The Latest Military Airspace Grab: 700 Square Miles!

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 16:28:37 -0700, Ed Rasimus
wrote in
::

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 22:02:08 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 12:43:05 -0700, Ed Rasimus
wrote in
::

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 17:50:56 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:


In the unlikely event of property damage due to an Air Force
activity, the Air Force has established procedures for damage
claims.

I'm sure that is a great comfort to Ms. Jacques Olivier and her
daughter:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...12X22313&key=1

How does expansion of a MOA for operations above 10,000 feet in New
Mexico relate to a mid-air collision in Florida on a low-level
training route?

The USAF's statement regarding claims procedures for "damage due to
Air Force activity" is probably inadequate to replace Ms. Oliveier's
late husband.

And, your arguments citing a mishap in Florida relating to a MOA
change in New Mexico are inadequate to address the training
requirements of combat forces in high performance tactical jet
aircraft.

My argument was with the USAF's statement _in_ the proposed MOA
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) about claims procedures for
"damage due to Air Force activity." If the USAF hadn't raised the
issue in conjunction with their proposal to increase the size of the
MOA, I wouldn't have referred to their failure to criminally prosecute
Parker for the death of Oliveier.

I'm deeply sympathetic to Ms Olivier or Oliveier,

The USAF wasn't when they heard that she was going to sue them. An
Air Force spokesman was reported to have said, that they'd seek
compensation for the F-16 that killed her husband due to Lead Parker's
deliberate decision to descend into congested terminal airspace
without the required ATC clearance.

but I'm
also sympathetic to the surviving wives and families of quite
literally hundreds of USAF, USN and USMC tactical aviators who died or
were imprisoned when lost in military flight operations in the service
of their country.

How is that relevant to the current discussion of MOA expansion?


The November 16, 2000 fatal F-16/Cessna 172 MAC occurred at 3,000' at
subsonic speed.

I believe the expansion of the MOA relates to low-level supersonic
military operations within "5,000 to 6,000 feet above ground level
(AGL)".

So, creating a MOA which would advise all aircraft operators of the
intended operations would not be as good as operating in non-special
use airspace as was being done in the Florida accident?

From that statement, it seems you might be a bit confused about the
proposed MOA enlargement as well as the Florida mishap.

The USAF proposes not to establish a MOA, but to increase the size of
the one currently in existence, so that they can conduct supersonic
operations within 5,000' to 6,000' of the surface instead of at
30,000' as is currently occurring. Please read the USAF EIS, so that
you'll at least know what we are discussing. Here's a link to it:
www.cannon.af.mil




These mishap rates do not consider combat losses due to enemy
action. F-16C aircraft have flown more than 3,336,700 hours since
the aircraft entered the Air Force inventory during Fiscal Year
1985. Over that period, 120 Class A mishaps have occurred and 113
aircraft have been destroyed.


That would be an average of one F-16C non-combat Class A mishap every
two months!

Dunno about your math skills here,

Perhaps you'll be good enough to assist me in calculating the number
of F-16C non-combat mishaps per month given the USAF's statement, that
120 Class A mishaps have occurred to date (Jan. 2005) since the 1985
Fiscal Year.

My point was that 3.3 MILLION hours per 120 mishaps (which aren't all
mid-airs or even aircraft losses and which didn't all occur in special
sue airspace) is a statistic that is better viewed as mishaps/100k
flight hours rather than mishaps/month.

So, you agree with my math now?


but I just read about 120 class A
mishaps during the period from FY 1985 to the present--that's a bit
more than 20 years of experience and doesn't begin to address rates
per 100,000 flying hours which for the F-16 (all models) are
significantly lower than previous single-seat, single-engine tactical
aircraft.

Be that as it may, I was commenting on the number of F-16C non-combat
mishaps per month.

Which means what relative to training airspace in NM?

Not much. But a non-combat Class A mishap every two months continuing
for a period of 20 years is significant in its own right, in my
opinion.

[...]


