Larry Dighera wrote:

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 16:54:21 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote in Message-Id: :

Exceptions, such as operating at higher
speed under 10,000 feet, are well coordinated with FAA

Some times they are, and some times they're not.

Well, the statement I made was with regard to exceptions to FAA
regulations made in the regulations themselves. We shouldn't
reasonably expect realistic training operations in tactical jet
aircraft to be conducted below 250 KIAS and above FL 180, nor should
we expect tactical training to require detailed route of flight
clearances from FAA controllers. Deconfliction takes place through air
space management and when operating under Visual Flight Rules, through
the time-honored practice of "see-and-avoid"

That being said, I've snipped the dross of your accident report and
we'll now jump to the portions that provide an example of the type of
"exceptions" in the FAR's that I refer to:

OTHER INFORMATION

The Department of Defense's (DoD's) Flight Information Publication
General Planning GP, Section E-Supplementary Information, Para 5-35,
"Aircraft Speed Below 10,000 Feet Mean Sea Level" states:

"(Exemption to Federal Air Regulations 91.177 issued to DOD, May 18,
1978)-Operations below 10,000 feet Mean Sea Level at Indicated Air
Speed in excess of 250 knots, in noncompliance with Federal Air
Regulations 91.117 (a), are authorized for military aircraft,
including Reserve and Air National Guard components, only under the
following conditions:...

"g. If the airspeed required or recommended in the airplane flight
manual to maintain safe maneuverability is greater than the maximum
speed described in Federal Air regulations 91.117, the airplane may be
operated at that speed."

The F-16C/D flight manual, in Section VI, "Flight Characteristics,"
recommends "a minimum of 300 knots during normal cruise operation
below 10,000 MSL." The Air Force Instruction 11-2f-16, F-16 Operations
Procedures states in Chapter 5, "Air to Air Weapons Employment," Para
5.3.2, that the "minimum airspeed during low altitude offensive or
defensive maneuvering is 350 KIAS."

The DoD's Flight Information Publication Area Planning AP/1B, Military
Training Routes, North and South America states (in Chapter 2, "VFR
Military Training Routes (VR)," Para I, General) that "VRs are
developed by DoD to provide for military operational and training
requirements that cannot be met under terms of FAR 91.117
(Aircraft Speed). Accordingly, the FAA has issued a waiver to DoD to
permit operation of an aircraft below 10,000 feet MSL in excess of 250
knots indicated airspeed along DOD developed and published VFR
routes." It further states (in Para IV, Flight Plans) that "operations
to and from VRs should be conducted on an IFR flight plan.
Pilots operating on an IFR flight plan to a VR shall file to the
fix/radial/distance (FRD) of their entry/alternate entry point."

The DoD's Flight Information Publication Area Planning AP/1, North and
South America notes (in Chapter 3, "Flight Planning 3 f. Class B
Airspace") that "generally that airspace from the surface to 10,000'
surrounding the nation's busiest airports in terms of IFR operations
or passenger enplanements. The configuration of each Class B
Airspace area is individually tailored and consists of a surface area
and two or more layers and is designed to contain all published
instrument procedures once an aircraft enters the airspace. An ATC
clearance is required for all aircraft to operate in the area and all
aircraft that are so cleared receive separation services within the
airspace."

CFR Part 91.113, Right-of-way rules (Paragraph (b), General), states:

"When weather conditions permit, regardless of weather an operation is
conducted instrument flight rules or visual flight rules, vigilance
shall be maintained by each person operating an aircraft so as to see
and avoid other aircraft. When a rule of this section gives another
aircraft the right-of-way, the pilot shall give way to that aircraft
and may not pass over, under, or ahead of it unless well clear. (f)
Overtaking. Each aircraft that is being overtaken has the right-of-way
and each pilot of an overtaking aircraft shall alter course to the
right to pass well clear. (g) Landing. Aircraft while on final
approach to land or while landing, have the right-of-way over other
aircraft in flight operating on the surface, except that they shall
not take advantage of this rule to force an aircraft off the runway
surface which has already landing is attempting to make way for an
aircraft on final approach. When two or more aircraft are approaching
an airport for the purpose of landing, the aircraft at the lower
altitude has the right-of-way, but it shall not take advantage of this
rule to cut in front of another which is on final approach to land or
to overtake that aircraft."

The FAA's Aeronautical Information Manual, Section 3-2-4, Class C
Airspace, states that "two-way radio communication must be established
with the ATC facility providing ATC services prior to entry" and that
pilots must "thereafter maintain those communications while in Class C
airspace." The manual adds that "radio contact should be initiated far
enough from the Class C airspace boundary to preclude entering Class C
airspace before two-way communications are established."

Now, having read the "exceptions" coordinated between military and FAA
with regard to the operation of tactical aircraft in a training
environment, please return to your original comments--(I've taken the
liberty to paste them here at the end of this lengthy post for easy
access:

Sometimes a renegade military fighter pilot just ignores FAA
Regulations, enters Class B airspace at ~500 knots without a
clearance, leads his wingman into a midair collision, and scatters the
remains of a Cessna 172 ATP rated pilot over 4 acres of golf course,
and retains his pension and rank without being criminally charged for
the death he caused:

How can you characterize this military pilot as "renegade"? The
accident report says nowhere that the intrusion was intentional or
even knowing action. What "criminal charge" would you bring? Certainly
not "murder" which requires intent and pre-meditation. Now for certain
that no military pilot plans to intentionally have a mid-air either
for himself or his wingman. Maybe manslaughter? Reckless endangerment?

Do you really see a case of "just ignore" FARs? Or, have you got some
kind of anti-military axe to grind? Certainly the accident report that
you posted shows nothing in the conclusions to support any portion of
your paragraph.





Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038