Scared of mid-airs

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

Nope. Traffic out the window.

In brief, "IFR" is a set of rules to fly by, which permits flying in the
clouds. "IMC" means weather in which one cannot see out the window.
Only IFR airplanes can fly in IMC.

"VMC" means weather in which you =can= see out the window. In that kind
of weather, you can still fly IFR (in fact, if you are in and out of
clouds, you will be in VMC and then in IMC and then back in VMC...).
However, other airplanes may be flying VFR (which is a different set of
rules to fly by). Under VFR (rules), the pilots look out the window and
avoid each other, since they can see.

The upshot is that under IFR (rules), air traffic controllers separate
other IFR traffic from you. They do not separate VFR traffic from you.

If you are in IMC (i.e. clouds) and can't see, there should be no VFR
traffic for you to avoid. If you are in VMC, then (like all other
pilots), you need to look out the window. But, since it's VMC, you can.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 01:03:19 GMT, "Red Rider"
wrote:

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.

The F-5 at ten miles with the TCS gave me a flashback moment (and at
my age they are always appreciated.)

Mission was out of Holloman with me leading a T-38 four-ship to the
Red Rio tactical range. Escorted by a pair of F-15As out of the 49th
TFW. Target area defended by a pair of Nellis Aggressor F-5s. Run in
at low altitude at 450 knots (Attn Mr. Dighera--this is what we do.
It's a training situation in controlled restricted airspace. Light
planes HAVE blundered into it despite restrictions.)

Eagles flying out-rigger and slightly aft of my flight. I called
visual on "MiGs, left 11 slightly high at four miles". Eagles with
their cosmic radar and A/A specialization hadn't seen them.

GCI over-seeing the mission confirmed during debrief play-back that
the actual contact distance was 11 miles. Mark 1/Mod O eyeball!!!

Them was the good ol' days.

F-5s are a bugger to spot, too.

Doing a defence of the Lazy D hill feature at Gagetown (723' ASL in CYR 724)
we had both F-5s and Hornets flying against us. I surprised myself when I
picked up a Hornet of 425 "Alouette" Squadron well out there, about 20 Km
and less than 100 feet off the deck. Its low-visibility grey stood out
against a bright blue sky. Engaging it was cinch as we could track it all
the way in. Minutes later a little dirty green and dark grey F-5 of 434
"Bluenose" Squadron dragged himself out of the Saint John River valley where
he had been about 50 feet above the river and attacked us ground troops --
from below! His crossing rate was so high we could scarcely draw a bead on
him until he was almost at the line of weapon release.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 11:08:39 -0400, "Andrew Chaplin"
wrote:


F-5s are a bugger to spot, too.

Doing a defence of the Lazy D hill feature at Gagetown (723' ASL in CYR 724)
we had both F-5s and Hornets flying against us. I surprised myself when I
picked up a Hornet of 425 "Alouette" Squadron well out there, about 20 Km
and less than 100 feet off the deck. Its low-visibility grey stood out
against a bright blue sky. Engaging it was cinch as we could track it all
the way in. Minutes later a little dirty green and dark grey F-5 of 434
"Bluenose" Squadron dragged himself out of the Saint John River valley where
he had been about 50 feet above the river and attacked us ground troops --
from below! His crossing rate was so high we could scarcely draw a bead on
him until he was almost at the line of weapon release.

When I first arrived at Holloman to IP for IPs at Fighter Lead-In, we
still had a lot of the former Aggressor AT-38s in their various paint
schemes. It was about a year later that they standardized the
blue-blue-gray glossy "Smurf" paint.

I recall being on a 1-v-1 against a brown/tan "Lizard". He closed on
me in a 90 degree beam set-up and I watched him track in from about
three miles until at about 2500 feet he simply disappeared! I had been
pad-locked on him as he closed waiting for him to commit and while
totally focussed on him, he turned on the cloaking device. Most
amazing demonstration of camoflage I had ever seen.


