do you mean by "keep a lookout for traffic under IFR"?
> Lookout on the radar, surely??
>
> Ramapriya
>

You're confusing Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) with Instrument Meteorological
Conditions (IMC). Regardless if the flight is IFR or VFR, when you are in
VMC, you must see and avoid other aircraft (and other flying things as well...)



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[Jose[_1_]]

> Er... what do you mean by "keep a lookout for traffic under IFR"?
> Lookout on the radar, surely??

Nope. Traffic out the window.

In brief, "IFR" is a set of rules to fly by, which permits flying in the
clouds. "IMC" means weather in which one cannot see out the window.
Only IFR airplanes can fly in IMC.

"VMC" means weather in which you =can= see out the window. In that kind
of weather, you can still fly IFR (in fact, if you are in and out of
clouds, you will be in VMC and then in IMC and then back in VMC...).
However, other airplanes may be flying VFR (which is a different set of
rules to fly by). Under VFR (rules), the pilots look out the window and
avoid each other, since they can see.

The upshot is that under IFR (rules), air traffic controllers separate
other IFR traffic from you. They do not separate VFR traffic from you.

If you are in IMC (i.e. clouds) and can't see, there should be no VFR
traffic for you to avoid. If you are in VMC, then (like all other
pilots), you need to look out the window. But, since it's VMC, you can.

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

[Andrew Chaplin]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 01:03:19 GMT, "Red Rider" >
> wrote:
>
>>It's an "AN/AXX-1 Television Camera Set (TCS)". Even with enhancements and
>>under the best of conditions you can probably ID a DC-10 at 80 miles,
>>F-111
>>at 40 miles, C-130 at 35 miles and F-5 at 10 miles. However there are
>>newer
>>designs that may be able to do better, especially with all the computing
>>power available today in smaller packages.
>
> The F-5 at ten miles with the TCS gave me a flashback moment (and at
> my age they are always appreciated.)
>
> Mission was out of Holloman with me leading a T-38 four-ship to the
> Red Rio tactical range. Escorted by a pair of F-15As out of the 49th
> TFW. Target area defended by a pair of Nellis Aggressor F-5s. Run in
> at low altitude at 450 knots (Attn Mr. Dighera--this is what we do.
> It's a training situation in controlled restricted airspace. Light
> planes HAVE blundered into it despite restrictions.)
>
> Eagles flying out-rigger and slightly aft of my flight. I called
> visual on "MiGs, left 11 slightly high at four miles". Eagles with
> their cosmic radar and A/A specialization hadn't seen them.
>
> GCI over-seeing the mission confirmed during debrief play-back that
> the actual contact distance was 11 miles. Mark 1/Mod O eyeball!!!
>
> Them was the good ol' days.

:) F-5s are a bugger to spot, too.

Doing a defence of the Lazy D hill feature at Gagetown (723' ASL in CYR 724)
we had both F-5s and Hornets flying against us. I surprised myself when I
picked up a Hornet of 425 "Alouette" Squadron well out there, about 20 Km
and less than 100 feet off the deck. Its low-visibility grey stood out
against a bright blue sky. Engaging it was cinch as we could track it all
the way in. Minutes later a little dirty green and dark grey F-5 of 434
"Bluenose" Squadron dragged himself out of the Saint John River valley where
he had been about 50 feet above the river and attacked us ground troops --
from below! His crossing rate was so high we could scarcely draw a bead on
him until he was almost at the line of weapon release.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 11:08:39 -0400, "Andrew Chaplin"
> wrote:

>
>:) F-5s are a bugger to spot, too.
>
>Doing a defence of the Lazy D hill feature at Gagetown (723' ASL in CYR 724)
>we had both F-5s and Hornets flying against us. I surprised myself when I
>picked up a Hornet of 425 "Alouette" Squadron well out there, about 20 Km
>and less than 100 feet off the deck. Its low-visibility grey stood out
>against a bright blue sky. Engaging it was cinch as we could track it all
>the way in. Minutes later a little dirty green and dark grey F-5 of 434
>"Bluenose" Squadron dragged himself out of the Saint John River valley where
>he had been about 50 feet above the river and attacked us ground troops --
>from below! His crossing rate was so high we could scarcely draw a bead on
>him until he was almost at the line of weapon release.

When I first arrived at Holloman to IP for IPs at Fighter Lead-In, we
still had a lot of the former Aggressor AT-38s in their various paint
schemes. It was about a year later that they standardized the
blue-blue-gray glossy "Smurf" paint.

I recall being on a 1-v-1 against a brown/tan "Lizard". He closed on
me in a 90 degree beam set-up and I watched him track in from about
three miles until at about 2500 feet he simply disappeared! I had been
pad-locked on him as he closed waiting for him to commit and while
totally focussed on him, he turned on the cloaking device. Most
amazing demonstration of camoflage I had ever seen.


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

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 13:26:19 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 05:23:24 GMT, 588 > wrote in
>::
>
>>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>>>> Larry, how about once getting your facts straight?
>>>
>>> I try, but it's difficult for a civilian to get information on
>>> military aircraft.
>>
>>It never seems to stop you from pretending that you do know.
>
>Without an example of that to which you are referring, I am unable to
>comment.
>
>>> Military fighter aircraft pilots have little physical harm to fear
>>> from colliding with a typical GA aircraft....
>>
>>An unwarranted assumption, apparently based on an obsessive
>>ignorance, considering your perennial ranting on this subject and
>>lack of regard for information that has been provided to you
>>repeatedly over a period of years.
>
>I am unaware of any information presented to me in the past years that
>contradicts my statement.
>
>A fighter pilots ejects and lives. The steaming remains of the pilot
>of the aircraft he hit are splattered over four square miles of
>country club fairways and greens. Those are the facts. They are not
>hyperbole. They were reported by eye witnesses. If you have
>contradictory information, please present it. Otherwise, you look
>foolish.

You wanted an example about you asserting something you apparently
have little familiarity with? How about this part on ejection. Do you
have any idea what the sequence of events is when one ejects? Any
concept of the forces? Know anything about ejection envelopes? You
state it like "he steps off the bus".

We had one incident at Holloman with an AT-38 on a rudder-rig
functional test flight. Shortly after take-off at about 450 knots the
vertical fin and one side of the slab failed pitching the aircraft
violently nose down (liken this to a mid-air result...)

At negative 4Gs, the pilot ejected. Both arms were separated at the
shoulder. One was broken in three place. Both knees were disjointed
and both femurs were broken. As you would state it so simply above, "a
fighter pilot ejected and lived". He lived.
>
>>I've never known a fighter pilot to have anything but respect for
>>the potential of a midair -- more, in fact than the average
>>transport pilot, and immensely more than the average light plane
>>pilot, in my experience.
>
>That is a result of the limited set of fighter pilots with whom you
>have been in contact. You obviously hadn't known those military
>pilots involved in the four military/civil MACs whose NTSB links I
>posted.

In 23 years in the fighter business I have lived, worked, fought wars
with and watched fighter pilots die for their country. Thousands of
them. Don't spout drivel about limited contact.
>
>How would you characterize the respect for a potential midair
>demonstrated by Parker when he violated regulations by failing to
>brief terminal airspace, and dove into congested Class B and C
>airspace with the required ATC clearance? (I don't expect you to
>answer that, it would require some courage on your part.)
>
>>Apparently, all your "experience" was bought at the news stand,
>>considering how little relevance your complaints have to the real world.
>
>If you consider NTSB and military accident reports, and eye witness
>reports unreliable, what information sources meet your criteria for
>relevance?

Once again, after 23 years experience in the fighter business, I have
read, been briefed, and face-to-face discussed hundreds of aircraft
accidents with board members as well as participants. Every single
aircraft accident results in an investigation and a board of inquiry.
Almost all have a "corollary board" after the investigation board
which determines culpability and liability. Some result in Flying
Evaluation Boards which consider the qualifications and retention of
the aviators. And some result in Courts-Martial when malfeasance is
indicated by any of the investigations. Can you get that through your
fixated civilian mentality?



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

[[email protected]]

Thanks a lot, Jose and Jim; much appreciated :)

Ramapriya

Jose wrote:
> > Er... what do you mean by "keep a lookout for traffic under IFR"?
> > Lookout on the radar, surely??
>
> Nope. Traffic out the window.
>
> In brief, "IFR" is a set of rules to fly by, which permits flying in the
> clouds. "IMC" means weather in which one cannot see out the window.
> Only IFR airplanes can fly in IMC.
>
> "VMC" means weather in which you =can= see out the window. In that kind
> of weather, you can still fly IFR (in fact, if you are in and out of
> clouds, you will be in VMC and then in IMC and then back in VMC...).
> However, other airplanes may be flying VFR (which is a different set of
> rules to fly by). Under VFR (rules), the pilots look out the window and
> avoid each other, since they can see.
>
> The upshot is that under IFR (rules), air traffic controllers separate
> other IFR traffic from you. They do not separate VFR traffic from you.
>
> If you are in IMC (i.e. clouds) and can't see, there should be no VFR
> traffic for you to avoid. If you are in VMC, then (like all other
> pilots), you need to look out the window. But, since it's VMC, you can.
>
> Jose
> --
> The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[[email protected]]

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> In article >,
> Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>
> (snip)>
> > Or, conversely the numbers of deaths of military pilots due to
> > mid-airs with GA pilots operating cluelessly in restricted, warning,
> > prohibited airspace, MOAs and oil burner routes. It's a two-edged
> > sword, Larry.
>
> IIRC, Ed, only in prohibited airspace can a mil pilot not expect to
> encounter a civil VFR. Restricted airspace can be "cold," thus available
> to VFR use. MOAs and oil Burner routes are *NOT* protected airspace!
>
> They may, or may not be charted -- only ATC knows if the military is
> active in them, so the responsibility of collision avoidance falls on
> all pilots -- especially those operating beyond 250 KIAS.
>

As a former military air traffic controller I read these posts with
some bemusement. While I don't fully agree with Larry's viewpoint, I
think that some of what he says has merit.

Even ATC (mil or FAA) sometimes doesn't know what is going on with
low-level training routes - I've seen enough of those activities to
know that (at least in my time) they were operated haphazardly, i.e.
they were sometimes legally active when nobody was using them, and
sometimes there were aircraft using the routes when they weren't
legally active. The NOTAMs weren't always valid, sometimes they were
non-existent, the times were off, etc. Most of this was due to a
misfunctioning in the USAF organizations that scheduled airspace usage
and which coordinated with the FAA. Several times I saw airspace
usage/scheduling conflictions which couldn't be solved because it was
the weekend and none of the USAF scheduling people were at work. I
know of several GA-fast mover near-collisions due to GA aircraft going
through OB routes where the route was not legally active but there were
multiple fast-movers on it. If I were a GA pilot I would assume that
any OB route is hot all the time. As far as where low-level training
routes actually are, I also saw a case where the route had been
modified by the USAF and nobody else had been told.

Besides OB route misuse, I've also seen the misuse of special-use
restricted airspace by the military, not by intent but by sheer
laziness.

Military pilots are most of the time professionals but they work in a
system that allows the simultaneous use of airspace by both civilian
and military users, and not everybody is always playing by the same
rules.


John Hairell )

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
588 > wrote:

> Orval al wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Ed Rasimus > wrote:
> >
> > (snip)>
> >> Or, conversely the numbers of deaths of military pilots due to
> >> mid-airs with GA pilots operating cluelessly in restricted, warning,
> >> prohibited airspace, MOAs and oil burner routes. It's a two-edged
> >> sword, Larry.
> >
> > IIRC, Ed, only in prohibited airspace can a mil pilot not expect to
> > encounter a civil VFR.
>
> > That is what we have restricted areas for -- not to be done in congested
> > airspace.
>
>
> Which is it, Orv?


Both restricted and prohibited airspace are "sterile." Actually,
military aircraft also should not be in *prohibited* airspace, OTW, it
is *restricted* airspace.

MOAs, Warning areas and Oil Burner routes are joint use, so we can
expect anybody to be there legally.

[Larry Dighera]

On 31 Jul 2006 09:04:43 -0700, "
> wrote in
. com>::

>
>As a former military air traffic controller I read these posts with
>some bemusement. While I don't fully agree with Larry's viewpoint, I
>think that some of what he says has merit.
>
>Even ATC (mil or FAA) sometimes doesn't know what is going on with
>low-level training routes - I've seen enough of those activities to
>know that (at least in my time) they were operated haphazardly, i.e.
>they were sometimes legally active when nobody was using them, and
>sometimes there were aircraft using the routes when they weren't
>legally active. The NOTAMs weren't always valid, sometimes they were
>non-existent, the times were off, etc. Most of this was due to a
>misfunctioning in the USAF organizations that scheduled airspace usage
>and which coordinated with the FAA. Several times I saw airspace
>usage/scheduling conflictions which couldn't be solved because it was
>the weekend and none of the USAF scheduling people were at work. I
>know of several GA-fast mover near-collisions due to GA aircraft going
>through OB routes where the route was not legally active but there were
>multiple fast-movers on it. If I were a GA pilot I would assume that
>any OB route is hot all the time. As far as where low-level training
>routes actually are, I also saw a case where the route had been
>modified by the USAF and nobody else had been told.
>
>Besides OB route misuse, I've also seen the misuse of special-use
>restricted airspace by the military, not by intent but by sheer
>laziness.
>
>Military pilots are most of the time professionals but they work in a
>system that allows the simultaneous use of airspace by both civilian
>and military users, and not everybody is always playing by the same
>rules.
>
>
>John Hairell )

Thank you for the information, John.

As someone vastly more familiar with this issue than I, can you
suggest the appropriate military people (or specific agency and
division) to contact about resolving some of the safety issues you
raised?

Or (in your opinion) is it futile to expect to get something
meaningful accomplished with involving my congressional
representatives?

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article . com>,
wrote:

> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> >
> > The above posting is not correct. IFR planes have a unique box *only*
> > against other IFR traffic -- VFR traffic is not mentioned. That is why
> > you *have* to keep a lookout for traffic when you are under IFR.
>
>
> Er... what do you mean by "keep a lookout for traffic under IFR"?
> Lookout on the radar, surely??
>
> Ramapriya

No -- look out the damned windshield! You can be on a IFR flight plan in
"severe clear" conditions.

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 17:39:09 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
> wrote:

>In article >,
> 588 > wrote:
>
>> Orval al wrote:
>> > In article >,
>> > Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>> >
>> > (snip)>
>> >> Or, conversely the numbers of deaths of military pilots due to
>> >> mid-airs with GA pilots operating cluelessly in restricted, warning,
>> >> prohibited airspace, MOAs and oil burner routes. It's a two-edged
>> >> sword, Larry.
>> >
>> > IIRC, Ed, only in prohibited airspace can a mil pilot not expect to
>> > encounter a civil VFR.
>>
>> > That is what we have restricted areas for -- not to be done in congested
>> > airspace.
>>
>>
>> Which is it, Orv?
>
>
>Both restricted and prohibited airspace are "sterile." Actually,
>military aircraft also should not be in *prohibited* airspace, OTW, it
>is *restricted* airspace.
>
>MOAs, Warning areas and Oil Burner routes are joint use, so we can
>expect anybody to be there legally.

MOAs typically are at altitudes that place them in positive control
airspace. ATC will not provide clearance for GA aircraft through a MOA
that is in use by the military. MOAs that include airspace below
positive control can have VFR aircraft in transit. We used to get them
all the time in the Beak and Talon MOAs east of Holloman.

However, any airspace that permits VFR flight can have aircraft
transitting without ATC clearance in VMC. Aircraft operating under VFR
in VMC are responsible for their own clearance of their flight route.



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

[Mark Hansen]

On 07/31/06 11:08, Ed Rasimus wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 17:39:09 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
> > wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>> 588 > wrote:
>>
>>> Orval al wrote:
>>> > In article >,
>>> > Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > (snip)>
>>> >> Or, conversely the numbers of deaths of military pilots due to
>>> >> mid-airs with GA pilots operating cluelessly in restricted, warning,
>>> >> prohibited airspace, MOAs and oil burner routes. It's a two-edged
>>> >> sword, Larry.
>>> >
>>> > IIRC, Ed, only in prohibited airspace can a mil pilot not expect to
>>> > encounter a civil VFR.
>>>
>>> > That is what we have restricted areas for -- not to be done in congested
>>> > airspace.
>>>
>>>
>>> Which is it, Orv?
>>
>>
>>Both restricted and prohibited airspace are "sterile." Actually,
>>military aircraft also should not be in *prohibited* airspace, OTW, it
>>is *restricted* airspace.
>>
>>MOAs, Warning areas and Oil Burner routes are joint use, so we can
>>expect anybody to be there legally.
>
> MOAs typically are at altitudes that place them in positive control
> airspace. ATC will not provide clearance for GA aircraft through a MOA
> that is in use by the military. MOAs that include airspace below
> positive control can have VFR aircraft in transit. We used to get them
> all the time in the Beak and Talon MOAs east of Holloman.
>
> However, any airspace that permits VFR flight can have aircraft
> transitting without ATC clearance in VMC. Aircraft operating under VFR
> in VMC are responsible for their own clearance of their flight route.


Actually, *all* aircraft flying in VMC are responsible for "See and Avoid".
This includes aircraft operating under IFR.

>
>
>
> Ed Rasimus


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 12:05:18 -0700, Mark Hansen
> wrote:

>On 07/31/06 11:08, Ed Rasimus wrote:
>>
>> However, any airspace that permits VFR flight can have aircraft
>> transitting without ATC clearance in VMC. Aircraft operating under VFR
>> in VMC are responsible for their own clearance of their flight route.
>
>
>Actually, *all* aircraft flying in VMC are responsible for "See and Avoid".
>This includes aircraft operating under IFR.
>

Very true. The caution we used to spend a lot of time impressing on
UPT students in the USAF was the idea that just because you are on an
IFR clearance is NO GUARANTEE that you are going to be provided safe
separation from traffic. Your clearance only clears you from other IFR
aircraft and then only when in controlled airspace. The VFR guy can
run into you at his own whim.

But, the point that we are beating here is that see-and-avoid is the
basic responsibility of all players all of the time. High speed
aircraft have high agility, low speed aircraft have lots of time to
look, but regardless of your speed you keep the front of your airplane
cleared using all of the tools available to you.

I had to dig up this old RAF Air Marshall quote: "Aviation in itself
is not inherently dangerous but like the sea, is terribly unforgiving
of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect."

We had it on the wall in pilot training years ago. I've also seen it
in 'chute shops over the door where you head out to the airplanes. And
in USAF Flying Safety Offices.


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

[[email protected]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On 31 Jul 2006 09:04:43 -0700, "
>
> As someone vastly more familiar with this issue than I, can you
> suggest the appropriate military people (or specific agency and
> division) to contact about resolving some of the safety issues you
> raised?

