Airspeed of military planes [Archive]

Susan VanCamp

January 24th 04, 03:51 PM

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

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

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

BUFDRVR

January 24th 04, 06:31 PM

>Not if the minimum safe airspeed for descent/landing/touch-and-go is greater
>than 250.

Which in a BUFF means you probably shouldn't be attempting a landing. Better to
bail out in such circumstances. Bottom line, a BUFF will *always* be able to
comply with 250 below 10 on recovery.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

BUFDRVR

January 24th 04, 06:32 PM

>The T38 had a restricted and unrestricted climb schedule for both MIL and
>MAX performance climb if I remember right. We couldn't use the MAX climb
>schedule outside of the corridors, but a MIL climb at 300kts to 10 grand
>followed by an unrestricted IMN climb after that was quite common.

Its been nearly 10 years, but that's how I remember it as well. I also thought
300 was the standard IAS to cruise to and from the work areas, low levels etc.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

BUFDRVR

January 24th 04, 06:34 PM

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

I believe *all* Military training Routes (often seen abreviated as MTR) are
waived for operations exceeding 250 KIAS. In the BUFF we flew both IR and VR
routes at 360 KIAS (planned).

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Steven P. McNicoll

January 24th 04, 06:41 PM

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
>
> Which in a BUFF means you probably shouldn't be attempting a landing.
Better to
> bail out in such circumstances. Bottom line, a BUFF will *always* be able
to
> comply with 250 below 10 on recovery.
>

So what point were you trying to make?

BUFDRVR

January 24th 04, 06:44 PM

>We have F-15's here at Kadena and it is not uncommon
>for them to come back well above 400 Kts below 10,000.

Besides the fact flying 250 KIAS in an Eagle would severly restrict
maneuverability, in foriegn nations, US military comply with host nation rules
and restrictions. My guess is, Japan has no restriction. I know the UK doesn't.
Try flying 250 KIAS below 10,000' when you're #2 of a returning B-52 6-ship.
You are going to land last. The Brize controller will vector your sorry
rear-end out of the way while he gets everyone else on the ground in no time
flat. I watched this happen, I was #5, flying 280 KIAS until I was on base,
then I worked my tail off slowing and configuring, finally getting in landing
configuration well inside the final approach fix.To this day I'm not sure I
made my gear down call. Fortunately for me, I had been to Fairford years
earlier and was used to such "expediant" procedures when large formations
returned in close proximity to each other.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Tony Volk

January 24th 04, 07:30 PM

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

Tony

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

Dudley Henriques

January 24th 04, 07:46 PM

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> >The T38 had a restricted and unrestricted climb schedule for both MIL and
> >MAX performance climb if I remember right. We couldn't use the MAX climb
> >schedule outside of the corridors, but a MIL climb at 300kts to 10 grand
> >followed by an unrestricted IMN climb after that was quite common.
>
> Its been nearly 10 years, but that's how I remember it as well. I also
thought
> 300 was the standard IAS to cruise to and from the work areas, low levels
etc.
>
>
> BUFDRVR

Yup! The standard rule if I remember right was 300 kts and stay the hell
away from icing conditions!!! God, that airplane hated ice!!!!! :-))
Dudley

BUFDRVR

January 24th 04, 07:47 PM

>> Which in a BUFF means you probably shouldn't be attempting a landing.
>Better to
>> bail out in such circumstances. Bottom line, a BUFF will *always* be able
>to
>> comply with 250 below 10 on recovery.
>>
>
>So what point were you trying to make?

I was making the point that the BUFF has an FAA waiver when taking off, but not
landing. Trying to show how these military waivers are not always as clear cut
as a blanket coverage.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Tarver Engineering

January 24th 04, 07:49 PM

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
link.net...

> Yup! The standard rule if I remember right was 300 kts and stay the hell
> away from icing conditions!!! God, that airplane hated ice!!!!! :-))

Be careful not to harm any more people with your incompetence, sub-idiot
Henriques.

S. Sampson

January 24th 04, 08:36 PM

"BUFDRVR" > wrote
> >We have F-15's here at Kadena and it is not uncommon
> >for them to come back well above 400 Kts below 10,000.
>
> Besides the fact flying 250 KIAS in an Eagle would severly restrict
> maneuverability, in foriegn nations, US military comply with host nation rules
> and restrictions. My guess is, Japan has no restriction. I know the UK doesn't.
> Try flying 250 KIAS below 10,000' when you're #2 of a returning B-52 6-ship.
> You are going to land last. The Brize controller will vector your sorry
> rear-end out of the way while he gets everyone else on the ground in no time
> flat. I watched this happen, I was #5, flying 280 KIAS until I was on base,
> then I worked my tail off slowing and configuring, finally getting in landing
> configuration well inside the final approach fix.To this day I'm not sure I
> made my gear down call. Fortunately for me, I had been to Fairford years
> earlier and was used to such "expediant" procedures when large formations
> returned in close proximity to each other.

I was a crewdog on E-3's and Ramstein seemed to always give us a high tacan
approach in the 70's. We couldn't do it of course, but it was fun trying, and then
they always got ****ed-off when we went missed-approach at warp factor six
over the natives neighborhoods, who I guess didn't like airplanes roaring over
their house at 3am in the morning... All the F-4's in the teardrop seemed to
stop in mid-air as we flashed by them in a kamikaze spiral...

S. Sampson

January 24th 04, 08:38 PM

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

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

Steven P. McNicoll

January 24th 04, 08:41 PM

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
>
> I was making the point that the BUFF has an FAA waiver when taking off,
but not
> landing. Trying to show how these military waivers are not always as clear
cut
> as a blanket coverage.
>

What is the waiver for and why was it issued?

S. Sampson

January 24th 04, 08:43 PM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote
> "BUFDRVR" > wrote
> >
> > I was making the point that the BUFF has an FAA waiver when taking off,
> but not
> > landing. Trying to show how these military waivers are not always as clear
> cut
> > as a blanket coverage.
> >
>
> What is the waiver for and why was it issued?

Most waivers are for safety. Probably a B-52 with a good load needs all the
speed it can get on climbout.

Ed Rasimus

January 24th 04, 08:55 PM

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 19:46:30 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> wrote regarding the T-38:

>Yup! The standard rule if I remember right was 300 kts and stay the hell
>away from icing conditions!!! God, that airplane hated ice!!!!! :-))
>Dudley
>
Things have undoubtedly changed since my last military flight, but the
applicable section of AFR 60-16 which was the governing regulation on
flight operations was that the max airspeed below 10,000 feet MSL was
250 KIAS unless the aircraft operating manual required higher. "We
don' need no steenkin' waivers."

Certainly, compliance with FARs to the maximum extent practicable was
also mandated. But in tactical aircraft, a lot of time was spent
rooting around at speeds higher than 250.

The training command T-38s really wouldn't have a lot of difficulty
with the 300 kts, but the TAC AT-38s regularly did a lot of
low-altitude tactical stuff at higher speed.

As for ice...ABSOLUTELY. I never saw an airplane that was more
sensitive to ice. The slightest bit of rime would threaten to trash
the engines. The tiny J-85 with it's very small compressor blades
wouldn't tolerate much of anything. The F-5 used a different version
of the J-85 with a gap between the front frame and first stage, plus a
heated front frame. Still didn't make it an ice gobbler, but helped a
little bit.

For that matter, you didn't even want the T-38s parked outside in a
heavy rain or hail storm. The honeycomb wing structure would dimple in
a heartbeat. Surprising that the fleet lasted as long as it did
considering the weather in West and South Texas.

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

Steven P. McNicoll

January 24th 04, 09:00 PM

"S. Sampson" > wrote in message
news:gOAQb.6579$ce2.98@okepread03...
>
> Most waivers are for safety. Probably a B-52 with a good load needs
> all the speed it can get on climbout.
>

But a waiver isn't needed for safety. The regulation permits an aircraft,
civil or military, to be operated at the minimum safe airspeed if the
minimum safe airspeed for any particular operation is greater than the
maximum speed otherwise permitted.

§ 91.117 Aircraft speed.

(a) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no person may operate
an aircraft below 10,000 feet MSL at an indicated airspeed of more than 250
knots (288 m.p.h.).

(b) Unless otherwise authorized or required by ATC, no person may operate an
aircraft at or below 2,500 feet above the surface within 4 nautical miles of
the primary airport of a Class C or Class D airspace area at an indicated
airspeed of more than 200 knots (230 mph.). This paragraph (b) does not
apply to any operations within a Class B airspace area. Such operations
shall comply with paragraph (a) of this section.

(c) No person may operate an aircraft in the airspace underlying a Class B
airspace area designated for an airport or in a VFR corridor designated
through such a Class B airspace area, at an indicated airspeed of more than
200 knots (230 mph).

(d) If the minimum safe airspeed for any particular operation is greater
than the maximum speed prescribed in this section, the aircraft may be
operated at that minimum speed.

John R Weiss

January 24th 04, 09:18 PM

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

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

John R Weiss

January 24th 04, 09:18 PM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote...

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

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

Frijoles

January 24th 04, 09:22 PM

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

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

Darrell

January 24th 04, 09:32 PM

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

--

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

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

BUFDRVR

January 24th 04, 09:35 PM

>> What is the waiver for and why was it issued?
>
>Most waivers are for safety. Probably a B-52 with a good load needs all the
>speed it can get on climbout.
>

Exactly. A BUFF at 488,000 pounds GW, below 250 KIAS would be a handful.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Steven P. McNicoll

January 24th 04, 09:36 PM

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
>
> I believe *all* Military training Routes (often seen abreviated as
> MTR) are waived for operations exceeding 250 KIAS.
>

MTRs are established for the sole purpose of military training at airspeeds
greater than 250 KIAS.

Steven P. McNicoll

January 24th 04, 09:38 PM

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

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

Steven P. McNicoll

January 24th 04, 09:38 PM

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
>
> Exactly. A BUFF at 488,000 pounds GW, below 250 KIAS would be a handful.
>

A waiver for safety serves no useful purpose.

John R Weiss

January 24th 04, 09:39 PM

"BUFDRVR" > wrote...
>
> I believe *all* Military training Routes (often seen abreviated as MTR) are
> waived for operations exceeding 250 KIAS. In the BUFF we flew both IR and VR
> routes at 360 KIAS (planned).

IIRC, there used to be "low speed" or "slow speed" MTRs as well; I don't know if
they still exist.

High-speed MTRs can have restrictions, but the ones I've seen are usually in the
450-480 KIAS range.

