Air Force One Had to Intercept Some Inadvertent Flyers / How?

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 21:13:11 -0500, Ronald Gardner
wrote in ::

I suspect gear and flaps down speed of a F15 to be around 110 or 120 knots.

Unfortunately, that doesn't prevent F-15s from endangering the public
by exceeding the 250 knot speed limit below 10,000'.


Umm, military has never been restricted to the 250knot speed. You really
think they are 'endangering the public' when they do this? Do you think
they don't know where YOUR aircraft is long before you see them?

--
Chris Schmelzer, MD

On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 12:19:25 -0700, Chris Schmelzer
wrote in ::

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 21:13:11 -0500, Ronald Gardner
wrote in ::

I suspect gear and flaps down speed of a F15 to be around 110 or 120 knots.

Unfortunately, that doesn't prevent F-15s from endangering the public
by exceeding the 250 knot speed limit below 10,000'.


Umm, military has never been restricted to the 250knot speed.

There has been an exemption for military aircraft for some time.

You really think they are 'endangering the public' when they do this?

I believe it is impossible to see fighter aircraft in time to avoid
them, so being a member of the public, I believe I'm endangered by
their high speed below 10,000'.

Do you think they don't know where YOUR aircraft is long before you see them?

Yes. That is exactly what I think. Not only that, I believe that
there are military fighter pilots who don't care where my aircraft is
either.

Are you familiar with the civil/military MACs? Here's some
information for you:
http://tinyurl.com/dpth3
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...4c195356989dec

Morgans wrote:
"Ronald Gardner" wrote

I suspect gear and flaps down speed of a F15 to be around 110 or 120
knots. I
wonder if with the thrust to weight ratio if he could nose up and power up
and
hold a much lower grd speed without altitude gain? Any former F15 pilots
out
there have the answer?

I have seen FA-18's "hang it on the prop" before; I'm sure F-15 pilots are
"almost" as good! g

I saw a Thunderbirds (F-16) show a few years ago from a position only a
few hundred feet from the runway. Amazing. One plane came down the
runway about 25' AGL so slowly that I thought I could out run it on
foot. It must have been standing on part of the afterburner thrust or
something. The wings could not have been contributing much lift and
might even have been stalled.

And later in the show, a single F-16 did 360 degree turns at nearly
90-degree bank. The wing was barely off the surface.

"Chris Schmelzer" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 21:13:11 -0500, Ronald Gardner
wrote in ::

I suspect gear and flaps down speed of a F15 to be around 110 or 120
knots.

Unfortunately, that doesn't prevent F-15s from endangering the public
by exceeding the 250 knot speed limit below 10,000'.


Umm, military has never been restricted to the 250knot speed. You really
think they are 'endangering the public' when they do this? Do you think
they don't know where YOUR aircraft is long before you see them?

--
Chris Schmelzer, MD

The guy in Florida in a 172 that got hit by a military hot shot that broke
every rule in the book would agree that they are 'endangering the public'
except he is dead. To add insult to murder he was given partial blame for
not seeing and avoiding a military fighter traveling at well over 250 knots
that came up on him from behind.

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 04:34:48 GMT, "Dave Stadt"
wrote in : :

To add insult to murder he was given partial blame for
not seeing and avoiding a military fighter traveling at well over 250 knots
that came up on him from behind.


(Minor correction: the MAC was left-left impact.)

What I find reprehensible is the USAF's attempt to use the
navigational system errors in the lead F-16 as an excuse for it's
pilot's blatant disregard for the lives he decided to endanger by
entering congested Class B and C terminal airspace without benefit of
the required ATC clearance at speeds of ~500 knots clearly in
violation of FAA regulations. The ATP rated Cessna 172 pilot was in a
hard right bank at the time of impact indicating that he was
attempting to avoid the Ninja flight's wingman, but at that speed
apparently there wasn't time enough to see-and-avoid.

It was reported that the USAF found a verbal reprimand appropriate
punishment for flight lead Parker.

In another, earlier civil/military MAC, the NTSB found the glider
pilot at fault despite his having the right of way as provided by
federal regulations.

It would seem our government is a bit biased when it comes to
evaluating itself.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 04:34:48 GMT, "Dave Stadt"
wrote in : :

To add insult to murder he was given partial blame for
not seeing and avoiding a military fighter traveling at well over 250
knots
that came up on him from behind.


(Minor correction: the MAC was left-left impact.)

What I find reprehensible is the USAF's attempt to use the
navigational system errors in the lead F-16 as an excuse for it's
pilot's blatant disregard for the lives he decided to endanger by
entering congested Class B and C terminal airspace without benefit of
the required ATC clearance at speeds of ~500 knots clearly in
violation of FAA regulations. The ATP rated Cessna 172 pilot was in a
hard right bank at the time of impact indicating that he was
attempting to avoid the Ninja flight's wingman, but at that speed
apparently there wasn't time enough to see-and-avoid.

It was reported that the USAF found a verbal reprimand appropriate
punishment for flight lead Parker.

The USAF dropped way down my list after this and a couple of other similar
incidents. Thay are now down with used car salesmen and lawyers. It's one
thing for such an incident to happen but for the USAF to let a murderer off
with a verbal reprimand is beyond belief and inexcusable. .