IFR traffic would require ATC clearance to transit the active MOA.
However, VFR traffic could transit the active MOA using the
“see-and-avoid” concept.


The USAF's suggestion that VFR traffic employ see-and-avoid techniques
to avoid mid-air collisions with supersonic military fighter aircraft
reveals a their desire to mislead.

It isn't "the USAF's suggestion", it is the basic concept of Visual
Flight Rules.

Yes. It is the 'law' of VFR operations, however in this case it was
suggested as a _viable_ means of transiting the proposed MOA while
low-level supersonic military operations are in progress!

First, note that the tactical applicability of supersonic operations
at high or low altitude is very limited. Second, note that most
PLANNED supersonic operation is done at high altitude, such as
high-speed intercept training. Third, note that UNPLANNED supersonic
operation can occur momentarily during air combat maneuver/BFM
training and that might be at relatively low altitude (although most
tactical training employs a 10k or 5k AGL "floor"). Fourth, note that
most training in which supersonic operations are planned or highly
likely will be conducted in restricted airspace rather than MOA.
Fifth, note that transiting of MOAs by VFR traffic while allowed is
discourage; by IFR traffic is not allowed when the MOA is in use.

Those statements reveal the fact that you haven't read the USAF EIS
statement proposing the increase in size of the MOA. The reason the
USAF is seeking to increase the size of the MOA is so that they can
conduct supersonic operations within 5,000' to 6,000' of the surface
instead of at 30,000' as is currently occurring. Please read the USAF
EIS, so that you'll at least know what we are discussing. Here's a
link to it: www.cannon.af.mil


Nothing misleading about it--the idea of VFR is to
provide simple rules for flight in VISUAL conditions and without need
for a flight plan or clearance or external third-party deconfliction.

The NAS is a system. As such, it is dependent on each aspect of its
implementation to be functional in order for the whole to function
properly.

FARs are part of that system. The prohibiting of flight in excess of
250 knots below 10,000 feet is a FAR. The military has exploited the
"SPEED AUTHORIZATION GRANTED TO DOD May 18, 1978" which states:

The regulation grants an exception to aircraft having flight
characteristics which preclude safe operation at speeds below 250
knots by providing that if the minimum safe airspeed for any
particular operation is greater than the maximum speed prescribed,
the aircraft may be operated at that minimum safe airspeed.

When the speed of aircraft below 10,000 feet exceeds 250 knots as
mandated by FAR § 91.117(a)*, the integrity of the NAS is compromised
as evidenced by at least two of the three military/civil mishaps, and
corroborated by the military's own study which concluded, that out of
each 20 seconds of flight below 250 knots, 17 seconds must be
dedicated to scanning for conflicting traffic and 3 seconds remained
for scanning cockpit gages; this was for "highly trained" military
pilots.

So it is evident that see-and-avoid is completely impracticable for
maintaining aircraft separation when aircraft are traveling in excess
of Mach one.

You confirm my asssertion of cluelessness. Some military aircraft
don't function very well at 250 KIAS unless in landing configuration.
They burn fuel at high rates and are restricted in their agility. For
that reason the FARs have waivered the 250 max exactly for the reason
you quote "minimum SAFE airspseed".

I didn't say there was no reason for the DOD exemption from the 250
knot maximum speed below 10,000' feet. I said it brakes the NAS, and
is unsafe. There is not enough time to see-and-avoid at speeds in
excess of 250 knots.

You're saying military aircraft need to go faster than 250 knots below
10,000'; who am I to dispute that. I'm saying regardless of that
need, it creates a flight hazard to civil aviation when it occurs
outside of Restricted airspace (such as MTRs and MOAs).

Let's take this to an example you are probably more familiar with:
driving your car. How much time when driving do you spend looking out
the window versus staring at your speedometer? Ditto for airplanes.

How much time does a military pilot spend with his head down in the
cockpit studying charts, tuning radios, setting up navigation
equipment and not scanning for conflicting traffic? If it's more than
three seconds out of every 20, he's causing a safety hazard by virtue
of a military research study. If you have the flight experience you
claim, you know I'm correct.


