On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 14:21:30 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

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.

OK, your homework for this week is to pick a major USAF tactical base.
You seem familiar with MacDill, but you could use Langley, Luke,
Nellis, Seymour-Johnson or similar. Now, draw up a minimum of four low
level MTRs, each a minimum of 300 miles in length. Be sure that entry
and exit points are close enough to base of origin for local
operations during a typical 90 minute flight. Have at least two of the
routes terminate on a weapons range. Consider the routes restricted
airspace. Now, how does your GA traffic go anywhere? You have
effectively created boxes that don't allow anyone else to use the
airspace. Isn't joint-use under VFR more practical?

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).

How much time do you have driving an airplane at 300 knots or more?
I've got about 4000 hours of tactical jet operation and never seemed
to find it too difficult to see-and-avoid other aircraft.

Let's also note something regarding your favorite 250 knot restriction
below 10M'. For a period of time (long ago, galaxy far, far away), I
operated an aircraft that flew final approach at typical landing
weight at 205 KIAS. That was landing configuration with gear and flaps
down. In clean configuration, 350 knots was generally the minimum
maneuverable speed. At 250 knots clean, my agile fighter suddenly
became a shuddering block of non-aerodynamic technology with little
more G available than your Cessna 172. Not practical.

Today, aircraft operate comfortably at lower speeds, but still need
operational flexibility and therefore the exemption of the 250 knot
restriction remains necessary.

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, ...

Do you consider the fact that tactical aircraft regularly and
routinely fly with other aircraft. It is part of the mission
requirements. We fly in formations (not Thunderbird fingertip) that
mean we are inside TCAS thresholds. We rendezvous with other aircraft
both tactical and tanker. We intercept threats. We fly air combat
maneuvers. All require flight at short ranges and transiting
co-altitudes. TCAS would be impractical in terms of continual warnings
and (heaven forbid) uncommanded fly-up/fly-down commands.

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.

Military Training Routes have been around CONUs for as long as I can
remember. When I first started flying J-3 Cubs in 1962, there were
"Oil Burner Routes" for SAC that criss-crossed the nation. Dunno what
you mean by doing without.

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.

Belaboring again. You recently posted the extract indicating that
speeds were "as high as 450" during the descent. That doesn't equate
with the follow-on "within congested terminal airspace". The record
indicates that the flight speed was 350 and below when entering the
TCA. You also seem to imply that the flight was not on an ATC
clearance. They most assuredly were, but were operating VFR and
without ATC direct control. Slight difference.

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.

Military Training Routes are not a new thing. You would blanch at the
European low level training had you any familiarity. NATO nations,
operating within their own countries were considerably more flexible
in their enforcement than USAF. For example, USAF fighters in Germany
were restricted to 1500' AGL for low level training (not a realistic
floor, but those were the rules.) It was not at all uncommon for
Dutch, Belgian or Danish aircraft to pass several hundred feet below
us and almost simultaneously have them under-flown by the Germans.

Today, of course, we wouldn't really want to have the US dependent
upon a military force as "well equipped, well trained, well led, and
well-motivated" as a European force--would we?

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?

If you slow a tactical aircraft down to speeds below which it is
marginally maneuverable you've not improved safety.

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.

The military has for as long as I was involved taken responsibility
for its actions. The process is often considerably more thorough and
timely than civil courts. It is also less prone to emotional outcome.

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.

You really wouldn't like the outcome of that.

I don't doubt that refinement would be beneficial. I'm only a pilot,
not an airspace engineer.

And your qualifications/ratings are what?

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.

Actually some are willing to expand their knowledge on a complex
subject and allow for new conclusions.

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.

You aren't destructive. You simply refuse to acknowledge any other
information while continually repeating what you've already said. Many
of the suggestions you've offered are impractical or infeasible.

Bottom line is that you demonstrate a fixation on civil guilt for an
accident. There has been due process and the result didn't satisfy
you. That's fine, the verdict in the OJ trial didn't satisfsy me
either, but that's the way the law, rules and regulations have it
done.


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