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

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 13:26:19 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 05:23:24 GMT, 588 wrote in
::

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.

Without an example of that to which you are referring, I am unable to
comment.

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 am unaware of any information presented to me in the past years that
contradicts my statement.

A fighter pilots ejects and lives. The steaming remains of the pilot
of the aircraft he hit are splattered over four square miles of
country club fairways and greens. Those are the facts. They are not
hyperbole. They were reported by eye witnesses. If you have
contradictory information, please present it. Otherwise, you look
foolish.

You wanted an example about you asserting something you apparently
have little familiarity with? How about this part on ejection. Do you
have any idea what the sequence of events is when one ejects? Any
concept of the forces? Know anything about ejection envelopes? You
state it like "he steps off the bus".

We had one incident at Holloman with an AT-38 on a rudder-rig
functional test flight. Shortly after take-off at about 450 knots the
vertical fin and one side of the slab failed pitching the aircraft
violently nose down (liken this to a mid-air result...)

At negative 4Gs, the pilot ejected. Both arms were separated at the
shoulder. One was broken in three place. Both knees were disjointed
and both femurs were broken. As you would state it so simply above, "a
fighter pilot ejected and lived". He lived.

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.

That is a result of the limited set of fighter pilots with whom you
have been in contact. You obviously hadn't known those military
pilots involved in the four military/civil MACs whose NTSB links I
posted.

In 23 years in the fighter business I have lived, worked, fought wars
with and watched fighter pilots die for their country. Thousands of
them. Don't spout drivel about limited contact.

How would you characterize the respect for a potential midair
demonstrated by Parker when he violated regulations by failing to
brief terminal airspace, and dove into congested Class B and C
airspace with the required ATC clearance? (I don't expect you to
answer that, it would require some courage on your part.)

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

If you consider NTSB and military accident reports, and eye witness
reports unreliable, what information sources meet your criteria for
relevance?

Once again, after 23 years experience in the fighter business, I have
read, been briefed, and face-to-face discussed hundreds of aircraft
accidents with board members as well as participants. Every single
aircraft accident results in an investigation and a board of inquiry.
Almost all have a "corollary board" after the investigation board
which determines culpability and liability. Some result in Flying
Evaluation Boards which consider the qualifications and retention of
the aviators. And some result in Courts-Martial when malfeasance is
indicated by any of the investigations. Can you get that through your
fixated civilian mentality?



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

Thanks a lot, Jose and Jim; much appreciated

Ramapriya

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

Nope. Traffic out the window.

In brief, "IFR" is a set of rules to fly by, which permits flying in the
clouds. "IMC" means weather in which one cannot see out the window.
Only IFR airplanes can fly in IMC.

"VMC" means weather in which you =can= see out the window. In that kind
of weather, you can still fly IFR (in fact, if you are in and out of
clouds, you will be in VMC and then in IMC and then back in VMC...).
However, other airplanes may be flying VFR (which is a different set of
rules to fly by). Under VFR (rules), the pilots look out the window and
avoid each other, since they can see.

The upshot is that under IFR (rules), air traffic controllers separate
other IFR traffic from you. They do not separate VFR traffic from you.

If you are in IMC (i.e. clouds) and can't see, there should be no VFR
traffic for you to avoid. If you are in VMC, then (like all other
pilots), you need to look out the window. But, since it's VMC, you can.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Orval Fairbairn 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. 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.


As a former military air traffic controller I read these posts with
some bemusement. While I don't fully agree with Larry's viewpoint, I
think that some of what he says has merit.