You would have to study the entire legal environment of military
operations in US airspace to understand how it works. You need to read
the law, understand how it is applied via regulations and by other
means, and you need to get copies of all of the Letters of Agreement
between the FAA, DOD, and other agencies as to who is allowed to use
what airspace when and who has responsibilities for controlling it.
Only then will you get an idea of who is responsible for what, and at
that time you will find out if you have legal recourse. You will also
need to hunt down all applicable military regulations, SOPs, board
findings, documents, message traffic, etc if you are researching any
specific accident.

Basically you need deep pockets and an attorney who has a deep
background in aviation law and airspace usage. Approaching things from
the standpoint of state law probably won't help.

>
> Or (in your opinion) is it futile to expect to get something
> meaningful accomplished with involving my congressional
> representatives?

Even with congressional help it will be a long uphill battle to get
anything changed in how US airspace is utilized. Even the NTSB can't
make the FAA change, and DOD has a strong pull when it comes to
airspace matters.


John Hairell )

[[email protected]]

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> In article >,
> 588 > wrote:

> Both restricted and prohibited airspace are "sterile." Actually,
> military aircraft also should not be in *prohibited* airspace, OTW, it
> is *restricted* airspace.

Legally, restricted and prohibited airspace are not the same things.
Both are examples of special use airspace, and are regulatory in
nature. There shouldn't be any aircraft operating in prohibited
airspace unless they have authorization from the using agency, be they
government or civilian. There can be all sorts of aircraft operating
in restricted airspace, even civilian ones with authorization. You may
also find artillery shells and anti-aircraft missiles in restricted
airspace, amongst many other aerial hazards. Legally I don't think
there's any such thing as "sterile" airspace. For every type of
airspace prohibition there's an exception that allows somebody to
operate there.

>
> MOAs, Warning areas and Oil Burner routes are joint use, so we can
> expect anybody to be there legally.

>From AIM 3-4-5:

"a. MOAs consist of airspace of defined vertical and lateral limits
established for the purpose of separating certain military training
activities from IFR traffic. Whenever a MOA is being used,
nonparticipating IFR traffic may be cleared through a MOA if IFR
separation can be provided by ATC. Otherwise, ATC will reroute or
restrict nonparticipating IFR traffic."

Note the emphasis on separating military activities from IFR traffic,
not VFR traffic.

Note also that MARSA may be in use on low level training routes and
MOAs and that a military controlling facility that may be using MARSA
may not be able to communicate with civilian aircraft. Also there are
both IFR and VFR low level training routes and procedures differ for
each.


John Hairell )

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 19:49:59 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> wrote in
>::

>But, the point that we are beating here is that see-and-avoid is the
>basic responsibility of all players all of the time.

That is true with the obvious exception of operations in IMC.

>High speed aircraft have high agility, low speed aircraft have lots of time to
>look,

Low-speed aircraft have the same amount of time to spot a high-speed
aircraft before colliding with it as the high-speed aircraft has: the
amount of time it takes for the two aircraft to reach each other.
Pilots of high-speed aircraft must look much farther ahead than pilots
of low-speed aircraft..

> but regardless of your speed you keep the front of your airplane
>cleared using all of the tools available to you.

High-speed aircraft need only scan a much smaller angle of airspace in
front of them than slow speed aircraft.

[[email protected]]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

[stuff snipped]

>
> MOAs typically are at altitudes that place them in positive control
> airspace. ATC will not provide clearance for GA aircraft through a MOA
> that is in use by the military.


GA IFR or GA VFR?

AIM 3-4-5:

"a. MOAs consist of airspace of defined vertical and lateral limits
established for the purpose of separating certain military training
activities from IFR traffic. Whenever a MOA is being used,
nonparticipating IFR traffic may be cleared through a MOA if IFR
separation can be provided by ATC. Otherwise, ATC will reroute or
restrict nonparticipating IFR traffic."

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

FAA 7400.8M subpart B:

"A Military Operations Area (MOA) is airspace established outside
positive control area
to separate/segragate certain nonhazardous military activities from IFR
traffic and to identify for VFR traffic where these activities are
conducted."

[rest snipped]

John Hairell )

[Larry Dighera]

On 31 Jul 2006 13:28:31 -0700, "
> wrote in
. com>::

>Note also that MARSA may be in use on low level training routes and
>MOAs and that a military controlling facility that may be using MARSA
>may not be able to communicate with civilian aircraft.

In those cases where they are unable to communicate with civilian
aircraft, how does the military assume responsibility for separation
of aircraft? Do they relay communications through FAA ATC?

>Also there are both IFR and VFR low level training routes and procedures
>differ for each.

I presume, no separation is provided for flights on low-level IFR
MTRs, while it is provided, or the military takes responsibility for
separation, on IFR MTRs.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 07:59:18 -0600, "Jeff Crowell"
> wrote in >::

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> I would have to see examples of hyperbole to be able to find facts
>> that support those statements.
>
>also Larry Dighera:
>>>> You've got to agree, that rocketing through congested
>>>>terminal airspace at 500 knots without the required ATC clearance,
>
>If you speak here of the Florida mishap, there's your example--
>the CLOSURE rate was near 500 knots, but not the speed of
>the USAF aircraft.

Just to assure that we are all both aware, the definition of
'hyperbole' is: extravagant exaggeration.


The USAF Accident Investigation Board's report:

1. "Based on their closure rate of approximately 480 knots," ...

2. "Speeds of up to 450 knots were noted during the
descent."

Based on 1 above, you are the one who has exaggerated the closing
speed by 20 knots, but we are both human after all.

Based on 2 above, I am guilty of exaggerating the top speed the Ninja
flight reached by 50 knots. I don't classify ~11% as _extravagant_
exaggeration; rather it is my poor recollection of an event that
occurred nearly six years ago. In any event, I apologize for my
error, but I do not see how it may have affected the conclusions I
reached.

>And since he was not aware that he was in terminal airspace
>(per a cite you named), there's a deliberate misstatement
>to boot.

The USAF Accident Investigation Board's report:

"Ninja flight’s mistake was in transitioning to the tactical
portion of their flight too early, unaware that they were in
controlled airspace."

That was President, Accident Investigation Board Robin E. Scott's
opinion. It is not fact.

Despite the fact that Parker failed to brief terminal airspace prior
to the flight as regulations require, I personally find it difficult,
if not impossible, to believe Parker was unaware, that the 60 mile
diameter Tampa Class B terminal airspace lay below him at the time he
chose to descend below 10,000' into it.

Immediately prior to that descent, he was attempting to contact ATC
for clearance to enter Tampa Class B airspace, but failed to make
contact, so he continued his descent into Tampa Class B airspace. If
he were unaware he was over the 60 mile diameter terminal airspace,
what reason would he have had to contact Tampa Approach? Surely
Parker could see the busy international airport below him. So, while
my statement is at odds with the AIB report, I believe it is more
accurate.

If you disagree, I welcome your explanation of how a competent pilot
can possibly be unaware of a 60 mile wide swath of congested terminal
airspace (and that doesn't even include the Class C to the south of
the Class B) that is located immediately north of the MTR start point.

>
>> I am unable to find any reasonable excuse for what Parker did. It was
>> a clear day. He was descending into Class B airspace, canceled IFR,
>> and dove his flight of two into the terminal airspace at twice the
>> speed limit imposed on all other aircraft in that airspace without ATC
>> clearance. He may have lost situational awareness, but I find it
>> impossible to believe he didn't know that continuing his descent would
>> put him within Class B airspace without a clearance and without
>> communications with ATC. That's against regulations.
>
>His nav system position error was sufficient that he was not
>aware he was entering terminal airspace.

The USAF Accident Investigation Board's report:

"The error was such that following INS steering to a selected
point would place the aircraft 9-11 NM south of the desired
location"

In other words, Parker's INS steering erroneously lead him to believe
he was located 9-11 miles north of his true position, because his
flight was southbound at the time. That means, that Parker could not
have thought he had past terminal airspace, and the AIB report
indicates that he believed he was approaching the MTR start point
prior to his descent below 10,000'. The error works against the
theory that it excuses Parker's decisions.

>What about that do you not understand?

You need to re-read that portion of the AIB report dealing with the
INS error that miraculously occurred immediately before his descent.
There was no error earlier in his flight. Read the report, and cite
the portion that contradicts my analysis, if you don't concur.

>Or do you simply refuse to believe it because it isn't convenient?

I refuse to believe your analysis of the effect Parker's INS error
had, because it isn't logical. You need to take the time to
OBJECTIVELY re-analyze that portion of the AIB report.

>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.

Incidentally, what is the 'F-16 Dash 1'? Is it the aircraft operation
manual, that provides information regarding minimum speeds for various
flight regimes?

[Jim Macklin]

Just a question for a fighter pilot, what amount of fuel in
minutes is normally on board when you begin a terminal
penetration? If you have good position and radio contact,
how long does it take to get a tanker hook-up?

Since 9/11, how much fighter cover traffic is in civil
airspace that wasn't there before?[general terms, nothing
classified]

If ATC is slow with a clearance, are you expected to punch
out?



"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
| On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 07:59:18 -0600, "Jeff Crowell"
| > wrote in
>::
|
| >Larry Dighera wrote:
| >> I would have to see examples of hyperbole to be able to
find facts
| >> that support those statements.
| >
| >also Larry Dighera:
| >>>> You've got to agree, that rocketing through congested
| >>>>terminal airspace at 500 knots without the required
ATC clearance,
| >
| >If you speak here of the Florida mishap, there's your
example--
| >the CLOSURE rate was near 500 knots, but not the speed of
| >the USAF aircraft.
|
| Just to assure that we are all both aware, the definition
of
| 'hyperbole' is: extravagant exaggeration.
|
|
| The USAF Accident Investigation Board's report:
|
| 1. "Based on their closure rate of approximately 480
knots," ...
|
| 2. "Speeds of up to 450 knots were noted during the
| descent."
|
| Based on 1 above, you are the one who has exaggerated the
closing
| speed by 20 knots, but we are both human after all.
|
| Based on 2 above, I am guilty of exaggerating the top
speed the Ninja
| flight reached by 50 knots. I don't classify ~11% as
_extravagant_
| exaggeration; rather it is my poor recollection of an
event that
| occurred nearly six years ago. In any event, I apologize
for my
| error, but I do not see how it may have affected the
conclusions I
| reached.
|
| >And since he was not aware that he was in terminal
airspace
| >(per a cite you named), there's a deliberate misstatement
| >to boot.
|
| The USAF Accident Investigation Board's report:
|
| "Ninja flight's mistake was in transitioning to the
tactical
| portion of their flight too early, unaware that they
were in
| controlled airspace."
|
| That was President, Accident Investigation Board Robin E.
Scott's
| opinion. It is not fact.
|
| Despite the fact that Parker failed to brief terminal
airspace prior
| to the flight as regulations require, I personally find it
difficult,
| if not impossible, to believe Parker was unaware, that the
60 mile
| diameter Tampa Class B terminal airspace lay below him at
the time he
| chose to descend below 10,000' into it.
|
| Immediately prior to that descent, he was attempting to
contact ATC
| for clearance to enter Tampa Class B airspace, but failed
to make
| contact, so he continued his descent into Tampa Class B
airspace. If
| he were unaware he was over the 60 mile diameter terminal
airspace,
| what reason would he have had to contact Tampa Approach?
Surely
| Parker could see the busy international airport below him.
So, while
| my statement is at odds with the AIB report, I believe it
is more
| accurate.
|
| If you disagree, I welcome your explanation of how a
competent pilot
| can possibly be unaware of a 60 mile wide swath of
congested terminal
| airspace (and that doesn't even include the Class C to the
south of
| the Class B) that is located immediately north of the MTR
start point.
|
| >
| >> I am unable to find any reasonable excuse for what
Parker did. It was
| >> a clear day. He was descending into Class B airspace,
canceled IFR,
| >> and dove his flight of two into the terminal airspace
at twice the
| >> speed limit imposed on all other aircraft in that
airspace without ATC
| >> clearance. He may have lost situational awareness, but
I find it
| >> impossible to believe he didn't know that continuing
his descent would
| >> put him within Class B airspace without a clearance and
without
| >> communications with ATC. That's against regulations.
| >
| >His nav system position error was sufficient that he was
not
| >aware he was entering terminal airspace.
|
| The USAF Accident Investigation Board's report:
|
| "The error was such that following INS steering to a
selected
| point would place the aircraft 9-11 NM south of the
desired
| location"
|
| In other words, Parker's INS steering erroneously lead him
to believe
| he was located 9-11 miles north of his true position,
because his
| flight was southbound at the time. That means, that
Parker could not
| have thought he had past terminal airspace, and the AIB
report
| indicates that he believed he was approaching the MTR
start point
| prior to his descent below 10,000'. The error works
against the
| theory that it excuses Parker's decisions.
|
| >What about that do you not understand?
|
| You need to re-read that portion of the AIB report dealing
with the
| INS error that miraculously occurred immediately before
his descent.
| There was no error earlier in his flight. Read the
report, and cite
| the portion that contradicts my analysis, if you don't
concur.
|
| >Or do you simply refuse to believe it because it isn't
convenient?
|
| I refuse to believe your analysis of the effect Parker's
INS error
| had, because it isn't logical. You need to take the time
to
| OBJECTIVELY re-analyze that portion of the AIB report.
|
| >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.
|
| Incidentally, what is the 'F-16 Dash 1'? Is it the
aircraft operation
| manual, that provides information regarding minimum speeds
for various
| flight regimes?
|

[[email protected]]

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> >
> > Er... what do you mean by "keep a lookout for traffic under IFR"?
> > Lookout on the radar, surely??
> >
> > Ramapriya
>
> No -- look out the damned windshield! You can be on a IFR flight plan in
> "severe clear" conditions.


Point taken, thanks. The mistake I made was in thinking that IFR = fly
by instruments, with no visibility outside. I know now that that's IMC,
not IFR :)

Ramapriya

[Jose[_1_]]

(don't forget to remove the PED prepend if you are going to go back to
talking about aviation! :)

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

[[email protected]]

Jose wrote:
> (don't forget to remove the PED prepend if you are going to go back to talking about
> aviation! :)
>
> Jose

I'm being thick here but what's PED? Public Education Dept? Performance
Enhancing Drugs? :)

Ramapriya

[588]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> Low-speed aircraft have the same amount of time to spot a high-speed
> aircraft before colliding with it as the high-speed aircraft has: the
> amount of time it takes for the two aircraft to reach each other.
> Pilots of high-speed aircraft must look much farther ahead than pilots
> of low-speed aircraft.


If the time is the same, so is the distance, Larry.

As long as you are obsessing, why not do it carefully?

Each of your statements above may be true under a limited set of
circumstances but untrue under many others. If you expect us to go
along on this rant-ride with you, then bother to care as much for
the truth which resides in the details as you claim to care for the
so-called victims of imagined crimes.


Jack

[588]

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. Despite the AOPA's stand on the subject, we could more easily
do without the majority of civilian light plane VFR flying in the
US, for example, than we could not do without military flight
training in CONUS.

The presence of random VFR traffic in military training routes
cannot be allowed to disrupt training. Have you considered the
implications of certain forms of political dissent which could
involve obstruction of these routes by civilian aircraft of various
categories? Perhaps you have, after all.

You want the USAF to assume all responsibility for traffic conflicts
in training airspace? No legal entity is going to assume
responsibility for the results of acts committed by persons outside
its control. Therefore, only military pilots would be allowed in
training airspace. Perhaps you have not considered that.

Your wish-list is not going to receive serious consideration, even
here on USENET let alone in the Legislature, without substantial
refinement. Far more evidence than has been shown thus far, that you
are prepared to make a serious effort to understand the problem,
will be required.



> It is easy to
> be destructive...but it takes effort to be
> constructive....

Good advice, perhaps you will keep it in mind.


Jack

[588]

588 wrote:

> ...we could more easily do without
> the majority of civilian light plane VFR flying in the US...
> than we could not do without military flight training in CONUS.

That should read, "than we _could_ do without military flight
training in CONUS."

See, I do proof read, eventually.



Jack

[588]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 05:23:24 GMT, 588 > wrote in
> >::

>> I've never known a fighter pilot to have anything but respect for
>> the potential of a midair...immensely more than the average light plane
>> pilot, in my experience.
>
> That is a result of the limited set of fighter pilots with whom you
> have been in contact.

And on what do you base your statements: a contact group equal to
zero? Unlike yours, my reference group is populated -- and not least
by myself and scores of others to whom I have entrusted my safety as
they have entrusted theirs to me. You have chosen a set of four
according to the particular quality of their having been involved in
a fatal mid-air with a civilian aircraft. I suggest it is not I who
have the more biased and limited view of the problem.


> How would you characterize the respect for a potential midair
> demonstrated by Parker...? (I don't expect you to
> answer that, it would require some courage on your part.)

Not a problem, Larry -- I can let the official report speak for
itself, prepared as it has been by those much closer to the problem
than I. As to our respective degrees of courage in the face of
USENET onslaughts -- each is probably adequate to the task. Anyway,
I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.


Jack

[588]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 05:39:05 GMT, 588 > wrote in
> >::
>
>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>>
>>> ...failing to acknowledge the
>>> culpability of the military in each of the military/civil MAC NTSB
>>> reports I cited, is tacit agreement that each was the fault of the
>>> military flight.
>>
>> Failing to acknowledge culpability is the same as admitting fault,
>> in your world?

> You can attempt to discredit me personally by deliberately
> misinterpreting my words....


I left it to you to interpret your own words, in order to help you
avoid misinterpretation on the part of your readers -- as your words
clearly required some interpretation. Could you really have asked
for more?


Jack

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 15:32:42 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> wrote in
>::
[...]
Thank you for the ejection example you cited. I am saddened to hear
of the pilot's injuries.

However, I never said ejection was without its hazards. And in the
case of the November 16, 2000 MAC, there was no mention of any
injuries to the pilot who ejected. I'm sure the Cessna pilot would
have preferred to eject rather than meet the fate he did. That is my
point: military pilots have an option other than see-and-avoid; they
can exit the aircraft.

>>
>>>I've never known a fighter pilot to have anything but respect for
>>>the potential of a midair -- more, in fact than the average
>>>transport pilot, and immensely more than the average light plane
>>>pilot, in my experience.
>>
>>That is a result of the limited set of fighter pilots with whom you
>>have been in contact. You obviously hadn't known those military
>>pilots involved in the four military/civil MACs whose NTSB links I
>>posted.
>
>In 23 years in the fighter business I have lived, worked, fought wars
>with and watched fighter pilots die for their country. Thousands of
>them. Don't spout drivel about limited contact.