Darrell

January 24th 04, 09:44 PM

True. But normally 250 is adhered to for civilian types in the U.S. until
ATC is advised of the necessary speed and authorizes it. I currently teach
the MD-80 and on those that can go up to 159,500# for Take Off the minimum
maneuvering speed for a clean wing is 260 KIAS. We teach to set 250 in the
autothrottle window for takeoff. Bank angle 15 is also set for takeoff.
250 is OK with 15 degrees of bank. When ATC agrees to the higher speed (for
aircraft separation purposes), we set the higher speed and then increase
bank angle to 30 degrees. If an immediate turn is mandatory for safety we
can extend leading edge slats (which reduces maneuvering speed by about 40
knots) and go to 30 degrees of bank at 250.

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

"> > Most waivers are for safety. Probably a B-52 with a good load needs
> > all the speed it can get on climbout.
> >
>
> But a waiver isn't needed for safety. The regulation permits an aircraft,
> civil or military, to be operated at the minimum safe airspeed if the
> minimum safe airspeed for any particular operation is greater than the
> maximum speed otherwise permitted.
>
>
> § 91.117 Aircraft speed.
>
> (a) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no person may
operate
> an aircraft below 10,000 feet MSL at an indicated airspeed of more than
250
> knots (288 m.p.h.).
>
> (b) Unless otherwise authorized or required by ATC, no person may operate
an
> aircraft at or below 2,500 feet above the surface within 4 nautical miles
of
> the primary airport of a Class C or Class D airspace area at an indicated
> airspeed of more than 200 knots (230 mph.). This paragraph (b) does not
> apply to any operations within a Class B airspace area. Such operations
> shall comply with paragraph (a) of this section.
>
> (c) No person may operate an aircraft in the airspace underlying a Class B
> airspace area designated for an airport or in a VFR corridor designated
> through such a Class B airspace area, at an indicated airspeed of more
than
> 200 knots (230 mph).
>
> (d) If the minimum safe airspeed for any particular operation is greater
> than the maximum speed prescribed in this section, the aircraft may be
> operated at that minimum speed.
>
>

John R Weiss

January 24th 04, 09:44 PM

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote...

> Things have undoubtedly changed since my last military flight, but the
> applicable section of AFR 60-16 which was the governing regulation on
> flight operations was that the max airspeed below 10,000 feet MSL was
> 250 KIAS unless the aircraft operating manual required higher. "We
> don' need no steenkin' waivers."

The Navy version is OPNAVINST 3710.7. The latest version I have is .7S, dated
15 Nov 2001:

"1.2.3 Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR).

"Naval aircraft shall be operated in accordance with applicable provisions of
FAR, Part 91, except:

. . .

"b. Where exemptions or authorizations issued to the Department of the
Navy/Department of Defense permit deviation from FAR. Exemptions/authorizations
currently on file that allow deviation from FAR, Part 91.

"(1) Section 91.117 (Aircraft Speed). Operation of naval aircraft at speeds
in excess of limits imposed by section 91.117 shall be governed by paragraph
5.1.4 of this instruction."

The pertinent section of 5.1.4 is:

"5.1.4.2 Policy. In accordance with FAA authorization, flight operations below
10,000 feet MSL at an indicated airspeed in excess of 250 knots are authorized
under the following conditions:

"a. Within restricted areas.

"b. Within military operations areas.

"c. When operating on DOD/FAA mutually developed and published routes.

"d. When operating on DOD-developed and DOD-published VR routes. Such routes
shall be established for specific missions and used only by designated units
when the provisions of a through c above will not accommodate the required
national defense mission. Routes shall be developed and published in accordance
with DOD/FAA mutually developed criteria.

"e. When operating within large-scale exercises or on short-term special
missions approved by commanders listed in paragraph 5.1.4.3. Such exercises or
missions may be authorized provided that coordination is effected to ensure
awareness on the part of the nonparticipating flying public.

"f. If the airspeed required or recommended in the aircraft NATOPS manual to
maintain safe maneuverability is greater than the maximum speed described in
FAR, Part 91.117, the aircraft may be operated at that speed. Where the required
or recommended speed is given as a range, the lower part of the speed range
consistent with good operating practice should be used. The primary purpose of
this provision is to accommodate climbs, descents, and terminal area operations
and shall not be used to circumvent the provisions of sub-paragraphs above.
Under no circumstance will this safe maneuverability provision be construed as
authorization for individual pilots or mission commanders to conduct other
flights below 10,000 feet in excess of 250 knots."

Ed Rasimus

January 24th 04, 09:49 PM

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

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

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

We went fast a lot, too.

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

Steven P. McNicoll

January 24th 04, 09:58 PM

"Darrell" > wrote in message
news:qGBQb.65209$XD5.36267@fed1read06...
>
> True. But normally 250 is adhered to for civilian types in the U.S. until
> ATC is advised of the necessary speed and authorizes it. I currently teach
> the MD-80 and on those that can go up to 159,500# for Take Off the minimum
> maneuvering speed for a clean wing is 260 KIAS. We teach to set 250 in
the
> autothrottle window for takeoff. Bank angle 15 is also set for takeoff.
> 250 is OK with 15 degrees of bank. When ATC agrees to the higher speed
(for
> aircraft separation purposes), we set the higher speed and then increase
> bank angle to 30 degrees. If an immediate turn is mandatory for safety we
> can extend leading edge slats (which reduces maneuvering speed by about 40
> knots) and go to 30 degrees of bank at 250.
>

ATC cannot authorize or require deviation from the 250 KIAS speed limitation
below 10,000 MSL, except within airspace delegated to Houston approach
control, and then only for departing aircraft.

S. Sampson

January 24th 04, 10:01 PM

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

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

S. Sampson

January 24th 04, 10:10 PM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote
> "BUFDRVR" > wrote
> >
> > Exactly. A BUFF at 488,000 pounds GW, below 250 KIAS would be a handful.
>
> A waiver for safety serves no useful purpose.

So what's your point? That regulations should be written, and you should
follow them, even if it kills you, or makes the operation dangerous?

S. Sampson

January 24th 04, 10:11 PM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote
> "BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
> >
> > I believe *all* Military training Routes (often seen abreviated as
> > MTR) are waived for operations exceeding 250 KIAS.
> >
>
> MTRs are established for the sole purpose of military training at airspeeds
> greater than 250 KIAS.

They're also used for navigation training at airspeeds below 250 KIAS.

Steven P. McNicoll

January 24th 04, 10:21 PM

"S. Sampson" > wrote in message
news:j3CQb.6582$ce2.6307@okepread03...
>
> So what's your point? That regulations should be written, and you should
> follow them, even if it kills you, or makes the operation dangerous?
>

The point is a waiver of the 250 KIAS maximum speed below 10,000 MSL
specified in FAR 91.117(a) for safety reasons accomplishes nothing because
FAR 91.117(d) permits an aircraft to be operated at the minimum safe
airspeed if the
minimum safe airspeed for any particular operation is greater than the
maximum speed otherwise permitted. It would be waiving a rule that didn't
have to be followed anyway.

Steven P. McNicoll

January 24th 04, 10:22 PM

"S. Sampson" > wrote in message
news:J4CQb.6583$ce2.314@okepread03...
>
> They're also used for navigation training at airspeeds below 250 KIAS.
>

That's fine, but navigation training at airspeeds below 250 KIAS can be
conducted anywhere.

S. Sampson

January 24th 04, 10:29 PM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote
>
> It would be waiving a rule that didn't have to be followed anyway.

I see. You're trying to bring logic into a tort arena. Good for you...

John Gaquin

January 24th 04, 10:36 PM

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

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

Thank you.

JG

Darkwing Duck

January 24th 04, 10:39 PM

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

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

Darkwing Duck

January 24th 04, 10:39 PM

Steven P. McNicoll

January 24th 04, 10:41 PM

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

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

http://makeashorterlink.com/?R10722D27

John Gaquin

January 24th 04, 10:43 PM

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

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

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

JG

S. Sampson

January 24th 04, 10:55 PM

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

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

Steven P. McNicoll

January 24th 04, 11:02 PM

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

Probably, but these things were charted on sectional charts.

Dudley Henriques

January 25th 04, 12:38 AM

This is about it as I remember it . It amounted to keeping it down to a low
roar, using the corridors and restricted areas when at all possible; not
****ing off the surrounding areas; the FAA; and not ****ing off Admiral
Brown! :-) I'm not sure how the AF guys fared under AF 60.16. Probably about
the same I would imagine. The whole idea was to allow for the performance of
the airplanes while not abusing the regulation. It seemed to work well as
long as everybody had their head screwed on straight. I'm pretty sure it's
still this way, but there have been incidents. The Viper hitting that Cessna
in Florida might have changed things a bit.
Dudley

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:iHBQb.115054$nt4.462505@attbi_s51...
> "Ed Rasimus" > wrote...
>
> > Things have undoubtedly changed since my last military flight, but the
> > applicable section of AFR 60-16 which was the governing regulation on
> > flight operations was that the max airspeed below 10,000 feet MSL was
> > 250 KIAS unless the aircraft operating manual required higher. "We
> > don' need no steenkin' waivers."
>
> The Navy version is OPNAVINST 3710.7. The latest version I have is .7S,
dated
> 15 Nov 2001:
>
> "1.2.3 Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR).
>
> "Naval aircraft shall be operated in accordance with applicable provisions
of
> FAR, Part 91, except:
>
> . . .
>
> "b. Where exemptions or authorizations issued to the Department of the
> Navy/Department of Defense permit deviation from FAR.
Exemptions/authorizations
> currently on file that allow deviation from FAR, Part 91.
>
> "(1) Section 91.117 (Aircraft Speed). Operation of naval aircraft at
speeds
> in excess of limits imposed by section 91.117 shall be governed by
paragraph
> 5.1.4 of this instruction."
>
>
> The pertinent section of 5.1.4 is:
>
> "5.1.4.2 Policy. In accordance with FAA authorization, flight operations
below
> 10,000 feet MSL at an indicated airspeed in excess of 250 knots are
authorized
> under the following conditions:
>
> "a. Within restricted areas.
>
> "b. Within military operations areas.
>
> "c. When operating on DOD/FAA mutually developed and published routes.
>
> "d. When operating on DOD-developed and DOD-published VR routes. Such
routes
> shall be established for specific missions and used only by designated
units
> when the provisions of a through c above will not accommodate the required
> national defense mission. Routes shall be developed and published in
accordance
> with DOD/FAA mutually developed criteria.
>
> "e. When operating within large-scale exercises or on short-term
special
> missions approved by commanders listed in paragraph 5.1.4.3. Such
exercises or
> missions may be authorized provided that coordination is effected to
ensure
> awareness on the part of the nonparticipating flying public.
>
> "f. If the airspeed required or recommended in the aircraft NATOPS
manual to
> maintain safe maneuverability is greater than the maximum speed described
in
> FAR, Part 91.117, the aircraft may be operated at that speed. Where the
required
> or recommended speed is given as a range, the lower part of the speed
range
> consistent with good operating practice should be used. The primary
purpose of
> this provision is to accommodate climbs, descents, and terminal area
operations
> and shall not be used to circumvent the provisions of sub-paragraphs
above.
> Under no circumstance will this safe maneuverability provision be
construed as
> authorization for individual pilots or mission commanders to conduct other
> flights below 10,000 feet in excess of 250 knots."
>

Tarver Engineering

January 25th 04, 01:05 AM

"S. Sampson" > wrote in message
news:VkCQb.6584$ce2.3669@okepread03...
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote
> >
> > It would be waiving a rule that didn't have to be followed anyway.
>
> I see. You're trying to bring logic into a tort arena. Good for you...

