The Latest Military Airspace Grab: 700 Square Miles!

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

Sounds like a good book, Ed. I look forward to reading it some day....

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 14:06:19 GMT, Mike Williamson
wrote in
et::

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

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.

Then you are more safety conscious than those who drafted the EIS for
the USAF who specifically mention VFR transition of the proposed MOA
expansion for supersonic operations.

If you don't feel that those that would fly through it aren't capable
of exercising the required caution,

In the case of VFR transition through a MOA with ongoing supersonic
operations, it's not so much a matter of being capable; it's more
about the physical limitations of spotting the frontal profile of a
gray fighter aircraft against a gray sky in time to identify it as a
threat, making the desired control inputs, and having your aircraft
respond quickly enough to avoid the supersonic threat.

then by all means campaign to have all the MOAs turned into restricted areas...

Well, of course, that's not necessary. There is not supersonic
training occurring in _all_ the MOAs.

What I've found to be particularly useful is contacting the military
ATC, and making them aware of my position and intended route, so they
can shield me from the military operations occurring in the MOA (by
alerting nearby participating military aircraft) and providing radar
traffic advisories.

Doesn't civilian communication with military controllers just make
good sense for VFR civil aircraft transiting a hot MOA?

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 16:56:49 GMT, "Blueskies"
wrote:


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

Sounds like a good book, Ed. I look forward to reading it some day....


Ask your local library or buy the paperback:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books


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

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 17:03:37 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

What I've found to be particularly useful is contacting the military
ATC, and making them aware of my position and intended route, so they
can shield me from the military operations occurring in the MOA (by
alerting nearby participating military aircraft) and providing radar
traffic advisories.

Doesn't civilian communication with military controllers just make
good sense for VFR civil aircraft transiting a hot MOA?

It makes imminent good sense, but there are some flaws in your
rationale.

1.) the "military ATC" (an oxymoron at this point regarding MOAs)
operates on UHF, while you in your GA aircraft use VHF. While the
military RAPCON and tower may have VHF capability, they often don't
monitor beyond their primary frequency or you may not have access to
the one Victor freq. they do monitor.

2.) they aren't responsible for the MOA. The FAA is.

3.) they seldom have radar coverage of the MOA, since it isn't their
responsibility.

4.) Even if they did have radar, they did have Victor, and they
wouldn't be stepping on ATC's toes, they aren't going to deconflict
you if you are VFR.

5.) Once cleared to operate in the MOA by ATC, the military aircraft
are on a discrete UHF frequency. They don't maintain a vector long
enough for ATC to provide any sort of prediction of flight path and
they may be contactable by ATC only on Guard. The ATC controller has
the MOA discrete, but won't be listening to the in flight chatter
which may be secure anyway.

6.) It is a poorly understood concept of IFR that somehow someone "can
shield me"--you are only guaranteed separation from other traffic if
you a
a.) on an IFR flight plan
b.) in controlled airspace
c.) in IMC

If you fail to meeet any one of those three conditions, the
responsibility for safe separation returns to the basic principle of
VFR, "see-and-avoid".
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

Ed Rasimus wrote:
Ask your local library or buy the paperback:

Negative. Buy the hardback. We need to motivate Ed as
much as possible to keep writing.


Jeff

"Jeff Crowell" wrote in message ...
Ed Rasimus wrote:
Ask your local library or buy the paperback:

Negative. Buy the hardback. We need to motivate Ed as
much as possible to keep writing.


Jeff



From the way he is writing here (sorry for the third person, Ed!) I don't think he needs monetary motivation; it's there
anyway...

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 08:50:44 -0700, Ed Rasimus
wrote in
::

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.

When a pilot deliberately descends into congested terminal airspace
with the required ATC clearance, it's not an accident; it's reckless
endangerment of all the aircraft operating legally within the terminal
airspace. If you disagree, please explain how Parker could have
_accidentally_ descended into the Class B and C airspace, perform a G
Check, and search for the MTR?

For what crime would you prosecute the flight lead? 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.

Did he premeditate?

