Scared of mid-airs

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 17:24:00 GMT, Jose
wrote:

A flight plan is an expression of intention to fly.

Obviously you are being difficult. "Flying on an IFR flight plan"
implies either uncontrolled airspace, or a clearance. The former is an
invitation to an FAA hearing. The latter implies ATC coordination.

Guess which one I'm referring to.

If you are intending to fly in uncontrolled airspace you will not get
ATC services. You might be flying in IMC, but you provide your own
separation. Whether or not you have ATC involved has NO RELATION to
whether or not a flight plan is filed.

A flight plan is an expression of an intent to fly. It is filed,
whether IFR or VFR with a Flight Service Station, which has no control
authority.

Don't mix flight plans with ATC clearances.


When the flight launches, ATC then provides services.

Exactly.

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

No. But you seem to be dodging the issue by hiding behind stuff like "A
flight plan is an expression of intention to fly." Did you miss the
part where you yourself said "Training time along an MTR, within a MOA,
in restricted airspace, or on a range is usually done without ATC
involvement."? The IFR I am familiar with always has ATC involvement.

And you seem to have snipped the part where I spelled out a typical
training sortie on an IFR flight plan. Maybe you didn't read it. Maybe
you didn't understand it. Maybe you are simply being difficult.

Let me repeat--upon reaching the training airspace, the flight is
dropped from ATC control and exercises a delay enroute. They are still
on an IFR flight plan and will resume ATC control after completion of
their delay period.

And, since you have apparent comprehension issues, let me repeat what
I pointed out above:

A flight plan is an expression of an intent to fly. It is filed,
whether IFR or VFR with a Flight Service Station, which has no control
authority.

Don't mix flight plans with ATC clearances.

Are you on an ATC clearance at that point? Are you on an ATC clearance
in an MTR (IR or VR)?

...they operate together and the sky does not seem
to be raining airplanes.

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

Who was responsible for the MAC where the cessna, while attempting to
turn away, was speared by an F-something at 350 knots or so?

The investigation determines who is responsible. There was an
investigation. It was conducted in great detail. Mr. Dighera is
unwilling to accept the outcome of the investigation. I am unwilling
to accept the outcome of the OJ trial.

The Cessna could be responsible even if turning away. In the case
under discussion, the investigation indicated that the Cessna was not
responsible. Merely because an airplane is involved in a mid-air with
a faster aircraft is not prima facie evidence that it was the faster
aircraft's fault.

Yes, one example, but an egregious one in my book, and one you seem to
be defending.

Ever been on an airliner?

Ever flown a bug smasher?

Yes. But, that doesn't relate to the example I gave (creative snipping
on your part again.) You imply some sort of invisibility of aircraft
operating at 400 knots and I pointed out how easy it is to see them in
a circumstance that you were likely to encounter.

Jose

Do you have an aeronautical rating? How many hours have you accrued?

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

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 16:36:41 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

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


"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.

It is possible to fly on an IFR flight plan in VFR. VFR MTRs are
established because they cannot be flown in IMC (Instrument
Meterological Conditions, i.e. bad weather.) Low level routes are
usually VFR routes. The flight will still be conducted on an IFR
flight plan.

Are you dense or merely difficult?


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

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 17:32:18 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 16:49:53 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
.net:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
. ..


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.


But he wrote that in response to your question. So what prompted you to ask
it?


It was largely rhetorical.

If Mr. Rasimus' assertion, that the flight plan type for the military
is IFR is correct, and MTRs are created for military use, why are
there VFR MTRs? Presumably the military won't be operating VFR on VFR
MTRs.

The military can and does operated on VFR routes, but they are still
on an IFR flight plan.

Why would you doubt my "assertion"? Do you have any military aviation
experience? Would I lie to you?


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

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

It was largely rhetorical.

If Mr. Rasimus' assertion, that the flight plan type for the military
is IFR is correct, and MTRs are created for military use, why are
there VFR MTRs? Presumably the military won't be operating VFR on VFR
MTRs.


Let's cut this short. There are VFR flight plans and the military operates
VFR on VFR MTRs.

Larry Dighera wrote:

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.

Oh heavens no. It's not uncommon for the F16's around here to show up
VFR unannounced, do a few approaches and then a few patterns and then
disappear VFR. And of course the helicopters are always flitting around
VFR. They may stop, they may just get flight following for awhile as
long as we can see them.

Larry Dighera wrote:



If Mr. Rasimus' assertion, that the flight plan type for the military
is IFR is correct, and MTRs are created for military use, why are
there VFR MTRs? Presumably the military won't be operating VFR on VFR
MTRs.

The military often flies on an IFR flight plan and then takes
responsibility for its own separation from other military aircraft and
the ground. It's really nothing more than flight following. ATC just
waits for them to get done playing, get separated and then we take over.
However to say they are always IFR is ridiculous. Ya can't fly at 200
agl in yer B52 IFR.

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 22:20:04 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
. net:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

It was largely rhetorical.

If Mr. Rasimus' assertion, that the flight plan type for the military
is IFR is correct, and MTRs are created for military use, why are
there VFR MTRs? Presumably the military won't be operating VFR on VFR
MTRs.


Let's cut this short. There are VFR flight plans and the military operates
VFR on VFR MTRs.


So you're contradicting Mr. Rasimus' assertion that the military only
flies IFR flight plans?

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 16:55:12 -0600, Newps wrote
in :



Larry Dighera wrote:

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.

Oh heavens no. It's not uncommon for the F16's around here to show up
VFR unannounced, do a few approaches and then a few patterns and then
disappear VFR. And of course the helicopters are always flitting around
VFR. They may stop, they may just get flight following for awhile as
long as we can see them.

So it would seem, that in your experience with F-16s (not helos with
which Mr. Rasimus was uncertain), Mr. Rasimus' assertion "the flight
plan type for the military is IFR" is not always the case.

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 16:59:21 -0600, Newps wrote
in :



Larry Dighera wrote:



If Mr. Rasimus' assertion, that the flight plan type for the military
is IFR is correct, and MTRs are created for military use, why are
there VFR MTRs? Presumably the military won't be operating VFR on VFR
MTRs.

The military often flies on an IFR flight plan and then takes
responsibility for its own separation from other military aircraft and
the ground. It's really nothing more than flight following. ATC just
waits for them to get done playing, get separated and then we take over.
However to say they are always IFR is ridiculous. Ya can't fly at 200
agl in yer B52 IFR.


Well, I thought it was an exaggeration if not ridiculous. But he may
know something I don't. :-)

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 22:20:04 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
. net:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
. ..

It was largely rhetorical.

If Mr. Rasimus' assertion, that the flight plan type for the military
is IFR is correct, and MTRs are created for military use, why are
there VFR MTRs? Presumably the military won't be operating VFR on VFR
MTRs.


Let's cut this short. There are VFR flight plans and the military operates
VFR on VFR MTRs.



So you're contradicting Mr. Rasimus' assertion that the military only
flies IFR flight plans?


Ed was incorrect- the military does fly at least some missions under
IFR. MOST missions, however, are filed and flown under VFR, and indeed
the regulations state that IFR will be used to the maximum extent
possible without impacting mission requirements. When I say most,
I mean more than probably 90% of military missions are flown IFR. The
only time I've been VFR in the past 3 years in the CONUS is when I'm in
the traffic pattern at an airfield where they don't offer continuous
IFR services. Even in those cases, an IFR flight plan was filed for
the flight.

Mike