On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 15:32:42 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote in
::
[...]
Thank you for the ejection example you cited. I am saddened to hear
of the pilot's injuries.

However, I never said ejection was without its hazards. And in the
case of the November 16, 2000 MAC, there was no mention of any
injuries to the pilot who ejected. I'm sure the Cessna pilot would
have preferred to eject rather than meet the fate he did. That is my
point: military pilots have an option other than see-and-avoid; they
can exit the aircraft.


I've never known a fighter pilot to have anything but respect for
the potential of a midair -- more, in fact than the average
transport pilot, and immensely more than the average light plane
pilot, in my experience.

That is a result of the limited set of fighter pilots with whom you
have been in contact. You obviously hadn't known those military
pilots involved in the four military/civil MACs whose NTSB links I
posted.

In 23 years in the fighter business I have lived, worked, fought wars
with and watched fighter pilots die for their country. Thousands of
them. Don't spout drivel about limited contact.

You may have overlooked the fact, that I was responding to Jack's
assertion, not yours.

In any event, you misunderstand the issue I am attempting to raise. I
do not have issues with military pilots generally, although those who
were involved in the four MACs I cited seem to have violated
regulations resulting in a MAC. We all have issues with airmen who
violate regulations.

It is the flawed system of permitting high-speed, low-level military
operations within joint use airspace and expecting see-and-avoid
exclusively to provide separation. That is irresponsible on the part
of the FAA and military, and should be corrected.

How would you characterize the respect for a potential midair
demonstrated by Parker when he violated regulations by failing to
brief terminal airspace, and dove into congested Class B and C
airspace with the required ATC clearance? (I don't expect you to
answer that, it would require some courage on your part.)

I will take your failure to provide your opinion as requested above as
concurrence with mine, that Parker's decisions were criminal.

Apparently, all your "experience" was bought at the news stand,
considering how little relevance your complaints have to the real world.

If you consider NTSB and military accident reports, and eye witness
reports unreliable, what information sources meet your criteria for
relevance?

Once again, after 23 years experience in the fighter business, I have
read, been briefed, and face-to-face discussed hundreds of aircraft
accidents with board members as well as participants. Every single
aircraft accident results in an investigation and a board of inquiry.
Almost all have a "corollary board" after the investigation board
which determines culpability and liability. Some result in Flying
Evaluation Boards which consider the qualifications and retention of
the aviators. And some result in Courts-Martial when malfeasance is
indicated by any of the investigations. Can you get that through your
fixated civilian mentality?


I don't question your experience nor qualifications to speak on this
subject. What I find objectionable is your unwillingness to
acknowledge the fact that a lethal problem exists, and your
unwillingness to take action to remedy that.

Do you know what action the military took against Parker? Was he
court marshaled? Was he fined? Was he incarcerated for killing a
civilian as a result of violating regulations? Was he made to pay
restitution to the family of the pilot his actions killed? Was a
corollary board convened? Are you able to speek with knowledge
about the what the military did to Parker as a result of the death his
actions caused?

The invistagory actions you mention may be what ocurrs regularly, but
in Parker's case, I have not heard of any of them except the board of
inquiry report, and Parker's CO's statement that Parker would receive
a verbal or written repremand. Do you have other information on that
specific case?

If not, then I respectfully submit, that the military does not
adiquately repremand those pilots who are involved in military/civil
fatal MACs as evidenced in this case.