Scared of mid-airs

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 12:05:07 -0600, Newps wrote:



On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 13:28:28 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote in
:


Every flight, every day, by the military is on a flight plan.

Not an FAA flight plan.

Within the USA they certainly are.

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

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 21:54:16 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote in
:

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 20:50:20 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 16:08:14 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote in
:

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 15:28:47 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 15:25:29 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote in
:

With regard to low-level MTRs, isn't the ceiling 500' AGL to 1,500'
AGL? Why not just fly over top of the proposed MTR restricted
airspace? If that approach should happen to interfere with
navigation, then the pilot would do what he always does to enter R
airspace: Contact ATC. I don't see the problem you apparently do.
What am I overlooking?

You've added a factor not previously in evidence.

Which factor is that?

The factor described in the next sentence--a specific and very limited
altitude block.

That 'factor' is just the current height of low-level MTRs; it's not
new.

If you draw the MTR with those altitude specs, then you MAY be able to
create routes that would be meet training requirements and allow for
reasonably unhindered GA traffic.

That seemed obvious to me.

Note the capitalized qualifier. You most probably will not be able to
create satisfactory training conditions and you will still very likely
impinge on GA traffic's ability to move unhindered.

Are you saying that the current dimensions of low-level MTRs do not
meet military training needs?

You're overlooking the fact that ATC doesn't usually have coverage at
those altitudes in areas typically employed for MTRs.

Agreed. Are you saying there is a requirement for ATC to have radar
coverage of all R airspace? Or are you saying, that if the military
is going to shoulder responsibility for the hazard to air safety their
high-speed, low-level operations create, it would require ATC radar
coverage?

You keep seeking foolproof deconfliction.

Actually, I keep saying the those flights that are not exempt from the
250 knot speed limit below 10,000' should be separated from high-speed
military flights enjoying the exemption. I don't for a minute regard
that as foolproof.

There is NO requirement for ATC to have radar coverage anywhere.

Then why did you think I was " overlooking the fact that ATC doesn't
usually have coverage at those altitudes in areas typically employed
for MTRs?"

They won't be able to offer you the desired "no responsibility on the part
of the GA pilot" guarantee of no threat because they can't see traffic at
those altitudes.

First, I never indicated that GA should have 'no responsibility'; I
said the military should bear sole legal responsibility for the
hazards it poses to air safety as a result of operating under its
exemption to the 250 knot speed limit below 10,000' feet.

If the military bears "sole responsibility" there is then "no
responsibility" for anyone else. Q.E.D.

Obviously, if a GA pilot is violating regulations, he is responsible
for the hazard to air safety those violations may pose to other
flights and those over whom he operates, right?


Next, There would be no necessity for the military to take sole
responsibility as mentioned above, if they were operating in Class R
airspace (unless they failed to schedule it with ATC/FSS).

Additionally, training maneuvers on an MTR may require formation
repositioning, simulated evasive maneuvers, simulated armed
reconnaisance [sic] maneuvering and even simulated weapons delivery
maneuvers and re-attacks. Those requirements could seriously mitigate
your ability to create 500-1500' AGL corridors.

[Mitigate: to cause to become less harsh or hostile]

Mitigate---to lessen. Add training requirements, not simply a path
from A to B and you lessen your ability to create a MTR within
restricted narrow altitude blocks that doesn't interfere with GA
traffic.

Are these 'training requirements' you mention currently conducted
outside the confines of the MTR routes as defined in the National
Imaging and Mapping Agency MTR database?
http://164.214.2.62/products/webchum/QryChoice.cfm


Not being familiar with those operations, I ask, would it be feasible
to conduct those operations above 10,000'? If not, why not?

No. You can't do effective low altitude training at high altitude.

I presume formation repositioning, simulated evasive maneuvers,
simulated armed reconnaissance maneuvering and simulated weapons
delivery maneuvers and re-attacks may require larger lateral, and
perhaps vertical, boundaries than are currently provided by MTRs. Is
that correct?

Yes.

Are those maneuvers conducted within MOAs or R airspace?
[...]
Okay. Four seconds to make the decision to take evasive action, and a
couple of seconds to input control commands and for the aircraft to
actually clear the path, that leaves 13 seconds to visually identify
the head-on traffic at 3 statute miles in minimum VMC.

Now, if you consider a fighter at 300 knots approaching a 250 knot
airliner head on, the closure rate would be 550 knots permitting only
17 seconds until impact. Subtracting six seconds for decision and
maneuvering, leaves 11 seconds to visually identify the threat. That's
precious little time to see-and-avoid in single pilot operations.

