View Single Post
  #90  
Old April 24th 04, 01:57 AM
Mike Beede
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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