Look out the window and don't bump into things in front of you.

Oh, if it were only so simple.

Don't knock it if you haven't tried it.

I've tried it. Trust me, it's not that easy to spot an aircraft ATC
has pointed out that is only a mile or two distant. Now, at
supersonic speeds of ~11.5 miles a minute, it would only take 5
seconds for a 2 mile distant supersonic aircraft to reach you! You
have to agree, that's not a reasonable amount of time to
see-and-avoid.

[...]

Is that an additional airspace grab?

"Additional"? If there were not similar airspace adjustments going on
all the time with both increases and reductions in airspace.

If there are so many adjustments occurring, it should be easy to
provide several examples of _reductions_ in military airspace, please.

Did you read previous posts? Walker AFB, Roswell NM. Williams AFB,
Chandler AZ. Webb AFB, Big Spring TX. Wendover AFB, Wendover UT.
Wurtsmith AFB....and those are just W's--all closed within the last 30
years, all with airspace which was no longer needed.

No, I did not read the articles that mentioned those closures.

Does it require the closure of an airbase to get the military to
relinquish its SUA? Aren't there situations where they no longer
train in the same way, and can relinquish it without closing the a
base?


That the USAF can muster the audacity to suggest that see-and-avoid
would be a successful technique for separating _supersonic_ aircraft
is hubris beyond comprehension.

Guess what? Civilian aircraft operating under "see-and-avoid" run into
each other at subsonic speeds with much greater frequency.

That may be due to the relative number of aircraft and the number of
operational hours between the military and civil fleets.

And, it may even be due to private pilots being clueless about where
they are. Or maybe they are talking on their cell phones.

There are more civil aircraft flying more hours. That's the reason.

Your attempt to make light of the grim realities of MACs, reveals your
less than sincere and cavalier attitude.


And, when the military is involved in any mishap an investigation
is conducted, reported in the public domain and blame is assigned.

Actually, the same thing occurs for civil mishaps; the NTSB finds and
reports probable cause. The specific action taken by the FAA against
a civil pilot is a matter of public record. Here's what occurred in
the case of the November 16, 2000 fatal MAC in Florida:

Air Force officials said the mistakes [sic] Lt. Col. Parker made
leading up to the crash over Manatee County deserved only
"administrative action" — a written or verbal reprimand. He will
also retain his officer's pension.

The decision regarding Parker was made by Brig. Gen. John Rosa,
commander of Moody Air Force Base in south Georgia, where the F-16
pilots were stationed at the time of the crash.

Citing confidentiality laws, Air Force officials would not
elaborate on what form of administrative action was taken. They
also would not say which of the mistakes he made the day of the
crash led to the reprimand, the Sarasota Herald-Tribune
reported...

-- Associated Press

If you read the accident report you would find a clear detailing of
the "mistakes" and you would learn whether they were primary,
secondary or lesser causes.

I have read both the military AIB and the NTSB reports. (I'd be happy
to provide copies via e-mail to anyone interested.) It's clear that
flight lead Parker deliberately chose to descend into congested
terminal airspace at high speed without the required ATC clearance,
and lead his wingman into the fatal collision.


As for the "administrative action" it could range from corrective
training to removal from flight status to loss of pay to mandatory
retirement.

It was reported to be a verbal reprimand. So while the accident
report was made public, the details of the "punishment" Parker
received were confidential, unlike those in FAA certificate actions.
The military does not disclose as much information as the FAA.

But, the mere fact that he didn't have his sword broken,
his buttons cut off and his epaulets removed before hanging in the
public square MIGHT mean he wasn't guilty of anything significant!

His deliberate decision to descend into congested terminal airspace at
high-speed without the required ATC clearance resulted in the death of
an innocent civilian, a fellow American. I consider that not only
significant, but worthy of criminal action. The USAF allowed Parker
to retire as planned with full pension and rank; that is not just.

