Airspeed of military planes

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


"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

"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?

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.

"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."

"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/group...age/dft_avsafe
ty_502737.hcsp
(or http://makeashorterlink.com/?C15155637 )

Paul

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?

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....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.

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....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."

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

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.