As long as Steve remains inside FAA Orders, he has no liability.

Glenn Westfall

January 25th 04, 01:14 AM

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

Glenn

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

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

John R Weiss

January 25th 04, 01:23 AM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote...
>
> MTRs are established for the sole purpose of military training at airspeeds
> greater than 250 KIAS.

According to a couple FAA and USAF sources, that is true for IR and VR routes,
but not SR routes...

From the Montgomery County AFSS web site at
http://www.cxoafss.jccbi.gov/Military.htm, as well as the Buffalo AFSS site at
http://www1.faa.gov/ats/bufafss/flight%20info/military.htm:

SR (slow speed low altitude routes) - conducted VFR below 1,500 feet at 250
knots or less, without prior notice.

From the Acronym list at http://www.afranges.net/Chapters/appendixes.pdf and
Edwards AFB at http://www.edwards.af.mil/pim/PUBS/tc11/Tci%2011-1/atch7a.doc:

SR Slow Speed Low Altitude Training Routes

From the Dover AFB Mid-Air Collision Avoidance handbook at
http://public.dover.amc.af.mil/org/ws/se/MACA%20Printable.pdf:

Only VR routes are depicted on sectional charts. SR and IR Routes are not
shown!

John R Weiss

January 25th 04, 01:28 AM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote...
>
> ATC cannot authorize or require deviation from the 250 KIAS speed limitation
> below 10,000 MSL, except within airspace delegated to Houston approach
> control, and then only for departing aircraft.

....and the Houston experiment is about to end:

ALPA OPERATIONS BULLETIN 2004-01

SUBJECT: Houston (IAH) High Speed Departure Test Program

BACKGROUND: In December 1997 the FAA began a field test at Houston
Intercontinental Airport (IAH) to determine whether the 250-knot speed
restriction for aircraft operating below 10,000 MSL within Class B airspace
could be increased or eliminated.

Shortly after this test began, ALPA identified to FAA and industry
representatives numerous safety concerns including Class B Airspace excursions,
increased mid-air collision risk, and increased potential for catastrophic bird
strikes. Our concerns were highlighted by the damage sustained by a Delta 727
on departure from IAH on January 9, 1998.

After lengthy discussions and some valid scientific analysis, FAA Flight
Standards, in July 2003, determined that it couldn't quantify the risk presented
by birds. Based on the data from the test, the FAA is unable to design a risk
analysis that will prove the safety of the operation. The well-documented
increase in the wildlife populations of large flocking birds was a determining
factor in this finding.

The FAA has decided to discontinue the test. Once internal FAA coordination is
complete, ATC will no longer be authorized to allow aircraft to exceed 250 KIAS
below 10,000 feet MSL. However, this internal coordination must not delay
pilots from immediately discontinuing participation.

RECOMMENDATION:

Therefore, effective immediately, pilots should not accept an ATC clearance for,
or request ATC authorization to, exceed 250 knots below 10,000 feet in Houston
Class B Airspace.

Contact the ALPA Engineering and Air Safety Department at 800-424-2470 with
questions and comments.

Captain John Cox
Executive Air Safety Chairman

January 16, 2004

John R Weiss

January 25th 04, 01:28 AM

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

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

Jon Woellhaf

January 25th 04, 04:05 AM

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

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

Jim Baker

January 25th 04, 05:59 AM

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

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

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

Cheers,

JB

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

Jim Baker

January 25th 04, 06:00 AM

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

JB

B2431

January 25th 04, 08:30 AM

>From: IBM
>Date: 1/25/2004 12:51 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"Jon Woellhaf" > wrote in
>news:3gHQb.15252$U%5.103167@attbi_s03:
>
>> John Gaquin wrote, "... Loaded 747 would climb at about 273. ..."
>>
>> Makes it all the more amazing that they seem to be standing still while
>> climbing out!
>
> Back in 1968 my dad took us to Disneyland.
> We flew in to LAX and had some time before the bus left for our
> hotel.
> I wandered along outside the terminal and was watching the aircraft.
> Saw a 747 in action for the first time. I figured it was taxiing into
> position ... then it rotated. I was no stranger to the antics of
> aircraft even as a sub-teen and my first thought was "OH ****"
> followed by that horrible sick feeling you get when watching a
> disaster unfold.
> Much to my amazement, the plane rotated and climbed out normally.
> And was I relieved.....
> How is it possible to misjudge speed that badly ( 15kts or so vs
> approx 150+ )
>
> IBM
>
>

It's the size of an aircraft. Have you ever seen a C-5 on final?

The Super Guppies were also deceptive especially further out. All you see is a
white dot slowly getting bigger long before you can see the wings.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Patrick Kormann

January 25th 04, 12:22 PM

Peter Hovorka wrote:

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

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

BUFDRVR

January 25th 04, 01:01 PM

>B-1B final is approx 155 +/- depending on weight.
>

For a 270,000# BUFF its 145 KIAS. Only one I ever memorized, actually wasn't
that difficult. BUFF flies down final at a computed "Best Flare Airspeed" + 10
KIAS. At 270K, best flare is 1/2 270 = 135, add 10 = 145 KIAS. The rest of the
weights I just look at the speed ring on the master fuel gauge.

Boy, it's a mixture of fun and depression to talk about flying when you're not
actively doing it...

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Frijoles

January 25th 04, 01:53 PM

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

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

S. Sampson

January 25th 04, 02:24 PM

"BUFDRVR" > wrote
>
> Boy, it's a mixture of fun and depression to talk about flying when you're not
> actively doing it...

Hee. Just an aside, I haven't been near an airplane (or airport) since 1993.

I've never been to a prison or jail, but from what I see from the highway,
the city airports are pretty much layers of armed men, chain-link fences,
and concrete barriers, and the people who enjoy being around them (while
sipping on a $5 cup of coffee).

Although I still like to talk about aircraft, from the good old days when you
could ride your bicycle right up to the plane and the pilot would let you spin
the turbine...

I keep thinking of those movies where people in Bulgaria, or East Germany
go to the airport, which were basically risks to the states control of the
people, and they huddled together while the "agent" looks at their "papers."

Mike Marron

January 25th 04, 03:06 PM

>"S. Sampson" > wrote:
>>"BUFDRVR" > wrote:

>>Boy, it's a mixture of fun and depression to talk about flying when you're not
>>actively doing it...

See: http://www.marronair.com/ Granted, they're not B-52's but
like other military and airline pilots have discovered -- owning
and flying your own small, light aircraft pegs the "fun meter" every
time. Satisfaction guaranteed.

>Hee. Just an aside, I haven't been near an airplane (or airport) since 1993.

>I've never been to a prison or jail, but from what I see from the highway,
>the city airports are pretty much layers of armed men, chain-link fences,
>and concrete barriers, and the people who enjoy being around them (while
>sipping on a $5 cup of coffee).

You can still find thousands of wonderful, small airports with lush,
grassy runways all across the U.S. with none of the above draconian
security measures in place. But in order to find them, ya have to be
willing to explore the Road Less Travelled and get off the beaten path
like Charles Kuralt.

>Although I still like to talk about aircraft, from the good old days when you
>could ride your bicycle right up to the plane and the pilot would let you spin
>the turbine...

>I keep thinking of those movies where people in Bulgaria, or East Germany
>go to the airport, which were basically risks to the states control of the
>people, and they huddled together while the "agent" looks at their "papers."

Gone flyin'

--
Mike Marron
pegasus912 at tampabay dot rr dot com

S. Sampson

January 25th 04, 03:12 PM

There's not many weight-shift trikes in Oklahoma (where the wind
comes whistling down the planes -- er, plains)...

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Marron" >
>
> See: http://www.marronair.com/ Granted, they're not B-52's but
> like other military and airline pilots have discovered -- owning
> and flying your own small, light aircraft pegs the "fun meter" every
> time. Satisfaction guaranteed.

Mike Marron

January 25th 04, 03:52 PM

>"S. Sampson" > wrote:
>>"Mike Marron" > wrote:

>>See: http://www.marronair.com/ Granted, they're not B-52's but
>>like other military and airline pilots have discovered -- owning
>>and flying your own small, light aircraft pegs the "fun meter" every
>>time. Satisfaction guaranteed.

>There's not many weight-shift trikes in Oklahoma (where the wind
>comes whistling down the planes -- er, plains)...

High wind speeds are common throughout the U.S. and are not
indicative solely to Oklahoma or the plains states. The reason why
there aren't many trikes in your neck of the woods is simply because
there aren't many people there, relatively speaking.

Just to compare and contrast, the venerable Cessna 152 (which I
have flown more than 700 hrs. while giving primary flight instruction)
has a max. recommended crosswind component of 12 kts. whereas
my trike has a max crosswind component of 14 kts.

Trikes were designed for "big air."

Steven P. McNicoll

January 25th 04, 03:53 PM

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

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

Jim Baker

January 25th 04, 04:10 PM

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

JB

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

Jim Baker

January 25th 04, 04:28 PM

Great job looking up the applicable FAR's John. I remember that particular
para very well.

I got in a ****ing contest with the SAC guys while the Chief of Bomber
Stan/Eval early in the ops life of the B-1B over 5.1.4.2 Para (f). The Bone
has/had a Dash One recommended airspeed of 250 to 275 KIAS on downwind.
According to para f, we'd have to fly at 250 kts. Well, that's a
particularly tough airspeed to fly because at 240 if any throttle is less
than vertical, below 10,000 MSL, and the flaps aren't extended, you get the
effing warning horn blaring in your ears. So how tough is it to fly 250 and
stay away from 240? Damn tough it turned out, in the Bone. It's
instruments are very sensitive to wind gusts at those speeds with a clean
downwind configuration and in west texas you live with relatively strong,
gusty winds all the time. So the fricking horn was always, momentarily,
beeping at you. Additionally, before anyone even cared about para f, the
initial cadre of guys going through instructor school just decided they
would fly 270 on downwind, keeping just below the max, 'cuz who wanted to
fly a slow 250? A real tempest in a teapot as I remember, but I had to
fight with these guys because I wasn't enforcing the speed requirements, for
the wing, as described in para f.