The "hubris beyond comprehension" here is your flogging of the issue
with little apparent background and a total unwillingness to
acknowledge any of the alternatives to your pronouncements.

When the government perpetrates injustice, it is the prerogative of a
citizen of a free nation to publicly air his views. I believe I have
provided evidence of reasonable background knowledge, and haven't seen
any alternative "pronouncements" to which you refer.

Injustice? Going through a public hearing process before designating
special use airspace is now "injustice"?

At that point, I was referring to the lack of criminal prosecution in
the fatal November 16, 2000 Florida MAC, not the military airspace
grab.

And, reread my sentence above: "unwillingness to acknowledge any of
the alternatives to your pronouncements"--that's not "alternative
'prounouncement'".

How is it different?

Posters have given you blocks of information regarding special use
airspace refuting your basic position opposing expansion of the MOA.
You continue to throw stuff at the wall hoping that some sticks,
regardless of relevance.

Perhaps, but at least I read the USAF EIS, and am aware that the
airspace they are seeking is to enable them to train at supersonic
speed within 5,000' to 6,000' of the surface, unlike you.

[...]


Oh, and lest I forget....screw you, Larry. You're clueless.

Ed Rasimus

Well, it would appear one of us is. But at least I'm not forced to
profane a fellow airman due to lack of reasonable arguments.

Excuse me? I've got more time in the Beak MOA inverted than you've
apparently got in military jets.

How is that revenant to the USAF's attempted airspace grab?

And, if you've missed my presentation of "reasonable arguments" you can't read.

That's me, illiterate. :-)

Oh, and "screw you" isn't profaning you,

You obviously don't know the meaning of the word:

Main Entry:1 profane
Pronunciationr*-*f*n, pr*-
Function:transitive verb
Inflected Formrofaned ; profaning
Etymology:Middle English prophanen, from Latin profanare, from
profanus
Date:14th century

1 : to treat (something sacred) with abuse, irreverence, or
contempt : DESECRATE
2 : to debase by a wrong, unworthy, or vulgar use
–profaner noun

it's exercising restraint despite the frustration at
your apparent inability to make any sense of all of this.

The record is clear; you haven't read the USAF EIS and weren't aware
they want to enlarge the MOA to permit low-level supersonic operations
north of Roswell, NM. You may not like my lack of objectivity and
overt criticism of the military, but it is you who apparently has no
clue about this airspace grab.

If you want profaning of "a fellow airman", I suggest you scan recent
posts from Dudley--he's proven a master at it. But, I can stoop if
need be.

You not only can stoop, you have publicly. I hope you're indiscretion
isn't typical of most military airmen.

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

Blueskies wrote:
"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message ...


Airspace is airspace. There are no comments about anyone not wanting our pilots to be properly trained. There should be
a big chunk set aside, say, out over the pacific or something, for all the air to air training. They would be able to
turn and burn and go mach whatever without worrying too much (oh, they do that already?). If the folks need to do the
air to ground work, there is already plenty of space out in Nevada and Calif set aside for that. Why all the airspace
grabs these days?


There is less airspace used by the military than there used to be.
Airspace being released because the nearby base got closed doesn't
draw attention (although the closing itself usually does), while
opening new airspace at a different base which now has twice as
much training going on with a brand new mission to account for
because units moved from their previous (now closed) base gets
a lot of press. The result is the perception of more special
use airspace, even if the reality is that the amount is less.

As for putting all your training airspace over the Pacific, a
very large number of bases aren't anywhere near the ocean, or Nevada
for that matter. Those near the ocean typically do a fair amount of
training in Warning Areas in international airspace off the coast,
but then we have traffic conflicts if they are anywhere near the
major trans-oceanic hubs as well. Additionally, good training,
particularly for fighter/attack types, require a pretty good
proportion of clear weather, which makes New Mexico, Arizona,
etc., prime training grounds.

Mike

Mike Williamson wrote:
Blueskies wrote:
"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...


