Scared of mid-airs

In article ,
Ed Rasimus wrote:

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

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

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



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

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

(snip)

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Larry, how about once getting your facts straight?

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

That's what we've been trying to point out to you. You don't know what
you are talking about. Lacking information on systems, training,
procedures, responsibilities, attitudes, etc. you are simply asserting
an unfounded opinion.

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

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

You following cut/paste doesn't have squat to do with what was said.

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

Wait, your source is "Lego" at earthlink????

Interpreting the scope is a different matter (see above post). It
requires a great deal of training and targets can be missed.

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

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

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

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

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

The radar will sweep until ...

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

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

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

2 - A
visual fix is being updated .

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

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

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

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

Profound!

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

This is the second posting of the list in this thread. You're becoming
repititous and redundant. The last time and this time, the links were
not relevant to the point being addressed.

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

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

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

And AWACS can see both.

Both, transponders and targets?

Another admission of cluelessness? Two in one post? YES! BOTH!

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

Not common at all. The reason being that ATC and military approach
control facilities are available. AWACS is used to control battle
zones where full ground environment control is not available. Do you
feel you might learn something here?

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

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

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

Then look out the window. Use common sense. Fly 20-30 hours per month
in day, night and weather conditions.

Military fighter aircraft pilots have little physical harm to fear
from colliding with a typical GA aircraft due to the weight and speed
differential as well as a much more robust airframe and ejection seat
to provide them with a safe landing.

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

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

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

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

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

I flew fighters for 23 years in combat, in training, in Asia, Europe
and the US. I never had a mid-air. No one in my squadron ever had a
mid-air. No one in my wing ever had a mid-air. I know of one mid-air
at a base where I was located. It took place in 1967 and was between
an F-5A and an F-5B in an A/A engagement.

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

Civil aircraft to the right of military aircraft:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...26X00109&key=1

F-16s lacked required ATC clearance:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...12X22313&key=1

A6 pilot expected to exit MTR eight minutes after route closu
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...11X12242&key=1

A6 hit glider that had right of way:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...13X33340&key=1


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

I believe their commanders do not appreciate the hazard to the public
their high-speed, low-level operations pose to civil aviation.

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


And I
think their safety procedures lack due prudence.

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

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

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

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

That is such an outrageous statement that I feel I would be taking
advantage of someone to point out its ridiculousness.

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

I would expect nothing less.

Most civil aircraft are incapable of achieving any where near the
speed of military aircraft, so the same level of skill isn't required
of civil pilots. The cost of military aircraft is hundreds of times
more than the typical civil aircraft, so the pilots are not selected
as carefully.

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

And civil pilots are not screened and tested to the
same standards as military pilots. Thanks for the flash. :-(

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

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

The point being made was that there have been many more than four
instances of civilian errors leading to mishaps with military
aircraft. You don't seem as upset by them.

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

Yet, unreasonable and negligent or not that is EXACTLY what the FAA
requires you to do. Unfair, but if you don't like it stay on the
ground.

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

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

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

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

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

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

And, I've not seen any numbers of yours and I'm sick and tired of your
attitude.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

And what military aircraft radars are using MTI with thresholds above
GA aircraft speeds?

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


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

Some have;some haven't:

How much training experience in the military aviation business do you
have? Stick with what you know--apparently Google searches are your
forte:

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


Civil aircraft to the right of military aircraft:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...26X00109&key=1

F-16s lacked required ATC clearance:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...12X22313&key=1

A6 pilot expected to exit MTR eight minutes after route closu
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...11X12242&key=1

A6 hit glider that had right of way:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...13X33340&key=1

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

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

Or, conversely the numbers of deaths of military pilots due to
mid-airs with GA pilots operating cluelessly in restricted, warning,
prohibited airspace, MOAs and oil burner routes.

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

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

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

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

It's a two-edged sword, Larry.

Indeed.

but it ain't murder.

Some are, and some aren't.

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

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

That makes it murder in Florida. Out.

But the military's miserable record in reprimanding its airmen who
wrongfully kill innocent pilots, and shortsighted safety initiatives
are pathetic.

You are the pathetic one with innuendo, hyperbole, exaggeration and
disgusting rhetoric.

I am unaware of any deliberate innuendo.

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

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

No one goes out to have a mid-air.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps safety can be enhanced. What do you think?

On 30 Jul 2006 15:10:51 -0700, "WaltBJ"
wrote in . com::

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

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

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

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

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


"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:FF6zg.84651$ZW3.43673@dukeread04...
With a few possible exceptions, fighter aircraft radar is
two types, a search and a fire control radar. Both have a
fairly small cone in which to detect a target. They depend
on being vectored in the general direction of a threat in
order to detect a target. Also, military aircraft have
radar detectors that warn the pilot/crew that they are being
painted by somebody's radar.

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


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

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

Orval al wrote:
In article ,
Ed Rasimus wrote:

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

IIRC, Ed, only in prohibited airspace can a mil pilot not expect to
encounter a civil VFR.

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


Which is it, Orv?



Jack

Orval Fairbairn wrote:

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


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

Ramapriya

Larry Dighera wrote:

Larry, how about once getting your facts straight?

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

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


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

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

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

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


Jack

Larry Dighera wrote:


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


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

This explains a lot.


Jack