Actually, Parker's preparation for the fatal sortie was flawed.
Here's an excerpt from the USAF Accident Investigation Board report:

(1) Most of the mission planning was accomplished the
evening prior to the mishap. Based on fuel considerations, the
pilots determined that VR-1098 would be the best low-level route
for their mission. Lieutenant Colonel Parker tasked Captain
Kreuder to produce a low-level route map and schedule the route
with the appropriate scheduling agency. Neither pilot had flown
VR-1098 before. As part of his mission planning, Lieutenant
Colonel Parker referred to a FLIP L-19 Instrument Flight Rules
(IFR) Enroute Low Altitude Chart and determined that their planned
route of flight would keep them clear of the Tampa Class B and the
Sarasota-Bradenton Class C airspace (hereafter referred to as
Sarasota Class C airspace). Lieutenant Colonel Parker also
planned the simulated attack for the Avon Park targets and
prepared the briefing room for the next day’s mission. The next
morning, Captain Kreuder reviewed the weather and NOTAMs prior to
the flight briefing and filed a composite IFR/VFR/IFR flight plan
in accordance with unit procedures. He also checked the Bird
Avoidance Model (BAM) for forecast bird activity in the Florida
area.

(2) The mission briefing included a mission overview, scenario of
simulated threats for the mission, routing to the low-level entry
point, and possible divert airfields along the route of flight.
Additionally, the flight lead covered wingman responsibilities and
formation positions. The pilots discussed the specific details of
VR-1098, the planned attacks on Avon Park, and tactical
considerations during the simulated.

I'll set this part below out so you won't miss it:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lieutenant Colonel Parker did not specifically brief Class B and
Class C airspace restrictions in the Tampa area during the flight
briefing. Air Force directives require the flight lead to brief
applicable airspace restrictions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Although Lieutenant Colonel Parker checked
to make sure their planned route to the low-level would not enter
these areas, they would be flying in close proximity to them.
This information would have enhanced the wingman’s awareness of
the boundaries of these controlled airspaces and their
accompanying altitude restrictions. All other appropriate items
were covered in adequate detail in accordance with Air Force
directives. According to Captain Kreuder, the briefing was
thorough and understood by him.

Parker's failure to brief airspace restrictions as required by Air
Force directives, casts doubt on his ability to adequately premeditate
at all in the mental state he was in at the time.


Here's a question for you experienced AF pilots:

Given the fact, that the top of Tampa Class B is 10,000' in all
sectors, and the entry point for VR1098 is located only one NM south
of the Tampa Class B southern boundary, and Parker's Ninja flight was
southbound above Tampa Class B, how did he plan to enter low level
VR1098 Military Training Route without entering Tampa Class B
airspace? Was he planning on descending nearly 10,000' in less than a
mile?

What crime?

Third-degree murder.

What would the FAA and Florida authorities have called it if Parker
had been a civilian GA pilot and caused the death of another pilot,
because he violated FAA regulations?

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.

That doesn't excuse the USAF spokesman's callous comment.

No criminal charges were brought, because no prosecuter with an ounce
of judgement would be able to define a "crime"

We disagree about that.

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.

All she (or the DA) would have had to prove was negligence, which
should have been easy. I'm not sure if she ever filed a suit, but
here's what the newspaper had to say:


http://www.sptimes.com/News/120100/n...t_faults.shtml
Widow of pilot faults Air Force and FAA
By ALEX LEARY and BILL VARIAN
© St. Petersburg Times, published December 1, 2000

CRYSTAL RIVER -- The wife of a Cessna pilot killed in a collision
with an F-16 fighter plane over Manatee County earlier this month
has filed wrongful death claims against the Air Force and the
Federal Aviation Administration.

The claims allege "illegal airspeed and altitude" of the F-16 and
a failure of FAA air traffic controllers to prevent the Nov. 16
crash.

Danielle Olivier, 50, of Citrus County, is seeking up to
$10-million in the death of her husband, 57-year-old Jacques
Olivier.

...

Kreuder said he never saw the Cessna, only a blur, "like a sheet
of white." He ejected and was not injured.

Radar data indicates the military planes were traveling faster
than 480 mph before one of them struck the Cessna 172 piloted by
Jacques Olivier.

Planes below 10,000 feet are limited to flying no faster than 300
mph unless they are in a special military area, which the F-16s
were not.

...