JB

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:iHBQb.115054$nt4.462505@attbi_s51...
> "Ed Rasimus" > wrote...
>
> > Things have undoubtedly changed since my last military flight, but the
> > applicable section of AFR 60-16 which was the governing regulation on
> > flight operations was that the max airspeed below 10,000 feet MSL was
> > 250 KIAS unless the aircraft operating manual required higher. "We
> > don' need no steenkin' waivers."
>
> The Navy version is OPNAVINST 3710.7. The latest version I have is .7S,
dated
> 15 Nov 2001:
>
> "1.2.3 Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR).
>
> "Naval aircraft shall be operated in accordance with applicable provisions
of
> FAR, Part 91, except:
>
> . . .
>
> "b. Where exemptions or authorizations issued to the Department of the
> Navy/Department of Defense permit deviation from FAR.
Exemptions/authorizations
> currently on file that allow deviation from FAR, Part 91.
>
> "(1) Section 91.117 (Aircraft Speed). Operation of naval aircraft at
speeds
> in excess of limits imposed by section 91.117 shall be governed by
paragraph
> 5.1.4 of this instruction."
>
>
> The pertinent section of 5.1.4 is:
>
> "5.1.4.2 Policy. In accordance with FAA authorization, flight operations
below
> 10,000 feet MSL at an indicated airspeed in excess of 250 knots are
authorized
> under the following conditions:
>
> "a. Within restricted areas.
>
> "b. Within military operations areas.
>
> "c. When operating on DOD/FAA mutually developed and published routes.
>
> "d. When operating on DOD-developed and DOD-published VR routes. Such
routes
> shall be established for specific missions and used only by designated
units
> when the provisions of a through c above will not accommodate the required
> national defense mission. Routes shall be developed and published in
accordance
> with DOD/FAA mutually developed criteria.
>
> "e. When operating within large-scale exercises or on short-term
special
> missions approved by commanders listed in paragraph 5.1.4.3. Such
exercises or
> missions may be authorized provided that coordination is effected to
ensure
> awareness on the part of the nonparticipating flying public.
>
> "f. If the airspeed required or recommended in the aircraft NATOPS
manual to
> maintain safe maneuverability is greater than the maximum speed described
in
> FAR, Part 91.117, the aircraft may be operated at that speed. Where the
required
> or recommended speed is given as a range, the lower part of the speed
range
> consistent with good operating practice should be used. The primary
purpose of
> this provision is to accommodate climbs, descents, and terminal area
operations
> and shall not be used to circumvent the provisions of sub-paragraphs
above.
> Under no circumstance will this safe maneuverability provision be
construed as
> authorization for individual pilots or mission commanders to conduct other
> flights below 10,000 feet in excess of 250 knots."
>

S. Sampson

January 25th 04, 05:00 PM

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

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

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

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

Jim Baker

January 25th 04, 05:07 PM

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

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

Frijoles

January 25th 04, 05:43 PM

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

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

Jim Baker

January 25th 04, 05:48 PM

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

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

Leadfoot

January 25th 04, 06:22 PM

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

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

>
>

Steven P. McNicoll

January 25th 04, 06:32 PM

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

He said the family trip to Disneyland was in 1968.

Frijoles

January 25th 04, 06:48 PM

Roger that...

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

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

Tarver Engineering

January 25th 04, 06:48 PM

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

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

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

John R Weiss

January 25th 04, 10:52 PM

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

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

Frijoles

January 26th 04, 12:53 AM

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

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

John R Weiss

January 26th 04, 03:20 AM

"Frijoles" > wrote...

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

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

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

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

BTIZ

January 26th 04, 04:12 AM

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

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

BT
B-1 GIB

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

Jim Baker

January 26th 04, 05:07 AM

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

Cheers,

Jim

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

BUFDRVR

January 26th 04, 12:05 PM

> You'd try to
>get down to about 20K lbs of fuel for a no flap landing which gave an
>approach/landing speed of 184 KIAS for a 210K lb. airplane.

Damn, and a 15,000'+ long runway ?

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Jim Baker

January 26th 04, 01:57 PM

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> > You'd try to
> >get down to about 20K lbs of fuel for a no flap landing which gave an
> >approach/landing speed of 184 KIAS for a 210K lb. airplane.
>
> Damn, and a 15,000'+ long runway ?
>
It's not a big deal. Very landable (no hot brakes, not heroic efforts) with
8,000 ft rwy. As a matter of fact, you can land a min weight, configured
Bone in about 3-4K feet.

JB

Ed Rasimus

January 26th 04, 04:15 PM

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

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

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

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

Steve

January 26th 04, 09:00 PM

On 25 Jan 2004 13:01:13 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

>Boy, it's a mixture of fun and depression to talk about flying when you're not
>actively doing it...

Bit like sex.

--
Steve.

BUFDRVR

January 26th 04, 09:21 PM

>> Damn, and a 15,000'+ long runway ?
>>
>It's not a big deal. Very landable (no hot brakes, not heroic efforts) with
>8,000 ft rwy.

Yeah, I realized that after I typed it. A 210K BUFF even without a drag chute
would only eat up about 8,000' of runway, however in a 210K BUFF, you're on
fumes!

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

BUFDRVR

January 26th 04, 09:30 PM

>>Boy, it's a mixture of fun and depression to talk about flying when you're
>not
>>actively doing it...
>
>Bit like sex.
>

ROFLMAO...I could comment in any one of several ways here, but I'll choose to
bow out gracefully ;)

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Frijoles

January 27th 04, 12:00 AM

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

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

Jim Baker

January 27th 04, 12:42 AM

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> >> Damn, and a 15,000'+ long runway ?
> >>
> >It's not a big deal. Very landable (no hot brakes, not heroic efforts)
with
> >8,000 ft rwy.
>
> Yeah, I realized that after I typed it. A 210K BUFF even without a drag
chute
> would only eat up about 8,000' of runway, however in a 210K BUFF, you're
on
> fumes!
>
I think Bones weigh about 195K without fuel and once they get below around
20K of fuel you have to sweep to 20 degrees to maintain CG. That's why
you'd want to land at the 20K, to keep the wings at 15 degrees. So it's a
215K landing, 6 AoA/186 KIAS. What BTIZ was remembering with his guess of
210 KIAS for a no flap approach was coming back to the pattern relatively
heavy so the pilot and co could beat everyone to death for 1+30. lol You'd
do a no flap ILS on the first approach and kill two birds with one stone on
a check ride.

I've landed with about 13K before, but I'm not trusting the gages any lower
than that. Of course now I'm not even lookin' at any gages, just talking
about them as an old retired fart. :-(

Cheers,

JB

Larry Dighera

January 27th 04, 10:54 AM

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

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

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

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

--

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

Steven P. McNicoll

January 27th 04, 12:08 PM

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

Those are the only two incidents?

M. Tettnanger

January 27th 04, 03:15 PM

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

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

Mark

Larry Dighera

January 27th 04, 04:01 PM

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

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

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

Steven P. McNicoll

January 27th 04, 04:03 PM

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

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

Tex Houston

January 27th 04, 04:25 PM

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

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

Tex

Paul Sengupta

January 27th 04, 07:55 PM

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

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

Paul

IBM

January 31st 04, 07:04 AM

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

[snip]

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

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

IBM

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

IBM

January 31st 04, 07:11 AM

(B2431) wrote in
:

[snip]

> It's the size of an aircraft. Have you ever seen a C-5 on final?

Yup, lived under the approaches to NAS Moffett Field whilst it was
still an active NAS. Had all sorts of interesting things go by.
There was a C-5 here not long ago and every once in a while
we get to see C-17s and Antonovs.
Used to see a lot of Klinton's AF-1. In fact it was here so often it
had worn ruts in the apron.

> The Super Guppies were also deceptive especially further out. All you
> see is a white dot slowly getting bigger long before you can see the
> wings.

Now there is a beast of an airplane. Only ever seen one of them
though, again at Moffett.

IBM

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

Ron

February 3rd 04, 05:20 AM

>
>For that matter, you didn't even want the T-38s parked outside in a
>heavy rain or hail storm. The honeycomb wing structure would dimple in
>a heartbeat. Surprising that the fleet lasted as long as it did
>considering the weather in West and South Texas.
>
>
>Ed Rasimus

The 80th FTW at Sheppard had many many planes damaged after a particularly bad
hailstorm. Flying hours were really curtailed until they could get some of
those planes fixed. I think this was in the past 5 years..They were pretty
much out of business for a bit

Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

Tex Houston

February 3rd 04, 05:35 AM

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >For that matter, you didn't even want the T-38s parked outside in a
> >heavy rain or hail storm. The honeycomb wing structure would dimple in
> >a heartbeat. Surprising that the fleet lasted as long as it did
> >considering the weather in West and South Texas.
> >
> >
> >Ed Rasimus
>
> The 80th FTW at Sheppard had many many planes damaged after a particularly
bad
> hailstorm. Flying hours were really curtailed until they could get some
of
> those planes fixed. I think this was in the past 5 years..They were
pretty
> much out of business for a bit

> Ron

Ron,

Check this aircraft damage that happened not that far away.

http://www.cowtown.net/proweb/tornado/tornado.htm

Tex

Ron

February 3rd 04, 06:14 AM

>> The 80th FTW at Sheppard had many many planes damaged after a particularly
>bad
>> hailstorm. Flying hours were really curtailed until they could get some
>of
>> those planes fixed. I think this was in the past 5 years..They were
>pretty
>> much out of business for a bit
>
>> Ron
>
>Ron,
>
>Check this aircraft damage that happened not that far away.
>
>http://www.cowtown.net/proweb/tornado/tornado.htm
>
>Tex
>

Yeah I spent 19 years in Wichita Falls, TX, never once saw a tornado. Only one
i have ever seen was in the mountains of NM.

Sheppard AFB has been hit by tornados at least once, and possibly 2-3 times

Some of those B-36s were pretty messed up in those photos. My grandfather flew
those for a bit in the 50s..I still wonder what he did on those of those ELINT
missions in the RB-36s out of Thule

Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

B2431

February 29th 04, 04:57 PM

>From: IBM

>
(B2431) wrote in
:
>
> [snip]
>
>
>> The Super Guppies were also deceptive especially further out. All you
>> see is a white dot slowly getting bigger long before you can see the
>> wings.
>
> Now there is a beast of an airplane. Only ever seen one of them
> though, again at Moffett.
>
> IBM
>

We used to have one fly in fairly regularly here at Eglin AFB. No matter how
many times I have seen it fly it just doesn't look like it can.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Mike Marron

February 29th 04, 05:42 PM

(B2431) wrote:

>We used to have one fly in fairly regularly here at Eglin AFB. No matter how
>many times I have seen it fly it just doesn't look like it can.