You may have overlooked the fact, that I was responding to Jack's
assertion, not yours.

In any event, you misunderstand the issue I am attempting to raise. I
do not have issues with military pilots generally, although those who
were involved in the four MACs I cited seem to have violated
regulations resulting in a MAC. We all have issues with airmen who
violate regulations.

It is the flawed system of permitting high-speed, low-level military
operations within joint use airspace and expecting see-and-avoid
exclusively to provide separation. That is irresponsible on the part
of the FAA and military, and should be corrected.

>>How would you characterize the respect for a potential midair
>>demonstrated by Parker when he violated regulations by failing to
>>brief terminal airspace, and dove into congested Class B and C
>>airspace with the required ATC clearance? (I don't expect you to
>>answer that, it would require some courage on your part.)

I will take your failure to provide your opinion as requested above as
concurrence with mine, that Parker's decisions were criminal.

>>>Apparently, all your "experience" was bought at the news stand,
>>>considering how little relevance your complaints have to the real world.
>>
>>If you consider NTSB and military accident reports, and eye witness
>>reports unreliable, what information sources meet your criteria for
>>relevance?
>
>Once again, after 23 years experience in the fighter business, I have
>read, been briefed, and face-to-face discussed hundreds of aircraft
>accidents with board members as well as participants. Every single
>aircraft accident results in an investigation and a board of inquiry.
>Almost all have a "corollary board" after the investigation board
>which determines culpability and liability. Some result in Flying
>Evaluation Boards which consider the qualifications and retention of
>the aviators. And some result in Courts-Martial when malfeasance is
>indicated by any of the investigations. Can you get that through your
>fixated civilian mentality?
>

I don't question your experience nor qualifications to speak on this
subject. What I find objectionable is your unwillingness to
acknowledge the fact that a lethal problem exists, and your
unwillingness to take action to remedy that.

Do you know what action the military took against Parker? Was he
court marshaled? Was he fined? Was he incarcerated for killing a
civilian as a result of violating regulations? Was he made to pay
restitution to the family of the pilot his actions killed? Was a
corollary board convened? Are you able to speek with knowledge
about the what the military did to Parker as a result of the death his
actions caused?

The invistagory actions you mention may be what ocurrs regularly, but
in Parker's case, I have not heard of any of them except the board of
inquiry report, and Parker's CO's statement that Parker would receive
a verbal or written repremand. Do you have other information on that
specific case?

If not, then I respectfully submit, that the military does not
adiquately repremand those pilots who are involved in military/civil
fatal MACs as evidenced in this case.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 22:12:28 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> wrote in
>::

>On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 21:04:46 GMT, Larry Dighera >
>wrote:
>
>>In the four military/civil MACs at the links below, you'll find no
>>mention of military radar use for traffic deconfliction.
>
>This is the second posting of the list in this thread. You're becoming
>repititous and redundant. The last time and this time, the links were
>not relevant to the point being addressed.

I posted them again for your benefit; you obviously didn't read them
the last time I posted them. From your comments, you seem unfamiliar
with their details.

>>While the aircraft may be so equipped, is the radar to which you refer
>>required to be used for _collision_avoidance_ during the time military
>>aircraft are operating in joint use airspace? Can you cite a
>>regulation that so mandates it?
>
>Common sense, rather than regulations, mandates that the operator use
>every method at his/her disposal to deconflict the flight path.

Lacking regulations that mandate the use of radar for traffic
deconfliction, Parker's lack of their use does not constitute a
violation of regulations. Such a regulation may have saved the life
of the pilot into whom Parker led his wingman.

>>
>>>And AWACS can see both.
>>
>>Both, transponders and targets?
>
>Another admission of cluelessness? Two in one post? YES! BOTH!

I just wanted to assure I understood you correctly.

>>How common is it for AWACS to be employed for MTR training flights?
>
>Not common at all.

Exactly.

>The reason being that ATC and military approach
>control facilities are available.

Are ATC and military approach control facilities able to reliably
paint high-speed, low-level military aircraft on MTRs at 200' AGL?
Doubtful. Therefore, there should be a _regulatory_ requirement for
military aircraft on MTRs to employ on-board radar for traffic
deconfliction.

>>The source of my concern is strictly a matter of self preservation.
>
>Then look out the window. Use common sense. Fly 20-30 hours per month
>in day, night and weather conditions.

Spoken like the man with the bulletproof aircraft stout enough to
survive a MAC to the fellow with the aluminum eggshell bugsmasher. Not
only do you lack empathy for your fellow airmen, but insight into
their vulnerability to your high-speed, low-level operations. Are you
entirely incapable of objective, rational thought?

>>Military fighter aircraft pilots have little physical harm to fear
>>from colliding with a typical GA aircraft due to the weight and speed
>>differential as well as a much more robust airframe and ejection seat
>>to provide them with a safe landing.
>
>Bull****! A mid-air in a high performance aircraft isn't a dented
>fender.

My thought exactly, but Parker wasn't made to pay any restitution.

> An ejection isn't a "safe" procedure and jettisoning a $50
>million dollar aircraft,

Parker's wingman was taken to the hospital for observation and
released. The Cessna pilot was splattered over four acres of country
club fairways. Safety is relative.

>> The GA pilot is like a fluttering moth poised hovering above the
>>rush hour traffic in such a situation.
>
>Not very wise of the fluttering moth to be in such a precarious
>situation.

You're saying, GA aircraft should not be within Class B and C
airspace? Surely I've missed your meaning.

>Seems like the moth should take some personal
>responsibility.

The Cessna was in a right bank at the time of impact in the left/left
Florida MAC. The Cessna pilot was taking evasive action in an attempt
to comply with the see-and-avoid regulation. But that wasn't possible
because of the speed of the military aircraft. I'd say the Cessna
pilot was acting as responsibly as possible. Parker, on the other
hand ...

I agree there is a lack of responsibility being exercised in
high-speed, low-level military operations, and it is the military who
are shrugging responsibility commensurate with the hazard they cause.
>> His chances of survival in a collision are slight at best.

If you'd bothered to read the details of the four military/civil MACs
I cited, you'd know that all the military pilots involved survived
unscathed. The GA pilots often paid with their lives. Given those
statistics, I'd say your assessment above is in error.

>>I have to share the sky with the military, and their military/civil
>>MAC record isn't as good as one would expect.
>
>How many mid-air collisions per year does the military have? You've
>repeatedly cited four, but let's go back over 25 years. How many? How
>many were with your fluttering moths? Oh, not many, heh.

Are you saying that the military/civil MAC rate is acceptable, and
there should be no effort to improve safety?

>> But what I find most
>>troubling is the lack of consequences a military aviator faces as a
>>result of carelessness, incompetence, recklessness, and regulation
>>violations.
>
>A detailed investigation,

With a medical examination eight days after the MAC in the case of
Parker.

>an accident board and a corollary board, plus possible court martial
>don't satisfy you?

Parker's CO, Gen. Rosa, told the press, that Parker would receive a
verbal or written reprimand. That doesn't satisfy me. If Parker had
been adjudicated in a court of law, instead of having his CO give him
a talking to, he would be doing time.

>> If the military pilot thinks he can disintegrate a civil
>>flight, punch out, and live to fly another day without loss of rank,
>>pay, or freedom, what incentive does he have to watch out for us
>>little guys with whom he shares the skies?
>
>That is such an outrageous statement that I feel I would be taking
>advantage of someone to point out its ridiculousness.

What is to make a military pilot think otherwise? Not military
discipline in Parker's case.

>>>If civilians read the NOTAMS, checked their charts (oh yeah - remember
>>>those?), and did a little preflight planning, they could easily avoid
>>>conflict with military traffic. But that would take some precious time
>>>and effort, wouldn't it.
>>
>>There are those civil airmen who do the things you suggest, and there
>>are those who are negligent, but none of those actions would have
>>prevented the for mishaps above.
>
>The point being made was that there have been many more than four
>instances of civilian errors leading to mishaps with military
>aircraft. You don't seem as upset by them.

I'm not aware of them. Please provide links to their NTSB reports.

>>And it is completely unreasonable and negligent for the FAA to expect
>>a Cessna 172 pilot to have adequate time to search his windscreen for
>>conflicting traffic, identify it, and take effective evasive action
>>when the closing speed is in excess of 500 knots.
>
>Yet, unreasonable and negligent or not that is EXACTLY what the FAA
>requires you to do. Unfair, but if you don't like it stay on the
>ground.

So, in your mind, changing the system so that military low-level,
high-speed operations would be safer is not an option?

>>Further, the inequity in expecting the civil pilot to evade the hazard
>>caused by high-speed, low-level military operations is unjust. The
>>military should be _solely_ responsible for the hazards they create.
>
>Anyone who causes a mid-air is responsible. Assigning "sole"
>responsibility indicates you live in some sort of fantasy world. You
>can't be irresponsible on your side of the equation.

I understand what you are saying, and agree to a point. But isn't it
unjust to exempt the military from complying with the 250 knot speed
limit, and only assign half the blame to them. If they had been
operating within the speed limit, there might have been time to
see-and-avoid. I realize it is impractical for the military to
operate within that regulation, but that is not sufficient
justification to jeopardize the safety of civil flights, in my
opinion.

>>
>>I would expect to see some true safety consciousness, and remorse for
>>the carnage and destruction of civil pilots and aircraft caused by
>>military/civil mishaps. Oh well...
>
>Carnage and destruction my ass. Get over it. Look out the window. If
>you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Flying is inherently
>dangerous. That's what makes it so thrilling.
>
>
>Ed Rasimus
>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>"When Thunder Rolled"
> www.thunderchief.org
> www.thundertales.blogspot.com

With that attitude, we can just eliminate ATC altogether.

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 20:36:47 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 19:49:59 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> wrote in
>::
>
>>But, the point that we are beating here is that see-and-avoid is the
>>basic responsibility of all players all of the time.
>
>That is true with the obvious exception of operations in IMC.

No, even in IMC, if I am operating an aircraft with radar (or other
sensors) and I detect a threat of collision it would still be my
responsibility to deviate and avoid the collision, even without ATC
approval.

ATC is NOT magic. During the PATCO strike (Reagan years), when the
controllers walked off the job, we stood down at Holloman for two
days. At that point we could no longer suspend our training operations
and we resumed flying. We filed flight plans VFR/IFR with MARSA
(military assumes responsibility for separation of aircraft). In areas
that were not positive control, we remained VMC. In positive control
airspace, we proceeded IMC when necessary and used own radars and
military RAPCON coverage to deconflict--which really wasn't necessary
since no GA aircraft would be transiting in APC under IMC without
ATC--would they?

When controllers returned to work, they had learned that they were not
essential to our operations and we had a year or two of
non-interference from Big Brother as we went about our business. (Oh,
there were no mid-airs of any kind.)
>
>>High speed aircraft have high agility, low speed aircraft have lots of time to
>>look,
>
>Low-speed aircraft have the same amount of time to spot a high-speed
>aircraft before colliding with it as the high-speed aircraft has: the
>amount of time it takes for the two aircraft to reach each other.
>Pilots of high-speed aircraft must look much farther ahead than pilots
>of low-speed aircraft..

That's ludicrous. You can look as far ahead as I can. Both high speed
and low speed aviators have the same degree of visual acuity and the
same obligation to maintain the highest possible level of situational
awareness.
>
>> but regardless of your speed you keep the front of your airplane
>>cleared using all of the tools available to you.
>
>High-speed aircraft need only scan a much smaller angle of airspace in
>front of them than slow speed aircraft.

Bull**** again. In fact, we operate with greater responsibility for
look-out for mutual support than GA operators. That's the price of
being a weapon system. There are people out there trying to kill you.

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

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On 31 Jul 2006 13:41:45 -0700, "
> wrote:

>
>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>
>[stuff snipped]
>
>>
>> MOAs typically are at altitudes that place them in positive control
>> airspace. ATC will not provide clearance for GA aircraft through a MOA
>> that is in use by the military.
>
>
>GA IFR or GA VFR?
>
>AIM 3-4-5:
>
>"a. MOAs consist of airspace of defined vertical and lateral limits
>established for the purpose of separating certain military training
>activities from IFR traffic. Whenever a MOA is being used,
>nonparticipating IFR traffic may be cleared through a MOA if IFR
>separation can be provided by ATC. Otherwise, ATC will reroute or
>restrict nonparticipating IFR traffic."

Many, if not most MOAs are involved with very random traffic--e.g. BFM
maneuvering for example. The result is that IFR traffic is not cleared
through when the MOA is active. If the MOA is vacated (still active
usually) between flights scheduled, ATC "might" clear traffic through.
VFR traffic is possible (but ill-advised) below positive control
airspace.

Some MOAs in which activities like air refueling or intercept practice
is conducted would allow for IFR GA aircraft transit, but typically
(at least in my experience) ATC was reluctant to get involved.
>
>"c. Pilots operating under VFR should exercise extreme caution while
>flying within a MOA when military activity is being conducted. The
>activity status (active/inactive) of MOAs may change frequently.
>Therefore, pilots should contact any FSS within 100 miles of the area
>to obtain accurate real-time information concerning the MOA hours of
>operation. Prior to entering an active MOA, pilots should contact the
>controlling agency for traffic advisories."
>
>FAA 7400.8M subpart B:
>
>"A Military Operations Area (MOA) is airspace established outside
>positive control area
>to separate/segragate certain nonhazardous military activities from IFR
>traffic and to identify for VFR traffic where these activities are
>conducted."
>
>[rest snipped]
>
>John Hairell )

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

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 20:33:06 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote:

>Just a question for a fighter pilot, what amount of fuel in
>minutes is normally on board when you begin a terminal
>penetration? If you have good position and radio contact,
>how long does it take to get a tanker hook-up?

By regulation you need 20 minutes remaing at the initial approach fix.
If weather conditions require an alternate, you need time to go from
IAF to the alternate IAF plus 20 minutes.

In typical, daily, local airfield operations with a VFR recovery
planned, you will have about 20 minutes left when you begin your
descent along the recovery route.

Tankers are not normally an option. Tankers are not usually co-located
with tactical bases. Schedules for tankers and coordination of
required airspace blocks takes considerable time--days usually.

Unlike carrier operations where tankers often sit deck alert to pass a
few thousand pounds of gas to an emergency aircraft, for USAF tactical
aircraft, tankers are not routinely available.
>
>Since 9/11, how much fighter cover traffic is in civil
>airspace that wasn't there before?[general terms, nothing
>classified]

"fighter cover traffic"?? Dunno what that means. If you mean CAP
related to homeland security, I would say not more than 50-100 sorties
per day. The majority of US military air traffic is routine training
operations around the country. Pilot training, operational
qualification training, currency training, etc.

It virtually all takes place in joint use airspace and is always done
with an ATC flight plan. It is almost always done under IFR. It is
99.9% in "controlled airspace" since there is very little uncontrolled
airspace in the country.
>
>If ATC is slow with a clearance, are you expected to punch
>out?

No, you are expected to operate as you indicated on your flight plan
using common sense and whatever is available to you. There are
detailed procedures, for example, regarding how to deal with radio
failure in flight both VFR and IFR in both VMC and IMC.

Let's get over Larry's fixation that military pilots simply gad about
the country ejecting when it suits them or their day is turning
unpleasant.


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

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
>
> MOAs typically are at altitudes that place them in positive control
> airspace. ATC will not provide clearance for GA aircraft through a MOA
> that is in use by the military. MOAs that include airspace below
> positive control can have VFR aircraft in transit. We used to get them
> all the time in the Beak and Talon MOAs east of Holloman.
>

MOAs are never in positive control airspace. Many MOAs have an ATCAA
directly above them of the same name and lateral limits.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>But, the point that we are beating here is that see-and-avoid is the
>>basic responsibility of all players all of the time.
>>
>
> That is true with the obvious exception of operations in IMC.
>

IMC does not provide an exception.

[Jeff Crowell[_1_]]

>>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>> I would have to see examples of hyperbole to be able to find facts
>>> that support those statements.

>>also Larry Dighera:
>>>>> You've got to agree, that rocketing through congested
>>>>>terminal airspace at 500 knots without the required ATC clearance,

Jeff Crowell wrote:
>>If you speak here of the Florida mishap, there's your example--
>>the CLOSURE rate was near 500 knots, but not the speed of
>>the USAF aircraft.

Larry Dighera wrote:
> Just to assure that we are all both aware, the definition of
> 'hyperbole' is: extravagant exaggeration.
>
>
> The USAF Accident Investigation Board's report:
>
> 1. "Based on their closure rate of approximately 480 knots," ...
>
> 2. "Speeds of up to 450 knots were noted during the
> descent."
>
> Based on 1 above, you are the one who has exaggerated the closing
> speed by 20 knots, but we are both human after all.

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. That's an exaggeration of 25%.
Whether that qualifies as "extravagant" I leave to you.
Further, what's the purpose of including the miles per
hour conversion except exaggeration, making the
difference look bigger yet?

As I said above, their CLOSURE rate was near 500
knots. Speed during descent was assuredly much
too high.


> The USAF Accident Investigation Board's report:
>
> "Ninja flight's mistake was in transitioning to the tactical
> portion of their flight too early, unaware that they were in
> controlled airspace."
>
> That was President, Accident Investigation Board Robin E. Scott's
> opinion. It is not fact.
>
> Despite the fact that Parker failed to brief terminal airspace prior
> to the flight as regulations require, I personally find it difficult,
> if not impossible, to believe Parker was unaware, that the 60 mile
> diameter Tampa Class B terminal airspace lay below him at the time he
> chose to descend below 10,000' into it.

That's opinion, too, annit?


>>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.


> Incidentally, what is the 'F-16 Dash 1'? Is it the aircraft operation
> manual, that provides information regarding minimum speeds for various
> flight regimes?

The Dash-1 is the flight manual for that particular aircraft. It
defines, among other things, minimum safe airspeeds. The
equivalent publication for naval aircraft is the NATOPS manual.
The FAA recognizes the Dash-1 and NATOPS pubs as legal
documents for the purpose of setting minimum allowable speeds
below 10,000 MSL.


Jeff

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 13:13:08 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> MOAs typically are at altitudes that place them in positive control
>> airspace. ATC will not provide clearance for GA aircraft through a MOA
>> that is in use by the military. MOAs that include airspace below
>> positive control can have VFR aircraft in transit. We used to get them
>> all the time in the Beak and Talon MOAs east of Holloman.
>>
>
>MOAs are never in positive control airspace. Many MOAs have an ATCAA
>directly above them of the same name and lateral limits.
>
Has that been a recent change? The airspace we used at Holloman for
most of the AT-38 training was to the East. The restricted airspace
over White Sands was used mostly by the 49th wing F-15s as it was
supersonic and ran surface to very high altitudes. It was used for
both flight and missile testing including Surface-to-air (ie Patriot)
and air-to-air (against Firebee variants and QF aircraft).

