flying low...military video

On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 11:06:26 -0500, "John T"
wrote in
:

"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.

We both agree that the high-speed military operations conducted in
joint-use MTRs below 10,000' feet create a significant hazard to civil
operation appropriate for containment within formal Restricted Areas.
Good. That's a step toward understanding the issue.

Your proposal for "deconflicting" this airspace takes away key training
options and makes it harder to give military pilots realistic training.

My proposal was for the military to exclusively shoulder the
responsibility for the hazard they cause. Here is what I proposed:

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.

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.

So you're justifying the deaths of those civil pilots killed by
military aviators on MTRs in the name of realistic training
conditions? I hope not! If so, let's put your progeny in the path of
a blazing F-16, and see if your attitude changes.

Your idea of TCAS relies on transponder signals which are
not available from many aircraft including half of those you listed.

Perhaps. But I'd be happy if the military pilot operating on a MTR
were alerted to _my_ transponder. ATC radar can't see me in
uninhabited desert areas down close to the terrain

If that's not an option, perhaps an AWACS could call out conflicting
traffic to those military airmen operating on low-level MTRs.

If that's not to the military's liking, or too expensive, why not have
inexpensive, portable FLARMlike http://www.flarm.com/index_en.html
devices available for military pilot use on low-level MTRs? That
would certainly be preferable to killing civilian pilots in the name
of realistic military training. Who knows; it might save some
military pilots too.

If I were tasked to fly MTRs, be assured I would be _formally_
demanding such safety measures from my superiors.

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.

Putting the public at risk, so that realistic military training can be
conducted, is reprehensible, shortsighted and stupid (not to mention
probably illegal). There's got to be a better way.

Title 49's number one priority is air safety, and the main concern
after that is commerce; it looks like the law of the land places
military training in third place at best.

Here is your linked text (from an anti-US military site, BTW) in its
unedited form:

(What makes you characterize that site as "anti-US military"? It
seems to be neutral and unbiased to me.

Apparently the site's author was once affiliated with The Federation
of American Scientists. Here's what they have to say about
themselves:

http://www.fas.org/static/about.jsp
The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) was formed in 1945 by
atomic scientists from the Manhattan Project who felt that
scientists, engineers and other innovators had an ethical
obligation to bring their knowledge and experience to bear on
critical national decisions, especially pertaining to the
technology they unleashed - the Atomic Bomb.)

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.

I have no issue with the military's necessity for realistic training.

But necessity is no excuse for negligence, and finding the civil pilot
to have been a cause of a MAC due to his inability to see-and-avoid at
the closing speeds involved on MTRs is arrogance beyond belief.

The NAS was designed with a 250 knot speed limit below 10,000' for a
reason; operations in excess of that limit are impudent. To fault a
civil pilot for his inability to see-and-avoid at speeds twice that
limit (as has occurred) is unreasonable. It's not the civil pilot
who's causing the hazard, nor is he trained to the same standards as
the military pilots.

These routes are charted and defined for pilots to know of them.

Are you aware of the number of military pilots who are unaware that
low-level MTRs are within joint-use airspace? Many military pilots
believe they have exclusive right to that _partially_ charted
airspace. (Only the centerlines of ten mile wide MTRs are charted!)

If you're not comfortable with the safety margins, avoid them.

There are flight missions that make that line of reasoning nearly
impossible; pipeline patrol and low-level aerial photography come to
mind.

Have you ever personally attempted to learn the current operational
status of a MTR from FSS? My experience has been an exercise in
frustration. When I am going to conduct a low-level mission, I
attempt to contact the military authority charged with the operation
of the MTRs involved. But it's often difficult to find the correct
military phone numbers and the contact correct personnel. It has been
my experience, that contacting FSS, as mentioned in the AIM, is not a
reliable alternative. That should change also.

They really do constitute a tiny percentage of the US NAS.

I hope you're not trying to rationalize the hazard created by
Low-level Military Training Routes on that basis. Try telling that to
the widows and daughters of those civil pilots who were killed by
military pilots operating on low-level MTRs.

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

Done.

Really? I don't see where you address my proposal that the military
should bear full and exclusive responsibility for the hazard they
create. Perhaps you'd be good enough to point out that portion of
your response. Thank you.

I'd believe that they were SAAF aircraft, but I also wonder if they are
French? The French have had a presence in Dijibouti, Chad, and various
desert like west African countries. I remember reading that they
conducted combat ops in Chad at one point in the 80's.
Could this be old French video from West Africa? (Mauritania, Mali)

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


We both agree that the high-speed military operations conducted in
joint-use MTRs below 10,000' feet create a significant hazard to civil
operation appropriate for containment within formal Restricted Areas.