The Guppy flies just fine and I'd be happy to teach you how it can
fly, sergeant. My ground school lessons are reasonable and you will
learn all about how airplanes can fly such as Bernoulli's principle,
Newton's laws of physics etc. Interesting stuff!

>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Mike Marron, FAA Cerfified Flight Instructor - Instrument ;))

Ron

February 29th 04, 06:49 PM

> Mike Marron, FAA Cerfified Flight Instructor - Instrument ;))
>>
>>
>
>Stop abusing Bernoulli!
>

When Mike flies, he is not abusing Bernoulli, he is abusing Hefty :)

I really am joking Mike, I just couldnt resist..lol Those look like a lot of
fun

Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

Michael Zaharis

February 29th 04, 06:50 PM

Mike Marron wrote:
(B2431) wrote:
>
>
>>We used to have one fly in fairly regularly here at Eglin AFB. No matter how
>>many times I have seen it fly it just doesn't look like it can.
>
>
> The Guppy flies just fine and I'd be happy to teach you how it can
> fly, sergeant. My ground school lessons are reasonable and you will
> learn all about how airplanes can fly such as Bernoulli's principle,
> Newton's laws of physics etc. Interesting stuff!
>
>
>>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>
> Mike Marron, FAA Cerfified Flight Instructor - Instrument ;))
>
>

Stop abusing Bernoulli!

http://www.av8n.com
http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/airfoils.html

Mike Marron

February 29th 04, 07:00 PM

>Michael Zaharis > wrote:
>>Mike Marron wrote:

>>The Guppy flies just fine and I'd be happy to teach you how it can
>>fly, sergeant. My ground school lessons are reasonable and you will
>>learn all about how airplanes can fly such as Bernoulli's principle,
>>Newton's laws of physics etc. Interesting stuff!

>Stop abusing Bernoulli!

>http://www.av8n.com
>http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/airfoils.html

Uh oh....here we go again with the ol' Bernoulli vs. Newton debate.
If I were teaching a newbie (like sergeant dan who loves to argue
just for the sheer sake of arguing because he has nothing better
to do with his miserable life) I'd have to simply explain to him that
BOTH Newton and Bernoulli are important. Sure, the links you
provided above (BTW, good website I refer to it often myself) show
that airplanes can fly with the "Bernoulli side" down, however, like
I said both Bernoulli AND Newton are important when it
comes to explaining how subsonic airfoils create lift.

Tarver Engineering

February 29th 04, 07:06 PM

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
> >Michael Zaharis > wrote:
> >>Mike Marron wrote:
>
> >>The Guppy flies just fine and I'd be happy to teach you how it can
> >>fly, sergeant. My ground school lessons are reasonable and you will
> >>learn all about how airplanes can fly such as Bernoulli's principle,
> >>Newton's laws of physics etc. Interesting stuff!
>
> >Stop abusing Bernoulli!
>
> >http://www.av8n.com
> >http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/airfoils.html
>
> Uh oh....here we go again with the ol' Bernoulli vs. Newton debate.
> If I were teaching a newbie (like sergeant dan who loves to argue
> just for the sheer sake of arguing because he has nothing better
> to do with his miserable life) I'd have to simply explain to him that
> BOTH Newton and Bernoulli are important. Sure, the links you
> provided above (BTW, good website I refer to it often myself) show
> that airplanes can fly with the "Bernoulli side" down, however, like
> I said both Bernoulli AND Newton are important when it
> comes to explaining how subsonic airfoils create lift.

Depending on the phase of flight.

Mike Marron

February 29th 04, 07:15 PM

(Ron) wrote:

>When Mike flies, he is not abusing Bernoulli, he is abusing Hefty :)

I fly sailplanes too (e.g: damn expensive fiberglas). Borrowing one of
Tarver's lines? Good grief, you're reached a new low Ron. ;) I don't
know where you and tarv are getting this plastic "trash bag" crap from
anyway. GMAFB! Just so ya know, the stuff my wing is made from is a
new generation of high-tech fabric called "Hydranet" which is the same
stuff that state-of-the-art, high-dollar sailboats use. Guarantees
incomparable longevity and resistance to tearing.

>I really am joking Mike, I just couldnt resist..lol Those look like a lot of
>fun

Pure sex baby. Beats the hell outta' flogging a tired old DC-4 around
and is the funnest form of powered flight that I've ever experienced.
Friends don't let friends fly metal airplanes. ;)

Tarver Engineering

February 29th 04, 07:20 PM

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
> (Ron) wrote:
>
> >When Mike flies, he is not abusing Bernoulli, he is abusing Hefty :)
>
> I fly sailplanes too (e.g: damn expensive fiberglas). Borrowing one of
> Tarver's lines? Good grief, you're reached a new low Ron. ;) I don't
> know where you and tarv are getting this plastic "trash bag" crap from
> anyway. GMAFB! Just so ya know, the stuff my wing is made from is a
> new generation of high-tech fabric called "Hydranet" which is the same
> stuff that state-of-the-art, high-dollar sailboats use. Guarantees
> incomparable longevity and resistance to tearing.

Man from Glad, man from Glad, in flight emergency ...

B2431

February 29th 04, 10:02 PM

>From: Mike Marron

>
(B2431) wrote:
>
>>We used to have one fly in fairly regularly here at Eglin AFB. No matter how
>>many times I have seen it fly it just doesn't look like it can.
>
>The Guppy flies just fine and I'd be happy to teach you how it can
>fly, sergeant. My ground school lessons are reasonable and you will
>learn all about how airplanes can fly such as Bernoulli's principle,
>Newton's laws of physics etc. Interesting stuff!
>
>>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>Mike Marron, FAA Cerfified Flight Instructor - Instrument ;))
>

Obviously it flew. Please stop before you make even more a fool of yourself.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Michael Zaharis

March 1st 04, 12:24 AM

Mike Marron wrote:
>>Michael Zaharis > wrote:
>>
>>>Mike Marron wrote:
>
>
>>>The Guppy flies just fine and I'd be happy to teach you how it can
>>>fly, sergeant. My ground school lessons are reasonable and you will
>>>learn all about how airplanes can fly such as Bernoulli's principle,
>>>Newton's laws of physics etc. Interesting stuff!
>
>
>
>>Stop abusing Bernoulli!
>
>
>>http://www.av8n.com
>>http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/airfoils.html
>
>
> Uh oh....here we go again with the ol' Bernoulli vs. Newton debate.
> If I were teaching a newbie (like sergeant dan who loves to argue
> just for the sheer sake of arguing because he has nothing better
> to do with his miserable life) I'd have to simply explain to him that
> BOTH Newton and Bernoulli are important. Sure, the links you
> provided above (BTW, good website I refer to it often myself) show
> that airplanes can fly with the "Bernoulli side" down, however, like
> I said both Bernoulli AND Newton are important when it
> comes to explaining how subsonic airfoils create lift.
>

Stop abusing Newton, too!

I really wasn't trying to start a Newton v Bernoulli debate. Actually,
I think that trying to use either of them to describe lift is a bit like
the 3 blind men trying to describe the elephant.

I need to figure out a way to write a "circulation theory of lift for
dummies" book. The websites I referred to are a bit more like
"circulation theory of lift for those who have a somewhat better than
layperson understanding of fluid dynamics."

Mike Marron

March 1st 04, 12:26 AM

>Mike Marron wrote:
>>Michael Zaharis > wrote:

>>Uh oh....here we go again with the ol' Bernoulli vs. Newton debate.
>>If I were teaching a newbie (like sergeant dan who loves to argue
>>just for the sheer sake of arguing because he has nothing better
>>to do with his miserable life) I'd have to simply explain to him that
>>BOTH Newton and Bernoulli are important. Sure, the links you
>>provided above (BTW, good website I refer to it often myself) show
>>that airplanes can fly with the "Bernoulli side" down, however, like
>>I said both Bernoulli AND Newton are important when it
>>comes to explaining how subsonic airfoils create lift.

>Stop abusing Newton, too!

>I really wasn't trying to start a Newton v Bernoulli debate. Actually,
>I think that trying to use either of them to describe lift is a bit like
>the 3 blind men trying to describe the elephant.

>I need to figure out a way to write a "circulation theory of lift for
>dummies" book. The websites I referred to are a bit more like
>"circulation theory of lift for those who have a somewhat better than
>layperson understanding of fluid dynamics."

One thing ya gotta love about Usenet is that there's a wacko around
every corner. OK, so lemme get this straight, mensaboy. According to
you, neither Bernoulli -OR- Newton have anything to do with how an
airfoil develops lift??

Waiting with baited breath for explanations. This oughta' be good....

Michael Zaharis

March 1st 04, 12:32 AM

Ron wrote:
>>Mike Marron, FAA Cerfified Flight Instructor - Instrument ;))
>>
>>>
>>
>>Stop abusing Bernoulli!
>>
>
>
> When Mike flies, he is not abusing Bernoulli, he is abusing Hefty :)
>
> I really am joking Mike, I just couldnt resist..lol Those look like a lot of
> fun
>
>
> Ron
> Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)
>

I really wasn't trying to start a Bernoulli V Newton theory of lift
debate. My "Stop abusing Bernoulli" cry was (somewhat) tongue in cheek,
paraphrasing the title of another book that covers circulation and
Newtonian theories of lift. I was just trying to use it as an excuse to
toss out what I feel is the best website I've seen to explain the
theories of lift that are actually used to design an airplane.
Circulation theories of lift are hard to conceptualize and explain, and
this one does a better job, with fewer errors, than anything else I've seen.

BTW, is my understanding of the Newtonians weak, or do they not say very
much about how an airfoil actually imparts an action to the airflow? It
seems to me that they talk quite a bit about action and reaction, but
never really go into the mechanics of how an airfoil works, or why a
given airfoil has a particular pressure/velocity distribution.

Mike Marron

March 1st 04, 12:35 AM

> (B2431) wrote:

>Obviously it flew.

Of course it flew, sergeant dan. That's what airplanes are designed
to do.

>Please stop before you make even more a fool of yourself.

As I said, when you're ready to learn HOW airplanes fly my instruction
rates are quite reasonable.

Felger Carbon

March 1st 04, 01:34 AM

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
>
> Waiting with baited breath for explanations. This oughta' be
good....

