flying low...military video

On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 06:59:19 -0500, Peter Clark
wrote in
:


Perhaps you are able to provide some examples of non-military aircraft
that are exempt from the speed limit below 10,000'.

747, 777, etc at MGTW.

What is the recommended speed for those aircraft on departure below
10,000'?

On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 07:13:23 -0500, Bob Noel
wrote in
:

Are you aware of a Missed Approach Procedure being published for MTRs?

Nope

I believe that lack of a MTR MAP may have been a factor in the
November 16, 2000 MAC in which a flight of two F-16s descended into
Class B & C airspace without the required ATC clearance. I find it
difficult to understand why a military instructor would consciously
decided to violate regulations. Perhaps there was no published
alternative?

On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 07:18:50 -0500, "John T"
wrote in
:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


Do you have an alternative to MTRs?

I believe the aircraft causing the hazard to aerial navigation, by
virtue of their exemption from FARs, should shoulder the _entire_
burden of deconflicting their airspace. Currently, it is my belief
that MTR aircraft are not required to employ any on-board radar
equipment for that purpose, nor are they required to be TCAS equipped.
That is inequitable and negligent, IMNSHO.

So, the direct answer to my question is "no", correct?

Oh please. That kind of attitude isn't constructive. At least I
proposed an idea that may serve to reduce the hazard caused by low
level Military Training Routs. What constructive information have you
provided?

Just so we're clear, what is your understanding of the definition and
purpose of "MTR's"?

Why is that significant?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


Oh please. That kind of attitude isn't constructive.

No less so than evading a direct answer to a simple question, but that's
what we've come to expect from you, so it's good to see you're consistent.

At least I
proposed an idea that may serve to reduce the hazard caused by low
level Military Training Routs.

This is precisely why I asked my follow-up question. Your proposal
demostrates a lack of understanding of the purpose and use of MTRs.

What constructive information have you provided?

I'm trying to lead a horse to water. You have no trouble digging up the most
inane anti-government/anti-military minutiae, but you won't bother to
research a key piece of NAS architecture. As I said, at least you're
consistent.

Just so we're clear, what is your understanding of the definition and
purpose of "MTR's"?

Why is that significant?

This is key to understanding why your "proposal" is counter-productive. Come
back when you've done your homework.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://openspf.org
____________________

On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 07:53:57 -0500, "John T"
wrote in
:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


Oh please. That kind of attitude isn't constructive.

No less so than evading a direct answer to a simple question,

Please tell me how "an alternative to MTRs" is more constructive than
suggesting specific changes to military regulations that may result in
more diligence in military flyers concerns for deconfliction.

but that's what we've come to expect from you, so it's good to see you're consistent.

You make that sound like you speak for more than yourself alone. Who
else do you count as being among the "we" you mention?

At least I
proposed an idea that may serve to reduce the hazard caused by low
level Military Training Routs.

This is precisely why I asked my follow-up question. Your proposal
demostrates a lack of understanding of the purpose and use of MTRs.

Are you able to articulate that alleged "lack of understanding"?

What constructive information have you provided?

I'm trying to lead a horse to water. You have no trouble digging up the most
inane anti-government/anti-military minutiae, but you won't bother to
research a key piece of NAS architecture.

If you characterize these representative military-civil MACs as inane
minutiae, it is you who needs to consider a more humane attitude
toward civil flyers.


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


As you can see, it is the civil pilot who usually loses his life at
the hands of military pilots operating on low-level MTRs. My proposal
is designed to provide additional impetus to those military pilots to
exercise caution in their deconfliction and decision making.

I would think military pilots would be supportive of measures designed
to enhance air safety. If there are design flaws in the system, is it
wrong to attempt to address them?

As I said, at least you're consistent.

Just so we're clear, what is your understanding of the definition and
purpose of "MTR's"?

Why is that significant?

This is key to understanding why your "proposal" is counter-productive. Come
back when you've done your homework.