Airspace is airspace. There are no comments about anyone not
wanting our pilots to be properly trained. There should be
a big chunk set aside, say, out over the pacific or something, for
all the air to air training. They would be able to
turn and burn and go mach whatever without worrying too much (oh,
they do that already?). If the folks need to do the
air to ground work, there is already plenty of space out in Nevada
and Calif set aside for that. Why all the airspace
grabs these days?


There is less airspace used by the military than there used to be.
Airspace being released because the nearby base got closed doesn't
draw attention (although the closing itself usually does), while
opening new airspace at a different base which now has twice as
much training going on with a brand new mission to account for
because units moved from their previous (now closed) base gets
a lot of press. The result is the perception of more special
use airspace, even if the reality is that the amount is less.

As for putting all your training airspace over the Pacific, a
very large number of bases aren't anywhere near the ocean, or Nevada
for that matter. Those near the ocean typically do a fair amount of
training in Warning Areas in international airspace off the coast,
but then we have traffic conflicts if they are anywhere near the
major trans-oceanic hubs as well. Additionally, good training,
particularly for fighter/attack types, require a pretty good
proportion of clear weather, which makes New Mexico, Arizona,
etc., prime training grounds.

Mike

...and if an pilot gets into trouble, where would be rather end up? in
the ocean or on terra firma?
David

Apologies and thankyou for pointing it out ...and i've just sent a new
definition of 'very rude' to Letetia Baldridge
(http://www.letitia.com/)

David

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 07:55:51 GMT, Mike Williamson
wrote in
. net::

Additionally, good training,
particularly for fighter/attack types, require a pretty good
proportion of clear weather, which makes New Mexico, Arizona,
etc., prime training grounds.

What is your feeling about the likely success or failure of the use of
see-and-avoid to separate 5,000' AGL supersonic military aircraft from
VFR civil aircraft within joint-use MOA airspace?

"Mike Williamson" wrote in message
ink.net...


There is less airspace used by the military than there used to be.


Don't know what it looked like before, but there is sure a lot potentially tied up:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1942408A

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 07:55:51 GMT, Mike Williamson
wrote in
. net::


Additionally, good training,
particularly for fighter/attack types, require a pretty good
proportion of clear weather, which makes New Mexico, Arizona,
etc., prime training grounds.


What is your feeling about the likely success or failure of the use of
see-and-avoid to separate 5,000' AGL supersonic military aircraft from
VFR civil aircraft within joint-use MOA airspace?


As I see it, VFR traffic is never *required* to fly through the MOA,
and I'd certainly recommend against it. If you don't feel that those
that would fly through it aren't capable of exercising the required
caution, then by all means campaign to have all the MOAs turned into
restricted areas...

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 02:02:28 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 16:28:37 -0700, Ed Rasimus
wrote in
::


And, your arguments citing a mishap in Florida relating to a MOA
change in New Mexico are inadequate to address the training
requirements of combat forces in high performance tactical jet
aircraft.

My argument was with the USAF's statement _in_ the proposed MOA
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) about claims procedures for
"damage due to Air Force activity." If the USAF hadn't raised the
issue in conjunction with their proposal to increase the size of the
MOA, I wouldn't have referred to their failure to criminally prosecute
Parker for the death of Oliveier.

What part of "accident" is so difficult to understand. For what crime
would you prosecute the flight lead? Murder? Did he premeditate? What
crime?

I'm deeply sympathetic to Ms Olivier or Oliveier,

The USAF wasn't when they heard that she was going to sue them. An
Air Force spokesman was reported to have said, that they'd seek
compensation for the F-16 that killed her husband due to Lead Parker's
deliberate decision to descend into congested terminal airspace
without the required ATC clearance.

We live in a litigious society. Folks threaten to sue when the spill
hot coffee in their laps and to avoid the costs of the litigation, the
prospective defendant will often reach a settlement. No criminal
charges were brought, because no prosecuter with an ounce of judgement
would be able to define a "crime" and no civil action was brought,
because Ms Olivier really couldn't prove that a flight lead decision
was in any way malicious toward her husband.