To the East we had the Beaks (A,B and C) and Talons (North, East and
West). They were MOAs and extended from 10,000 AGl to FL 450--which
put them both below and within APC (which in those days commenced at
FL180). We routinely had VFR GA traffic particularly in the Ruidoso
Airport area passing under the Beaks, but only rare exceptions of
folks exercising their VFR transit rights. ATC radar coverage, because
of high terrain on several sides, was intermittent at lower altitudes,
but occasionally ABQ Center would give an advisory of VFR traffic and
would always provide notice of IFR traffic along the bordering
airways. We usually had the traffic before ATC said anything.

Probably the ATCAA is the explanation. We just considered it MOA.


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

[[email protected]]

Larry Dighera wrote:

>
> In those cases where they are unable to communicate with civilian
> aircraft, how does the military assume responsibility for separation
> of aircraft?

The Letter of Agreement between DOD and the FAA will spell out who
does what. If for some reason DOD needs some communications to go
through the ARTCC or other designated ATC facility that will be spelled
out in the LOA. Note in 1-48 below that an LOA is not always required
for MARSA to be invoked. There's always an exception to the rule.

For IFR MTRs:

"FAA 7610.4 11-6-12. SEPARATION OF PARTICIPATING AIRCRAFT

a. To the extent practicable, IRs should be established for
standard ATC services and approved separation applied between
individual aircraft.

b. If the provisions of subparagraph a cannot be applied because of
mission requirements, crossing routes, or ATC limitations, routes may
be designated for MARSA operations. The procedures for applying MARSA
shall be contained in the letter of agreement between the scheduling
unit and the appropriate ATC facility. Specific MARSA operating
procedures shall be contained in the DOD FLIP AP/1B and AP/3 narrative
description of the route.

NOTE-
ATC facilities' sole responsibility concerning the use of MARSA is
to provide separation between participating and nonparticipating
aircraft. (See para-
graph 1-48, Use of MARSA.)"

VFR MTRs are coordinated with the local FSS.

>Do they relay communications through FAA ATC?

Yes, if need be communications can be relayed via the ARTCC or other
ATC facilities.

> I presume, no separation is provided for flights on low-level IFR
> MTRs, while it is provided, or the military takes responsibility for
> separation, on IFR MTRs.

I assume you mean VFR MTRs in the first part of your sentence. MARSA
can be used for IFR MTRs, plus see and avoid on the pilots' part, as
always. See and avoid is used for VFR MTRs.

"FAA 7610.4K

1-4-8. USE OF MILITARY AUTHORITY ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR SEPARATION
OF AIRCRAFT (MARSA)

The application of MARSA is a military service prerogative and will not
be invoked by individual units or pilots except as follows:

a. Military service commands authorizing MARSA shall be responsible
for its implementation and terms of use. When military operations
warrant an LOA and MARSA will be applied, the authority to invoke MARSA
shall be contained in the LOA. It must be noted that an LOA will not be
required in all cases involving MARSA.

b. ATC facilities do not invoke or deny MARSA. Their sole
responsibility concerning the use of MARSA is to provide separation
between military aircraft engaged in MARSA operations and other
non-participating IFR aircraft.

c. DOD shall ensure that military pilots requesting special use
airspace (SUA)/ATC assigned airspace (ATCAA) have coordinated with the
scheduling agency, obtained approval for entry, and are familiar with
appropriate MARSA procedures. ATC is not responsible for determining
which military aircraft are authorized to enter SUA/ATCAA."


John Hairell )

[[email protected]]

588 wrote:

> No, that would be a far less satisfactory solution than converting
> airspace associated with military training routes to Restricted
> areas. Despite the AOPA's stand on the subject, we could more easily
> do without the majority of civilian light plane VFR flying in the
> US, for example, than we could not do without military flight
> training in CONUS.

So the training needs of the military have a higher priority than
anything else in the US airspace system? So we should allow free range
by military aviation and IFR airline traffic
(that's big money) but the GA population should stay home and watch
"Wings" on TV?

>
> The presence of random VFR traffic in military training routes
> cannot be allowed to disrupt training. Have you considered the
> implications of certain forms of political dissent which could
> involve obstruction of these routes by civilian aircraft of various
> categories? Perhaps you have, after all.

This was all hashed out in 1958 when the responsiblity for controlling
airspace was given to the FAA, not DOD. DOD gets airspace allocated to
it from the FAA and much of it is dual use. If DOD had its wishes it
would control all airspace and hand certain portions out to civilians.
But since this country is not a military dictatorship things don't run
that way.

> You want the USAF to assume all responsibility for traffic conflicts
> in training airspace? No legal entity is going to assume
> responsibility for the results of acts committed by persons outside
> its control. Therefore, only military pilots would be allowed in
> training airspace. Perhaps you have not considered that.

DOD would love that, but the fact remains that airspace is a national
asset, not a DOD asset.


John Hairell )

[Jose[_1_]]

> I'm being thick here but what's PED? Public Education Dept? Performance
> Enhancing Drugs? :)

It's one of the conventions we've established here for subject lines.
Others are:

OT - off topic
FS - for sale
POL - political discussion (sometimes a thread moves that way)
PED - pedantry (little nitpicking having nothing to do with aviation)

The last two were recently added. Although nothing like this is ever
official on Usenet, if we adopt them it helps people to filter out stuff
they don't want to see.

There are a few others which escape me at the moment. The idea is to
start the subject line with one of these if the topic warrants it (or to
modify the existing subject line thus if you are replying in such a
manner).

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 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.

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).

At any rate, such an airspace conversion would confine high-speed,
low-level military operations to ostensibly vacant airspace, rather
than joint use, depict the true size of MTRs on charts, enhance air
safety, and return the NAS to a well engineered system, albeit a bit
more difficult to navigate. (Have you ever been successful contacting
Flight Service at 500' AGL to inquire if a MTR is hot?)

Alternatively, we could REQUIRE BY REGULATION, that all MTR
participants employ TCAS (or radar capable of detecting conflicting
traffic of all categories and AUTOMATICALLY alerting the military
pilot) for collision avoidance.

Choices, choices, ...

>Despite the AOPA's stand on the subject, we could more easily
>do without the majority of civilian light plane VFR flying in the
>US, for example, than we could not [sic] do without military flight
>training in CONUS.

Huh?

We could surely do without MTR routes in the CONUS, and did until a
few years ago.

>The presence of random VFR traffic in military training routes
>cannot be allowed to disrupt training.

Here are three responses to that statement:

1. The presence of 450 knot military training flights within
congested terminal airspace without benefit of the required ATC
clearance cannot be allowed to kill innocent civilians either.

2. MTR training was run out of Europe. They were tired of the hazard
it caused, and the lack of enforcement displayed by the military. Now
we've got it here in the US. Perhaps there is a more suitable, less
congested venue someplace else.

3. As currently implemented, Military Training Routes are joint-use
airspace. To expect that airspace to be free of non-military aircraft
is unrealistic and contrary to federal civil and military regulations.
Just so we all understand the definition of a MTR:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/airspace.htm
A Military Training Route, or MTR, is basically a long,
low-altitude [joint use] corridor that serves as a flight path to
a particular destination [with aircraft speeds up to mach 1]. The
corridor is often 10 miles wide, 70 to 100 miles long [although
it's not charted that way], and may range from 500 to 1,500 feet
above ground level [and unrealistically relies solely upon
see-and-avoid for collision avoidance in VMC]; occasionally, they
are higher. MTRs are designed to provide realistic low-altitude
training conditions for pilots. In times of conflict, to avoid
detection by enemy radar, tactical fighter aircraft are often
called upon to fly hundreds of miles at low altitude over varying
terrain. Obviously, navigation is extremely difficult on
high-speed low-altitude flights. That's why it is imperative that
fighter pilots have ample opportunity to practice these necessary
and demanding skills [even if it endangers the lives of the
public].

>Have you considered the
>implications of certain forms of political dissent which could
>involve obstruction of these routes by civilian aircraft of various
>categories? Perhaps you have, after all.

No I haven't. Only someone with a death wish would consider
committing such a stupid act. Get real. What would what you suggest
that might accomplish besides a dead civilian airman and two destroyed
aircraft?

Or are you referring to the glider that was hit on a MTR by an A6? The
glider pilot, who had the right of way, was found by the NTSB to be
the cause of the MAC! There's justice for you. :-(

>You want the USAF to assume all responsibility for traffic conflicts
>in training airspace?

I would like to see the military assume responsibility for the hazard
their operations under FAR § 91.117(d) cause to civil flights in all
airspace. That exemption to the 250 knot speed limit below 10,000' is
an affront to the design of the NAS. If not, why have a speed limit
at all?

>No legal entity is going to assume responsibility for the results of
>acts committed by persons outside its control.

That's funny; you've got me chuckling now, given the fact that the
military doesn't take responsibility now for the acts THEY committed.

>Therefore, only military pilots would be allowed in
>training airspace. Perhaps you have not considered that.

If military operations create a civil hazard, they should be
segregated from civil flights. No problem there. Anything less is
negligence.

>Your wish-list is not going to receive serious consideration, even
>here on USENET let alone in the Legislature, without substantial
>refinement.

I don't doubt that refinement would be beneficial. I'm only a pilot,
not an airspace engineer.

>Far more evidence than has been shown thus far, that you
>are prepared to make a serious effort to understand the problem,
>will be required.

So you've read all I've written on this subject over the past six
years? I think we ALL understand the problem quite well; some just
don't admit there is one.

>> It is easy to be destructive...but it takes effort to be
>> constructive....
>
>Good advice, perhaps you will keep it in mind.

Implicit in that parting shot is the notion that I have somehow been
destructive. Lacking any example of that, I will consider it a
pathetic sign of your desperation.


--
There is no expedient to which a man will not resort
to avoid the real labor of thinking.
-- Sir Joshua Reynolds

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 13:04:10 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> wrote in
>::

>there is very little uncontrolled airspace in the country.

Actually, there is quite a bit of Class G airspace in the US. It's
ceiling is just 700' or 1,200' AGL.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 13:14:24 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>But, the point that we are beating here is that see-and-avoid is the
>>>basic responsibility of all players all of the time.
>>>
>>
>> That is true with the obvious exception of operations in IMC.
>>
>
>IMC does not provide an exception.
>

Considering that IMC is visibility less than three miles, I suppose
you are correct.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
>
> Has that been a recent change? The airspace we used at Holloman for
> most of the AT-38 training was to the East. The restricted airspace
> over White Sands was used mostly by the 49th wing F-15s as it was
> supersonic and ran surface to very high altitudes. It was used for
> both flight and missile testing including Surface-to-air (ie Patriot)
> and air-to-air (against Firebee variants and QF aircraft).
>
> To the East we had the Beaks (A,B and C) and Talons (North, East and
> West). They were MOAs and extended from 10,000 AGl to FL 450--which
> put them both below and within APC (which in those days commenced at
> FL180). We routinely had VFR GA traffic particularly in the Ruidoso
> Airport area passing under the Beaks, but only rare exceptions of
> folks exercising their VFR transit rights. ATC radar coverage, because
> of high terrain on several sides, was intermittent at lower altitudes,
> but occasionally ABQ Center would give an advisory of VFR traffic and
> would always provide notice of IFR traffic along the bordering
> airways. We usually had the traffic before ATC said anything.
>
> Probably the ATCAA is the explanation. We just considered it MOA.
>

It's been that way since the MOA was created 31 years ago.

Incidentally, ATC CAN clear non-using IFR aircraft through a MOA under the
right conditions. One of those conditions is ATC must also be working the
aircraft using the MOA. I know of no location where this is done, however.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 19:49:59 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> > wrote in
> >::
>
>>But, the point that we are beating here is that see-and-avoid is the
>>basic responsibility of all players all of the time.
>
> That is true with the obvious exception of operations in IMC.
>
>>High speed aircraft have high agility, low speed aircraft have lots of
>>time to
>>look,
>
> Low-speed aircraft have the same amount of time to spot a high-speed
> aircraft before colliding with it as the high-speed aircraft has: the
> amount of time it takes for the two aircraft to reach each other.
> Pilots of high-speed aircraft must look much farther ahead than pilots
> of low-speed aircraft..
>
>> but regardless of your speed you keep the front of your airplane
>>cleared using all of the tools available to you.
>
> High-speed aircraft need only scan a much smaller angle of airspace in
> front of them than slow speed aircraft.
>


Just to jump in here for a second. Let's remember that most of the
high-speed fighters are painted in such a what as to make them hard to spot.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Actually, there is quite a bit of Class G airspace in the US. It's
> ceiling is just 700' or 1,200' AGL.
>

Or higher. Over parts of lakes Michigan and Superior and the upper
peninsula of Michigan there is an area of Class G airspace up to 2600 MSL
and several areas up to 14,500 MSL.

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On 1 Aug 2006 07:18:36 -0700, "
> wrote:

>
>588 wrote:
>
>> No, that would be a far less satisfactory solution than converting
>> airspace associated with military training routes to Restricted
>> areas. Despite the AOPA's stand on the subject, we could more easily
>> do without the majority of civilian light plane VFR flying in the
>> US, for example, than we could not do without military flight
>> training in CONUS.
>
>So the training needs of the military have a higher priority than
>anything else in the US airspace system? So we should allow free range
>by military aviation and IFR airline traffic
>(that's big money) but the GA population should stay home and watch
>"Wings" on TV?

Ooops, we begin to see a perspective emerging here.

First, let's note that military training routes will, of necessity be
LONG--you need more than 100 miles to begin to do any effective
low-level nav training. And, you need several routes. Flying the same
LL route three times and it is no longer a training challenge. So, it
is impractical in the first place to declare military training routes
as restricted airspace.

Second, let's further note that tactics are increasingly less reliant
on low-level ingress/egress to a target area and development of modern
nav systems such as GPS make visual nav dead reckoning and pilotage
much less important. So, less need for LL training routes.

But, the response to the suggestion also needs comment. If your
military doesn't get to "train like we fight" then you needlessly
endanger them when the time comes to employ. Should the military have
higher priority when sharing the airspace than Dr. Jones in his
Bonanza on his way to Branson for the weekend? If the military loses,
the golf course will wind up in poor condition.

But that is the extreme. The fact is that the military, the commercial
carriers and GA traffic co-exist quite nicely. Priorities are in place
and airspace is shared. This doesn't absolve GA pilots from the
shouldering some responsibility for their proficiency, currency and
maintenance.
>
>>
>> The presence of random VFR traffic in military training routes
>> cannot be allowed to disrupt training. Have you considered the
>> implications of certain forms of political dissent which could
>> involve obstruction of these routes by civilian aircraft of various
>> categories? Perhaps you have, after all.
>
>This was all hashed out in 1958 when the responsiblity for controlling
>airspace was given to the FAA, not DOD. DOD gets airspace allocated to
>it from the FAA and much of it is dual use. If DOD had its wishes it
>would control all airspace and hand certain portions out to civilians.
>But since this country is not a military dictatorship things don't run
>that way.

1958 was a very long time ago. Consider that there was no INS, no GPS,
no R-Nav and no jet airliners. Control throughout the country was
principally procedural (remember those flight strips?) and there was
very little radar environment. Speeds were lower, volume was lower,
and the operating altitudes were lower. O'hare was under construction
and D/FW wasn't even on the horizon. Things change.

No one at DOD "wishes it would control all airspace". Never heard such
a thing. There are a lot of ways to skin the joint use cat and the US
system is only one of them. You might also look at the British system
with separate control systems or the predominant European system with
OAT and GAT systems.
>
>> You want the USAF to assume all responsibility for traffic conflicts
>> in training airspace? No legal entity is going to assume
>> responsibility for the results of acts committed by persons outside
>> its control. Therefore, only military pilots would be allowed in
>> training airspace. Perhaps you have not considered that.
>
>DOD would love that, but the fact remains that airspace is a national
>asset, not a DOD asset.

The airspace remains a national asset and sharing it realistically is
difficult. No one reasonably would propose restriction of all training
airspace for the military to the exclusion of commercial and GA
traffic. It simply isn't feasible. But all players must realize the
nature of the training going on and be aware of the hazards involved.
No more, no less.

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
...
>
> Considering that IMC is visibility less than three miles, I suppose
> you are correct.
>

IMC is anything less than what is required for VFR flight. In Class E
airspace at 10,000 MSL or higher with less than five statute miles
visibility you're in IMC. In Class E airspace at 10,000 MSL or higher with
a cloud deck less than 1000' above or below you you're in IMC even if
visibility is unlimited.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> So the training needs of the military have a higher priority than
> anything else in the US airspace system? So we should allow free range
> by military aviation and IFR airline traffic
> (that's big money) but the GA population should stay home and watch
> "Wings" on TV?
>


I don't think that what he said at all. But the military has places on the
ground where they can drive their tanks and shoot their guns. I think the
safety and needs of all would be met if we created the same thing in the
sky.

Designate certain airspace as military training areas under military ATC. If
your GA path happens to go into that area you contact a military controller
and ask for clearance. If your are putting along at 2500 AGL and the mil
flights are all playing above 10,000 the controller clears you through the
airspace on a certain heading and alt.

Basically just create special Class B airspace for the military to train in.

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

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

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.
>
>At any rate, such an airspace conversion would confine high-speed,
>low-level military operations to ostensibly vacant airspace, rather
>than joint use, depict the true size of MTRs on charts, enhance air
>safety, and return the NAS to a well engineered system, albeit a bit
>more difficult to navigate. (Have you ever been successful contacting
>Flight Service at 500' AGL to inquire if a MTR is hot?)
>
>Alternatively, we could REQUIRE BY REGULATION, that all MTR
>participants employ TCAS (or radar capable of detecting conflicting
>traffic of all categories and AUTOMATICALLY alerting the military
>pilot) for collision avoidance.
>
>Choices, choices, ...

Do you consider the fact that tactical aircraft regularly and
routinely fly with other aircraft. It is part of the mission
requirements. We fly in formations (not Thunderbird fingertip) that
mean we are inside TCAS thresholds. We rendezvous with other aircraft
both tactical and tanker. We intercept threats. We fly air combat
maneuvers. All require flight at short ranges and transiting
co-altitudes. TCAS would be impractical in terms of continual warnings
and (heaven forbid) uncommanded fly-up/fly-down commands.
>
>>Despite the AOPA's stand on the subject, we could more easily
>>do without the majority of civilian light plane VFR flying in the
>>US, for example, than we could not [sic] do without military flight
>>training in CONUS.
>
>Huh?
>
>We could surely do without MTR routes in the CONUS, and did until a
>few years ago.

