On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 04:49:37 GMT, 588 wrote in
::
Larry Dighera wrote:
An equally onerous solution would be to curtail MTR operations in the
CONUS.
No, that would be a far less satisfactory solution than converting
airspace associated with military training routes to Restricted
areas.
The more I think about such a conversion, the more appropriate I think
it would be. If Restricted airspace were created around MTRs, the
hazardous area would be fully depicted on charts. Instead of MTRs
being shown as a thin gray line, their true lateral dimensions would
be represented. Of course the chart might become so cluttered as to
be incomprehensible, but that doesn't seem to be a factor of concern
for those charged with designing airspace nor their cartographers.
Of course, military high-speed, low-level MTR operations outside the
Restricted airspace bounds would be prohibited. So if a MTR run
impaled a civil aircraft outside of R airspace, there would be no
ambiguity about who was responsible (and don't give me that
see-and-avoid weasel clause; it's absurdly unrealistic at the speeds
involved).
At any rate, such an airspace conversion would confine high-speed,
low-level military operations to ostensibly vacant airspace, rather
than joint use, depict the true size of MTRs on charts, enhance air
safety, and return the NAS to a well engineered system, albeit a bit
more difficult to navigate. (Have you ever been successful contacting
Flight Service at 500' AGL to inquire if a MTR is hot?)
Alternatively, we could REQUIRE BY REGULATION, that all MTR
participants employ TCAS (or radar capable of detecting conflicting
traffic of all categories and AUTOMATICALLY alerting the military
pilot) for collision avoidance.
Choices, choices, ...
Despite the AOPA's stand on the subject, we could more easily
do without the majority of civilian light plane VFR flying in the
US, for example, than we could not [sic] do without military flight
training in CONUS.
Huh?
We could surely do without MTR routes in the CONUS, and did until a
few years ago.
The presence of random VFR traffic in military training routes
cannot be allowed to disrupt training.
Here are three responses to that statement:
1. The presence of 450 knot military training flights within
congested terminal airspace without benefit of the required ATC
clearance cannot be allowed to kill innocent civilians either.
2. MTR training was run out of Europe. They were tired of the hazard
it caused, and the lack of enforcement displayed by the military. Now
we've got it here in the US. Perhaps there is a more suitable, less
congested venue someplace else.
3. 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].
Have you considered the
implications of certain forms of political dissent which could
involve obstruction of these routes by civilian aircraft of various
categories? Perhaps you have, after all.
No I haven't. Only someone with a death wish would consider
committing such a stupid act. Get real. What would what you suggest
that might accomplish besides a dead civilian airman and two destroyed
aircraft?
Or are you referring to the glider that was hit on a MTR by an A6? The
glider pilot, who had the right of way, was found by the NTSB to be
the cause of the MAC! There's justice for you. :-(
You want the USAF to assume all responsibility for traffic conflicts
in training airspace?
I would like to see the military assume responsibility for the hazard
their operations under FAR § 91.117(d) cause to civil flights in all
airspace. That exemption to the 250 knot speed limit below 10,000' is
an affront to the design of the NAS. If not, why have a speed limit
at all?
No legal entity is going to assume responsibility for the results of
acts committed by persons outside its control.
That's funny; you've got me chuckling now, given the fact that the
military doesn't take responsibility now for the acts THEY committed.
Therefore, only military pilots would be allowed in
training airspace. Perhaps you have not considered that.
If military operations create a civil hazard, they should be
segregated from civil flights. No problem there. Anything less is
negligence.
Your wish-list is not going to receive serious consideration, even
here on USENET let alone in the Legislature, without substantial
refinement.
I don't doubt that refinement would be beneficial. I'm only a pilot,
not an airspace engineer.
Far more evidence than has been shown thus far, that you
are prepared to make a serious effort to understand the problem,
will be required.
So you've read all I've written on this subject over the past six
years? I think we ALL understand the problem quite well; some just
don't admit there is one.
It is easy to be destructive...but it takes effort to be
constructive....
Good advice, perhaps you will keep it in mind.
Implicit in that parting shot is the notion that I have somehow been
destructive. Lacking any example of that, I will consider it a
pathetic sign of your desperation.
--
There is no expedient to which a man will not resort
to avoid the real labor of thinking.
-- Sir Joshua Reynolds