So, creating a MOA which would advise all aircraft operators of the
intended operations would not be as good as operating in non-special
use airspace as was being done in the Florida accident?

From that statement, it seems you might be a bit confused about the
proposed MOA enlargement as well as the Florida mishap.

The USAF proposes not to establish a MOA, but to increase the size of
the one currently in existence, so that they can conduct supersonic
operations within 5,000' to 6,000' of the surface instead of at
30,000' as is currently occurring. Please read the USAF EIS, so that
you'll at least know what we are discussing. Here's a link to it:
www.cannon.af.mil

I read it and I know what we are discussing. We are talking about a
proposal to increase available training airspace for Cannon AFB and to
change the limits of permissible operations. That is considerably
different than a descent in non-special use airspace a continent away.


My point was that 3.3 MILLION hours per 120 mishaps (which aren't all
mid-airs or even aircraft losses and which didn't all occur in special
sue airspace) is a statistic that is better viewed as mishaps/100k
flight hours rather than mishaps/month.

So, you agree with my math now?

I'm suggesting that extrapolating 20 years experience into a
"mishap/month" stat is misleading. The rate is not constant over the
period. And, the rate for mishaps is measured traditionally as mishaps
per 100k flying hours, not as a function of calendar months.

Not much. But a non-combat Class A mishap every two months continuing
for a period of 20 years is significant in its own right, in my
opinion.

That's the error--the mishaps don't occur at a constant rate through
the period and the assumption that they do is erroneous. The extension
of mishaps to equate with loss of aircraft, association with special
use airspace, supersonic operation and mid-air collisions are all
further errors related to the statistic.

First, note that the tactical applicability of supersonic operations
at high or low altitude is very limited. Second, note that most
PLANNED supersonic operation is done at high altitude, such as
high-speed intercept training. Third, note that UNPLANNED supersonic
operation can occur momentarily during air combat maneuver/BFM
training and that might be at relatively low altitude (although most
tactical training employs a 10k or 5k AGL "floor"). Fourth, note that
most training in which supersonic operations are planned or highly
likely will be conducted in restricted airspace rather than MOA.
Fifth, note that transiting of MOAs by VFR traffic while allowed is
discourage; by IFR traffic is not allowed when the MOA is in use.

Those statements reveal the fact that you haven't read the USAF EIS
statement proposing the increase in size of the MOA. The reason the
USAF is seeking to increase the size of the MOA is so that they can
conduct supersonic operations within 5,000' to 6,000' of the surface
instead of at 30,000' as is currently occurring. Please read the USAF
EIS, so that you'll at least know what we are discussing. Here's a
link to it: www.cannon.af.mil

You're redundant and beginning to carp. My list of five factors is to
point out that simply because an airspace is AUTHORIZED for supersonic
operation does not mean that is what is going on within. Being
AUTHORIZED simply means that if tactically necessary, you can exceed
the mach without filling out reams of paperwork and having an
investigation or potential violation. Most operations are
subsonic--there is little tactical appliacation for supersonic flight.
It can and does occur, usually inadvertently, during engagement. Get
it? You don't use supersonic AUTHORIZED airspace to go blasting back
and forth with your hair on fire.

You confirm my asssertion of cluelessness. Some military aircraft
don't function very well at 250 KIAS unless in landing configuration.
They burn fuel at high rates and are restricted in their agility. For
that reason the FARs have waivered the 250 max exactly for the reason
you quote "minimum SAFE airspseed".

I didn't say there was no reason for the DOD exemption from the 250
knot maximum speed below 10,000' feet. I said it brakes the NAS, and
is unsafe. There is not enough time to see-and-avoid at speeds in
excess of 250 knots.

You're saying military aircraft need to go faster than 250 knots below
10,000'; who am I to dispute that. I'm saying regardless of that
need, it creates a flight hazard to civil aviation when it occurs
outside of Restricted airspace (such as MTRs and MOAs).

