Scared of mid-airs

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 12:43:16 -0600, Newps wrote:



Ed Rasimus wrote:



So, are Newp and Montblack the same person?

Yep, both from the Twin Cities. One smart enough to leave.


Can Newp really work in an
ATC facility and not know how those Vipers got to a VFR traffic
pattern somewhere?

They got to the VFR traffic pattern after calling me up about 30 miles
out and requesting touch and go's. They were VFR at the time. They do
a few touch and go's and then depart VFR. About 10 miles out I
terminate them and they go on their merry way. This is SOP.

Trust me, they departed their home station on an IFR flight plan. And
when their "merry way" got them back to home station, they were
handled by approach control and either routed into an instrument
recovery or enroute descent to VFR traffic.

There is a lot of VFR operation by the military. Training couldn't be
conducted any other way. And, as you know, a lot of military training
is done in airspace that is other than "Restricted"--When the other
airspace is above the positive control altitude, it really isn't an
issue, since all other traffic will be on IFR routing and will not
transit the airspace. It's only below APC where GA traffic can wander
along VFR, off-airways and with possible conflict.

When those GA aircraft are aware of the other users of the airspace,
the conflicts are minimal. Accidents can and do happen, and when
someone dies it is unfortunate.

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

Ed Rasimus wrote:



Trust me, they departed their home station on an IFR flight plan.

No, they do not always do this.



And
when their "merry way" got them back to home station, they were
handled by approach control and either routed into an instrument
recovery or enroute descent to VFR traffic.

Right they descended to their airport like they descended into mine. VFR.

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 15:31:59 -0600, Newps wrote:



Ed Rasimus wrote:

Trust me, they departed their home station on an IFR flight plan.

No, they do not always do this.

Can you give me a basis for this assurance? I flew for the USAF for 23
years from Williams, Nellis, Luke, Davis-Monthan, Holloman, Randolph,
Eglin, McConnell, George, Patrick, and a few other spots in between. I
did it from the perspective a student to IP to flight commander to ops
officer and with a bit of staff time thrown in on the side.

I will agree that they do not "always" do it, but the exceptions are
very few and far between. For most scheduled training flights, the
aircrew isn't even involved in the filing of the flight plan behind
the "signing out" at the duty desk. The option to file VFR isn't
available for routine operations. It "could be done" but generally
isn't.

If you have some new insights, I'd sure appreciate them.

And
when their "merry way" got them back to home station, they were
handled by approach control and either routed into an instrument
recovery or enroute descent to VFR traffic.

Right they descended to their airport like they descended into mine. VFR.

Sorry, no. Go to any military base and you'll find local operating
procedures that specify departures from the base and recoveries. Those
procedures are designed with ATC coordination and proceed from fix to
fix along a specified route of flight. This routing allows for
unimpeded operation whether the current weather is IMC or VMC.
Anything else would be unworkable.

Consider for a moment, at Holloman we had four AT-38 squadrons flying
on average 130 sorties per training day and three F-15 squadrons
running about 60 sorties/day plus various drone operations. The
intensity of operations simply doesn't allow for random VFR roaming to
funnel traffic in and out of the airdrome.

Again, if you've got some direct experience in this area beyond
opinion gleaned from watching pop-up traffic at your station, I'm
willing to listen.



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

Trust me, they departed their home station on an IFR flight plan.
No, they do not always do this.
Can you give me a basis for this assurance? ...
I will agree that they do not "always" do it, but the exceptions are
very few and far between.

Uh... for one who is both arrogant and picky, don't you see the
contradiction here?

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

Ed Rasimus wrote:

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 15:31:59 -0600, Newps wrote:



Ed Rasimus wrote:

Trust me, they departed their home station on an IFR flight plan.

No, they do not always do this.


Can you give me a basis for this assurance?


Yeah, they call me up VFR and we sequence them into the pattern. What's
so hard to understand?








Sorry, no.

Yep, your right. I can't tell the difference between IFR and VFR.



Go to any military base and you'll find local operating
procedures that specify departures from the base and recoveries.

I don't work at a military base.



Those
procedures are designed with ATC coordination and proceed from fix to
fix along a specified route of flight. This routing allows for
unimpeded operation whether the current weather is IMC or VMC.
Anything else would be unworkable.

Sounds reasonable at busy places. Does not apply here.






Again, if you've got some direct experience in this area beyond
opinion gleaned from watching pop-up traffic at your station, I'm
willing to listen.

I've already posted my experience.

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 18:32:20 -0600, Newps wrote:



Ed Rasimus wrote:

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 15:31:59 -0600, Newps wrote:


Ed Rasimus wrote:

Trust me, they departed their home station on an IFR flight plan.

No, they do not always do this.


Can you give me a basis for this assurance?


Yeah, they call me up VFR and we sequence them into the pattern. What's
so hard to understand?

Does "call me up VFR" and "departed their home station on an IFR
flight plan" indicate some sort of incompatibility? My statement
remains, that virtually ALL USAF flights in the US operate on an IFR
flight plan remains. They depart IFR, they either terminate the IFR
(always an option) or take an enroute delay for training, then when
they recover they resume IFR.

You have not indicated anything in conflict with what I stated.

Sorry, no.

Yep, your right. I can't tell the difference between IFR and VFR.

You talk about VFR at your location for a flight already airborne that
neither originated or recovered there. Do you understand that a flight
can be on an IFR flight plan and still operate for a period VFR?

Go to any military base and you'll find local operating
procedures that specify departures from the base and recoveries.

I don't work at a military base.

That isn't the point here, is it? You are challenging my statement
that virtually all USAF military flights originate on an IFR flight
plan. Where you work doesn't make much difference to that, except that
it might indicate your lack of exposure to the facts in the issue.

Those
procedures are designed with ATC coordination and proceed from fix to
fix along a specified route of flight. This routing allows for
unimpeded operation whether the current weather is IMC or VMC.
Anything else would be unworkable.

Sounds reasonable at busy places. Does not apply here.

Who cares what applies "here"?

Again, if you've got some direct experience in this area beyond
opinion gleaned from watching pop-up traffic at your station, I'm
willing to listen.

I've already posted my experience.

Which doesn't qualify you for more than an opinion.

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

they either terminate the IFR
(always an option)

After they "terminate the IFR", are they no longer "on an IFR flight
plan"? You stated that they are always "on an IFR flight plan".

Certainly (and more to the point) they are no longer on an ATC clearance.


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

Ed Rasimus wrote:

[stuff snipped]

Nah, I'd rather just go out hunting for civilians to run into
willy-nilly. I'll smash a couple of Cessnas before lunch, then bail
out by the golf course before taking the rest of the day off.



Now that would be a more appropriate use of our tax dollars than
continually subsidizing these GA airports that are used mainly by
recreational, amateur pilots.

In article
outaviation.com,
"Skylune" wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:

[stuff snipped]

Nah, I'd rather just go out hunting for civilians to run into
willy-nilly. I'll smash a couple of Cessnas before lunch, then bail
out by the golf course before taking the rest of the day off.



Now that would be a more appropriate use of our tax dollars than
continually subsidizing these GA airports that are used mainly by
recreational, amateur pilots.


..... as posted by a GA washout.

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...

Now that would be a more appropriate use of our tax dollars than
continually subsidizing these GA airports that are used mainly by
recreational, amateur pilots.


What GA airports are being subsidized?