"Air traffic controllers employed by the Federal Aviation
Administration negligently failed to maintain separation between
the two aircraft," Danielle Olivier's claim states.

"These guys were going too fast, they were too low and they
weren't communicating," Coker said in an interview Thursday.

"There is no question it shouldn't have occurred," Coker added.
"It really is an unfortunate tragedy."

...

Submitting the Standard Form 95, as the claim Olivier filed is
known, is a precursor to filing a lawsuit, said Michael Pangia,
former head trial lawyer for the FAA who now works in private
legal practice specializing in aviation matters in Washington.

Two things generally happen after a claim is filed: It can be
denied, or the agency in question can simply sit on it, Pangia
said. If it is denied, the person filing the claim then has six
months to file a lawsuit to seek damages.

If the agency does not respond, the person may take up to six
years from the incident that resulted in the claim to file suit,
as if the claim were denied.

The agency may also decide a claim has merit, in which case it
typically would seek more information to justify damages.

...

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.

Because you repeatedly failed to understand what was stated in the Air
Force EIS, I thought it necessary to get it through your head.

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.

What you state is not relevant to the planned MOA expansion.

If you had read the Air Force EIS, you'd have noted that one of the
four elements of the proposed MOA expansion is:

... flying at supersonic speeds above 10,000 feet above mean sea
level (MSL) or approximately 5,000 to 6,000 feet above ground
level (AGL) in the airspace ...

And the Air Force EIS further states:

The increase in sonic booms from one per five days under No-Action
to two per three days under the Proposed Action or Alternatives A
or B would not be expected to affect wildlife or livestock
behavior.

So it is apparent that the Air Force deliberately intends (not
inadvertently) to conduct two supersonic operations per every three
days within the proposed expanded MOA despite your contention to the
contrary.

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.

I'm sorry you failed to understand my meaning. Let me try again.

If the NAS was designed for a maximum speed of 250 knots below
10,000', and you operate at a speed in excess of that, the NAS will
not function as designed; such excessive speed reduces the time
available for see-and-avoid separation to the point that it is absurd,
and thus causes a safety hazard. Apparently the FAA has chosen to
grant the military exemption based on need rather than safety.

[...]

Then you need to get your eyes checked.

Unlike you, I currently hold a valid Medical Certificate.

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.

Yes, you have stated that repeatedly, however that "information" is in
direct opposition to the USAF's stated use for the MOA if its
enlargement is granted.

Even so, the shift in visual acquistion range between what
you see at 500 kts and what you see at 660 kts is insignificant.

How significant is the visual acquisition range difference between 250
knots and 660 knots?

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.

As a percentage of total attempts, what would be your estimate of the
number of times you have been unable to visually acquire F-5 sized
targets in 3 mile visibility VFR operations?

[...]


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.

Are you attempting to imply that the USAF condones the noncompliance
with its directives? Even the chief AIB investigator admitted the
Ninja flight lead had made mistakes:

The chief Air Force investigator said at a news conference Tuesday
that two F-16 pilots from Moody Air Force Base in Valdosta, Ga.,
were not where they were supposed to be, were flying too fast and
were out of radio contact with air-traffic controllers when one of
them collided with a Cessna 172 that had just taken off from
Sarasota bound for Citrus County.

Parker was leading a _training_ mission. He had no compelling _need_
to go rocketing through congested terminal airspace and jeopardize the
safety of all the airline passengers therein as well as those people
on the ground. There is little question, that it was reckless for him
to deliberately chose to descend into congested terminal airspace at
high speed without the required ATC clearance.

[...]

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,

If you have no intent of killing a motorist, but do so as a result of
violating traffic laws while driving, do you think you will not be
criminally prosecuted? Get real.

it wasn't actionable after a detailed investigation.

Perhaps your conclusion is accurate. Or perhaps the military has
influence over the DA in such matters. Or perhaps the DA doesn't have
jurisdiction over military personnel. Neither of us knows why Parker
wasn't criminally prosecuted, but it doesn't seem just to me. If a
civilian pilot had done what Parker did, you can bet he'd be in jail
now.

[...]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

2.) they aren't responsible for the MOA. The FAA is.

3.) they seldom have radar coverage of the MOA, since it isn't their
responsibility.