Even ATC (mil or FAA) sometimes doesn't know what is going on with
low-level training routes - I've seen enough of those activities to
know that (at least in my time) they were operated haphazardly, i.e.
they were sometimes legally active when nobody was using them, and
sometimes there were aircraft using the routes when they weren't
legally active. The NOTAMs weren't always valid, sometimes they were
non-existent, the times were off, etc. Most of this was due to a
misfunctioning in the USAF organizations that scheduled airspace usage
and which coordinated with the FAA. Several times I saw airspace
usage/scheduling conflictions which couldn't be solved because it was
the weekend and none of the USAF scheduling people were at work. I
know of several GA-fast mover near-collisions due to GA aircraft going
through OB routes where the route was not legally active but there were
multiple fast-movers on it. If I were a GA pilot I would assume that
any OB route is hot all the time. As far as where low-level training
routes actually are, I also saw a case where the route had been
modified by the USAF and nobody else had been told.

Besides OB route misuse, I've also seen the misuse of special-use
restricted airspace by the military, not by intent but by sheer
laziness.

Military pilots are most of the time professionals but they work in a
system that allows the simultaneous use of airspace by both civilian
and military users, and not everybody is always playing by the same
rules.


John Hairell )

In article ,
588 wrote:

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?


Both restricted and prohibited airspace are "sterile." Actually,
military aircraft also should not be in *prohibited* airspace, OTW, it
is *restricted* airspace.

MOAs, Warning areas and Oil Burner routes are joint use, so we can
expect anybody to be there legally.

On 31 Jul 2006 09:04:43 -0700, "
wrote in
.com::


As a former military air traffic controller I read these posts with
some bemusement. While I don't fully agree with Larry's viewpoint, I
think that some of what he says has merit.

Even ATC (mil or FAA) sometimes doesn't know what is going on with
low-level training routes - I've seen enough of those activities to
know that (at least in my time) they were operated haphazardly, i.e.
they were sometimes legally active when nobody was using them, and
sometimes there were aircraft using the routes when they weren't
legally active. The NOTAMs weren't always valid, sometimes they were
non-existent, the times were off, etc. Most of this was due to a
misfunctioning in the USAF organizations that scheduled airspace usage
and which coordinated with the FAA. Several times I saw airspace
usage/scheduling conflictions which couldn't be solved because it was
the weekend and none of the USAF scheduling people were at work. I
know of several GA-fast mover near-collisions due to GA aircraft going
through OB routes where the route was not legally active but there were
multiple fast-movers on it. If I were a GA pilot I would assume that
any OB route is hot all the time. As far as where low-level training
routes actually are, I also saw a case where the route had been
modified by the USAF and nobody else had been told.

Besides OB route misuse, I've also seen the misuse of special-use
restricted airspace by the military, not by intent but by sheer
laziness.

Military pilots are most of the time professionals but they work in a
system that allows the simultaneous use of airspace by both civilian
and military users, and not everybody is always playing by the same
rules.


John Hairell )

Thank you for the information, John.

As someone vastly more familiar with this issue than I, can you
suggest the appropriate military people (or specific agency and
division) to contact about resolving some of the safety issues you
raised?

Or (in your opinion) is it futile to expect to get something
meaningful accomplished with involving my congressional
representatives?

In article .com,
wrote:

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

No -- look out the damned windshield! You can be on a IFR flight plan in
"severe clear" conditions.

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 17:39:09 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
wrote:

In article ,
588 wrote:

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?


Both restricted and prohibited airspace are "sterile." Actually,
military aircraft also should not be in *prohibited* airspace, OTW, it
is *restricted* airspace.

MOAs, Warning areas and Oil Burner routes are joint use, so we can
expect anybody to be there legally.

MOAs typically are at altitudes that place them in positive control
airspace. ATC will not provide clearance for GA aircraft through a MOA
that is in use by the military. MOAs that include airspace below
positive control can have VFR aircraft in transit. We used to get them
all the time in the Beak and Talon MOAs east of Holloman.

However, any airspace that permits VFR flight can have aircraft
transitting without ATC clearance in VMC. Aircraft operating under VFR
in VMC are responsible for their own clearance of their flight route.



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