"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


We both agree that the high-speed military operations conducted in
joint-use MTRs below 10,000' feet create a significant hazard to civil
operation appropriate for containment within formal Restricted Areas.

It's good you see reason from time to time. So, let's agree to make MTRs
"Restricted" and call it day, shall we?

So you're justifying the deaths of those civil pilots killed by
military aviators on MTRs in the name of realistic training
conditions? I hope not!

No, I'm not "justifying" any such deaths, but you're deflecting the
argument. I merely highlighted how your proposal takes away realism from
military training.

If so, let's put your progeny in the path of
a blazing F-16, and see if your attitude changes.

This is the typical specious argument posed in similar discussions. For the
record, my attitude has not changed.

If that's not an option, perhaps an AWACS could call out conflicting
traffic to those military airmen operating on low-level MTRs.

Decent idea. Do you know they don't?

If that's not to the military's liking, or too expensive, why not have
inexpensive, portable FLARMlike http://www.flarm.com/index_en.html
devices available for military pilot use on low-level MTRs?

This device, like TCAS, broadcasts a radio signal. This negates realism (by
emitting a beacon that would not be used in combat). Once again, the best
option remains making the MTR "Restricted" to separate civil from military
traffic.

If I were tasked to fly MTRs, be assured I would be _formally_
demanding such safety measures from my superiors.

I have absolutely no doubt about that.

Putting the public at risk, so that realistic military training can be
conducted, is reprehensible, shortsighted and stupid (not to mention
probably illegal). There's got to be a better way.

We've already agreed there is: Restricted airspace.

By the way, were those four incidents you listed the only ones you found in
the NTSB database? Statistically, it seems the threat of low flying military
aircraft is much lower than that posed by other GA aircraft.

(What makes you characterize that site as "anti-US military"? It
seems to be neutral and unbiased to me.

That doesn't surprise me in the least. Other readers will reach their own
conclusions - some will even agree with you.

But necessity is no excuse for negligence, and finding the civil pilot
to have been a cause of a MAC due to his inability to see-and-avoid at
the closing speeds involved on MTRs is arrogance beyond belief.

If the pilot were in a "hot" MTR and made no effort to confirm the status of
the airspace, then they at least contributed to the incident.

Are you aware of the number of military pilots who are unaware that
low-level MTRs are within joint-use airspace?

I never claimed such awareness, but it does beg the question: Are you?

Many military pilots
believe they have exclusive right to that _partially_ charted
airspace.

Can you back up this claim?

(Only the centerlines of ten mile wide MTRs are charted!)

Only the centerlines of VOR airways are charted. Do you not know their
bounds? Why would determining the bounds of MTRs be so much more onerous?

If you're not comfortable with the safety margins, avoid them.

There are flight missions that make that line of reasoning nearly
impossible; pipeline patrol and low-level aerial photography come to
mind.

The folks flying these missions must be doing something right as none of the
incidents you've quoted involved them. I submit few such missions expose
their pilots to additional risk as I doubt many pipelines or photo subjects,
for example, run with MTRs.

Have you ever personally attempted to learn the current operational
status of a MTR from FSS? My experience has been an exercise in
frustration. ... That should change also.

No disagreement here, but this is unrelated to your proposal.

They really do constitute a tiny percentage of the US NAS.

I hope you're not trying to rationalize the hazard created by
Low-level Military Training Routes on that basis. Try telling that to
the widows and daughters of those civil pilots who were killed by
military pilots operating on low-level MTRs.

I doubt this conversation would be any more difficult than discussing a
GA-GA MAC - and appears to happen far less frequently, too.

Really? I don't see where you address my proposal that the military
should bear full and exclusive responsibility for the hazard they
create. Perhaps you'd be good enough to point out that portion of
your response. Thank you.

See above ( Restricted areas). You're welcome.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://openspf.org
____________________