On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 21:54:16 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote in
:
On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 20:50:20 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:
On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 16:08:14 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote in
:
On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 15:28:47 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 15:25:29 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote in
:
With regard to low-level MTRs, isn't the ceiling 500' AGL to 1,500'
AGL? Why not just fly over top of the proposed MTR restricted
airspace? If that approach should happen to interfere with
navigation, then the pilot would do what he always does to enter R
airspace: Contact ATC. I don't see the problem you apparently do.
What am I overlooking?
You've added a factor not previously in evidence.
Which factor is that?
The factor described in the next sentence--a specific and very limited
altitude block.
That 'factor' is just the current height of low-level MTRs; it's not
new.
If you draw the MTR with those altitude specs, then you MAY be able to
create routes that would be meet training requirements and allow for
reasonably unhindered GA traffic.
That seemed obvious to me.
Note the capitalized qualifier. You most probably will not be able to
create satisfactory training conditions and you will still very likely
impinge on GA traffic's ability to move unhindered.
Are you saying that the current dimensions of low-level MTRs do not
meet military training needs?
You're overlooking the fact that ATC doesn't usually have coverage at
those altitudes in areas typically employed for MTRs.
Agreed. Are you saying there is a requirement for ATC to have radar
coverage of all R airspace? Or are you saying, that if the military
is going to shoulder responsibility for the hazard to air safety their
high-speed, low-level operations create, it would require ATC radar
coverage?
You keep seeking foolproof deconfliction.
Actually, I keep saying the those flights that are not exempt from the
250 knot speed limit below 10,000' should be separated from high-speed
military flights enjoying the exemption. I don't for a minute regard
that as foolproof.
There is NO requirement for ATC to have radar coverage anywhere.
Then why did you think I was " overlooking the fact that ATC doesn't
usually have coverage at those altitudes in areas typically employed
for MTRs?"
They won't be able to offer you the desired "no responsibility on the part
of the GA pilot" guarantee of no threat because they can't see traffic at
those altitudes.
First, I never indicated that GA should have 'no responsibility'; I
said the military should bear sole legal responsibility for the
hazards it poses to air safety as a result of operating under its
exemption to the 250 knot speed limit below 10,000' feet.
If the military bears "sole responsibility" there is then "no
responsibility" for anyone else. Q.E.D.
Obviously, if a GA pilot is violating regulations, he is responsible
for the hazard to air safety those violations may pose to other
flights and those over whom he operates, right?
Next, There would be no necessity for the military to take sole
responsibility as mentioned above, if they were operating in Class R
airspace (unless they failed to schedule it with ATC/FSS).
Additionally, training maneuvers on an MTR may require formation
repositioning, simulated evasive maneuvers, simulated armed
reconnaisance [sic] maneuvering and even simulated weapons delivery
maneuvers and re-attacks. Those requirements could seriously mitigate
your ability to create 500-1500' AGL corridors.
[Mitigate: to cause to become less harsh or hostile]
Mitigate---to lessen. Add training requirements, not simply a path
from A to B and you lessen your ability to create a MTR within
restricted narrow altitude blocks that doesn't interfere with GA
traffic.
Are these 'training requirements' you mention currently conducted
outside the confines of the MTR routes as defined in the National
Imaging and Mapping Agency MTR database?
http://164.214.2.62/products/webchum/QryChoice.cfm
Not being familiar with those operations, I ask, would it be feasible
to conduct those operations above 10,000'? If not, why not?
No. You can't do effective low altitude training at high altitude.
I presume formation repositioning, simulated evasive maneuvers,
simulated armed reconnaissance maneuvering and simulated weapons
delivery maneuvers and re-attacks may require larger lateral, and
perhaps vertical, boundaries than are currently provided by MTRs. Is
that correct?
Yes.
Are those maneuvers conducted within MOAs or R airspace?
[...]
Okay. Four seconds to make the decision to take evasive action, and a
couple of seconds to input control commands and for the aircraft to
actually clear the path, that leaves 13 seconds to visually identify
the head-on traffic at 3 statute miles in minimum VMC.
Now, if you consider a fighter at 300 knots approaching a 250 knot
airliner head on, the closure rate would be 550 knots permitting only
17 seconds until impact. Subtracting six seconds for decision and
maneuvering, leaves 11 seconds to visually identify the threat. That's
precious little time to see-and-avoid in single pilot operations.
If you can't make see-and-avoid decisions in less time than that, I
wonder how you drive to work in the morning.
I don't drive to work.