Excuse me? If my airplane is drastically hampered in its ability to
safely maneuver by going slower than 250 KIAS below 10k feet MSL, then
it "creates a flight hazard" to me, my flight members, other aircraft
and folks on the ground.

How much time does a military pilot spend with his head down in the
cockpit studying charts, tuning radios, setting up navigation
equipment and not scanning for conflicting traffic? If it's more than
three seconds out of every 20, he's causing a safety hazard by virtue
of a military research study. If you have the flight experience you
claim, you know I'm correct.

Lessee a channel change every fifteen minutes takes about four second.
Charts? If VFR, I'm navigating by pilotage--i.e. looking at landmarks
out the window. If IFR, I'm head-down (or actually looking at the HUD
which is looking out the window) anyway if in the clouds, or
navigating by pilotage if in VMC. And, "setting up nav equipment" is
once again something that isn't done continually and in many systems
is done pre-flight through cartridge programming which then updates.

And, I have the flight experience I claim.


Look out the window and don't bump into things in front of you.

Oh, if it were only so simple.

Don't knock it if you haven't tried it.

I've tried it. Trust me, it's not that easy to spot an aircraft ATC
has pointed out that is only a mile or two distant. Now, at
supersonic speeds of ~11.5 miles a minute, it would only take 5
seconds for a 2 mile distant supersonic aircraft to reach you! You
have to agree, that's not a reasonable amount of time to
see-and-avoid.

Then you need to get your eyes checked. As stated repeatedly, there is
little utility to supersonic operation and very little reason to have
other than very momentary excursions into the supersonic regime at low
altitude. Even so, the shift in visual acquistion range between what
you see at 500 kts and what you see at 660 kts is insignificant.

As for your acquistion ranges, I've regularly seen F-5 sized targets
at 10-15 miles, tanker sized targets at 20 miles and light civil
airplanes at 10 miles--particularly if cued by a radar return, ATC
advisory or other input.

If there are so many adjustments occurring, it should be easy to
provide several examples of _reductions_ in military airspace, please.

Did you read previous posts? Walker AFB, Roswell NM. Williams AFB,
Chandler AZ. Webb AFB, Big Spring TX. Wendover AFB, Wendover UT.
Wurtsmith AFB....and those are just W's--all closed within the last 30
years, all with airspace which was no longer needed.

No, I did not read the articles that mentioned those closures.

Google BRAC. Are you unaware that in the last thirty years the
military has been significantly reduced?

Does it require the closure of an airbase to get the military to
relinquish its SUA? Aren't there situations where they no longer
train in the same way, and can relinquish it without closing the a
base?

Yes there are. There are also changes of mission. If you go back in
history to the '50s and '60s you will find a special use airspace
category called MCC (Military Climb Corridor) at the end of virtually
every runway of every major airport in the US. This was used for
departure of Cold War jet interceptors on scramble departure. They are
no longer used and you won't find them anywhere.

There are more civil aircraft flying more hours. That's the reason.

So, for civil aircraft mishaps, the rate per 100k flying hours might
be a good statistic? Not mishaps per month?

I have read both the military AIB and the NTSB reports. (I'd be happy
to provide copies via e-mail to anyone interested.) It's clear that
flight lead Parker deliberately chose to descend into congested
terminal airspace at high speed without the required ATC clearance,
and lead his wingman into the fatal collision.

That's called "flight lead discretion". It's one of literally hundreds
of decisions a flight lead is required to make in each and every
flight.


It was reported to be a verbal reprimand. So while the accident
report was made public, the details of the "punishment" Parker
received were confidential, unlike those in FAA certificate actions.
The military does not disclose as much information as the FAA.

What part of "verbal reprimand" is so difficult to understand. For
"details" do you require a transcript of the counseling session?


His deliberate decision to descend into congested terminal airspace at
high-speed without the required ATC clearance resulted in the death of
an innocent civilian, a fellow American. I consider that not only
significant, but worthy of criminal action. The USAF allowed Parker
to retire as planned with full pension and rank; that is not just.