As currently implemented, Military Training Routes are joint-use
airspace. To expect that airspace to be free of non-military aircraft
is unrealistic and contrary to federal civil and military regulations.
Just so we all understand the definition of a MTR:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...y/airspace.htm
A Military Training Route, or MTR, is basically a long,
low-altitude [joint use] corridor that serves as a flight path to
a particular destination [with aircraft speeds up to mach 1]. The
corridor is often 10 miles wide, 70 to 100 miles long [although
it's not charted that way], and may range from 500 to 1,500 feet
above ground level [and unrealistically relies solely upon
see-and-avoid for collision avoidance in VMC]; occasionally, they
are higher. MTRs are designed to provide realistic low-altitude
training conditions for pilots. In times of conflict, to avoid
detection by enemy radar, tactical fighter aircraft are often
called upon to fly hundreds of miles at low altitude over varying
terrain. Obviously, navigation is extremely difficult on
high-speed low-altitude flights. That's why it is imperative that
fighter pilots have ample opportunity to practice these necessary
and demanding skills [even if it endangers the lives of the
public].

Okay, now lets hear your reasoning as to why you believe my proposal
is counter productive, please.

I'm expecting to see some sincere, constructive, thoughtful, reasoning
from you. If you choose to continue to bait me with innuendo and
insincere arguments, you will have publicly demonstrated your true
reasons for participating in this message thread.

"Newps" wrote in message
. ..


gatt wrote:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 10:24:57 -0800, "gatt"
wrote in
:


Wild.

http://www.glumbert.com/media/flylow


Your tax dollars at work. :-(


What kind of planes are they? Doesn't look like MY tax dollars at work.

Those aren't your tax dollars. That's an old video and is from a foreign
country.



I can't believe the one shot of him head down reading a map at that
altitude. Especially since he wasn't lead.

They really are not going all that fast...


"gatt" wrote in message ...
: Wild.
:
: http://www.glumbert.com/media/flylow
:
:

On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 14:28:17 -0800, "gatt"
wrote in
:

Doesn't look like MY tax dollars at work.

As Usenet is a worldwide forum, it guess it depends on your country of
citizenship.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
news

I believe that lack of a MTR MAP may have been a factor in the
November 16, 2000 MAC in which a flight of two F-16s descended into
Class B & C airspace without the required ATC clearance. I find it
difficult to understand why a military instructor would consciously
decided to violate regulations. Perhaps there was no published
alternative?

How so? The NTSB report you listed makes no mention of the -16s attempting
any landing much less an instrument approach. There was also no mention of a
military instructor only an ATC instructor.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://openspf.org
____________________

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


My proposal is designed to provide additional impetus
to those military pilots to exercise caution in their
deconfliction and decision making.

The best alternative here is to make MTR non-joint use by making them
restricted areas. This would give the military the training routes they need
while protecting low-flying civilians. However, this is a fairly draconian
action and I think the current charting of "here be dragons" is a good
compromise between this option and the opposite end of doing away with MTRs
altogether.

Your proposal for "deconflicting" this airspace takes away key training
options and makes it harder to give military pilots realistic training.
Combat missions are not often flown with active radar to avoid alerting the
enemy so requiring pilots training here to always use radar takes away
combat realism. Your idea of TCAS relies on transponder signals which are
not available from many aircraft including half of those you listed. It also
relies on radio signals that, like radar, could disclose the location of
aircraft to an enemy so its use is also unrealistic training.

Here is your linked text (from an anti-US military site, BTW) in its
unedited form:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...y/airspace.htm
A Military Training Route, or MTR, is basically a long,
low-altitude corridor that serves as a flight path to
a particular destination. The
corridor is often 10 miles wide, 70 to 100 miles long, and
may range from 500 to 1,500 feet
above ground level; occasionally, they
are higher. MTRs are designed to provide realistic low-altitude
training conditions for pilots. In times of conflict, to avoid
detection by enemy radar, tactical fighter aircraft are often
called upon to fly hundreds of miles at low altitude over varying
terrain. Obviously, navigation is extremely difficult on
high-speed low-altitude flights. That's why it is imperative that
fighter pilots have ample opportunity to practice these necessary
and demanding skills.

Even this site admits "it is imperative that fighter pilots have ample
opportunity to practice" high speed, low altitude flights. MTRs are vital to
training military pilots in simulated wartime conditions. This may include
activities hazardous to other aircraft including night flight without
navigation lights or flying nap-of-the-earth without active radar. I'm not
prepared to take away this key training tool.

These routes are charted and defined for pilots to know of them. If you're
not comfortable with the safety margins, avoid them. They really do
constitute a tiny percentage of the US NAS.

Okay, now lets hear your reasoning as to why you believe my proposal
is counter productive, please.

Done.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://openspf.org
____________________