Military Training Routes have been around CONUs for as long as I can
remember. When I first started flying J-3 Cubs in 1962, there were
"Oil Burner Routes" for SAC that criss-crossed the nation. Dunno what
you mean by doing without.
>
>>The presence of random VFR traffic in military training routes
>>cannot be allowed to disrupt training.
>
>Here are three responses to that statement:
>
>1. The presence of 450 knot military training flights within
>congested terminal airspace without benefit of the required ATC
>clearance cannot be allowed to kill innocent civilians either.

Belaboring again. You recently posted the extract indicating that
speeds were "as high as 450" during the descent. That doesn't equate
with the follow-on "within congested terminal airspace". The record
indicates that the flight speed was 350 and below when entering the
TCA. You also seem to imply that the flight was not on an ATC
clearance. They most assuredly were, but were operating VFR and
without ATC direct control. Slight difference.
>
>2. MTR training was run out of Europe. They were tired of the hazard
>it caused, and the lack of enforcement displayed by the military. Now
>we've got it here in the US. Perhaps there is a more suitable, less
>congested venue someplace else.

Military Training Routes are not a new thing. You would blanch at the
European low level training had you any familiarity. NATO nations,
operating within their own countries were considerably more flexible
in their enforcement than USAF. For example, USAF fighters in Germany
were restricted to 1500' AGL for low level training (not a realistic
floor, but those were the rules.) It was not at all uncommon for
Dutch, Belgian or Danish aircraft to pass several hundred feet below
us and almost simultaneously have them under-flown by the Germans.

Today, of course, we wouldn't really want to have the US dependent
upon a military force as "well equipped, well trained, well led, and
well-motivated" as a European force--would we?
>
>I would like to see the military assume responsibility for the hazard
>their operations under FAR § 91.117(d) cause to civil flights in all
>airspace. That exemption to the 250 knot speed limit below 10,000' is
>an affront to the design of the NAS. If not, why have a speed limit
>at all?

If you slow a tactical aircraft down to speeds below which it is
marginally maneuverable you've not improved safety.
>
>>No legal entity is going to assume responsibility for the results of
>>acts committed by persons outside its control.
>
>That's funny; you've got me chuckling now, given the fact that the
>military doesn't take responsibility now for the acts THEY committed.

The military has for as long as I was involved taken responsibility
for its actions. The process is often considerably more thorough and
timely than civil courts. It is also less prone to emotional outcome.
>
>>Therefore, only military pilots would be allowed in
>>training airspace. Perhaps you have not considered that.
>
>If military operations create a civil hazard, they should be
>segregated from civil flights. No problem there. Anything less is
>negligence.

You really wouldn't like the outcome of that.

>I don't doubt that refinement would be beneficial. I'm only a pilot,
>not an airspace engineer.

And your qualifications/ratings are what?
>
>So you've read all I've written on this subject over the past six
>years? I think we ALL understand the problem quite well; some just
>don't admit there is one.

Actually some are willing to expand their knowledge on a complex
subject and allow for new conclusions.
>
>Implicit in that parting shot is the notion that I have somehow been
>destructive. Lacking any example of that, I will consider it a
>pathetic sign of your desperation.

You aren't destructive. You simply refuse to acknowledge any other
information while continually repeating what you've already said. Many
of the suggestions you've offered are impractical or infeasible.

Bottom line is that you demonstrate a fixation on civil guilt for an
accident. There has been due process and the result didn't satisfy
you. That's fine, the verdict in the OJ trial didn't satisfsy me
either, but that's the way the law, rules and regulations have it
done.


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

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 14:41:11 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 13:04:10 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> wrote in
>::
>
>>there is very little uncontrolled airspace in the country.
>
>Actually, there is quite a bit of Class G airspace in the US. It's
>ceiling is just 700' or 1,200' AGL.

That's very true, but try to go from one town to another without
transiting controlled airspace. Uncontrolled airspace allows farmer
Brown to fly around the property and count his cows, but not much
more.

Consider also that in most areas flying below 1500' is prohibited.
500' in "other than congested areas" is allowable, but you'd be
surprised how few buildings it takes for the FAA to consider it
congested.

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

[Jose[_1_]]

> Do you consider the fact that tactical aircraft regularly and
> routinely fly with other aircraft. It is part of the mission
> requirements. We fly in formations (not Thunderbird fingertip) that
> mean we are inside TCAS thresholds. We rendezvous with other aircraft
> both tactical and tanker. We intercept threats. We fly air combat
> maneuvers. All require flight at short ranges and transiting
> co-altitudes. TCAS would be impractical in terms of continual warnings
> and (heaven forbid) uncommanded fly-up/fly-down commands.

There is a huge fraction of our taxes going to the military. Take a
little of that money and modify the military version of TCAS to exclude
a programmable set of aircraft.

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

[Morgans[_3_]]

> It's one of the conventions we've established here for subject lines.
> Others are:
>
> OT - off topic
> FS - for sale
> POL - political discussion (sometimes a thread moves that way)
> PED - pedantry (little nitpicking having nothing to do with aviation)
>
> The last two were recently added. Although nothing like this is ever
> official on Usenet, if we adopt them it helps people to filter out stuff
> they don't want to see.
>
> There are a few others which escape me at the moment. The idea is to
> start the subject line with one of these if the topic warrants it (or to
> modify the existing subject line thus if you are replying in such a
> manner).

For individual people:

ZZZ for Zoom (Jim C.)
JJJ for Juan J.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 15:06:04 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
et>::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Considering that IMC is visibility less than three miles, I suppose
>> you are correct.
>>
>
>IMC is anything less than what is required for VFR flight.

Agreed. I was speaking generally.

>In Class E airspace at 10,000 MSL or higher with less than five statute miles
>visibility you're in IMC. In Class E airspace at 10,000 MSL or higher with
>a cloud deck less than 1000' above or below you you're in IMC even if
>visibility is unlimited.
>

That's also true for Class G airspace at night at more than 1,200 feet
above the surface and at or above 10,000 feet MSL.

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 15:48:37 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>> Do you consider the fact that tactical aircraft regularly and
>> routinely fly with other aircraft. It is part of the mission
>> requirements. We fly in formations (not Thunderbird fingertip) that
>> mean we are inside TCAS thresholds. We rendezvous with other aircraft
>> both tactical and tanker. We intercept threats. We fly air combat
>> maneuvers. All require flight at short ranges and transiting
>> co-altitudes. TCAS would be impractical in terms of continual warnings
>> and (heaven forbid) uncommanded fly-up/fly-down commands.
>
>There is a huge fraction of our taxes going to the military. Take a
>little of that money and modify the military version of TCAS to exclude
>a programmable set of aircraft.
>
>Jose

Actually the "huge fraction" is at the lowest percentage of GDP that
it has been since WW II.

You imply that a "little money" is all that is necessary. You also
need a "little space" in the airframe. A "little frontage on the
instrument panel". A "little interface with the stab-aug/autopilot". A
"little programming" each day to tell it who you'll be working with.

Start by recognizing that tactical jets always operate in formations
of 2 or 4 aircraft. That their mission involves approaching, not
avoiding, other aircraft. That their maneuvering is not straight/level
cruise to and from the terminal. And, that no one I can think of wants
some additional noise in the head-set, lights flashing on the panel,
or uncommanded inputs to the flight controls trying to do what the
computer thinks best for you.

TCAS is a solution to a particular problem. It isn't a substitute for
situational awareness and electronics isn't the answer to avoiding
mid-airs. It can help but it isn't perfect.

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

[[email protected]]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

>
> Ooops, we begin to see a perspective emerging here.
>
> First, let's note that military training routes will, of necessity be
> LONG--you need more than 100 miles to begin to do any effective
> low-level nav training. And, you need several routes. Flying the same
> LL route three times and it is no longer a training challenge. So, it
> is impractical in the first place to declare military training routes
> as restricted airspace.

Yes, because it tends to sectorize blocks of usable airspace into
sections where GA aircraft would have trouble going.

>
> Second, let's further note that tactics are increasingly less reliant
> on low-level ingress/egress to a target area and development of modern
> nav systems such as GPS make visual nav dead reckoning and pilotage
> much less important. So, less need for LL training routes.
>
> But, the response to the suggestion also needs comment. If your
> military doesn't get to "train like we fight" then you needlessly
> endanger them when the time comes to employ. Should the military have
> higher priority when sharing the airspace than Dr. Jones in his
> Bonanza on his way to Branson for the weekend? If the military loses,
> the golf course will wind up in poor condition.

I fully agree with you. But the first priority within the national
airspace system should be safety.

>
> But that is the extreme. The fact is that the military, the commercial
> carriers and GA traffic co-exist quite nicely. Priorities are in place
> and airspace is shared. This doesn't absolve GA pilots from the
> shouldering some responsibility for their proficiency, currency and
> maintenance.

Very true. The corollary is that this doesn't absolve the military
from operating safely
where training may conflict with civilian flights. I've seen firsthand
where MTRs and restricted area airspace have been abused by military
users, resulting in hazards to civilians.

> >This was all hashed out in 1958 when the responsiblity for controlling
> >airspace was given to the FAA, not DOD. DOD gets airspace allocated to
> >it from the FAA and much of it is dual use. If DOD had its wishes it
> >would control all airspace and hand certain portions out to civilians.
> >But since this country is not a military dictatorship things don't run
> >that way.
>
> 1958 was a very long time ago. Consider that there was no INS, no GPS,
> no R-Nav and no jet airliners. Control throughout the country was
> principally procedural (remember those flight strips?) and there was
> very little radar environment. Speeds were lower, volume was lower,
> and the operating altitudes were lower. O'hare was under construction
> and D/FW wasn't even on the horizon. Things change.

The mechanics of the system may change but the philosophy behind who
"owns" and controls the airspace hasn't changed.

> No one at DOD "wishes it would control all airspace". Never heard such
> a thing.

There were several pushes in the '50s for DOD to control all US
airspace. The 1958 act was fought over by the various interest groups
but cooler heads prevailed and the civilians won - airspace management
would be the responsiblity of a civilian agency. The 1958 act was
later repealed and replaced by various other laws which are
substantially similar in intent. Even into the '60s there were people
in DOD who advocated control of all airspace by the military and I
remember talk within the military in the '70s and '80s about an effort
to prohibit any civilian aircraft from using MTR airspace for its
entire length and width and height whether an MTR was hot or not. As
a pilot you may not have heard about it but in airspace management
circles there was talk about it. Every few years the issue comes up
again. Also, over the last 30 years DOD has pushed for an
ever-increasing amount of airspace for training purposes. This is in
addition to the large blocks of airspace already in use in the western
states. This is not a new discussion.

There are a lot of ways to skin the joint use cat and the US
> system is only one of them. You might also look at the British system
> with separate control systems or the predominant European system with
> OAT and GAT systems.

Remember it's joint use but not joint-owned. Airspace for DOD usage
is delegated to DOD by the FAA. I used to get 5 blocks of restricted
airspace from the FAA and had to do it on a daily basis. It could be
and sometimes was denied. We controlled the restricted areas but
didn't own them.

> The airspace remains a national asset and sharing it realistically is
> difficult. No one reasonably would propose restriction of all training
> airspace for the military to the exclusion of commercial and GA
> traffic. It simply isn't feasible. But all players must realize the
> nature of the training going on and be aware of the hazards involved.
> No more, no less.
>

I agree. But the details of how the system works aren't always clear
to the public and GA pilots, and DOD and the FAA have a way of doing
things with airspace with little public input.


John Hairell )

[Jose[_1_]]

> Actually the "huge fraction" is at the lowest percentage of GDP that
> it has been since WW II.

How much money does that actually turn out to be?

> You also need a "little space" in the airframe...

In other words, it will take some work on the military's part. But we
had to find "a little space" too, after they invented class Bravo and
the Mode C veil. That's one of the things that money buys you. But you
don't need any interface with the autopilot; you just need blips on a
display showing what's out there. There shouldn't be much other than
what you expect, but the one time there is, you'll know it well in advance.

> TCAS is a solution to a particular problem.

Yes, and something similar can be created to assist the military in
avoiding us civilians - the ones you risk your lives to protect in the
first place.

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 Tue, 01 Aug 2006 17:34:46 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>> Actually the "huge fraction" is at the lowest percentage of GDP that
>> it has been since WW II.
>
>How much money does that actually turn out to be?

How much money doesn't matter. The GDP is the basis and the percentage
spent on defense has been in decline for decades. The number in $$ is
huge, but the GDP is even more mind-boggling. It really is irrelevant
to the discussion, unless magenta herrings are your desired lunch.
>
>> You also need a "little space" in the airframe...
>
>In other words, it will take some work on the military's part. But we
>had to find "a little space" too, after they invented class Bravo and
>the Mode C veil. That's one of the things that money buys you. But you
>don't need any interface with the autopilot; you just need blips on a
>display showing what's out there. There shouldn't be much other than
>what you expect, but the one time there is, you'll know it well in advance.

You might note that military aircraft are already squawking Modes 1,
2, 3, 4 and C.

So, how do "blips on a display" provided by TCAS differ from the
already existing blips on the radar display? Given that tactical jets
start out with a pretty expensive, pretty capable, pretty
discriminating sensor system and that next-gen aircraft not only will
be displaying their own sensors but also data fusion of info from
other cooperating aircraft such as tactical partners, AWACS, JSTARs,
etc and satellites for a three dimensional fully spherical
environment, exactly what is TCAS going to offer that isn't already
there in a better and more detailed presentation?
>
>> TCAS is a solution to a particular problem.
>
>Yes, and something similar can be created to assist the military in
>avoiding us civilians - the ones you risk your lives to protect in the
>first place.
>
>Jose

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.

Are you intentionally dense or is it an accident of birth?


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

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 18:06:32 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> wrote in
>::

>You might note that military aircraft are already squawking Modes 1,
>2, 3, 4 and C.

For some reason, I hadn't appreciate the fact that military aircraft
were squawking Mode C until I read that.

An experienced fighter pilot once uttered these words of wisdom:

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

Given the fact that the ATC trainee failed to broadcast the traffic
alert to the Cessna pilot in Florida, it would seem that it may be the
GA aircraft that needs to be equipped with TCAS. That might be the
easiest and most effective solution to the issue of MTR deconfliction.
Have I overlooked anything (beside the cost)?

When Lockheed-Martin and Boeing finally automate US ATC at some future
date, the whole subject will be rendered moot, as the computer will
'see' a fast-mover on a low-level MTR, and instantly route conflicting
aircraft away without the military informing FSS of MTR activity or
anything. We can dream ...

[[email protected]]

Larry Dighera wrote:

>
> When Lockheed-Martin and Boeing finally automate US ATC at some future
> date, the whole subject will be rendered moot, as the computer will
> 'see' a fast-mover on a low-level MTR, and instantly route conflicting
> aircraft away without the military informing FSS of MTR activity or
> anything. We can dream ...


Don't hold your breath. You'll also need 100 percent low-level radar
coverage of the U.S., to be available 100 percent of the time, and a
massive amount of computer processing power.

John Hairell )

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 19:08:28 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 18:06:32 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> wrote in
>::
>
>>You might note that military aircraft are already squawking Modes 1,
>>2, 3, 4 and C.
>
>For some reason, I hadn't appreciate the fact that military aircraft
>were squawking Mode C until I read that.

Wonder how you missed that.
>
>An experienced fighter pilot once uttered these words of wisdom:
>
> For instance, a pilot who has no fear of a mid-air is an idiot.
> A pilot who flies without being constantly aware that he/she is
> the main aspect of the mid-air avoidance equation is misguided.
> --Dudley Henriques

I've known and corresponded with Dudley for many years. He is a highly
experienced pilot with lots of hours in a lot of types of aircraft,
including a lot of flight test time and aerial demo experience. I
respect him highly and hope he will not take offense if I point out
the one detail. Mr. Henriques is not "an experienced fighter pilot."

>
>Given the fact that the ATC trainee failed to broadcast the traffic
>alert to the Cessna pilot in Florida, it would seem that it may be the
>GA aircraft that needs to be equipped with TCAS. That might be the
>easiest and most effective solution to the issue of MTR deconfliction.
>Have I overlooked anything (beside the cost)?
>
>When Lockheed-Martin and Boeing finally automate US ATC at some future
>date, the whole subject will be rendered moot, as the computer will
>'see' a fast-mover on a low-level MTR, and instantly route conflicting
>aircraft away without the military informing FSS of MTR activity or
>anything. We can dream ...

Reminds me of the old joke about the "fully automated airliner".
"Nothing can go wrong...go wrong...go wrong..."

Reread what Dudley said. "A pilot who flies without being constantly
aware that he/she is the main aspect of the mid-air avoidance equation
is misguided."

That won't change one bit with a futuristic automated system.


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

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 20:13:06 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> wrote in
>::

>Reread what Dudley said. "A pilot who flies without being constantly
>aware that he/she is the main aspect of the mid-air avoidance equation
>is misguided."
>
>That won't change one bit with a futuristic automated system.

Right. That's why equipping GA aircraft with TCAS-equivalent systems
makes sense; it puts the tools to avoid 99% of MACS in the hands of
the GA pilot, not ATC nor the military.

[Jose[_1_]]

> How much money doesn't matter.

Sure it does. They have plenty of money. They should use some of it
for this.

> So, how do "blips on a display" provided by TCAS differ from the
> already existing blips on the radar display?

I don't know. Can you "see" GA aircraft on your display? Can you see
the ones that are in the MOAs? If so, then why are GA aircraft in the
MOA a problem?

> Are you intentionally dense or is it an accident of birth?

It was an accident of birth. I'm on Usenet right now filling myself
with fluff, so I shouldn't be dense for long. :)

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 Tue, 01 Aug 2006 20:46:38 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 20:13:06 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> wrote in
>::
>
>>Reread what Dudley said. "A pilot who flies without being constantly
>>aware that he/she is the main aspect of the mid-air avoidance equation
>>is misguided."
>>
>>That won't change one bit with a futuristic automated system.
>
>Right. That's why equipping GA aircraft with TCAS-equivalent systems
>makes sense; it puts the tools to avoid 99% of MACS in the hands of
>the GA pilot, not ATC nor the military.

You are still missing the point. It is "wetware" not "hardware" this
is the critical component. TCAS is a nice gadget, but it isn't a
panacea. Looking out the window and recognizing, whether you are GA,
commercial or military, that there is always the possibility of mishap
is the essential element.

You can't have a mechanical, fool-proof solution.


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

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> >That won't change one bit with a futuristic automated system.
>
> Right. That's why equipping GA aircraft with TCAS-equivalent systems
> makes sense; it puts the tools to avoid 99% of MACS in the hands of
> the GA pilot, not ATC nor the military.