Again we come to the terminology of "accident" and "crime". Yes,
someone died. No, there was no criminal intent and while there might
have been an arguably poor decision, it wasn't actionable after a
detailed investigation.

The "hubris beyond comprehension" here is your flogging of the issue
with little apparent background and a total unwillingness to
acknowledge any of the alternatives to your pronouncements.

When the government perpetrates injustice, it is the prerogative of a
citizen of a free nation to publicly air his views. I believe I have
provided evidence of reasonable background knowledge, and haven't seen
any alternative "pronouncements" to which you refer.

And, reread my sentence above: "unwillingness to acknowledge any of
the alternatives to your pronouncements"--that's not "alternative
'prounouncement'".

How is it different?

I didn't say you made an "alternative pronouncement". I said you
haven't acknowledged that numerous posters have provided alternative
information which conflicts with the pronouncements you made.


Perhaps, but at least I read the USAF EIS, and am aware that the
airspace they are seeking is to enable them to train at supersonic
speed within 5,000' to 6,000' of the surface, unlike you.

That's three times redundant. And, see above for the discussion.

Well, it would appear one of us is. But at least I'm not forced to
profane a fellow airman due to lack of reasonable arguments.

Excuse me? I've got more time in the Beak MOA inverted than you've
apparently got in military jets.

How is that revenant to the USAF's attempted airspace grab?

It is relevant to my experience in the airspace in question (have you
read the EIS to see the prominent mentions of Beak MOA and Capitan
MOA?) It is further relevant to your claim to be a "fellow
airman"--can you tell me what you've flown and where that gives you
this status of peer?


1 : to treat (something sacred) with abuse, irreverence, or
contempt : DESECRATE
2 : to debase by a wrong, unworthy, or vulgar use
–profaner noun

If I said you were an asshole, that would be vulgar. If I said ****
you that would be vulgar as well. And, since I don't consider you as
"something sacred", I can't very well be irreverant.

The record is clear; you haven't read the USAF EIS and weren't aware
they want to enlarge the MOA to permit low-level supersonic operations
north of Roswell, NM. You may not like my lack of objectivity and
overt criticism of the military, but it is you who apparently has no
clue about this airspace grab.

That's four and still redundant. But, if you've got little to say,
saying it often will serve equally as well. I've been refuting your
major issue of "airpace grab" with regard to a very small extension of
the MOAs used by both Cannon and Holloman AFBs and the applicability
of the supersonic authorization. (And you might want to get out a map
to check that both Beak and Capitan are W. of Roswell.)

If you want profaning of "a fellow airman", I suggest you scan recent
posts from Dudley--he's proven a master at it. But, I can stoop if
need be.

You not only can stoop, you have publicly. I hope you're indiscretion
isn't typical of most military airmen.

You'll have to familiarize yourself with a lot more military airmen to
make the decision on whether or not I'm typical. But, I'd advise you
to do it online and at a distance.


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

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 07:55:51 GMT, Mike Williamson
wrote:

Blueskies wrote:
"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message ...


Airspace is airspace. There are no comments about anyone not wanting our pilots to be properly trained. There should be
a big chunk set aside, say, out over the pacific or something, for all the air to air training. They would be able to
turn and burn and go mach whatever without worrying too much (oh, they do that already?). If the folks need to do the
air to ground work, there is already plenty of space out in Nevada and Calif set aside for that. Why all the airspace
grabs these days?

Please edit your post more carefully. The above quote was not said by
me and the attribution line refers to my specific refutation of the
absurd suggestion.



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

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 12:52:57 GMT, "Blueskies"
wrote in
::


"Mike Williamson" wrote in message
link.net...


There is less airspace used by the military than there used to be.


Don't know what it looked like before, but there is sure a lot potentially tied up:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1942408A



That's an interesting link. Thanks.

Unfortunately, the depiction of Special Use Airspace is incomplete.
It fails to show Military Training Routes. That spider web of routes
ensnares most of the west. Finding the current status of MTRs
continues to be a problem for pilots.