Scared of Mid-Airs?

Me too, so I stay away from 'em. It's easier if you know where they
are.


Larry Dighera wrote:

(Have you ever been successful contacting
Flight Service at 500' AGL to inquire if a MTR is hot?)

Rarely, and that's an FAA problem. It could be that the lack of FSS
coverage is the real culprit in MAC's. Maybe you should look into
it. FSS performance is a contributing factor in at least one of the
accidents you cite, and the unwillingness of civilian pilots to
consult with the FSS is a factor in two of them. In all four of the
accidents, military pilots were in contact with the appropriate
agencies.


Alternatively, we could REQUIRE BY REGULATION, that all MTR
participants employ TCAS....

Interesting. Try convincing AOPA that all civilian light planes need
to have TCAS so that they can participate in the system. A TCAS unit
will cost more than the value of most of the aircraft in which it
would be installed. Within the airspace where you'll find MTR's,
civilian light planes are not required to have even a basic
transponder. Perhaps the civilian community should begin to do its
part to insure no more MAC's?


We could surely do without MTR routes in the CONUS, and did until a
few years ago.

Low level training routes have been around for more than 40 years,
that I know of. Never liked 'em, only because though I had to be
there, the Cessna's didn't and they didn't care enough to know that
I was there.


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.

You keep ignoring the facts, about which you have repeatedly been
reminded. None of the four accidents you've cited in your rants
actually fits the above.


2. ...Now we've got [MTR] here in the US. Perhaps there is a...less
congested venue someplace else.

You could be the head negotiator. Let us know how many such venues
you find. Moving all military training offshore sounds like a real
interesting proposition. Have you given it even 5 seconds of
thought? Two should be more than enough.


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.

It would be safer. Isn't that your concern?


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].

Yes, read that last sentence again, the one with the word "imperative".

The civil pilot chooses to transit airspace where he knows or should
know that military missions are being flown. He enters at his own
risk, and increases the risk to those military missions in so doing.
Either he is an equal player or he is not. If he can't, as you
claim, be expected to bear an equal share of responsibility for
traffic avoidance, then he has no business operating in that air
space. Those who imply otherwise would increase the danger to all
involved.


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.

And yet, you advocate the military take full responsibility for
those who choose, for whatever reason, to enter an MTR, even for
those with what you describe as a death wish? You can't have it both
ways. In order for that to happen the presence of civilian aircraft
would require the cessation or at least the modification of the
mission and the resulting loss of training, increased costs, and
ultimately less safety as these missions would have to be reflown,
requiring a higher sortie count to achieve the necessary training.


What would what you suggest that might accomplish besides
a dead civilian airman and two destroyed aircraft?

It comes as a complete surprise to you, I am sure, that there are
people in this world who haven't the brains to assess the risks, and
another group who actually treasure the opportunity to be splattered
in a righteous cause. Nothing new about it, really, but you should
pick up a newspaper now and then, and try to keep up. As pointed out
in the preceding paragraphs, the mere presence of civilian aircraft
in the airspace would be enough to shut down training under the
restrictions you're advocating.


Get real.

Reality is the province of the fighter pilot, Larry. The
"hundred-dollar hamburger" is a lolly-gag for the casual
recreationist, be he ever so experienced. BTDT, all the way round
the block, and back again.


Or are you referring to the glider that was hit on a MTR by an A6 [sic]? 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.

Have you complained to the NTSB? Perhaps the Federal Government
should be responsible for traffic separation -- there's a novel notion.


Civil aircraft to the right of military aircraft:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...26X00109&key=1

The usual NTSB pointless response amounting to, "they ran into each
other because they ran into each other," or, in NTSB-speak, "both
pilots failed to...maintain clearance from other aircraft." But you
think it was all the military's fault. There was nothing about this
accident that made it a "military" type of accident. Any two
civilian aircraft could have had exactly the same accident in the
same place. The T-37 was at 200 kts, well below the speed any number
of civilian aircraft could have been traveling, and was not on an
MTR. The Ag plane was invisible to ATC while operating in marginal
VFR conditions, having neither a transponder nor a radio.


F-16s lacked required ATC clearance:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...12X22313&key=1

Flight lead screws up; and "ATC’s lack of awareness that there was
more than one F-16 aircraft in the formation flight, which reduced
the ATC controllers ability to detect and resolve the conflict that
resulted in the collision," despite the fact that fighters don't go
anywhere alone. Maybe ATC could train their people better, too. What
do you think?


A6 pilot expected to exit MTR eight minutes after route
closu
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...11X12242&key=1

AG Cat pilot unaware of the existence of MTR; this FSS habitually
fails to give useful info to local flights; and so the NTSB cites
"inherent limitations of the see-and-avoid concept." How about the
inherent limitations of ignorant Ag Cat pilots and apathetic FSS
employees?


A6 hit glider that had right of way:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...13X33340&key=1

"THE _A7E_ PLT HAD INFORMED THE NECESSARY FLT SERV STATIONS THAT THE
ROUTE WAS ACTIVE; THE GLIDER PLT HAD NOT CONTACTED THE FLT SERV
STATIONS TO DETERMINE IF THE ROUTE WAS ACTIVE."

Poor preflight planning and preparation on the part of the glider
pilot, according to the NTSB. A proper evaluation of the dangers of
operating in a hot MTR cannot possibly be made if he doesn't know
about the MTR. He just didn't give himself a fighting chance. Would
he even have known if he was circling over the VOR on a busy airway?
Sure, you go where the lift is, within reason, in a glider, but
"situational awareness" -- the same thing you so correctly demand of
the F-16 flight lead above -- is required even of glider pilots. I
would say, "especially of glider pilots", given the characteristics
of that beautiful sport. BTDT, got the glider.


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.

Then change the NAS. The laws of physics remain beyond the reach of
the legislature, despite your passionate objections.


If not, why have a speed limit at all?

Simply to minimize UNNECESSARY high speed operation in an area of
mixed traffic. You cannot continue to ignore the aerodynamic as well
as the operational necessity for some military aircraft to operate
well above your beloved 250 kts, and still expect that you should be
taken seriously. Does it surprise you to know that there are
civilian aircraft which also must operate above 250kts below
10,000'? Their reasons too are valid. BTDT, got the ATPR and the
fancy hat.


If military operations create a civil hazard, they should be
segregated from civil flights.

We disagree only on the mechanism to achieve that end. As has been
stated elsewhere, this is a problem that has no answer but
cooperation and an assumption of both risk and responsibility by all
parties.


So you've read all I've written on this subject over the past six
years?

Unfortunately. Redundant, shallow, and obtuse though it has been.


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.

EXPLICIT in that parting shot is the well-regarded notion that "it
takes effort to be constructive." A great deal of effort is required
to go beyond where the NAS is today -- effort that you seem
unwilling to undertake, given your six-year crusade against the
windmills of your own ignorance.



Jack