On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 18:37:38 GMT, "Dave Stadt"
wrote in : :

The USAF dropped way down my list after this and a couple of other similar
incidents. Thay are now down with used car salesmen and lawyers.

Our federal government's attitude toward the rights of our people and
morality in general seems to be at a new low. It's very
disappointing.

It's one thing for such an incident to happen but for the USAF to let a murderer off
with a verbal reprimand is beyond belief and inexcusable. .

I heard, that when the widow and her daughter complained to Air Force
personnel, the AF spokesman indicated that the late Cessna pilot's
estate might have to pay millions of dollars for the F-16 that was
destroyed. If true, that would be the ultimate in federal hubris.
I've never heard the outcome of the widow's $10-million law suit.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 12:19:25 -0700, Chris Schmelzer
wrote in ::

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 21:13:11 -0500, Ronald Gardner
wrote in ::

I suspect gear and flaps down speed of a F15 to be around 110 or 120
knots.

Unfortunately, that doesn't prevent F-15s from endangering the public
by exceeding the 250 knot speed limit below 10,000'.


Umm, military has never been restricted to the 250knot speed.

There has been an exemption for military aircraft for some time.

You really think they are 'endangering the public' when they do this?

I believe it is impossible to see fighter aircraft in time to avoid
them, so being a member of the public, I believe I'm endangered by
their high speed below 10,000'.


Maybe you shouldn't be flying then. Most military fighter aircraft are
several times larger than GA aircraft. Fighter pilots train to pick up
tally's on other fighters out to 10 miles and beyond. Try that with a GA
sized aircraft. That's at closure rates of two supersonic aircraft which
will be around 1000+kts Vc. Our training rules state that pure pursuit must
be ceased by 9000' in order to avoid busting a 500' safety bubble during a
head on attack.

My point is, spend less time looking at your artificial horizon and more
time looking at the window and you'd be suprised on how far away you can see
the larger airplanes.

I'm much more concerned about hitting a C-152 than I am about an F-15
because it's small size.

Next point. Their "high speed below 10,000'" is limited to 300kts. A
whopping 50kts faster than FAA regs. That actually reduces the risk of
collision because in the event that a fighter does not see you till late,
his jet has the energy availble to manauever agressively enough to avoid a
collision. At 250kts and slower a fighter actually takes longer to get out
of your way and increases the risk of a collision.

They are not out there screaming around at 500kts below 10k just for the
heck of it.

The only place fighters are allowed above 300kts below 10,000' is in special
use airspace. (VR/IR low levels, MOAs, restricted airspace, etc)


Do you think they don't know where YOUR aircraft is long before you see
them?

Yes. That is exactly what I think. Not only that, I believe that
there are military fighter pilots who don't care where my aircraft is
either.


You don't have a clue pal.

1) While most fighter pilots have a very good radar which has alot of great
capability, it doesn't always mean your aircraft is within it's scan.
Nothing is perfect. While he may have SA on your position 95% of the time,
he is still responsible for VFR rules and must see and avoid like everyone
else.

2) The last thing any pilot wants to do is have a mid-air. It will ruin his
day just as much as it will ruin yours.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 04:34:48 GMT, "Dave Stadt"
wrote in : :

To add insult to murder he was given partial blame for
not seeing and avoiding a military fighter traveling at well over 250
knots
that came up on him from behind.


(Minor correction: the MAC was left-left impact.)

What I find reprehensible is the USAF's attempt to use the
navigational system errors in the lead F-16 as an excuse for it's
pilot's blatant disregard for the lives he decided to endanger by
entering congested Class B and C terminal airspace without benefit of
the required ATC clearance at speeds of ~500 knots clearly in
violation of FAA regulations. The ATP rated Cessna 172 pilot was in a
hard right bank at the time of impact indicating that he was
attempting to avoid the Ninja flight's wingman, but at that speed
apparently there wasn't time enough to see-and-avoid.

It was reported that the USAF found a verbal reprimand appropriate
punishment for flight lead Parker.

Got a source for that?

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
et...

"Chris Schmelzer" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 21:13:11 -0500, Ronald Gardner
wrote in ::

I suspect gear and flaps down speed of a F15 to be around 110 or 120
knots.

Unfortunately, that doesn't prevent F-15s from endangering the public
by exceeding the 250 knot speed limit below 10,000'.


Umm, military has never been restricted to the 250knot speed. You really
think they are 'endangering the public' when they do this? Do you think
they don't know where YOUR aircraft is long before you see them?

--
Chris Schmelzer, MD

The guy in Florida in a 172 that got hit by a military hot shot that broke
every rule in the book would agree that they are 'endangering the public'
except he is dead. To add insult to murder he was given partial blame for
not seeing and avoiding a military fighter traveling at well over 250
knots that came up on him from behind.


That was a ****ty deal in deed. I can't speak for what happened in that
case, but I know for a fact that this accident is a case study that every
new pilot must study and several new regulations were put into place after
this to prevent it from happening again.

It is definitely not the norm for how the USAF conducts daily training
missions.