Exactly. Flying out here in the West it's not uncommon to transit
several MOAs in the course of a long XC. I just contact Center on the
local frequency and get advisories. They will steer you away from any
military activity if the MOA is hot.

There are some locations that have a dedicated advisory frequency for
operations in high traffic MOAs. I'm not sure whether its a military
or civilian agency that is providing the advisory service, but I really
don't care. As I recall, one such area is north of Nellis/Las Vegas.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 10:30:44 -0700, Ed Rasimus
wrote in
::

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 17:03:37 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

What I've found to be particularly useful is contacting the military
ATC, and making them aware of my position and intended route, so they
can shield me from the military operations occurring in the MOA (by
alerting nearby participating military aircraft) and providing radar
traffic advisories.

Doesn't civilian communication with military controllers just make
good sense for VFR civil aircraft transiting a hot MOA?

It makes imminent good sense, but there are some flaws in your
rationale.

1.) the "military ATC" (an oxymoron at this point regarding MOAs)
operates on UHF, while you in your GA aircraft use VHF. While the
military RAPCON and tower may have VHF capability, they often don't
monitor beyond their primary frequency or you may not have access to
the one Victor freq. they do monitor.

In my case, Center handed me off to the military controller on a VHF
frequency.

I was northbound out of Mormon Mesa VORTAC to Lincoln, County Airport
(1L1) in Nevada, which is about 30 miles west of the eastern border of
the Desert MOA (floor 100' AGL). There's a note on the Las Vegas
sectional chart advising pilots to "contact Nellis Control on 126.65
or nearest FSS prior to entering MOA." So I suppose they are
expecting to provide some assistance to VFR flights.

2.) they aren't responsible for the MOA. The FAA is.

As I was VFR, no one but me was taking _responsibility_ for my flight.

3.) they seldom have radar coverage of the MOA, since it isn't their
responsibility.

This military controller apparently had me on radar.

4.) Even if they did have radar, they did have Victor, and they
wouldn't be stepping on ATC's toes, they aren't going to deconflict
you if you are VFR.

As I stated initially, the military controller wasn't providing
separation. He was just alerting nearby participating military
aircraft and providing radar traffic advisories for me.

The military controller was aware of my position, and although I
couldn't hear his communications with the military aircraft, he seemed
to be attempting to keep us separated.

5.) Once cleared to operate in the MOA by ATC, the military aircraft
are on a discrete UHF frequency. They don't maintain a vector long
enough for ATC to provide any sort of prediction of flight path and
they may be contactable by ATC only on Guard. The ATC controller has
the MOA discrete, but won't be listening to the in flight chatter
which may be secure anyway.

6.) It is a poorly understood concept of IFR that somehow someone "can
shield me"--you are only guaranteed separation from other traffic if
you a
a.) on an IFR flight plan

In Class G airspace, IFR flights are not separated by ATC.

b.) in controlled airspace

Actually, VFR flights in Class C controlled airspace are not separated
by ATC.

c.) in IMC

That seems redundant with 'a' above. If you're in IMC without benefit
of an IFR clearance, you've got bigger issues than separation from
other traffic.


If you fail to meeet any one of those three conditions, the
responsibility for safe separation returns to the basic principle of
VFR, "see-and-avoid".

Actually, if you are in VMC at any time, you are _required_ to
see-and-avoid. But military pilots on VR MTRs don't seem to
appreciate that fact:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...13X33340&key=1


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

Larry Dighera wrote:

3.) they seldom have radar coverage of the MOA, since it isn't their
responsibility.

This military controller apparently had me on radar.

Desert MOA is more the exception than the rule when it comes to MOA
coverage. Most MOAs I'm familiar with do not have a dedicated
frequency for advisories. You normally just talk to the local center
controller. Additionally, just because you are talking to "Nellis
Control" does not necessarily mean that you are talking to a military
controller. The FAA often provides radar services that one might
assume were military. One example in the Phoenix area is Luke AFB
Approach. While meandering through the Alert Area getting advisories
from Luke Approach, you're actually talking to a civilian controller in
the Phoenix Tracon.

I'm not saying one way or the other whether Nellis Control is
military or not, only that it can be hard to know for sure just by the
name.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)