It's good you see reason from time to time. So, let's agree to make MTRs
"Restricted" and call it day, shall we?

So you're justifying the deaths of those civil pilots killed by
military aviators on MTRs in the name of realistic training
conditions? I hope not!

No, I'm not "justifying" any such deaths, but you're deflecting the
argument. I merely highlighted how your proposal takes away realism from
military training.

If so, let's put your progeny in the path of
a blazing F-16, and see if your attitude changes.

This is the typical specious argument posed in similar discussions. For the
record, my attitude has not changed.

If that's not an option, perhaps an AWACS could call out conflicting
traffic to those military airmen operating on low-level MTRs.

Decent idea. Do you know they don't?

If that's not to the military's liking, or too expensive, why not have
inexpensive, portable FLARMlike http://www.flarm.com/index_en.html
devices available for military pilot use on low-level MTRs?

This device, like TCAS, broadcasts a radio signal. This negates realism (by
emitting a beacon that would not be used in combat). Once again, the best
option remains making the MTR "Restricted" to separate civil from military
traffic.

If I were tasked to fly MTRs, be assured I would be _formally_
demanding such safety measures from my superiors.

I have absolutely no doubt about that.

Putting the public at risk, so that realistic military training can be
conducted, is reprehensible, shortsighted and stupid (not to mention
probably illegal). There's got to be a better way.

We've already agreed there is: Restricted airspace.

By the way, were those four incidents you listed the only ones you found in
the NTSB database? Statistically, it seems the threat of low flying military
aircraft is much lower than that posed by other GA aircraft.

(What makes you characterize that site as "anti-US military"? It
seems to be neutral and unbiased to me.

That doesn't surprise me in the least. Other readers will reach their own
conclusions - some will even agree with you.

But necessity is no excuse for negligence, and finding the civil pilot
to have been a cause of a MAC due to his inability to see-and-avoid at
the closing speeds involved on MTRs is arrogance beyond belief.

If the pilot were in a "hot" MTR and made no effort to confirm the status of
the airspace, then they at least contributed to the incident.

Are you aware of the number of military pilots who are unaware that
low-level MTRs are within joint-use airspace?

I never claimed such awareness, but it does beg the question: Are you?

Many military pilots
believe they have exclusive right to that _partially_ charted
airspace.

Can you back up this claim?

(Only the centerlines of ten mile wide MTRs are charted!)

Only the centerlines of VOR airways are charted. Do you not know their
bounds? Why would determining the bounds of MTRs be so much more onerous?

If you're not comfortable with the safety margins, avoid them.

There are flight missions that make that line of reasoning nearly
impossible; pipeline patrol and low-level aerial photography come to
mind.

The folks flying these missions must be doing something right as none of the
incidents you've quoted involved them. I submit few such missions expose
their pilots to additional risk as I doubt many pipelines or photo subjects,
for example, run with MTRs.

Have you ever personally attempted to learn the current operational
status of a MTR from FSS? My experience has been an exercise in
frustration. ... That should change also.

No disagreement here, but this is unrelated to your proposal.

They really do constitute a tiny percentage of the US NAS.

I hope you're not trying to rationalize the hazard created by
Low-level Military Training Routes on that basis. Try telling that to
the widows and daughters of those civil pilots who were killed by
military pilots operating on low-level MTRs.

I doubt this conversation would be any more difficult than discussing a
GA-GA MAC - and appears to happen far less frequently, too.

Really? I don't see where you address my proposal that the military
should bear full and exclusive responsibility for the hazard they
create. Perhaps you'd be good enough to point out that portion of
your response. Thank you.

See above ( Restricted areas). You're welcome.

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

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


I'm proposing that MTRs should have MAPs, so that the airmen
who find themselves in a situation as Parker did will know what to do
when they can't find the MTR entry point.

So you're defining "MAP" as "missed MTR entry approach procedure"?

The MAC occurred while the flight lead, Parker, was attempting to
enter the MTR. If there had been a MTR MAP, perhaps he'd have
executed it instead of choosing to descend into congested Class B
terminal airspace ...

My understanding is Parker was not aware he was descending into Class B/C
airspace so, while he chose to descend, I'm not convinced he chose to
descend into Class B airspace. The AIB reinforces this. If you have a quote
contradicting this, please point it out.

As it stands, he was miles away from where he thought he was. I'm not
convinced a "MTR-MAP" would have done much to prevent this scenario.