It would be even better if you were waiting with bated breath. ;-)

B2431

March 1st 04, 03:28 AM

>From: Mike Marron

>
>> (B2431) wrote:
>
>>Obviously it flew.
>
>Of course it flew, sergeant dan. That's what airplanes are designed
>to do.
>
>>Please stop before you make even more a fool of yourself.
>
>As I said, when you're ready to learn HOW airplanes fly my instruction
>rates are quite reasonable.
>
No thanks, I learned from someone competent.

Thanks for honouring me by using my title.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Mike Marron

March 1st 04, 04:03 AM

> (B2431) wrote:
>>Mike Marron wrote:

>>Of course it flew, sergeant dan. That's what airplanes are designed
>>to do.

>Please stop before you make even more a fool of yourself.

>>As I said, when you're ready to learn HOW airplanes fly my instruction
>>rates are quite reasonable.

>No thanks, I learned from someone competent.

Riiiiight. We all believe this latest revelation of yours that you're
a certicated pilot sergeant dan. Suuurrre we do...

>Thanks for honouring me by using my title.

I see that spelling, not unlike aviation, still ain't your forte. Next
time you're at the VA hospital picking up your monthly welfare
check, be sure to say 'hey' to your good buddy Autocollimator
in the psych ward for me would ya? ;))

Mike Marron

March 1st 04, 05:48 AM

>"Felger Carbon" > wrote:
>>"Mike Marron" > wrote:

>>Waiting with baited breath for explanations. This oughta' be
>>good....

>It would be even better if you were waiting with bated breath. ;-)

Freudian slip I guess (this place is crawling with trolls...;)

B2431

March 1st 04, 07:23 AM

>From: Mike Marron
>
>> (B2431) wrote:
>>>Mike Marron wrote:
>
>>>Of course it flew, sergeant dan. That's what airplanes are designed
>>>to do.
>
>>Please stop before you make even more a fool of yourself.
>
>>>As I said, when you're ready to learn HOW airplanes fly my instruction
>>>rates are quite reasonable.
>
>>No thanks, I learned from someone competent.
>
>Riiiiight. We all believe this latest revelation of yours that you're
>a certicated pilot sergeant dan. Suuurrre we do...

I lost my medical years ago and I never claimed to be a "sergeant pilot" since
there is no such thing.

>>Thanks for honouring me by using my title.
>
>I see that spelling, not unlike aviation, still ain't your forte. Next
>time you're at the VA hospital picking up your monthly welfare
>check,

Your understanding of VA and welfare are as limited as your understanding of
the USAF. It makes me wonder if your father really was ever in the USAF. Now
pay attention, VA and welfare have nothing in common and are administered by
different agencies. Furthermore VA disability is automatically deposited in the
veteran's bank.

be sure to say 'hey' to your good buddy Autocollimator
>in the psych ward for me would ya? ;))
>

I have no idea who "autocollimator" is and don't care.

I'm not sure why you started in on me months ago, but it really has to stop.
When you insert miltary rank, VA, welfare and all the other things you have
when you mock me you are degrading yourself as well as people on welfare, using
the VA, veterans etc. If you have a beef with me please try to be an adult
about it.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Michael Zaharis

March 1st 04, 02:20 PM

Mike Marron wrote:
>>Mike Marron wrote:
>>
>>>Michael Zaharis > wrote:
>
>
>>>Uh oh....here we go again with the ol' Bernoulli vs. Newton debate.
>>>If I were teaching a newbie (like sergeant dan who loves to argue
>>>just for the sheer sake of arguing because he has nothing better
>>>to do with his miserable life) I'd have to simply explain to him that
>>>BOTH Newton and Bernoulli are important. Sure, the links you
>>>provided above (BTW, good website I refer to it often myself) show
>>>that airplanes can fly with the "Bernoulli side" down, however, like
>>>I said both Bernoulli AND Newton are important when it
>>>comes to explaining how subsonic airfoils create lift.
>
>
>
>>Stop abusing Newton, too!
>
>
>>I really wasn't trying to start a Newton v Bernoulli debate. Actually,
>>I think that trying to use either of them to describe lift is a bit like
>>the 3 blind men trying to describe the elephant.
>
>
>>I need to figure out a way to write a "circulation theory of lift for
>>dummies" book. The websites I referred to are a bit more like
>>"circulation theory of lift for those who have a somewhat better than
>>layperson understanding of fluid dynamics."
>
>
> One thing ya gotta love about Usenet is that there's a wacko around
> every corner. OK, so lemme get this straight, mensaboy. According to
> you, neither Bernoulli -OR- Newton have anything to do with how an
> airfoil develops lift??
>
> Waiting with baited breath for explanations. This oughta' be good....
>

No, that's not what I said. Of course, Newton ultimately describes how
lift is generated. In a non-relativistic, non-quantum mechanical
context, Newton ultimately describes every physical interaction between
particles (if you want to break it down tot he level of each particle).
You can also apply Bernoulli, once you've descirbed the flow field
around the wings. But, ultimately, airfoil designers use circulation
theories to design airfoils, because they provide a more complete
explanation of why the flow field around a wing behaves the way that it
does. Circulation theories are not in disagreement with Bernoulli or
Newton; they just give a more complete picture than how Bernoulli or
Newton get applied in popular explanations of lift.

As far as I've seen (and I requested more information in another post),
using Newtonian techniques to describe the "action/reaction", but unless
you analyze every little parcel of air effectively solving the Navier
Stokes equation for the entire flow field around the wing, it gives you
very little insight as to how the "action" gets generated. If I am
incorrect on this, please direct me to a good source. And certainly,
you can apply Bernoulli, but you have to do a much more rigorous
analysis of the flow field around the wing than the standard elementary
school "the wing is longer on the upper side, so the flow must go faster
to meet up with the flow on the lower side", then apply Bernoulli to
this complex flow field.

This is why I said that it's a bit like the 3 blind men trying to
describe the elephant. Both Newton and Bernoulli are correct (if
applied correctly), but do not provide a complete insight as to what the
wing is actually doing, and don't provide one with useful tools to
design or analyze airfoils.

I'm not advocating "Lift Faeries" here. I'm merely saying that the
popular descriptions of how lift works don't really give the complete
view that airfoil designers use to design airfoils.

http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/airfoils.html

Mike Marron

March 1st 04, 02:33 PM

> (B2431) wrote:
>>Mike Marron wrote:

>>Riiiiight. We all believe this latest revelation of yours that you're
>>a certicated pilot sergeant dan. Suuurrre we do...

>I lost my medical years ago and I never claimed to be a "sergeant pilot" since
>there is no such thing.

Riiiiiiiiight...you couldn't fly yourself out of a paper bag and it
would take me only about two minutes to prove it if you dared to
show your chicken**** face at my airport. But regardless of the topic,
any hooded coward like you, sergeant dan, who trolls and flames
people anonymously has ZERO credibility in my book.

>Thanks for honouring me by using my title.

>>I see that spelling, not unlike aviation, still ain't your forte. Next
>>time you're at the VA hospital picking up your monthly welfare
>>check,

>Your understanding of VA and welfare are as limited as your understanding of
>the USAF. It makes me wonder if your father really was ever in the USAF.

Frankly, I couldn't care less what you "wonder" about, sergeant dan.
You are a nothing, a cowardly netizen nobody who hides behind your AOL
pseudonym while demeaning, discrediting, accusing without basis and
spouting your bald faced lies.

Now, for everyone BESIDES sergeant dan here, Ed Rasimus actually flew
CAP during a mission over NVN which earned my Father a DFC. We've
talked about this in the past right here on RAM. The award was won in
an Oct. 5, 1966, rescue operation in which Captain Marron was
responsible for the rescue of two McDonnell F-4C Phantom crew members
shot down over North Vietnam. The description of this heroic rescue is
discussed in detail in Chapter 16 of Ed's book, "When Thunder Rolled."

Jack

March 1st 04, 06:27 PM

On 3/1/04 8:33 AM, in article ,
"Mike Marron" > wrote:

> Now, for everyone BESIDES sergeant dan here, Ed Rasimus actually flew
> CAP during a mission over NVN which earned my Father a DFC. We've
> talked about this in the past right here on RAM. The award was won in
> an Oct. 5, 1966, rescue operation in which Captain Marron was
> responsible for the rescue of two McDonnell F-4C Phantom crew members
> shot down over North Vietnam. The description of this heroic rescue is
> discussed in detail in Chapter 16 of Ed's book, "When Thunder Rolled."

We know about Ed, and we'll take it on faith about your Dad.

The only question remaining is, would your Dad be pleased with your
behavior?

Little to nothing of what you do here on r.a.m. shows that you are a worthy
heir to your Dad's exploits.

Jack
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Tex Houston

March 1st 04, 06:35 PM

"Jack" > wrote in message
...
> On 3/1/04 8:33 AM, in article ,
> "Mike Marron" > wrote:
>
> > Now, for everyone BESIDES sergeant dan here, Ed Rasimus actually flew
> > CAP during a mission over NVN which earned my Father a DFC. We've
> > talked about this in the past right here on RAM. The award was won in
> > an Oct. 5, 1966, rescue operation in which Captain Marron was
> > responsible for the rescue of two McDonnell F-4C Phantom crew members
> > shot down over North Vietnam. The description of this heroic rescue is
> > discussed in detail in Chapter 16 of Ed's book, "When Thunder Rolled."
>
> We know about Ed, and we'll take it on faith about your Dad.
>
> The only question remaining is, would your Dad be pleased with your
> behavior?
>
> Little to nothing of what you do here on r.a.m. shows that you are a
worthy
> heir to your Dad's exploits.
>
>
>
> Jack
You really know how to hurt a guy. What you say, however, is very true,
more's the pity.

Tex Houston

Mike Marron

March 1st 04, 06:37 PM

>Jack > wrote:

[stinkbait snipped]

>Little to nothing of what you do here on r.a.m. shows that you are a worthy
>heir to your Dad's exploits.

Troll.

Mike Marron

March 1st 04, 06:42 PM

> "Tex Houston" > wrote:

>You really know how to hurt a guy. What you say, however, is very true,
>more's the pity.

Other than playing your self-annointed role as resident group nanny,
what's your claim to fame?

[email protected]

March 1st 04, 07:09 PM

Mike Marron > wrote:

>
>Now, for everyone BESIDES sergeant dan here, Ed Rasimus actually flew
>CAP during a mission over NVN which earned my Father a DFC. We've
>talked about this in the past right here on RAM. The award was won in
>an Oct. 5, 1966, rescue operation in which Captain Marron was
>responsible for the rescue of two McDonnell F-4C Phantom crew members
>shot down over North Vietnam. The description of this heroic rescue is
>discussed in detail in Chapter 16 of Ed's book, "When Thunder Rolled."
>
>
Well marron, it's wonderful that Mr Marron was in a position to
and had the integrity and skill to do this heroic deed. I
sincerely congratulate him.