ADS-B would be way better than TCAS (not merely equivalent). TCAS
is not sufficiently accurate in azimuth to provide horizontal escape
guidance.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Ed Rasimus > wrote:

> TCAS would be impractical in terms of continual warnings
> and (heaven forbid) uncommanded fly-up/fly-down commands.

TCAS does NOT control the aircraft - there are no connections
to the autopilot. All RAs are visual cues and aural cues. All
collison aviodance is performed by the flying pilot.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[[email protected]]

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.
>

Ed, you are showing your age - the days of willy-nilly are long gone.
Nowadays everything is done by the book (or T.O). If you do it the way
it's supposed to be done you can plan for downing two Cessnas in the
morning, punch out in time to get a nooner with one of the ladies from
your fighter pilot harem, get in 18 holes of golf, get yourself another
airplane for the afternoon, take in a low-level MTR or two and down two
or more GA aircraft (add three in the afternoon to your morning score
and you're an ace in one day), and punch out again just in time for
happy hour at the O club.

Ah, the life of a USAF aviator....;-)

John Hairell )

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> > Actually the "huge fraction" is at the lowest percentage of GDP that
> > it has been since WW II.
>
> How much money does that actually turn out to be?

Since you're the one who asserted the "huge fraction" in the first
place, one would assume that you knew.

No?

[588]

Larry Dighera wrote:


> Actually, there is quite a bit of Class G airspace in the US. It's
> ceiling is just 700' or 1,200' AGL.


Excellent! Just right for low level nav training routes. ;>


Jack

[588]

wrote:

> So the training needs of the military have a higher priority than
> anything else in the US airspace system?

Your interpretation, not mine. But to pursue that idea, the point of
having and training the military is in order to continue to have a
National Airspace System. Thus the priority.


> So we should allow free range
> by military aviation and IFR airline traffic
> (that's big money) but the GA population should stay home and watch
> "Wings" on TV?

Stay on topic, tpn18. Airliners don't fit in this particular discussion.


Jack

[[email protected]]

588 wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > So the training needs of the military have a higher priority than
> > anything else in the US airspace system?
>
> Your interpretation, not mine. But to pursue that idea, the point of
> having and training the military is in order to continue to have a
> National Airspace System. Thus the priority.


Read the law - specifically Title 49. Number one priority is safety
and the main concern after that is commerce. With your logic the
military could claim rights over every and anything due to national
security concerns overiding all other aspects, i.e. if you don't let us
take your airspace/property/anything else we want for training the
country will be open to attack and we will founder. The lawmakers were
wise enough in 1958 and again in later years to reject this line of
thinking.

Nobody denies that the military services require blocks of airspace for
training purposes.
That their needs always over-ride the needs of all other airspace users
is questionable.

>
>
> > So we should allow free range
> > by military aviation and IFR airline traffic
> > (that's big money) but the GA population should stay home and watch
> > "Wings" on TV?
>
> Stay on topic, tpn18. Airliners don't fit in this particular discussion.

Any type of traffic fits in this discussion. My point is that we
shouldn't cede control of airspace to military and purely commercial
interests. By far the largest number of aircraft in the U.S. belong to
the general aviation fleet. Some people seem to forget that. The
system is for everybody.


John Hairell )

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On 2 Aug 2006 06:07:11 -0700, "
> wrote:

>
>588 wrote:
>> wrote:
>>
>> > So the training needs of the military have a higher priority than
>> > anything else in the US airspace system?
>>
>> Your interpretation, not mine. But to pursue that idea, the point of
>> having and training the military is in order to continue to have a
>> National Airspace System. Thus the priority.
>
>
>Read the law - specifically Title 49. Number one priority is safety
>and the main concern after that is commerce. With your logic the
>military could claim rights over every and anything due to national
>security concerns overiding all other aspects, i.e. if you don't let us
>take your airspace/property/anything else we want for training the
>country will be open to attack and we will founder. The lawmakers were
>wise enough in 1958 and again in later years to reject this line of
>thinking.

I think the umbrage being taken here is that you've jumped from "user"
priority to "objectives" priority. First you wear your prejudice on
your sleeve with the somewhat inflammatory remarks about the DOD
wanting to take over and run all the airspace coupled with the bit
about letting GA stay home and watch "Wings".

Then when people point out that the military have a higher priority
than GA (and they should), you quickly shift from prioritizing
military/commercial/GA to "number one priority is safety." It's
apples and oranges.

List who gets to use a block of airspace--"Mr Safety" doesn't make the
list.
>
>Nobody denies that the military services require blocks of airspace for
>training purposes.
>That their needs always over-ride the needs of all other airspace users
>is questionable.
>
>>
>>
>> > So we should allow free range
>> > by military aviation and IFR airline traffic
>> > (that's big money) but the GA population should stay home and watch
>> > "Wings" on TV?
>>
>> Stay on topic, tpn18. Airliners don't fit in this particular discussion.
>
>Any type of traffic fits in this discussion. My point is that we
>shouldn't cede control of airspace to military and purely commercial
>interests. By far the largest number of aircraft in the U.S. belong to
>the general aviation fleet. Some people seem to forget that. The
>system is for everybody.

And, everybody has been using the system with a remarkable degree of
efficiency for decades. Airlines run schedules and fairly high on-time
efficiency rates. GA folks get to do GA things, whether biz-jetting to
meetings, dancing the sky on laughter silvered wings, or simply
learning to fly at the local pasture. And, the military gets to
operate with relatively minimal impact on their requirements and
little interference on the other players.

The FAA continues to control the airspace where they can do it best.
They mesh with military terminal control facilities and they interact
with special use airspace schedulers and controllers. No one I've
heard of seriously is seeking military takeover of airspace control
for the CONUS. Your paranoia seems to be recurring.


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

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On 1 Aug 2006 17:42:49 -0700, "
> 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.
>>
>
>Ed, you are showing your age - the days of willy-nilly are long gone.
>Nowadays everything is done by the book (or T.O). If you do it the way
>it's supposed to be done you can plan for downing two Cessnas in the
>morning, punch out in time to get a nooner with one of the ladies from
>your fighter pilot harem, get in 18 holes of golf, get yourself another
>airplane for the afternoon, take in a low-level MTR or two and down two
>or more GA aircraft (add three in the afternoon to your morning score
>and you're an ace in one day), and punch out again just in time for
>happy hour at the O club.
>
>Ah, the life of a USAF aviator....;-)
>
>John Hairell )

You're right. The guys and gals doing the job today are a hell of a
lot more professional and efficient than I was. It's all a function of
"doing more with less."


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

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 20:52:49 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> wrote in
>::

>On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 20:46:38 GMT, Larry Dighera >
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 20:13:06 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> wrote in
>::
>>
>>>Reread what Dudley said. "A pilot who flies without being constantly
>>>aware that he/she is the main aspect of the mid-air avoidance equation
>>>is misguided."
>>>
>>>That won't change one bit with a futuristic automated system.
>>
>>Right. That's why equipping GA aircraft with TCAS-equivalent systems
>>makes sense; it puts the tools to avoid 99% of MACS in the hands of
>>the GA pilot, not ATC nor the military.
>
>You are still missing the point.

Actually, I believe it is you who are missing a very important point:
the inadequate time available to deconflict at high rates of closure.

>It is "wetware" not "hardware" this is the critical component.

Agreed. But if the 'wetware' isn't up to the task, it would seem
logical to augment its abilities through technological means. After
all, isn't that what you claim occurs on military flights when they
use radar for collision avoidance?

>TCAS is a nice gadget, but it isn't a panacea. Looking out the window
>and recognizing, whether you are GA, commercial or military, that there
>is always the possibility of mishap is the essential element.

Given the fact that the Cessna 172 hit by the F-16 in Florida (for
example) was in a right bank at the time of the left-on-left collision
impact, it would seem that there is insufficient time available for
human capabilities to successfully accomplish see-and-avoid separation
at high rates of closure. Visual separation failed in the other
military/civil MACs I mentioned in earlier posts also.

Given this information:

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/sa15.pdf
An experimental scan training course conducted with military
pilots found the average time needed to conduct the operations
essential to flying the airplane was 20 seconds – 17 seconds for
the outside scan, and three seconds for the panel scan.

It would seem like 17 seconds in inadequate time for non-military
trained pilots to successfully deconflict, not to mention the
deconfliction failures of the military pilots in the afore mentioned
MACs.

>You can't have a mechanical, fool-proof solution.

Agreed. Of course, I never claimed equipping GA aircraft with TCAS
capability would be 100% effective.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 17:07:16 -0400, Bob Noel
> wrote in
>::

>In article >,
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> >That won't change one bit with a futuristic automated system.
>>
>> Right. That's why equipping GA aircraft with TCAS-equivalent systems
>> makes sense; it puts the tools to avoid 99% of MACS in the hands of
>> the GA pilot, not ATC nor the military.
>
>ADS-B would be way better than TCAS (not merely equivalent). TCAS
>is not sufficiently accurate in azimuth to provide horizontal escape
>guidance.


Thank you for providing this information. Can you compare the
specifications/capabilities of TCAS vs ADS-B for us? It looks like
ADS-B is on the horizon currently.

[Larry Dighera]

On 1 Aug 2006 17:42:49 -0700, "
> wrote in
. com>::

>
>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.
>>
>
>Ed, you are showing your age - the days of willy-nilly are long gone.
>Nowadays everything is done by the book (or T.O). If you do it the way
>it's supposed to be done you can plan for downing two Cessnas in the
>morning, punch out in time to get a nooner with one of the ladies from
>your fighter pilot harem, get in 18 holes of golf, get yourself another
>airplane for the afternoon, take in a low-level MTR or two and down two
>or more GA aircraft (add three in the afternoon to your morning score
>and you're an ace in one day), and punch out again just in time for
>happy hour at the O club.
>
>Ah, the life of a USAF aviator....;-)
>
>John Hairell )

I hope the wife and daughter of the Cessna pilot killed in the Florida
MAC isn't reading this article, or the one to which it is in response.
Ed's publicly published lack of respect is so rude and inconsiderate
of the dead flight instructor, that it is certainly unbecoming a US
military officer, but it does reveal what I hope is not the typical
fighter pilot's lack of reverence and nonchalance toward their
responsibility in killing innocent civilians while they're playing
their fun war games.

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 14:35:16 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 20:52:49 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> wrote in
>::
>
>>On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 20:46:38 GMT, Larry Dighera >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 20:13:06 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> wrote in
>::
>>>
>>>>Reread what Dudley said. "A pilot who flies without being constantly
>>>>aware that he/she is the main aspect of the mid-air avoidance equation
>>>>is misguided."
>>>>
>>>>That won't change one bit with a futuristic automated system.
>>>
>>>Right. That's why equipping GA aircraft with TCAS-equivalent systems
>>>makes sense; it puts the tools to avoid 99% of MACS in the hands of
>>>the GA pilot, not ATC nor the military.
>>
>>You are still missing the point.
>
>Actually, I believe it is you who are missing a very important point:
>the inadequate time available to deconflict at high rates of closure.

I think several people in this forum with extensive experience over
several decades of operating high performance aircraft worldwide have
expressed the well founded opinion that visual deconfliction is not
significantly degraded or inadequate at operational speeds. You seem
to be unwilling to acknowledge experience of others in areas in which
you have no familiarity beyond your own opinion.
>
>>It is "wetware" not "hardware" this is the critical component.
>
>Agreed. But if the 'wetware' isn't up to the task, it would seem
>logical to augment its abilities through technological means. After
>all, isn't that what you claim occurs on military flights when they
>use radar for collision avoidance?

My point is that you think a hardware gadget will solve the problem.
It might help, but it won't be the total, fail-safe solution. TCAS is
an aid when other already-installed systems don't provide similar or
better information. Look out the window! That's basic. After that,
listen to controllers and try to get the "big picture." If you've got
radar, use it. If you want advisories, ask. If you demand
deconfliction, go IFR, but recognize that unless you are in IMC
someone might be there to threaten you.
>
>>TCAS is a nice gadget, but it isn't a panacea. Looking out the window
>>and recognizing, whether you are GA, commercial or military, that there
>>is always the possibility of mishap is the essential element.
>
>Given the fact that the Cessna 172 hit by the F-16 in Florida (for
>example) was in a right bank at the time of the left-on-left collision
>impact, it would seem that there is insufficient time available for
>human capabilities to successfully accomplish see-and-avoid separation
>at high rates of closure. Visual separation failed in the other
>military/civil MACs I mentioned in earlier posts also.

At the most basic, "**** happens." There is no perfect system. Someone
somewhere will find a way to get into an accident.

This is not an indication of operations in excess of human
capabilities. Before turning left in a slow moving aircraft, it is
prudent to look left and clear. It is equally prudent to look right
and clear prior to turning to make sure that the train doesn't hit you
during the period you are involved in the turn.
>
>Given this information:
>
> http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/sa15.pdf
> An experimental scan training course conducted with military
> pilots found the average time needed to conduct the operations
> essential to flying the airplane was 20 seconds – 17 seconds for
> the outside scan, and three seconds for the panel scan.
>
>It would seem like 17 seconds in inadequate time for non-military
>trained pilots to successfully deconflict, not to mention the
>deconfliction failures of the military pilots in the afore mentioned
>MACs.

Apples/oranges. The F-15 pilot cycle was determined as 20 seconds, but
that relates to the rate at which deviations from desired/required
flight conditions occur. Your non-military trained pilot has
considerably more time in his/her focus cycle to search. Note also,
that with full-bubble canopies, HUDs and multi-sensory data input in
modern tactical aircraft, simple visual scan is much more efficient
than that of the high-wing C-172 pilot.
>
>>You can't have a mechanical, fool-proof solution.
>
>Agreed. Of course, I never claimed equipping GA aircraft with TCAS
>capability would be 100% effective.

I think we've had a break through here!


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

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 14:48:08 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>On 1 Aug 2006 17:42:49 -0700, "
> wrote in
. com>::
>
>>
>>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.
>>>
>>
>>Ed, you are showing your age - the days of willy-nilly are long gone.
>>Nowadays everything is done by the book (or T.O). If you do it the way
>>it's supposed to be done you can plan for downing two Cessnas in the
>>morning, punch out in time to get a nooner with one of the ladies from
>>your fighter pilot harem, get in 18 holes of golf, get yourself another
>>airplane for the afternoon, take in a low-level MTR or two and down two
>>or more GA aircraft (add three in the afternoon to your morning score
>>and you're an ace in one day), and punch out again just in time for
>>happy hour at the O club.
>>
>>Ah, the life of a USAF aviator....;-)
>>
>>John Hairell )
>
>I hope the wife and daughter of the Cessna pilot killed in the Florida
>MAC isn't reading this article, or the one to which it is in response.
>Ed's publicly published lack of respect is so rude and inconsiderate
>of the dead flight instructor, that it is certainly unbecoming a US
>military officer, but it does reveal what I hope is not the typical
>fighter pilot's lack of reverence and nonchalance toward their
>responsibility in killing innocent civilians while they're playing
>their fun war games.

One would put the comments into the entire context of the debate and
hopefully recognize it as sarcasm and satire delivered after hours of
frustration trying to overcome your deep-seated bigotry against the
military professionals who have tried to enlighten you.

And, if you think war and training for it is fun you might consider
some of the possible outcomes.

Meanwhile, I've exercised considerable restraint in avoiding the
simplest, common two-word response to your drivel. Besides, most folks
recognize it as purely rhetorical and a physically impossible act.


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

[588]

wrote:

> Nobody denies that the military services require blocks of airspace for
> training purposes. That their needs always over-ride the needs of all
> other airspace users is questionable.

More than questionable.


> My point is that we shouldn't cede control of airspace to military
> and purely commercial interests. By far the largest number of
> aircraft in the U.S. belong to the general aviation fleet....
> ...The system is for everybody.

Agreed. The main antagonist in this thread seems to think otherwise.
Perhaps you would attempt to explain the concept to LD yourself.


Jack

[588]

Scared of Mid-Airs?

Me too, so I stay away from 'em. It's easier if you know where they
are.


Larry Dighera wrote:

> (Have you ever been successful contacting
> Flight Service at 500' AGL to inquire if a MTR is hot?)

Rarely, and that's an FAA problem. It could be that the lack of FSS
coverage is the real culprit in MAC's. Maybe you should look into
it. FSS performance is a contributing factor in at least one of the
accidents you cite, and the unwillingness of civilian pilots to
consult with the FSS is a factor in two of them. In all four of the
accidents, military pilots were in contact with the appropriate
agencies.


> Alternatively, we could REQUIRE BY REGULATION, that all MTR
> participants employ TCAS....

Interesting. Try convincing AOPA that all civilian light planes need
to have TCAS so that they can participate in the system. A TCAS unit
will cost more than the value of most of the aircraft in which it
would be installed. Within the airspace where you'll find MTR's,
civilian light planes are not required to have even a basic
transponder. Perhaps the civilian community should begin to do its
part to insure no more MAC's?


> We could surely do without MTR routes in the CONUS, and did until a
> few years ago.

Low level training routes have been around for more than 40 years,
that I know of. Never liked 'em, only because though I had to be
there, the Cessna's didn't and they didn't care enough to know that
I was there.


> 1. The presence of 450 knot military training flights within
> congested terminal airspace without benefit of the required ATC
> clearance cannot be allowed to kill innocent civilians either.

You keep ignoring the facts, about which you have repeatedly been
reminded. None of the four accidents you've cited in your rants
actually fits the above.


> 2. ...Now we've got [MTR] here in the US. Perhaps there is a...less
> congested venue someplace else.

You could be the head negotiator. Let us know how many such venues
you find. Moving all military training offshore sounds like a real
interesting proposition. Have you given it even 5 seconds of
thought? Two should be more than enough.


> 3. As currently implemented, Military Training Routes are joint-use
> airspace. To expect that airspace to be free of non-military aircraft
> is unrealistic and contrary to federal civil and military regulations.

It would be safer. Isn't that your concern?


> Just so we all understand the definition of a MTR:
>
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/airspace.htm
> A Military Training Route, or MTR, is basically a long,
> low-altitude [joint use] corridor that serves as a flight path to
> a particular destination [with aircraft speeds up to mach 1]. The
> corridor is often 10 miles wide, 70 to 100 miles long [although
> it's not charted that way], and may range from 500 to 1,500 feet
> above ground level [and unrealistically relies solely upon
> see-and-avoid for collision avoidance in VMC]; occasionally, they
> are higher. MTRs are designed to provide realistic low-altitude
> training conditions for pilots. In times of conflict, to avoid
> detection by enemy radar, tactical fighter aircraft are often
> called upon to fly hundreds of miles at low altitude over varying
> terrain. Obviously, navigation is extremely difficult on
> high-speed low-altitude flights. That's why it is imperative that
> fighter pilots have ample opportunity to practice these necessary
> and demanding skills [even if it endangers the lives of the
> public].