Actually, all three pilots involved in this MAC were flight
instructors.

Check your facts.

You might find the USAF AIB report enlightening.

It was (I've actually read it before).

(But please don't try to explain away Parker's culpability as being
due to equipment error until you have a chart of the airspace marked
with actual and indicated locations (and times) of all three aircraft
involved. Anything less is a deliberate attempt to cover up this
travesty.)

I will agree to your conditions as soon as you refuse to blame him until
after flying his route with his conditions. Anything less is a deliberate
attempt to smear a fellow citizen willing to place himself in harm's way to
defend our ability to have this conversation.

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

As I see you have nothing constructive to add to the debate, I'll
retire my discussion with you on this topic. Thanks for the
opportunity to air this onerous issue.


There is no expedient to which a man will not resort
to avoid the real labor of thinking.
-- Sir Joshua Reynolds

On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 12:28:06 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

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'?

I don't have a number off the top of my head, but about 280-285KIAS
clean at MGTW rings a bell. They won't exceed 250KIAS unless heavy
enough that their maneuvering margin requires it.

On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 15:47:42 -0500, "John T"
wrote in
:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


I'm proposing that MTRs should have MAPs, so that the airmen
who find themselves in a situation as Parker did will know what to do
when they can't find the MTR entry point.

So you're defining "MAP" as "missed MTR entry approach procedure"?

Hey, you're catching on. :-)

What is the proper procedure if the pilot fails to locate the MTR
entry point? Do you know? Is it published?

The MAC occurred while the flight lead, Parker, was attempting to
enter the MTR. If there had been a MTR MAP, perhaps he'd have
executed it instead of choosing to descend into congested Class B
terminal airspace ...

My understanding is Parker was not aware he was descending into Class B/C
airspace so, while he chose to descend, I'm not convinced he chose to
descend into Class B airspace.

Visibility was 10 miles at the time of the mishap. Parker had just
attempted to contact Tampa Approach, and failed because he was given
the wrong frequency by ATC, and because he failed to accurately input
into his radio the frequency he was given.

Any thinking person can easily understand, that if he needed a
clearance to descend into Class B airspace, canceling IFR would not
remove that requirement. It's just logical. Regardless of Parker's
failure to brief terminal airspace prior to departing as required by
USAF regulations (it's in the AIB report), it's easy to see a large
international airport on the ground below from 13,000', and appreciate
that they are most always surrounded by a sixty mile diameter Class B
airspace. If Parker didn't know that, he had no business leading a
flight.

I asked you not to try to defend Parker's decision to descend, without
plotting out the aircraft positions on a chart, but you chose to
ignore my request. I have done that, and I'm prepared to discuss
Parker's culpability further with you when you have also. On-line
Terminal Area Charts are available he http://skyvector.com/

If you truly desire to exonerate Parker, you'll do the requisite
research work to make your position credible. If you're too lazy or
ignorant to do that, further discussion is pointless.

The AIB reinforces this. If you have a quote contradicting this, please point it out.

Parker and the AIB are/were both employed by the same entity, the
USAF, and facing a wrongful death/civil law suit. If you truly
believe there was impartiality in the Scott's decision, you are more
naïve than I expect. If you plot the aircraft positions, you'll come
to the same conclusion I did: the navigational errors alleged in the
AIB report work against Parker's defense, not for it.

As it stands, he was miles away from where he thought he was.

How many miles? In what direction did the equipment's navigational
error indicate, and by how many miles. In what direction and by how
many miles did Parker's erroneous operation of his navigational
equipment place him? What is the size of the Class B airspace. Where
is the MTR entry point located?

How long after the mishap was the medical examination of Parker
conducted? How likely is it that the navigational equipment, that was
fully functional in the sortie before lunch, would fail after lunch?
:-)

I'm not convinced a "MTR-MAP" would have done much to prevent this scenario.

My reasoning is that it would have provided Parker with a specific
course of action, that may have saved him some face in the eyes of his
wingman who he lead into the fatal collision with the C-172 operating
under positive control in Class C airspace. I'm just trying to think
creatively and constructively of anything that might make MTR
operations safer for all airmen. Are you capable of similar
constructive thinking?

Actually, all three pilots involved in this MAC were flight
instructors.

Check your facts.

Re-read the AIB report, or you not truly interested enough in this
subject to perform the work necessary to discuss it intelligently? I'm
done doing your research for you.

You might find the USAF AIB report enlightening.

It was (I've actually read it before).

It's over six years old. You need to refresh your memory, or admit
that you've forgotten many of the facts contained in it.

(But please don't try to explain away Parker's culpability as being
due to equipment error until you have a chart of the airspace marked
with actual and indicated locations (and times) of all three aircraft
involved. Anything less is a deliberate attempt to cover up this
travesty.)

I will agree to your conditions as soon as you refuse to blame him until
after flying his route with his conditions.

If you can arrange training in an F-16 for me, and an opportunity to
fly his route, I'll gladly comply with your absurd condition.

Anything less is a deliberate attempt to smear a fellow citizen willing
to place himself in harm's way to defend our ability to have this conversation.

I have no idea of Parker's military record? Did he ever actually see
combat? Do you have any information that substantiates your
allegation of his willingness to place himself in harm's way? Please
provide some supporting evidence if you are able.

Please don't get me wrong. I have great respect and admiration for
military pilots who are responsible and do not bring dishonor upon
their fellows.

I have no desire to smear anyone (Please notice that I haven't
mentioned ATC abominable contribution to this mishap). Rather, I
desire to expose what appears to me as a military cover up, and make
low-level flight safer for all airmen.

There is also a bit of injustice toward the dead fellow airman who is
unable to defend himself that I find particularly repugnant.

It is you who seem to be willing to defend an incompetent solely
because he is/was a military pilot. Are all military pilots incapable
of being incompetent and irresponsible in your mind solely by virtue
of their military affiliation? Or are you just attempting to defend a
fellow regardless of the facts?

On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 17:06:37 -0500, Peter Clark
wrote in
:

On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 12:28:06 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

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'?

I don't have a number off the top of my head, but about 280-285KIAS
clean at MGTW rings a bell. They won't exceed 250KIAS unless heavy
enough that their maneuvering margin requires it.

Fair enough.

So the numbers you cite indicate an ~11% speed increase by airliners
over that prescribed by 91.117 (250 knots), unlike the ~43% (441 KCAS)
mentioned in the F-16's AIB report. That works out to the F-16
exceeding the 250 knot airspeed limit by about four times more than
what the airliners do.

Given those numbers, I'm inclined to believe that the speeds at which
the military routinely operates on MTRs is considerably more
significant (by about a factor of four) than that at which airliners
operate in terminal airspace under positive control and separated from
all other aircraft by ATC in Class B airspace.

MTR flights are not provided radar services by ATC in most instances,
because FAA radars do not provide coverage at near ground level out in
the desert where most MTRs are located.

Thanks for the data point.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


So you're defining "MAP" as "missed MTR entry approach procedure"?

Hey, you're catching on. :-)

It's hard when you're making up terms on the fly.

What is the proper procedure if the pilot fails to locate the MTR
entry point? Do you know? Is it published?

Others have answered that question, but VMC prevailed and they were
operating VFR. I expect normal VFR to apply.

Any thinking person can easily understand, that if he needed a
clearance to descend into Class B airspace, canceling IFR would not
remove that requirement. It's just logical.

It's just as logical that if one believes he is not entering the airspace he
would not need a clearance.

I asked you not to try to defend Parker's decision to descend, without
plotting out the aircraft positions on a chart, but you chose to
ignore my request.

That's a bold statement. Do you *know* I didn't?

Actually, all three pilots involved in this MAC were flight
instructors.

Check your facts.

Re-read the AIB report, or you not truly interested enough in this
subject to perform the work necessary to discuss it intelligently? I'm
done doing your research for you.

I did re-read the AIB you posted (before posting my response). Your
assertion is incorrect. Check your facts.

Do you have any information that substantiates your
allegation of his willingness to place himself in harm's way?

Yes. He was piloting an F-16 while serving in the US Air Force.

Rather, I desire to expose what appears to me as a military cover
up...[snip]

This appears to be the basis of your participation in this entire thread. I
admit a predisposition to give the highly trained professionals in the cadre
of military pilots the benefit of the doubt. You, on the other hand, appear
predisposed to the opposite. Further discussion on this is pointless -
despite your pathetic attempt to take the high road in your other response.

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

not on heavy Bomber aircraft..
fighter type aircraft may engage their air-to-air radar mode when not using
it for ground avoidance
but then pick the air target out of the ground clutter,
BT

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 14:40:16 -0800, "BT" wrote
in :

I've done my share of dodging low altitude GA aircraft (500-1000ft AGL)
I do not want to know how many I did not see,

Is there any equipment on board military aircraft to augment human
vision in deconflicting the airspace on MTRs?