HOWEVER, I feel that his son certainly isn't living up to the
standards that he had apparently set. Doesn't it bother you at
least a little that a large group of strangers, most of whom are
quite familiar with these aeronautical subjects are comparing the
image of your father that you've painted and yourself who has
made such a cretinous lout of himself on this ng?.

I sincerely hope that there's no mechanism by which he can see
the embarrassing image that you've created for yourself here.
--

-Gord.

Grantland

March 1st 04, 07:09 PM

Mike Marron > wrote:

>> "Tex Houston" > wrote:
>
>>You really know how to hurt a guy. What you say, however, is very true,
>>more's the pity.
>
>Other than playing your self-annointed role as resident group nanny,
>what's your claim to fame?
>
You suck cock Tarver. You're a turd of human being.

Grantland

Buzzer

March 1st 04, 07:15 PM

On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 14:33:02 GMT, Mike Marron >
wrote:

>Now, for everyone BESIDES sergeant dan here, Ed Rasimus actually flew
>CAP during a mission over NVN which earned my Father a DFC. We've
>talked about this in the past right here on RAM. The award was won in
>an Oct. 5, 1966, rescue operation in which Captain Marron was
>responsible for the rescue of two McDonnell F-4C Phantom crew members
>shot down over North Vietnam. The description of this heroic rescue is
>discussed in detail in Chapter 16 of Ed's book, "When Thunder Rolled."

So Mike your father is a real American military hero while you have
done nothing more than "shovel **** in Louisana" and lived in your
father's shadow all your life?

Mike Marron

March 1st 04, 07:17 PM

>"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

[drool snipped]

>I sincerely hope that there's no mechanism by which he can see
>the embarrassing image that you've created for yourself here.

Mary Shafer was right. You're definitely deserve to be killfiled.

Tarver Engineering

March 1st 04, 07:33 PM

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
> >"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:
>
> [drool snipped]
>
> >I sincerely hope that there's no mechanism by which he can see
> >the embarrassing image that you've created for yourself here.
>
> Mary Shafer was right. You're definitely deserve to be killfiled.

Mary Shafer was a fraud, Gord Beaman is real.

De Nile is not just a river in Egypt.

B2431

March 1st 04, 07:35 PM

>From: Mike Marron

>
>> (B2431) wrote:
>>>Mike Marron wrote:
>
>>>Riiiiight. We all believe this latest revelation of yours that you're
>>>a certicated pilot sergeant dan. Suuurrre we do...
>
>>I lost my medical years ago and I never claimed to be a "sergeant pilot"
>since
>>there is no such thing.
>
>Riiiiiiiiight...you couldn't fly yourself out of a paper bag and it
>would take me only about two minutes to prove it

<snip> it would take less than that. I told you I lost my medical.

if you dared to
>show your chicken**** face at my airport. But regardless of the topic,
>any hooded coward like you, sergeant dan, who trolls and flames
>people anonymously has ZERO credibility in my book.
>
>>Thanks for honouring me by using my title.
>
>>>I see that spelling, not unlike aviation, still ain't your forte. Next
>>>time you're at the VA hospital picking up your monthly welfare
>>>check,
>
>>Your understanding of VA and welfare are as limited as your understanding of
>>the USAF. It makes me wonder if your father really was ever in the USAF.
>
>Frankly, I couldn't care less what you "wonder" about, sergeant dan.
>You are a nothing, a cowardly netizen nobody who hides behind your AOL
>pseudonym while demeaning, discrediting, accusing without basis and
>spouting your bald faced lies.
>
>Now, for everyone BESIDES sergeant dan here, Ed Rasimus actually flew
>CAP during a mission over NVN which earned my Father a DFC. We've
>talked about this in the past right here on RAM. The award was won in
>an Oct. 5, 1966, rescue operation in which Captain Marron was
>responsible for the rescue of two McDonnell F-4C Phantom crew members
>shot down over North Vietnam. The description of this heroic rescue is
>discussed in detail in Chapter 16 of Ed's book, "When Thunder Rolled."
>
>
And this makes you what?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Grantland

March 1st 04, 07:51 PM

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

>
>"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
>> >"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:
>>
>> [drool snipped]
>>
>> >I sincerely hope that there's no mechanism by which he can see
>> >the embarrassing image that you've created for yourself here.
>>
>> Mary Shafer was right. You're definitely deserve to be killfiled.
>
>Mary Shafer was a fraud, Gord Beaman is real.
>
>De Nile is not just a river in Egypt.
>
Mary Shafer (and that other famous Aussie guy) are worth ten times
more than you, little ****-eating half-jewboy freak. Why don't you
**** off out of this ng with your pathetic, obvious, transparent
sockpuppets, eh? FOAD, you ****-eating PUNK with your whining jewboy
"chosen" cockwipe phony, baseless air of superiority? Pussyboy.
PUSSY! **** OFF TARVER!! FUC K off!!!!
Penis.

Grantland
Grantland

Tarver Engineering

March 1st 04, 07:51 PM

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: Mike Marron

> And this makes you what?

Did you cuckold Mike's father, Dan?

This whole thread is starting to make sense. :)

Tarver Engineering

March 1st 04, 07:59 PM

"Grantland" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:
> >>
> >> [drool snipped]
> >>
> >> >I sincerely hope that there's no mechanism by which he can see
> >> >the embarrassing image that you've created for yourself here.
> >>
> >> Mary Shafer was right. You're definitely deserve to be killfiled.
> >
> >Mary Shafer was a fraud, Gord Beaman is real.
> >
> >De Nile is not just a river in Egypt.
> >
> Mary Shafer (and that other famous Aussie guy) are worth ten times
> more than you, little ****-eating half-jewboy freak.

The Aussie guy is a famous idiot who provided me with many hours of
laughter.

Mary is nice.

Marron keeps attacking those that did the military thing.

Grantland

March 1st 04, 08:40 PM

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

>
>"Grantland" > wrote in message
...
>> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> >"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> [drool snipped]
>> >>
>> >> >I sincerely hope that there's no mechanism by which he can see
>> >> >the embarrassing image that you've created for yourself here.
>> >>
>> >> Mary Shafer was right. You're definitely deserve to be killfiled.
>> >
>> >Mary Shafer was a fraud, Gord Beaman is real.
>> >
>> >De Nile is not just a river in Egypt.
>> >
>> Mary Shafer (and that other famous Aussie guy) are worth ten times
>> more than you, little ****-eating half-jewboy freak.
>
>The Aussie guy is a famous idiot who provided me with many hours of
>laughter.
>
>Mary is nice.
>
>Marron keeps attacking those that did the military thing.
>
>
**** off half-jewboy. **** OFF! Go suck on your Master George
Tenet's thick red cock.

Grantland

[email protected]

March 1st 04, 08:45 PM

Mike Marron > wrote:

>>"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:
>
>[drool snipped]
>
>>I sincerely hope that there's no mechanism by which he can see
>>the embarrassing image that you've created for yourself here.
>
>Mary Shafer was right. You're definitely deserve to be killfiled.

The only reason that she KF me (if she did) was because I took
issue about her adamant statement that there is no such thing as
'pilot error'. She wouldn't discuss it at all. With that kind of
a personality I don't think that I'm missing too much. Likewise,
to be killfiled by you certainly won't keep me awake tonight sir.
--

-Gord.

Dave Holford

March 1st 04, 09:54 PM

Grantland wrote:
>

> >
> Mary Shafer (and that other famous Aussie guy) are worth ten times
> more than you, little ****-eating half-jewboy freak. Why don't you
> **** off out of this ng with your pathetic, obvious, transparent
> sockpuppets, eh? FOAD, you ****-eating PUNK with your whining jewboy
> "chosen" cockwipe phony, baseless air of superiority? Pussyboy.
> PUSSY! **** OFF TARVER!! FUC K off!!!!
> Penis.
>
> Grantland

And people wonder why Africans have trouble living in peace!

Dave

Mike Marron

March 1st 04, 10:09 PM

> (B2431) wrote:
>>Mike Marron wrote:

>>Riiiiight. We all believe this latest revelation of yours that you're
>>a certicated pilot sergeant dan. Suuurrre we do...

>I lost my medical years ago and I never claimed to be a "sergeant pilot"
>since there is no such thing.

>>Riiiiiiiiight...you couldn't fly yourself out of a paper bag and it
>>would take me only about two minutes to prove it

><snip> it would take less than that. I told you I lost my medical.

The question remains, did you lose your logbook as well? If not,
let's see if you can go find it (riiiiiight) and then report back to
the group your total hours as PIC (that means "Pilot In Command").
Don't forget to let us know the date your pilot certificate was issued
to you as well.

>>Now, for everyone BESIDES sergeant dan here, Ed Rasimus actually flew
>>CAP during a mission over NVN which earned my Father a DFC. We've
>>talked about this in the past right here on RAM. The award was won in
>>an Oct. 5, 1966, rescue operation in which Captain Marron was
>>responsible for the rescue of two McDonnell F-4C Phantom crew members
>>shot down over North Vietnam. The description of this heroic rescue is
>>discussed in detail in Chapter 16 of Ed's book, "When Thunder Rolled."

>And this makes you what?

>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

And this makes YOU what?

B2431

March 1st 04, 10:31 PM

>From: (Grantland)
>Date: 3/1/2004 2:40 PM Central Standard Time

<snip a bunch of filth>

> Go suck on your Master George
>Tenet's thick red cock.
>
>Grantland
>
Just how do you know what colour it is? How close did you get to it?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[email protected]

March 1st 04, 10:38 PM

Mike Marron > wrote:

>> (B2431) wrote:
>>>Mike Marron wrote:
>
>>>Riiiiight. We all believe this latest revelation of yours that you're
>>>a certicated pilot sergeant dan. Suuurrre we do...
>
>>I lost my medical years ago and I never claimed to be a "sergeant pilot"
>>since there is no such thing.
>
>>>Riiiiiiiiight...you couldn't fly yourself out of a paper bag and it
>>>would take me only about two minutes to prove it
>
>><snip> it would take less than that. I told you I lost my medical.
>
>The question remains, did you lose your logbook as well? If not,
>let's see if you can go find it (riiiiiight) and then report back to
>the group your total hours as PIC (that means "Pilot In Command").
>Don't forget to let us know the date your pilot certificate was issued
>to you as well.
>

You really ARE a curious little specimen aren't you marron?

Dan has been nothing if not polite to you and you continue to
berate him here in public...you're a shameful despicable little
person aren't you? I really hope your dad can't see you.
--

-Gord.