Yes, read that last sentence again, the one with the word "imperative".

The civil pilot chooses to transit airspace where he knows or should
know that military missions are being flown. He enters at his own
risk, and increases the risk to those military missions in so doing.
Either he is an equal player or he is not. If he can't, as you
claim, be expected to bear an equal share of responsibility for
traffic avoidance, then he has no business operating in that air
space. Those who imply otherwise would increase the danger to all
involved.


>> Have you considered the
>> implications of certain forms of political dissent which could
>> involve obstruction of these routes by civilian aircraft of various
>> categories? Perhaps you have, after all.
>
> No I haven't. Only someone with a death wish would consider
> committing such a stupid act.

And yet, you advocate the military take full responsibility for
those who choose, for whatever reason, to enter an MTR, even for
those with what you describe as a death wish? You can't have it both
ways. In order for that to happen the presence of civilian aircraft
would require the cessation or at least the modification of the
mission and the resulting loss of training, increased costs, and
ultimately less safety as these missions would have to be reflown,
requiring a higher sortie count to achieve the necessary training.


> What would what you suggest that might accomplish besides
> a dead civilian airman and two destroyed aircraft?

It comes as a complete surprise to you, I am sure, that there are
people in this world who haven't the brains to assess the risks, and
another group who actually treasure the opportunity to be splattered
in a righteous cause. Nothing new about it, really, but you should
pick up a newspaper now and then, and try to keep up. As pointed out
in the preceding paragraphs, the mere presence of civilian aircraft
in the airspace would be enough to shut down training under the
restrictions you're advocating.


> Get real.

Reality is the province of the fighter pilot, Larry. The
"hundred-dollar hamburger" is a lolly-gag for the casual
recreationist, be he ever so experienced. BTDT, all the way round
the block, and back again.


> Or are you referring to the glider that was hit on a MTR by an A6 [sic]? The
> glider pilot, who had the right of way, was found by the NTSB to be
> the cause of the MAC! There's justice for you.

Have you complained to the NTSB? Perhaps the Federal Government
should be responsible for traffic separation -- there's a novel notion.


Civil aircraft to the right of military aircraft:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20050126X00109&key=1

The usual NTSB pointless response amounting to, "they ran into each
other because they ran into each other," or, in NTSB-speak, "both
pilots failed to...maintain clearance from other aircraft." But you
think it was all the military's fault. There was nothing about this
accident that made it a "military" type of accident. Any two
civilian aircraft could have had exactly the same accident in the
same place. The T-37 was at 200 kts, well below the speed any number
of civilian aircraft could have been traveling, and was not on an
MTR. The Ag plane was invisible to ATC while operating in marginal
VFR conditions, having neither a transponder nor a radio.


> F-16s lacked required ATC clearance:
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X22313&key=1

Flight lead screws up; and "ATC’s lack of awareness that there was
more than one F-16 aircraft in the formation flight, which reduced
the ATC controllers ability to detect and resolve the conflict that
resulted in the collision," despite the fact that fighters don't go
anywhere alone. Maybe ATC could train their people better, too. What
do you think?


> A6 pilot expected to exit MTR eight minutes after route
> closure:
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X12242&key=1

AG Cat pilot unaware of the existence of MTR; this FSS habitually
fails to give useful info to local flights; and so the NTSB cites
"inherent limitations of the see-and-avoid concept." How about the
inherent limitations of ignorant Ag Cat pilots and apathetic FSS
employees?


> A6 hit glider that had right of way:
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001213X33340&key=1

"THE _A7E_ PLT HAD INFORMED THE NECESSARY FLT SERV STATIONS THAT THE
ROUTE WAS ACTIVE; THE GLIDER PLT HAD NOT CONTACTED THE FLT SERV
STATIONS TO DETERMINE IF THE ROUTE WAS ACTIVE."

Poor preflight planning and preparation on the part of the glider
pilot, according to the NTSB. A proper evaluation of the dangers of
operating in a hot MTR cannot possibly be made if he doesn't know
about the MTR. He just didn't give himself a fighting chance. Would
he even have known if he was circling over the VOR on a busy airway?
Sure, you go where the lift is, within reason, in a glider, but
"situational awareness" -- the same thing you so correctly demand of
the F-16 flight lead above -- is required even of glider pilots. I
would say, "especially of glider pilots", given the characteristics
of that beautiful sport. BTDT, got the glider.


> I would like to see the military assume responsibility for the hazard
> their operations under FAR § 91.117(d) cause to civil flights in all
> airspace. That exemption to the 250 knot speed limit below 10,000' is
> an affront to the design of the NAS.

Then change the NAS. The laws of physics remain beyond the reach of
the legislature, despite your passionate objections.


> If not, why have a speed limit at all?

Simply to minimize UNNECESSARY high speed operation in an area of
mixed traffic. You cannot continue to ignore the aerodynamic as well
as the operational necessity for some military aircraft to operate
well above your beloved 250 kts, and still expect that you should be
taken seriously. Does it surprise you to know that there are
civilian aircraft which also must operate above 250kts below
10,000'? Their reasons too are valid. BTDT, got the ATPR and the
fancy hat.


> If military operations create a civil hazard, they should be
> segregated from civil flights.

We disagree only on the mechanism to achieve that end. As has been
stated elsewhere, this is a problem that has no answer but
cooperation and an assumption of both risk and responsibility by all
parties.


> So you've read all I've written on this subject over the past six
> years?

Unfortunately. Redundant, shallow, and obtuse though it has been.


>>> It is easy to be destructive...but it takes effort to be
>>> constructive....

>> Good advice, perhaps you will keep it in mind.

> Implicit in that parting shot is the notion that I have somehow been
> destructive.

EXPLICIT in that parting shot is the well-regarded notion that "it
takes effort to be constructive." A great deal of effort is required
to go beyond where the NAS is today -- effort that you seem
unwilling to undertake, given your six-year crusade against the
windmills of your own ignorance.



Jack

[[email protected]]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

> I think the umbrage being taken here is that you've jumped from "user"
> priority to "objectives" priority. First you wear your prejudice on
> your sleeve with the somewhat inflammatory remarks about the DOD
> wanting to take over and run all the airspace coupled with the bit
> about letting GA stay home and watch "Wings".

Somewhat inflammatory remarks? I used to schedule airspace blocks for
DOD. Where do you think I got my ideas about DOD hogging airspace
from? I worked in a place where we did it every day. DOD ever have an
interest in controlling all airspace? Look into the history of the
national airspace system and come back and then we can discuss it.

>
> Then when people point out that the military have a higher priority
> than GA (and they should), you quickly shift from prioritizing
> military/commercial/GA to "number one priority is safety." It's
> apples and oranges.
>

Why should the military have priority over GA? The first rule of the
NAS is "first come, first serve".

> List who gets to use a block of airspace--"Mr Safety" doesn't make the
> list.

That's an interesting statement coming from a pilot. More fuel for the
fire for Mr. Dighera.

>
> And, everybody has been using the system with a remarkable degree of
> efficiency for decades. Airlines run schedules and fairly high on-time
> efficiency rates. GA folks get to do GA things, whether biz-jetting to
> meetings, dancing the sky on laughter silvered wings, or simply
> learning to fly at the local pasture. And, the military gets to
> operate with relatively minimal impact on their requirements and
> little interference on the other players.

But you can't say that control of airspace has never been thought about
and discussed by various people in the military.

>
> The FAA continues to control the airspace where they can do it best.
> They mesh with military terminal control facilities and they interact
> with special use airspace schedulers and controllers. No one I've
> heard of seriously is seeking military takeover of airspace control
> for the CONUS. Your paranoia seems to be recurring.

I never said that I'm worried about DOD taking over CONUS airspace, so
no paranoia on my part. My response had to do with another poster
suggesting that all MTR airspace be forbidden to GA aircraft, which you
yourself agreed was unfeasable.

It's a historical fact that the military has at various times had an
interest in controlling all U.S. airspace. This was discussed at
length in the first airspace design class I attended in 1978 when we
were talking about the roots of the SCATANA plan. The idea was more
prevalent in the 1950s at the height of the Cold War when the military
was worried about flights of Russian bombers penetrating U.S. airspace.
I'm not saying that there is a DOD cabal to take over U.S. airspace,
only that at certain times there have been military agencies or groups
of people who have talked about the possibilities, and in the '50s
tried to make it so.

The 1958 Federal Aviation Act gave the FAA sole responsibility for
developing and maintaining a common civil-military system of air
navigation and air traffic control, and the framers of the act went out
of their way to take some of these responsiblities away from the
military and other government entities, which had previously shared
them with the CAA in a hodge-podge fashion.


John Hairell )

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On 2 Aug 2006 08:46:19 -0700, "
> wrote:

>
>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>
>> I think the umbrage being taken here is that you've jumped from "user"
>> priority to "objectives" priority. First you wear your prejudice on
>> your sleeve with the somewhat inflammatory remarks about the DOD
>> wanting to take over and run all the airspace coupled with the bit
>> about letting GA stay home and watch "Wings".
>
>Somewhat inflammatory remarks? I used to schedule airspace blocks for
>DOD. Where do you think I got my ideas about DOD hogging airspace
>from? I worked in a place where we did it every day. DOD ever have an
>interest in controlling all airspace? Look into the history of the
>national airspace system and come back and then we can discuss it.

I used to use airspace blocks. I started operating in the environment
with the military in 1964 and did it continuously until 1987. During
that time I also operated in Europe and Asia. In the process my
assignments included tasks ranging from squadron scheduling (airspace
required for training, you know) to Operations Officer management
(getting entire units operationally ready) to NATO exercise planning
requiring negotiation of airspace from multiple national agencies.
I've even done airspace coordination in battle space to deconflict
fast-movers, army aviation and artillery (FAA wasn't in the plan.)
I've got a working background in the subject both from the ground and
the operator side of the house.
>
>>
>> Then when people point out that the military have a higher priority
>> than GA (and they should), you quickly shift from prioritizing
>> military/commercial/GA to "number one priority is safety." It's
>> apples and oranges.
>>
>
>Why should the military have priority over GA? The first rule of the
>NAS is "first come, first serve".

That is patently absurd. File a flight plan along the north Florida
coast and see if you can get "first come, first serve(d)" priority
over a Shuttle launch. Or file though White Sands when a retest of a
drone becomes necessary and see if you get your service.

National security and operational expedience can and often do take
priority over "first come" service.
>
>> List who gets to use a block of airspace--"Mr Safety" doesn't make the
>> list.
>
>That's an interesting statement coming from a pilot. More fuel for the
>fire for Mr. Dighera.

Read again slowly and try not to move your lips. Your introduction of
"safety" as a priority when the discussion was prioritization of
military, commercial and GA traffic was the subject. Safety is a goal.
Safety is the number 1 priority goal. Then efficiency, operational
necessity, time criticality, etc. will vie for runners-up.

But if I ask you to build a priority list with military, commercial,
GA, safety, fuel economy, radar availability, cost of gas at the pump,
control of Gaza and protecting the whales, you will have a tough time
creating a rationale. At this point, Mr. Dighera has burned himself
out. His tape is on continous loop and I can do little to inflame or
douse him.
>
>>
>> And, everybody has been using the system with a remarkable degree of
>> efficiency for decades. Airlines run schedules and fairly high on-time
>> efficiency rates. GA folks get to do GA things, whether biz-jetting to
>> meetings, dancing the sky on laughter silvered wings, or simply
>> learning to fly at the local pasture. And, the military gets to
>> operate with relatively minimal impact on their requirements and
>> little interference on the other players.
>
>But you can't say that control of airspace has never been thought about
>and discussed by various people in the military.

Control of airspace is an operational necessity. That is different
than assumption of control responsibility for the nation. I wouldn't
want LA Center doing control over Nellis ranges and I don't believe
they have the slightest concern over WSMR is being used for a missile
shot or supersonic dissimilar training.

But, for a lot of years during WW-Cold, there was an bi-lateral agency
called NORAD that would have pulled the plug on the FAA in an instant
when the unthinkable occurred. And, during the heyday of Air Defense
Command, you might recall that FAA lost control of military climb
corridors in an instant when there was an air defense scramble.

But you can also take to the bank that the military has no desire to
prioritize whether American out of D/FW gets priority release over
Southwest from Love Field.
>
>>
>> The FAA continues to control the airspace where they can do it best.
>> They mesh with military terminal control facilities and they interact
>> with special use airspace schedulers and controllers. No one I've
>> heard of seriously is seeking military takeover of airspace control
>> for the CONUS. Your paranoia seems to be recurring.
>
>I never said that I'm worried about DOD taking over CONUS airspace, so
>no paranoia on my part. My response had to do with another poster
>suggesting that all MTR airspace be forbidden to GA aircraft, which you
>yourself agreed was unfeasable.
>
>It's a historical fact that the military has at various times had an
>interest in controlling all U.S. airspace. This was discussed at
>length in the first airspace design class I attended in 1978 when we
>were talking about the roots of the SCATANA plan. The idea was more
>prevalent in the 1950s at the height of the Cold War when the military
>was worried about flights of Russian bombers penetrating U.S. airspace.
> I'm not saying that there is a DOD cabal to take over U.S. airspace,
>only that at certain times there have been military agencies or groups
>of people who have talked about the possibilities, and in the '50s
>tried to make it so.
>
>The 1958 Federal Aviation Act gave the FAA sole responsibility for
>developing and maintaining a common civil-military system of air
>navigation and air traffic control, and the framers of the act went out
>of their way to take some of these responsiblities away from the
>military and other government entities, which had previously shared
>them with the CAA in a hodge-podge fashion.

Absolutely. No disagreement here, but you've now embellished with a
lot more detail and gotten beyond the blanket assertion of a DOD cabal
to control the world--or at least the FAA's part of the bureaucratic
pie.

But, when PATCO went on strike, they quickly learned that there were
alternatives to their paternal (pun unintentional) control of the
skies. They weren't missed for long.

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

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 15:09:27 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> wrote in
>::

>On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 14:35:16 GMT, Larry Dighera >
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 20:52:49 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> wrote in
>::
>>
>>>On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 20:46:38 GMT, Larry Dighera >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 20:13:06 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> wrote in
>::
>>>>
>>>>>Reread what Dudley said. "A pilot who flies without being constantly
>>>>>aware that he/she is the main aspect of the mid-air avoidance equation
>>>>>is misguided."
>>>>>
>>>>>That won't change one bit with a futuristic automated system.
>>>>
>>>>Right. That's why equipping GA aircraft with TCAS-equivalent systems
>>>>makes sense; it puts the tools to avoid 99% of MACS in the hands of
>>>>the GA pilot, not ATC nor the military.
>>>
>>>You are still missing the point.
>>
>>Actually, I believe it is you who are missing a very important point:
>>the inadequate time available to deconflict at high rates of closure.
>
>I think several people in this forum with extensive experience over
>several decades of operating high performance aircraft worldwide have
>expressed the well founded opinion that visual deconfliction is not
>significantly degraded or inadequate at operational speeds. You seem
>to be unwilling to acknowledge experience of others in areas in which
>you have no familiarity beyond your own opinion.

First, I'd like to see some quotes of the "well founded opinions" to
which you refer; Message-ID numbers will be fine.

Second, I am perfectly willing to acknowledge _unbiased_ opinion, and
objectively conducted test results.

>>
>>>It is "wetware" not "hardware" this is the critical component.
>>
>>Agreed. But if the 'wetware' isn't up to the task, it would seem
>>logical to augment its abilities through technological means. After
>>all, isn't that what you claim occurs on military flights when they
>>use radar for collision avoidance?
>
>My point is that you think a hardware gadget will solve the problem.
>It might help, but it won't be the total, fail-safe solution. TCAS is
>an aid when other already-installed systems don't provide similar or
>better information. Look out the window! That's basic.

Why do you state the obvious; looking out the window is mandated by
regulations. We all know that. Unfortunately, looking out the
windows was totally inadequate to separate the aircraft involved in
the four military/civil MACs posted earlier. There is no question of
that fact.

>After that, listen to controllers and try to get the "big picture."

In the case of the Florida MAC, the Cessna pilot was being controlled
in Class C airspace by ATC at the time. The trainee controller failed
to issue the traffic alert his equipment was giving him. There was no
opportunity for the Cessna pilot to get information on the Ninja
flight from ATC, as Ninja lead Parker failed to establish radio
contact with ATC as required by regulations (civil and military).

>If you've got radar, use it [for deconfliction].

It's clear the AIB report, that the Ninja flight did not use their
radars for deconfliction.

>If you want advisories, ask.

The Cessna was being controlled by ATC at the time of the MAC. He
shouldn't have to ask for traffic advisories, even though ATC was not
providing separation to VFR aircraft in Class C airspace.

While the advise you advocate is obvious to any competent pilot, it
would not have prevented any of the four military/civil MACs I cited.
If the civil aircraft involved in those MACs had been equipped with
collision avoidance technology, there is a very good chance those MACs
would not have occurred. Why won't you acknowledge that fact?

>If you demand deconfliction, go IFR, but recognize that unless you are in IMC
>someone might be there to threaten you.

In the case of the Florida MAC, I doubt even that would have worked.

>>>TCAS is a nice gadget, but it isn't a panacea. Looking out the window
>>>and recognizing, whether you are GA, commercial or military, that there
>>>is always the possibility of mishap is the essential element.
>>
>>Given the fact that the Cessna 172 hit by the F-16 in Florida (for
>>example) was in a right bank at the time of the left-on-left collision
>>impact, it would seem that there is insufficient time available for
>>human capabilities to successfully accomplish see-and-avoid separation
>>at high rates of closure. Visual separation failed in the other
>>military/civil MACs I mentioned in earlier posts also.
>
>At the most basic, "**** happens." There is no perfect system. Someone
>somewhere will find a way to get into an accident.

That sort of complacency is inappropriate for someone truly interested
in air safety.

The system is broken. Technical fixes are available. Failing to
acknowledge them is tantamount to sticking your head in the sand.

>This is not an indication of operations in excess of human
>capabilities.

We disagree about that.

>Before turning left in a slow moving aircraft, it is
>prudent to look left and clear. It is equally prudent to look right
>and clear prior to turning to make sure that the train doesn't hit you
>during the period you are involved in the turn.

The Cessna pilot was following an ATC instruction to proceed to a
point in space at the time immediately prior to attempting to avoid
the F-16 that killed him. If his turn was not an attempt to avoid the
fighter, why would have been turning contrary to ATC's instructions?
He was an ATP rated flight instructor who surely knew that failing to
follow ATC instructions was against regulations.