If you can't make see-and-avoid decisions in less time than that, I
wonder how you drive to work in the morning.

I don't drive to work.

On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 06:54:23 -0600, "Jeff Crowell"
wrote in :

[...]

Speed of the F-16 at impact was 356 KCAS.

Limiting the discussion to your 356 KCAS speed at the time of impact
figure disregards this fact:

Final NTSB Report MIA01FA028A:

http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief2.asp?...A028A &akey=1
"Speeds of up to 450 knots were noted during the descent."

Why would you overlook that 450 knot speed? Does the F-16 Dash 1 only
pertain to the speed at time of impact? :-)

Somewhere during the entire flight, Ninja 2's speed might
easily have been supersonic;

Perhaps. But any speed in excess of the minimum safe speed is a
violation of regulations below 10,000'.

would that have had any influence
on the collision? (other than the cosmic scheduling of it all--
obviously, anything which might have occurred to either F-16
or Cessna to speed or delay their movements throughout their
respective flights that day would have prevented this tragedy).
Seen that way, if Ninja had gone even a little faster then this
would have been nothing more than a close miss.

That analysis disregards the fact that there were other aircraft
present in the congested Class B and C terminal airspace that could
have been impacted just as easily by the Ninja flight.

I never debated that Ninja flight recorded a speed of 450
knots during the flight. I'm simply saying that the speed
that really matters is the speed immediately prior to the
collision.

That conclusion is debatable. If we're discussing time to deconflict,
we'd need to know at what point the Ninja flight achieved 450 knots.

I have not seen any claim other than yours that
Ninja was knocking down 450 knots within that critical
interval. And you are clearly selecting your data to put
your argument in the best possible light.

Perhaps. At any rate, I commend you for taking the time to analyze
all the data available. That has to be an enlightening experience.

And I'm reassured that by the limited discrepancies you have provided,
the vast majority of what I have said is correct.

Similarly, the fact that closure rate was 480 knots of
course has meaning in terms of how much time was
available to both pilots to see and avoid. But to imply or
suggest that this is in any way the same as saying
that Ninja was making almost 500 knots at impact is a
blatant lie.


That conclusion is dependent on malice of intent, which I feel is
unwarranted, and unsupported by the facts. We just choose to
interpret the facts differently.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

Every flight, every day, by the military is on a flight plan.


Even those flights on VFR MTRs?


Yes.


Then why are there IFR MTRs and VFR MTRs?


Are there IFR and VFR flight plans?

If the weather is good VMC, they can fly by pilotage at low
altitude. If the weather is IMC, they fly an IFR rules, at
low altitude using instruments.

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=183



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

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote
in message
.net...
|
| "Larry Dighera" wrote in message
| ...
|
| Every flight, every day, by the military is on a
flight plan.
|
|
| Even those flights on VFR MTRs?
|
|
| Yes.
|
|
| Then why are there IFR MTRs and VFR MTRs?
|
|
| Are there IFR and VFR flight plans?
|
|

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:HxcBg.85464$ZW3.64724@dukeread04...

If the weather is good VMC, they can fly by pilotage at low
altitude. If the weather is IMC, they fly an IFR rules, at
low altitude using instruments.

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=183


Was that an attempt to answer my question?

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 00:27:47 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

Every flight, every day, by the military is on a flight plan.


Even those flights on VFR MTRs?


Yes.


Then why are there IFR MTRs and VFR MTRs?


Are there IFR and VFR flight plans?

Of course.

How else would a pilot without an instrument rating file a flight
plan?

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

A "flight plan" is merely a record of your intended route of
flight-- [...]
Regardless, the flight plan type for the military is IFR.

Well, an IFR flight plan is a little more than that because it causes a
clearance to be issued before I take off (at least in controlled
airspace). A clearance involves coordination with ATC.

Departures are conducted under ATC. Recoveries are conducted under
ATC. Training time along an MTR, within a MOA, in restricted airspace,
or on a range is usually done without ATC involvement.

Well, then maybe it would be a good idea for training time outside of
restricted airspace to involve ATC. That would help make the joint use
of joint use airspace safer, especially if the military is running
camoflaged jets at four hundred knots, and then blaming anybody who
happens to be in the way for the MAC.

If your hypothetical civilian pilot wants ATC to provide him safe
separation from other IFR aircraft...

Thank you for the flying lesson. What I was hoping for however was a
little more assistance in avoiding camoflauged F16s operating at warp
speeds in airspace civilians also use, and are fully entitled to use.