Guy Alcala

March 2nd 04, 01:53 AM

Tex Houston wrote:

> "Jack" > wrote in message

<snip>

> > We know about Ed, and we'll take it on faith about your Dad.
> >
> > The only question remaining is, would your Dad be pleased with your
> > behavior?
> >
> > Little to nothing of what you do here on r.a.m. shows that you are a
> worthy
> > heir to your Dad's exploits.
> >
> >
> >
> > Jack
> You really know how to hurt a guy. What you say, however, is very true,
> more's the pity.

I've kept hoping that Mr. Marron will lose the chip on his shoulder, as he has
sometimes made interesting and valuable posts. But it appears that's not going
to happen, and my willingness to put up with his all-too-often abrasive and
obnoxious personality just to read those few posts I find of value has run out,
so he's going into the killfile.

Guy

P.S. Oh, and Grantland too. Don't know how I overlooked that one for so
long. Guess I just ignored his posts.

Mike Marron

March 2nd 04, 02:12 AM

>Guy Alcala > wrote:

>I've kept hoping that Mr. Marron will lose the chip on his shoulder, as he has
>sometimes made interesting and valuable posts. But it appears that's not going
>to happen, and my willingness to put up with his all-too-often abrasive and
>obnoxious personality just to read those few posts I find of value has run out,
>so he's going into the killfile.

Due to his constant bitching about off-topic postings, Tex Houston's
signal-to-noise ratio is among the lowest on this group so you mightas
well killfile him too.

>Guy

>P.S. Oh, and Grantland too. Don't know how I overlooked that one for so
>long. Guess I just ignored his posts.

I don't have a killfile but I've been ignoring both Tarver and
Grantland for a while now. But then, usually I ignore you, Tex
Houston, Gord "Gadfly" Beaman, Al Minyard, Dan "U.S. Air Force,
retired," Kramer, and a whole slew of other RAM posters as well.
It's only when y'all throw the first punch when I punch back.

Bob McKellar

March 2nd 04, 03:28 AM

Mike Marron wrote:

> >Guy Alcala > wrote:
>
> >I've kept hoping that Mr. Marron will lose the chip on his shoulder, as he has
> >sometimes made interesting and valuable posts. But it appears that's not going
> >to happen, and my willingness to put up with his all-too-often abrasive and
> >obnoxious personality just to read those few posts I find of value has run out,
> >so he's going into the killfile.
>
> Due to his constant bitching about off-topic postings, Tex Houston's
> signal-to-noise ratio is among the lowest on this group so you mightas
> well killfile him too.
>
> >Guy
>
> >P.S. Oh, and Grantland too. Don't know how I overlooked that one for so
> >long. Guess I just ignored his posts.
>
> I don't have a killfile but I've been ignoring both Tarver and
> Grantland for a while now. But then, usually I ignore you, Tex
> Houston, Gord "Gadfly" Beaman, Al Minyard, Dan "U.S. Air Force,
> retired," Kramer, and a whole slew of other RAM posters as well.
> It's only when y'all throw the first punch when I punch back.

I'm offended. Why can't I be on the list?

Bob McKellar, who thinks ignoring all those folks means you can read all of RAM in
about 5 minutes a day

Mike Marron

March 2nd 04, 03:41 AM

>Bob McKellar > wrote:

>Bob McKellar, who thinks ignoring all those folks means you can read all of RAM in
>about 5 minutes a day

That's the plan.

B2431

March 2nd 04, 04:39 AM

>From: Bob McKellar
>Date: 3/1/2004 9:28 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>
>Mike Marron wrote:
>
>> >Guy Alcala > wrote:
>>
>> >I've kept hoping that Mr. Marron will lose the chip on his shoulder, as he
>has
>> >sometimes made interesting and valuable posts. But it appears that's not
>going
>> >to happen, and my willingness to put up with his all-too-often abrasive
>and
>> >obnoxious personality just to read those few posts I find of value has run
>out,
>> >so he's going into the killfile.
>>
>> Due to his constant bitching about off-topic postings, Tex Houston's
>> signal-to-noise ratio is among the lowest on this group so you mightas
>> well killfile him too.
>>
>> >Guy
>>
>> >P.S. Oh, and Grantland too. Don't know how I overlooked that one for so
>> >long. Guess I just ignored his posts.
>>
>> I don't have a killfile but I've been ignoring both Tarver and
>> Grantland for a while now. But then, usually I ignore you, Tex
>> Houston, Gord "Gadfly" Beaman, Al Minyard, Dan "U.S. Air Force,
>> retired," Kramer, and a whole slew of other RAM posters as well.
>> It's only when y'all throw the first punch when I punch back.
>
>I'm offended. Why can't I be on the list?
>
>Bob McKellar, who thinks ignoring all those folks means you can read all of
>RAM in
>about 5 minutes a day
>
Bob, didn't you get the memo? You had to fill out an application.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Mike Marron

March 2nd 04, 04:51 AM

> (B2431) wrote:

>Bob, didn't you get the memo? You had to fill out an application.

What application was that, sergeant dan? The Official RAM membership
application that stipulates in order to "fit in" and become part of
the "protected class" one must first provide name, rank and social
security number; a full resume with at least 12 references from fellow
RAM sycophants like yourself; a sealed copy of your form DD214;
a signed affadavit from your boot camp drill sergeant; your VFW
drinking bud vouching that you're a swell guy; a doctor's statement
certifying that you are indeed "retired" therefore can't work and
require at least 12 hours a day "resting" at the computer; have on
your person the RAM decoder ring, master the secret RAM handshake
and hereby solemny swear to grovel in the presence of anyone wearing
a Navy Blue cap with "Retired" Emblem and Scrambled Eggs
whose posts are always bland as dishwater and mumbles the sacred
words....."Been There Done That."

B2431

March 2nd 04, 05:22 AM

>From: Mike Marron
>
>
>> (B2431) wrote:
>>>Mike Marron wrote:
>
>>>Riiiiight. We all believe this latest revelation of yours that you're
>>>a certicated pilot sergeant dan. Suuurrre we do...
>
>>I lost my medical years ago and I never claimed to be a "sergeant pilot"
>>since there is no such thing.
>
>>>Riiiiiiiiight...you couldn't fly yourself out of a paper bag and it
>>>would take me only about two minutes to prove it
>
>><snip> it would take less than that. I told you I lost my medical.
>

Actually I have nothing to prove to you, but because you are such a polite and
pleasant individual I will answer you. I have always had a phobia about heights
so I took up skydiving. I still have the phobia and my last jump was in the
1970s. I also am very uncomfortable flying so I took flying lessons. I have
around 15 hours and never soloed. I still am uncomfortable flying. Do I still
have either log book? I don't know and I don't care, nor will I go look for
them to make you happy.

Please note I have never slammed or questioned your flying
experiences/certs/quals/job/personal life etc. I don't think it is too much to
expect the same in return.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

John Keeney

March 2nd 04, 06:17 AM

"Bob McKellar" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Mike Marron wrote:
>
> > >Guy Alcala > wrote:
> >
> > >I've kept hoping that Mr. Marron will lose the chip on his shoulder, as
he has
> > >sometimes made interesting and valuable posts. But it appears that's
not going
> > >to happen, and my willingness to put up with his all-too-often abrasive
and
> > >obnoxious personality just to read those few posts I find of value has
run out,
> > >so he's going into the killfile.
> >
> > Due to his constant bitching about off-topic postings, Tex Houston's
> > signal-to-noise ratio is among the lowest on this group so you mightas
> > well killfile him too.
> >
> > >Guy
> >
> > >P.S. Oh, and Grantland too. Don't know how I overlooked that one for
so
> > >long. Guess I just ignored his posts.
> >
> > I don't have a killfile but I've been ignoring both Tarver and
> > Grantland for a while now. But then, usually I ignore you, Tex
> > Houston, Gord "Gadfly" Beaman, Al Minyard, Dan "U.S. Air Force,
> > retired," Kramer, and a whole slew of other RAM posters as well.
> > It's only when y'all throw the first punch when I punch back.
>
> I'm offended. Why can't I be on the list?

Heck, Bob, maybe we're covered under "a whole slew of other".

> Bob McKellar, who thinks ignoring all those folks means you can read all
of RAM in
> about 5 minutes a day

Jim Doyle

March 2nd 04, 02:39 PM

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
> > (B2431) wrote:
> >>Mike Marron wrote:
>

> >Thanks for honouring me by using my title.
>
> I see that spelling, not unlike aviation, still ain't your forte. Next
> time you're at the VA hospital picking up your monthly welfare
> check, be sure to say 'hey' to your good buddy Autocollimator
> in the psych ward for me would ya? ;))
>

Nowt wrong with his spelling Mike, isn't it nice to see Americans spelling
the English language correctly for a change! :o)

Jim Doyle

Tarver Engineering

March 2nd 04, 06:47 PM

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
> >Bob McKellar > wrote:
>
> >Bob McKellar, who thinks ignoring all those folks means you can read all
of RAM in
> >about 5 minutes a day
>
> That's the plan.

A better plan would be for you to post to notepad and leave us out of your
delusions, Marron.

Greg Copeland

April 23rd 04, 03:05 PM

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

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

Greg Copeland

April 23rd 04, 03:09 PM

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

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

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

Larry Dighera

April 23rd 04, 03:36 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greg Copeland

April 23rd 04, 07:54 PM

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

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

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

Mary Shafer

April 24th 04, 12:18 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

Boomer

April 24th 04, 12:27 AM

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

--

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

EDR

April 24th 04, 12:42 AM

In article >, Mary Shafer
> wrote:

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

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

Larry Dighera

April 24th 04, 12:44 AM

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

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

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

Mike Beede

April 24th 04, 12:57 AM

In article >, Mary Shafer > wrote:

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

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

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

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

Mike Beede

BTIZ

April 24th 04, 02:55 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John R Weiss

April 24th 04, 04:00 AM

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

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

[email protected]

April 24th 04, 04:15 AM

"BTIZ" > wrote:

>Mary... you are WRONG... I've flown both sides of this issue.
>
Don't expect a whole bunch of apologies from her here guys...I
once told her that she was wrong when she emphatically stated
that there was no such thing as "Pilot Error"...her answer was a
bunch of vitriol and a ride into her bit bucket (where I still am
as far as I know) :)
--

-Gord.

Larry Dighera

April 24th 04, 04:38 AM

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

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

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

Mary Shafer

April 24th 04, 05:25 AM

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

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

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

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

Mary Shafer

April 24th 04, 05:25 AM

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

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

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

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

Larry Dighera

April 24th 04, 05:27 AM

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

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

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

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

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

BTIZ

April 24th 04, 05:48 AM

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

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

BT

Mary Shafer

April 24th 04, 07:35 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

BTIZ

April 24th 04, 02:27 PM

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

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

BT

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