On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 12:43:05 -0700, Ed Rasimus
wrote in
::

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


In the unlikely event of property damage due to an Air Force
activity, the Air Force has established procedures for damage
claims.

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?

The USAF's statement regarding claims procedures for "damage due to
Air Force activity" is probably inadequate to replace Ms. Oliveier's
late husband.

The November 16, 2000 fatal F-16/Cessna 172 MAC occurred at 3,000' at
subsonic speed.

I believe the expansion of the MOA relates to low-level supersonic
military operations within "5,000 to 6,000 feet above ground level
(AGL)".



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,

Perhaps you'll be good enough to assist me in calculating the number
of F-16C non-combat mishaps per month given the USAF's statement, that
120 Class A mishaps have occurred to date (Jan. 2005) since the 1985
Fiscal Year.

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.

Be that as it may, I was commenting on the number of F-16C non-combat
mishaps per month.

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

I agree, that it tends to confirm the danger involved in flying USAF
F-16C's in a non-combat environment.

Whether or not additional reserved airspace for low-level supersonic
military operations will improved the F-16C's non-combat Class A
bimonthly mishap rate is a speculative matter at best.


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.

Yes. It is the 'law' of VFR operations, however in this case it was
suggested as a _viable_ means of transiting the proposed MOA while
low-level supersonic military operations are in progress!

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.

The NAS is a system. As such, it is dependent on each aspect of its
implementation to be functional in order for the whole to function
properly.

FARs are part of that system. The prohibiting of flight in excess of
250 knots below 10,000 feet is a FAR. The military has exploited the
"SPEED AUTHORIZATION GRANTED TO DOD May 18, 1978" which states:

The regulation grants an exception to aircraft having flight
characteristics which preclude safe operation at speeds below 250
knots by providing that if the minimum safe airspeed for any
particular operation is greater than the maximum speed prescribed,
the aircraft may be operated at that minimum safe airspeed.

When the speed of aircraft below 10,000 feet exceeds 250 knots as
mandated by FAR § 91.117(a)*, the integrity of the NAS is compromised
as evidenced by at least two of the three military/civil mishaps, and
corroborated by the military's own study which concluded, that out of
each 20 seconds of flight below 250 knots, 17 seconds must be
dedicated to scanning for conflicting traffic and 3 seconds remained
for scanning cockpit gages; this was for "highly trained" military
pilots.

So it is evident that see-and-avoid is completely impracticable for
maintaining aircraft separation when aircraft are traveling in excess
of Mach one.

*

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text....2.4.9&idno=14


Look out the window and don't bump into things in front of you.

Oh, if it were only so simple.


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

Of course, the military has found a way around that speed restriction.
(see above)


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.

If there are so many adjustments occurring, it should be easy to
provide several examples of _reductions_ in military airspace, please.


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.

That may be due to the relative number of aircraft and the number of
operational hours between the military and civil fleets.

And, when the military is involved in any mishap an investigation
is conducted, reported in the public domain and blame is assigned.

Actually, the same thing occurs for civil mishaps; the NTSB finds and
reports probable cause. The specific action taken by the FAA against
a civil pilot is a matter of public record. Here's what occurred in
the case of the November 16, 2000 fatal MAC in Florida:

Air Force officials said the mistakes [sic] Lt. Col. Parker made
leading up to the crash over Manatee County deserved only
"administrative action" — a written or verbal reprimand. He will
also retain his officer's pension.

The decision regarding Parker was made by Brig. Gen. John Rosa,
commander of Moody Air Force Base in south Georgia, where the F-16
pilots were stationed at the time of the crash.

Citing confidentiality laws, Air Force officials would not
elaborate on what form of administrative action was taken. They
also would not say which of the mistakes he made the day of the
crash led to the reprimand, the Sarasota Herald-Tribune
reported...

-- Associated Press

Corrective action to eliminate those accidents in the future is part
of the process.

Well, at least the USAF tries to give the impression that that occurs:

Thursday, June 21, 2001

Associated Press

BRADENTON — Military aircraft on low-level training missions in
civilian air space should fly at the slowest possible speed, the
Air Force says following an F-16 crash that killed a civilian
pilot.

The Air Force has updated flight manuals and safety procedures on
high-speed, low-altitude flights after reviewing the collision of
the F-16 Fighting Falcon and a Cessna 172 over Manatee County on
Nov. 16, military officials said Tuesday.

Pilots on training maneuvers in civilian air space now are
required to fly at the slowest possible speed although not less
than 250 knots, or 287.5 miles per hour.

In an official review of the crash, released in March, the Air
Force downplayed the F-16's 480 mph speed as a factor. The pilot
was flying 180 mph faster than federal and Air Force guidelines
then allowed for military jets in air space near
Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport.

The updates are written in general terms and refer to slowing the
aircraft and reviewing training routes near congested flying
areas.

The report, overseen and released by Air Force Chief of Staff Gen.
Michael Ryan, comes more than seven months after the F-16, flown
by Capt. Greg Kreuder, collided with the Cessna, killing its
pilot, Jacques Olivier, 57, a [ATP rated] flight instructor from
Hernando County.

"We can't speculate on whether these recommendations would have
affected the outcome of the crash had they already been in place,"
said Air Force spokeswoman Maj. Cheryl Law. "We always consider
safety as our highest priority." ...


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.

When the government perpetrates injustice, it is the prerogative of a
citizen of a free nation to publicly air his views. I believe I have
provided evidence of reasonable background knowledge, and haven't seen
any alternative "pronouncements" to which you refer.


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 proposed MOA enlargement is to permit supersonic operations at
between 5,000' and 6,000' as stated in the USAF EIS. Why are you
referring to 30,000' feet? That is the current, not proposed,
altitude floor in the MOA for supersonic operations.


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

Well, it would appear one of us is. But at least I'm not forced to
profane a fellow airman due to lack of reasonable arguments.

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