Remember, by your own admission, you are one of the best fighter pilots
there is. Fighter pilots are among the best pilots there are. This
means that, next to your abilities, most everyone else in the air is a
turkey. They do not have anywhere near the judgement, stick skills,
eyeballs, abilities, or aptitudes that you have. But, you have to live
with them. (the alternative is that, for a short while, you'd be one of
only ten pilots in the sky, after which you'd run out of gas and
refineries won't make any more). That =is= the price of being the best.

Even if you can find traffic at 400 knots, the other guy can't see you
running that fast. So if you are going to do that, you need to provide
the other guy, the hoi polloi in the sky, with some better way to avoid
you than a big "keep out" sign or a "catch me if you can" attitude.

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

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 15:17:25 GMT, Jose
wrote:

A "flight plan" is merely a record of your intended route of
flight-- [...]
Regardless, the flight plan type for the military is IFR.

Well, an IFR flight plan is a little more than that because it causes a
clearance to be issued before I take off (at least in controlled
airspace). A clearance involves coordination with ATC.

A flight plan is an expression of intention to fly. It tells who you
are and where/when you are going. If it is IFR, it allows ATC to
integrate you with other existing known traffic. If VFR, it merely
tells folks to start looking at you when fail to reach your
destination by a certain time.

Military flight plans for local training sorties are usually "canned",
meaning that the route and duration are on file. Additional details
such as call-sign, crew, time of day, are added with the filing of the
daily schedule. When the flight launches, ATC then provides services.

Departures are conducted under ATC. Recoveries are conducted under
ATC. Training time along an MTR, within a MOA, in restricted airspace,
or on a range is usually done without ATC involvement.

Well, then maybe it would be a good idea for training time outside of
restricted airspace to involve ATC. That would help make the joint use
of joint use airspace safer, especially if the military is running
camoflaged jets at four hundred knots, and then blaming anybody who
happens to be in the way for the MAC.

Did you miss the part where I said ALL MILITARY FLIGHTS ARE OPERATING
ON FLIGHT PLANS AND IFR?

The takeoff is controlled by the tower (some are military and some, at
joint-use airports are shared control). The departure is controlled by
an ATC agency. Hand-off is made to the regional ARTCC. Open entering a
training area, which might or might not be restricted airspace, a
flight plan delay is exercised for the training period. Upon
completion of the training mission, ARTCC is contacted and once again
provides IFR routing to destination where approach control picks up
the route and eventually hands off to tower.

And, the military is NOT "blaming anybody who happens to be in the way
for the MAC."

If your hypothetical civilian pilot wants ATC to provide him safe
separation from other IFR aircraft...

Thank you for the flying lesson. What I was hoping for however was a
little more assistance in avoiding camoflauged F16s operating at warp
speeds in airspace civilians also use, and are fully entitled to use.

"Warp speeds" are 250 KCAS or higher based on operational requirements
of the aircraft. Civilians operate under the same rules. Civilians are
equally responsible for safe conduct of their flights and maintaining
clearance from other aircraft. All players are under the same rules.

Remember, by your own admission, you are one of the best fighter pilots
there is. Fighter pilots are among the best pilots there are. This
means that, next to your abilities, most everyone else in the air is a
turkey. They do not have anywhere near the judgement, stick skills,
eyeballs, abilities, or aptitudes that you have. But, you have to live
with them. (the alternative is that, for a short while, you'd be one of
only ten pilots in the sky, after which you'd run out of gas and
refineries won't make any more). That =is= the price of being the best.

Oh boy! In terms of accidents (all kinds, not just MACs), the rate per
100,000 flying hours for military aviation is lower than GA. I will
agree fully that GA pilots, as a class, don't have the judgement,
stick skills, eyeballs, abilities or aptitudes of the professionals.

Yet, year after year, they operate together and the sky does not seem
to be raining airplanes. If fact, most GA pilots don't see a military
aircraft in flight for months or even years at a time.

Even if you can find traffic at 400 knots, the other guy can't see you
running that fast. So if you are going to do that, you need to provide
the other guy, the hoi polloi in the sky, with some better way to avoid
you than a big "keep out" sign or a "catch me if you can" attitude.

Jose

Ever been on an airliner? Did you look out the window? Did you see
other airplanes? They were traveling at faster than 400 knots if you
were at cruising altitude and you could see them. All you had to do
was look. I believe you are capable of that.


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

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 00:27:47 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

Every flight, every day, by the military is on a flight plan.


Even those flights on VFR MTRs?


Yes.


Then why are there IFR MTRs and VFR MTRs?


Are there IFR and VFR flight plans?


Yes, but our resident fighter pilot asserts:

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 16:34:22 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote in
:

Regardless, the flight plan type for the military is IFR.

If that were true, it prompts my questioning the need for VFR MTRs.