>>
>>Given this information:
>>
>> http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/sa15.pdf
>> An experimental scan training course conducted with military
>> pilots found the average time needed to conduct the operations
>> essential to flying the airplane was 20 seconds – 17 seconds for
>> the outside scan, and three seconds for the panel scan.
>>
>>It would seem like 17 seconds in inadequate time for non-military
>>trained pilots to successfully deconflict, not to mention the
>>deconfliction failures of the military pilots in the afore mentioned
>>MACs.
>
>Apples/oranges.

Please try to construct complete sentences. I know you're capable of
it, and it provides your reader a more accurate understanding of the
thoughts you are attempting to convey.

>The F-15 pilot cycle was determined as 20 seconds, but
>that relates to the rate at which deviations from desired/required
>flight conditions occur.

Can you cite a source for that information? I'd like to read the
document that contains that determination.

>Your non-military trained pilot has
>considerably more time in his/her focus cycle to search.

Perhaps. Upon what do you base that conclusion?

>Note also,
>that with full-bubble canopies, HUDs and multi-sensory data input in
>modern tactical aircraft, simple visual scan is much more efficient
>than that of the high-wing C-172 pilot.

Now you're making my point. If the aforementioned objective military
test of highly trained military pilots found that:

"the average time needed to conduct the operations essential to
flying the airplane was 20 seconds – 17 seconds for the outside
scan, and three seconds for the panel scan."

You can bet that a less highly trained civil pilot without the benefit
of a HUD nor bubble canopy, and the necessity to deconflict a
significantly wider angle of arc than a high-speed aircraft, will
require significantly more time deconflicting than the military pilot,
not less time.

>>
>>>You can't have a mechanical, fool-proof solution.
>>
>>Agreed. Of course, I never claimed equipping GA aircraft with TCAS
>>capability would be 100% effective.
>
>I think we've had a break through here!
>

Well, one of us is willing to face reality it seems.

[[email protected]]

Just to throw in a little more topic creep, I suggest those interested
do a Google on FLARM.

The Swiss came up with a self contained collision avoidance system for
gliders - which have a horrible mid-air problem in Europe. Simple to
use and inexpensive - about $500 per glider, I think.

Works great - and is wildly popular - in Europe. I think in Austria
and Switzerland, the number of FLARM equipped gliders approaches 90%.
And remember, this is a totally voluntary system, and you have to buy
it yourself and hope the other guy has one.

BUT - the people who make FLARM specifically prohibit it's sale and use
in the US and Canada - due to product liability laws.

No reason something similar couldn't be used by ALL aircraft,
everywhere. Make it portable, give it to a pilot when he gets his
license, require him to have it when he flies.

Yeah right, that'll happen!

OTOH, what I want more than a TCAS (that I can't afford or power) or a
transponder (which doesn't help when me and the F-16 about to hit me
are VFR and/or talking to different agencies, if at all) when I fly my
glider is a simple transponder detector - so I will be warned when
there is traffic nearby - and those are avialable for about $500 today.

Re bugsmashers: Have you ever seen a Cessna or Piper with a clean
windscreen? No way you can see and avoid looking through all the dirt
and bugs. Anyway, it's much more fun to look at the pretty color GPS
display - it even has a map!

War story - flying gliders out west in Az, have frequently picked up
mil jets (mainly Luke F-16s and Yuma AV-8s) visually and aurally - and
they seem to have had no problem seeing me (the Marines in particular
seem to like checking out gliders up close - I just wave at them as
they go by...). Ditto airliners - although when they are letting down,
737s don't make any noise at all. But it's the Cessna or Bonanza that
sneaks up on you that scares me the most. Fortunately, out west
gliders are usually above them. In Illinois, however, I'm forced to
fly smack in the middle of the VFR altitude favored the most - so my
paranoia is way up there!

Kirk
LS6 "66"

[Jose[_1_]]

> I think several people in this forum with extensive experience over
> several decades of operating high performance aircraft worldwide have
> expressed the well founded opinion that visual deconfliction is not
> significantly degraded or inadequate at operational speeds. You seem
> to be unwilling to acknowledge experience of others in areas in which
> you have no familiarity beyond your own opinion.

The deconfilction task rests on two pilots, the high performance one
(who should be so trained) and the low performance one (who was, in the
example, the one hit). To expect a typical 172 pilot to be able to
deconflict at F16 speeds is ludicrous, but that is what is being asked
when an F16 at full bore is the conflicting traffic.

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 Wed, 02 Aug 2006 15:12:51 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> wrote in
>:

>And, if you think war and training for it is fun you might consider
>some of the possible outcomes.

You might consider this quote from a naval fighter pilot:


http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safety_Issues/RiskManagement/superhornet.html
Of his career as a Navy aviator, Webb told him: "Mike, I love this
so much I can't believe they're paying me to do it. I'd do it for
free."

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 15:27:25 GMT, 588 > wrote in
>:

wrote:
>
>> Nobody denies that the military services require blocks of airspace for
>> training purposes. That their needs always over-ride the needs of all
> > other airspace users is questionable.
>
>More than questionable.
>
>
> > My point is that we shouldn't cede control of airspace to military
> > and purely commercial interests. By far the largest number of
>> aircraft in the U.S. belong to the general aviation fleet....
> > ...The system is for everybody.
>
>Agreed. The main antagonist in this thread seems to think otherwise.
>Perhaps you would attempt to explain the concept to LD yourself.
>

Jack,

Please provide a quote of my words in which I espouse ceding control
of airspace to the military and commercial interests.

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 17:19:58 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 15:12:51 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> wrote in
>:
>
>>And, if you think war and training for it is fun you might consider
>>some of the possible outcomes.
>
>You might consider this quote from a naval fighter pilot:
>
>
>http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safety_Issues/RiskManagement/superhornet.html
> Of his career as a Navy aviator, Webb told him: "Mike, I love this
> so much I can't believe they're paying me to do it. I'd do it for
> free."

If you don't love what you are doing, you need to get another job.
But, on any given day airplanes of that capability can kill you. And,
when your nation directs, you can take that airplane to places where a
lot of other people are making it their business to kill you.

Spend some time in an organization in which 60% of those that start
the tour don't complete it and you will begin to understand.


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

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 15:43:18 GMT, 588 > wrote in
>:

>Scared of Mid-Airs?
>
>Me too, so I stay away from 'em. It's easier if you know where they
>are.

Another inane remark like that, and you'll find yourself without my
readership.

I find no humor in the needless death and destruction of a MAC. I
sincerely hope your arrogance and disregard for air safety are not
typical of military airmen.

[Larry Dighera]

On 1 Aug 2006 13:13:02 -0700, "
> wrote in
om>::

>
>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>>
>> When Lockheed-Martin and Boeing finally automate US ATC at some future
>> date, the whole subject will be rendered moot, as the computer will
>> 'see' a fast-mover on a low-level MTR, and instantly route conflicting
>> aircraft away without the military informing FSS of MTR activity or
>> anything. We can dream ...
>
>
>Don't hold your breath.

Such ATC automation won't happen in my time, although I'd bet it could
be accomplished using the current level of technology.

>You'll also need 100 percent low-level radar
>coverage of the U.S., to be available 100 percent of the time,

Um.. Space-based radar might be coaxed into doing an adequate job. If
not radar coverage, satellite transponder intergeneration and/or GPS
driven data-link technology might do it. (During a solar flair, all
bets are off...) Wait a minute. Aren't Free Flight, SATS
<http://sats.nasa.gov/>, and ADS-B supposed to accomplish most of this
virtually without ATC intervention?

>and a massive amount of computer processing power.

That's the easy part. Designing the system, writing the code, and
debugging will be a never ending tasks.

[[email protected]]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

> I used to use airspace blocks.

Using is not scheduling...

I started operating in the environment
> with the military in 1964 and did it continuously until 1987. During
> that time I also operated in Europe and Asia. In the process my
> assignments included tasks ranging from squadron scheduling (airspace
> required for training, you know) to Operations Officer management
> (getting entire units operationally ready) to NATO exercise planning
> requiring negotiation of airspace from multiple national agencies.
> I've even done airspace coordination in battle space to deconflict
> fast-movers, army aviation and artillery (FAA wasn't in the plan.)

If this activity was in the U.S. the FAA was in the plan, but you might
have not known it.
Who did the using agency (not the scheduling activity) coordinate with
to release the airspace for DOD usage?

> I've got a working background in the subject both from the ground and
> the operator side of the house.

Yes, you were the guys that I sometimes coordinated with from the other
side of the house and I often dealt with aircraft in MTRs that hadn't
been scheduled, fast movers flying through restricted areas where there
happened to be scheduled artillery fire, fast movers dropping ordnance
where they shouldn't, groups of fast movers buzzing helicopters, etc.
BTW, I also saw plenty of well-done coordination but not always.
The not always part is what I'm concerned about.

> >Why should the military have priority over GA? The first rule of the
> >NAS is "first come, first serve".
>
> That is patently absurd.

The National Airspace System's first priority is the separation of
aerial traffic, period.
FAA 7100.65 assigns priorities for air traffic controllers. The first
operational priority (FAA 71110.65 2-1-4) is:

'Provide air traffic control service to aircraft on a "first come,
first served" basis as circumstances permit'.

"As circumstances permit" covers the contingencies.

File a flight plan along the north Florida
> coast and see if you can get "first come, first serve(d)" priority
> over a Shuttle launch. Or file though White Sands when a retest of a
> drone becomes necessary and see if you get your service.
>

Nobody is saying that GA aircraft can transit through these areas. But
in the course of normal operations the military has no higher
operational priority than any civilian, barring some over-riding need.

> National security and operational expedience can and often do take
> priority over "first come" service.

Those are exceptions and are coordinated with the FAA.

> >> List who gets to use a block of airspace--"Mr Safety" doesn't make the
> >> list.
> >
> >That's an interesting statement coming from a pilot. More fuel for the
> >fire for Mr. Dighera.
>
> Read again slowly and try not to move your lips.

Ad hominem attack - that's below you. I highly respect your viewpoint
as an aviator and am not making any personal attacks on you.

Your introduction of
> "safety" as a priority when the discussion was prioritization of
> military, commercial and GA traffic was the subject. Safety is a goal.
> Safety is the number 1 priority goal. Then efficiency, operational
> necessity, time criticality, etc. will vie for runners-up.

Semantics. I'm suggesting that safety should be given the highest
priority when it comes to assigning airspace blocks and the
prioritization of traffic.

>
> But if I ask you to build a priority list with military, commercial,
> GA, safety, fuel economy, radar availability, cost of gas at the pump,
> control of Gaza and protecting the whales, you will have a tough time
> creating a rationale. At this point, Mr. Dighera has burned himself
> out. His tape is on continous loop and I can do little to inflame or
> douse him.

Well, nuke the whales and remove one factor from the equation.

> Control of airspace is an operational necessity. That is different
> than assumption of control responsibility for the nation.

Nope, it's the same thing. The agency that owns the airspace (the FAA)
controls it. It's
loaned to the military who sub-control it. But some of them may think
they control it because they don't know any better.

I wouldn't
> want LA Center doing control over Nellis ranges and I don't believe
> they have the slightest concern over WSMR is being used for a missile
> shot or supersonic dissimilar training.

But ZLA can yank all of that airspace back from loan to DOD with just
one phone call. Been there, seen it done, been on both ends in fact.
So you tell me: who controls it? DOD is the "using agency", always.

>
> But, for a lot of years during WW-Cold, there was an bi-lateral agency
> called NORAD that would have pulled the plug on the FAA in an instant
> when the unthinkable occurred.

That was based on a plan which coordinated what agency would do what in
an emergency. NORAD didn't "pull the plug" on the FAA; NORAD or
somebody at the national level invoked the requisite plan, and the FAA
did its part and the other agencies did their part.

And, during the heyday of Air Defense
> Command, you might recall that FAA lost control of military climb
> corridors in an instant when there was an air defense scramble.

Yes, but that was coordinated with the FAA in an LOA. When ADC was
done protecting the country, the FAA got that block of airspace back.

>
> But you can also take to the bank that the military has no desire to
> prioritize whether American out of D/FW gets priority release over
> Southwest from Love Field.
> >

But if they were given the chance to make a decision on whether a
flight of F-15s Southwest got out of DFW first, who would they pick?

> But, when PATCO went on strike, they quickly learned that there were
> alternatives to their paternal (pun unintentional) control of the
> skies. They weren't missed for long.

Their successors are learning the same bitter lessons that the PATCO
controllers learned...


John Hairell )

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 07:18:09 -0600, "Jeff Crowell"
> wrote in >:

[...]
>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.

[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?)

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.

[...]

>> The USAF Accident Investigation Board's report:
>>
>> "Ninja flight's mistake was in transitioning to the tactical
>> portion of their flight too early, unaware that they were in
>> controlled airspace."
>>
>> That was President, Accident Investigation Board Robin E. Scott's
>> opinion. It is not fact.
>>
>> Despite the fact that Parker failed to brief terminal airspace prior
>> to the flight as regulations require, I personally find it difficult,
>> if not impossible, to believe Parker was unaware, that the 60 mile
>> diameter Tampa Class B terminal airspace lay below him at the time he
>> chose to descend below 10,000' into it.
>
>That's opinion, too, annit?

I suppose it is my reasoned opinion.

If you disagree, perhaps 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; I can't. 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 with out 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 descent into congested terminal
airspace without the required ATC clearance.

>
>>>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? :-)

[Newps]

> Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>
>> Actually, there is quite a bit of Class G airspace in the US. It's
>> ceiling is just 700' or 1,200' AGL.

Come on out West, we have lots of class G and you are not limited to a
measly 1200 AGL.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 15:40:54 -0600, Newps > wrote
in >:

>
>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Actually, there is quite a bit of Class G airspace in the US. It's
>>> ceiling is just 700' or 1,200' AGL.
>
>Come on out West, we have lots of class G and you are not limited to a
>measly 1200 AGL.
>

I am out west, southern California. Not much Class G above 1,200'
around here.

[588]

Jose wrote:

> The deconfilction task rests on two pilots, the high performance one
> (who should be so trained) and the low performance one (who was, in the
> example, the one hit). To expect a typical 172 pilot to be able to
> deconflict at F16 speeds is ludicrous, but that is what is being asked
> when an F16 at full bore is the conflicting traffic.

The problem is that the 172-pilot's motivation doesn't match the
threat. Why is that, you ask? Because of inadequate information
about the threat, primarily.

It comes down to training and the emphasis placed on the problem by
the FAA (very minimal, in both instances).

The fact that by choosing to fly a 172 the pilot severely limits his
ability to visually clear the airspace is fodder for another thread.


Jack

[588]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> Please provide a quote of my words in which I espouse ceding control
> of airspace to the military and commercial interests.

You have in multiple instances advocated making the military totally
responsible for traffic conflicts/separation on MTR's. That
certainly requires control of the airspace.

In the spirit of cooperation, I have suggested that MTR's be made
Restricted airspace in order to facilitate such a scheme. You find
that an unsatisfactory solution, apparently. Feel free to restate
your position.


Jack

[588]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> You might consider this quote from a naval fighter pilot:
>
>
> http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safety_Issues/RiskManagement/superhornet.html

> Of his career as a Navy aviator, Webb told him: "Mike, I love this
> so much I can't believe they're paying me to do it. I'd do it for
> free."


And that makes your nebulous case, how?

They certainly wouldn't do it if they didn't love it, considering
all the downsides of the life. You only get fighter pilots so
cheaply for that reason.

Sorry if you hate your life.


Jack

[Jose[_1_]]

> The problem is that the 172-pilot's motivation doesn't match the threat. Why is that, you ask? Because of inadequate information about the threat, primarily.

I don't understand what you are saying.

If an F16 were flying full bore on a head-on collision course with a
172, it may well be that the F16 pilot's superior training and superior
eyesight could pick out the 172 in enough time. To expect the same
thing of a 172 pilot, who merely passed a class III exam, and has not
had training in high speed combat is ludicrous.

For this reason and others like it (including the VFR visibility
minima), there is a speed limit in the 172's normal territory: 250
knots, or the slowest safe speed in your aircraft, whichever is higher.
If military pilots have a sterile area where they can play, these
limits need not apply, since they are superior pilots with superior
eyesight, superior training, and superior experience. But it's like
driving 90 mph. Do it on the highway or the race track, but don't do it
on a residential street. And don't call a residential street a highway
for your convenience, and then blame the kid playing ball in the street
when you smash him at 90 mph.

> It comes down to training and the emphasis placed on the problem by the FAA (very minimal, in both instances).

Partly. If the 172 pilots were trained to military standards, we could
probably raise the speed limit. But there's be no pilots left who have
the AMUs to pay for it.

> The fact that by choosing to fly a 172 the pilot severely limits his ability to visually clear the airspace is fodder for another thread.

All aircraft have blind spots. Airliners aren't known for great
visibility either.

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:
> On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 15:43:18 GMT, 588 > wrote in
> >:
>
>> Scared of Mid-Airs?
>>
>> Me too, so I stay away from 'em. It's easier if you know where they
>> are.
>
> Another inane remark like that, and you'll find yourself without my
> readership.

That would be a heart-breaker, LD, but I'm just not a humorless,
one-note, obsessive kind of guy -- so I can live with it.

It is easier to avoid MAC's if you know under what conditions they
usually occur. Yet you recommend letting somebody else handle that
responsibility for you. And, you think you can give that
responsibility away and still retain your own freedom of action.

That seems arrogant.


Jack

[588]

Jose wrote:

> ...there is a speed limit in the 172's normal territory: 250
> knots, or the slowest safe speed in your aircraft, whichever is higher.
> If military pilots have a sterile area where they can play, these
> limits need not apply....

> ...don't call a residential street a highway
> for your convenience, and then blame the kid
> playing ball in the street
> when you smash him at 90 mph.

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


>> The fact that by choosing to fly a 172 the pilot severely limits his
>> ability to visually clear the airspace is fodder for another thread.
>
> Airliners aren't known for great visibility either.

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



Jack

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
588 > wrote:

> > ...don't call a residential street a highway
> > for your convenience, and then blame the kid
> > playing ball in the street
> > when you smash him at 90 mph.
>
> Keep the kid off the racetrack and everybody's happy. Responsible
> adults do that.

Responsible adults know where they are

Responsible adults don't turn a sidestreet into a racetrack.


>
>
> >> The fact that by choosing to fly a 172 the pilot severely limits his
> >> ability to visually clear the airspace is fodder for another thread.
> >
> > Airliners aren't known for great visibility either.
>
> And yet they have so few MAC's. Why is that?

ATC Radar

TCAS

Big ugly airplanes are easy to spot

Not a lot of fighter aircraft flying around lost at the altitudes where
airliners spend most of their flight time.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate