On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 17:50:56 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:



I'm sure that is a great comfort to Ms. Jacques Olivier and her
daughter:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...12X22313&key=1

How does expansion of a MOA for operations above 10,000 feet in New
Mexico relate to a mid-air collision in Florida on a low-level
training route?


These mishap rates do not consider combat losses due to enemy
action. F-16C aircraft have flown more than 3,336,700 hours since
the aircraft entered the Air Force inventory during Fiscal Year
1985. Over that period, 120 Class A mishaps have occurred and 113
aircraft have been destroyed.


That would be an average of one F-16C non-combat Class A mishap every
two months!

Dunno about your math skills here, but I just read about 120 class A
mishaps during the period from FY 1985 to the present--that's a bit
more than 20 years of experience and doesn't begin to address rates
per 100,000 flying hours which for the F-16 (all models) are
significantly lower than previous single-seat, single-engine tactical
aircraft.

The numbers might confirm the contention that flying high performance
tactical aircraft is somewhat dangerous and therefore some airspace
reservation is a good idea.

IFR traffic would require ATC clearance to transit the active MOA.
However, VFR traffic could transit the active MOA using the
“see-and-avoid” concept.


The USAF's suggestion that VFR traffic employ see-and-avoid techniques
to avoid mid-air collisions with supersonic military fighter aircraft
reveals a their desire to mislead.

It isn't "the USAF's suggestion", it is the basic concept of Visual
Flight Rules. Nothing misleading about it--the idea of VFR is to
provide simple rules for flight in VISUAL conditions and without need
for a flight plan or clearance or external third-party deconfliction.
Look out the window and don't bump into things in front of you.

You might also note that aircraft below 10,000 MSL (except in some
special use airspace) is already restricted to airspeeds below 250
KIAS.

The existing Pecos MOA complex would be expanded laterally and
vertically under the Proposed Action. The MOAs would be expanded
laterally to conform with the lateral boundaries of the ATCAA
overlying the complex. This expansion would include a southerly
expansion of the Pecos South Low MOA, thus adding additional low
altitude military airspace in that region (down to 500 feet AGL).


Is that an additional airspace grab?

"Additional"? If there were not similar airspace adjustments going on
all the time with both increases and reductions in airspace.

The proposed MOA expansions and new airspace would not prohibit
general aviation use. MOAs are joint use airspace and both
military and civil pilots are required to operate under
see-and-avoid rules of flight.


Clearly, see-and-avoid failed to separate military and civil aircraft
at _subsonic_ speeds in these military-civil mishaps:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...13X33340&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?...1FA028A&rpt=fi
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...26X00109&key=2

That the USAF can muster the audacity to suggest that see-and-avoid
would be a successful technique for separating _supersonic_ aircraft
is hubris beyond comprehension.

Guess what? Civilian aircraft operating under "see-and-avoid" run into
each other at subsonic speeds with much greater frequency. And, when
the military is involved in any mishap an investigation is conducted,
reported in the public domain and blame is assigned. Corrective action
to eliminate those accidents in the future is part of the process.

The "hubris beyond comprehension" here is your flogging of the issue
with little apparent background and a total unwillingness to
acknowledge any of the alternatives to your pronouncements.

Other socioeconomic factors, such as business activity,
employment, interest rates, and land scarcity (or availability)
are much more likely to affect property values than an altitude
redistribution of flight pattern changes in existing training
aircraft overflights.


What of the reduction of property values do supersonic military
aircraft operations above 30,000' feet over the affected area?

For aircraft the size of F-16s, sonic booms above 30,000 feet are
usually not heard on the surface. That's why most supersonic airspace
in the US is at high altitudes.


The New Mexico Air National Guard (NMANG) is proposing to create
the Smitty MOA underneath the current CATO MOA, which is 60 miles
southwest of Albuquerque. An EA analyzing this action is underway.
Creation of this new MOA would not affect Cannon AFB or its
airspace


Is this yet another attempted military airspace grab?

Oh, and lest I forget....screw you, Larry. You're clueless.


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