Scared of mid-airs

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.

An IFR may report a "near miss" when a VFR does not consider it to be a
threat. The "1000 above or below within 5 to 20 miles" applie only to
Class A airspace, *not* to B, C, D, etc.; else traffic flow would
trickle to a halt.

That's the way I understand it. My closest encounter ever was while IFR
in VMC. My instructor said, "I have the airplane", and we went into a
steep dive. I pulled off the hood to see a Cessna pass over that we
would have hit head on. We complained to ATC and they showed no
interest. I did some reading and came to the conclusion that their
primary job is to keep IFR traffic separated. If they have time, then
yeah, they can and should route you around a storm cell or some VFR
traffic but those tasks are not their primary mission.

I'm sure any errors and omissions in the above will be taken care of by
folks more knowledgeable than I am in this area.

Tom

With a few possible exceptions, fighter aircraft radar is
two types, a search and a fire control radar. Both have a
fairly small cone in which to detect a target. They depend
on being vectored in the general direction of a threat in
order to detect a target. Also, military aircraft have
radar detectors that warn the pilot/crew that they are being
painted by somebody's radar.

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


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

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

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


True, but often they have an AWACS or military ground radar.


True. But how often can military ground radar paint low level
targets?

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

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


True, but often they have an AWACS or military ground radar.


True. But how often can military ground radar paint low level
targets?

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

Larry, how about once getting your facts straight? All current
production US fighters (and most operational ones - except A-10s, early
F-16s, and early F-18s) have transponder interrogators perfectly
capable of detecting Mode 3/C transponders, using any squawk. Most
also have PD radars that can easily detect conflicting traffic over a
120 degree cone in front - at low altitude. And AWACS can see both.
So what is your problem, other than a pathological hatred of the
military? You seem to think military aviators are oblivious to the
threat of mid-airs. Newsflash, dude - they are much better trained,
more professional, and safer than any civilian bug-smasher driver - and
I've been on both sides.

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

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

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

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

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 11:35:46 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
wrote:

True, but often they have an AWACS or military ground radar.


No kidding? They also often have their own radar and have been trained
to look at it and interpret it with greater detail than following an
up/down arrow on a TCAS.

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

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

Some have;some haven't:

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

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

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

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

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

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

but it ain't murder.

Some are, and some aren't.

But the military's miserable record in reprimanding its airmen who
wrongfully kill innocent pilots, and shortsighted safety initiatives
are pathetic. You've got to agree, that rocketing through congested
terminal airspace at 500 knots without the required ATC clearance,
lopping 9' of wingtip from a glider with an A6, and failing to see and
avoid a crop duster are manslaughter, which is called Third Degree
Murder in Florida.

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 13:11:22 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
wrote:

With a few possible exceptions, fighter aircraft radar is
two types, a search and a fire control radar.

Actually that's only one weapon system radar. The radar searches, if
necessary a target is designated and data is fed to weapons, and if
necessary the radar is focussed on a sub-set of the entire scan
envelope to track the target. Some systems allow for multiple track,
some for continuous scanning while simultaneously tracking, some
hand-off to autonomous weapons which don't need updates from the
launch platform.

Both have a
fairly small cone in which to detect a target.

Well, if you call 45-60 degrees left and right of center and multiple
bar width scan a small cone, I guess you're right. But if we are
discussing clearing your own flight path, the scan is very adequate.

They depend
on being vectored in the general direction of a threat in
order to detect a target.

Quite simply NO! While GCI vectoring is fine (or AWACS), older systems
worked quite nicely with dedicated search sectors for flight members
(fighters don't fly alone,) and new systems have data fusion systems
that integrate data from multiple sources in the aircraft display.

Also, military aircraft have
radar detectors that warn the pilot/crew that they are being
painted by somebody's radar.

RHAW or RWR is not relevant to the discussion of flight path clearance
here. It also is dependent upon antennae and programming to detect the
appropriate frequency and pulse rates of threat radars for
presentation.

But it isn't really a system designed for anti-collision
use, but to keep from being shot down or to find a target to
shoot.

Or for navigation or for mutual support or for flight path clearance
or for weather avoidance, etc. etc.

The F14 even has a telescope to allow visual
confirmation of targets that are 100 miles away after the
radar has found the target, rules of engagement require
visual confirmation.

Some F-4E aircraft had TISEO and some F-15s had a system called Eagle
Eye (might have had other nomenclature or been updated later) but
these weren't reaching out to 100 miles.

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

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

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

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 11:35:46 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
wrote:

True, but often they have an AWACS or military ground radar.


No kidding? They also often have their own radar and have been trained
to look at it and interpret it with greater detail than following an
up/down arrow on a TCAS.

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

And what military aircraft radars are using MTI with thresholds above
GA aircraft speeds? Stick with what you know, Larry. Avoid discussions
of specific military equipment, training, tactics, procedures, are
even attitudes.

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

Some have;some haven't:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

but it ain't murder.

Some are, and some aren't.

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

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

You are the pathetic one with innuendo, hyperbole, exaggeration and
disgusting rhetoric. No one goes out to have a mid-air.

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

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



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

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

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

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

Larry, how about once getting your facts straight?

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

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

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

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

Interpreting the scope is a different matter (see above post). It
requires a great deal of training and targets can be missed.
(especially slow moving low flying aircraft for which the
radar isn't optimized) The radar isn't magic... it isn't like a
video game. The radar will sweep until ... 1- The air to ground
radar is selected. This is used to update the system. 2 - A
visual fix is being updated . We don't fly in air to ground mode
as it is worthless unless you are updating your system or doing
some kind of weapon employment. It is a fact that the radar is
always on. Ask any F-16 pilot

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

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

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

And AWACS can see both.

Both, transponders and targets?

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

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

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

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

Military fighter aircraft pilots have little physical harm to fear
from colliding with a typical GA aircraft due to the weight and speed
differential as well as a much more robust airframe and ejection seat
to provide them with a safe landing. The GA pilot is like a
fluttering moth poised hovering above the rush hour traffic in such a
situation. His chances of survival in a collision are slight at best.
I have to share the sky with the military, and their military/civil
MAC record isn't as good as one would expect.

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

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

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

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

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


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

I believe their commanders do not appreciate the hazard to the public
their high-speed, low-level operations pose to civil aviation. And I
think their safety procedures lack due prudence. But what I find most
troubling is the lack of consequences a military aviator faces as a
result of carelessness, incompetence, recklessness, and regulation
violations. If the military pilot thinks he can disintegrate a civil
flight, punch out, and live to fly another day without loss of rank,
pay, or freedom, what incentive does he have to watch out for us
little guys with whom he shares the skies?

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

I would expect nothing less.

Most civil aircraft are incapable of achieving any where near the
speed of military aircraft, so the same level of skill isn't required
of civil pilots. The cost of military aircraft is hundreds of times
more than the typical civil aircraft, so the pilots are not selected
as carefully. And civil pilots are not screened and tested to the
same standards as military pilots. Thanks for the flash. :-(

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 17:25:32 -0400, "Morgans"
wrote in ::

He is sometimes a little..... Humm, I don't know which word to use, here. g

How about 'honest'?

wrote

Larry, how about once getting your facts straight?

So what is your problem, other than a pathological hatred of the
military? You seem to think military aviators are oblivious to the
threat of mid-airs. Newsflash, dude - they are much better trained,
more professional, and safer than any civilian bug-smasher driver - and
I've been on both sides.


You'll have to excuse Larry. He is sometimes a little..... Humm, I don't
know which word to use, here. g

Thanks for the info, though!
--
Jim in NC