The Latest Military Airspace Grab: 700 Square Miles!

On 17 Feb 2005 14:25:15 -0800, "John Galban"
wrote in .com::


Larry Dighera wrote:

3.) they seldom have radar coverage of the MOA, since it isn't their
responsibility.

This military controller apparently had me on radar.

Desert MOA is more the exception than the rule when it comes to MOA
coverage.

Isn't that unfortunate.

With the USAF requesting expansion of the subject MOA for low-level
supersonic operations, perhaps they should include VFR advisory
service as part of the package. The Air Force claims, that safety is
their first priority, but they have the audacity to suggest that VFR
aircraft transiting their MOA should avail themselves of see-and-avoid
during supersonic flight is conducted within it.

It's unfortunate the public meetings regarding the proposed MOA
changes has past.

Most MOAs I'm familiar with do not have a dedicated frequency for advisories.

Perhaps that could be remedied too.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On 17 Feb 2005 14:25:15 -0800, "John Galban"
wrote in .com::

Most MOAs I'm familiar with do not have a dedicated frequency for
advisories.

Perhaps that could be remedied too.

A remedy assumes a problem. Desert has a dedicated frequency
because of the inordinately high amount of military and civilian
traffic. In less congested MOAs, getting advisories from Center works
just fine.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

"John Galban" wrote in message
oups.com...
Additionally, just because you are talking to "Nellis
Control" does not necessarily mean that you are talking to a military
controller. The FAA often provides radar services that one might
assume were military. One example in the Phoenix area is Luke AFB
Approach. While meandering through the Alert Area getting advisories
from Luke Approach, you're actually talking to a civilian controller in
the Phoenix Tracon.

I'm not saying one way or the other whether Nellis Control is
military or not, only that it can be hard to know for sure just by the
name.

Actually, Luke AFB has had it's own USAF approach control since at least the
early 1980s. It is currently operated by the 56th Operations Support
Squadron.

The Nellis Air Traffic Control Facility (which includes both the RAPCON and
Range Control) is also a USAF operation and is run by the 57th OSS.

The point of not being able to tell if a facility is staffed by military or
civilians simply by the name is correct.

But the reality is it doesn't matter. In the US air traffic control is air
traffic control and a controller is a controller - military or civilian.

On 17 Feb 2005 14:59:53 -0800, "John Galban"
wrote in . com::

In less congested MOAs, getting advisories from Center works
just fine.

Center radar probably can't "see" to as low an altitude as the
military radar covering MOAs. And then, there is the issue of whether
the military aircraft operating in the MOA are receiving traffic
advisories from Center or not.

"Jeff Crowell" wrote in message
...
Ed Rasimus wrote:
Ask your local library or buy the paperback:

Negative. Buy the hardback. We need to motivate Ed as
much as possible to keep writing.

Bought it the moment I saw it. I've read it twice already and waiting for
the second one, semi-patiently.

Glenn D.

In message , Blueskies
writes

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

Sounds like a good book, Ed. I look forward to reading it some day....

Find it. Read it. Enjoy it.

And look forward to the sequel.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...

How does expansion of a MOA for operations above 10,000 feet in New
Mexico relate to a mid-air collision in Florida on a low-level
training route?


The Florida midair did not occur on a low-level training route.



You might also note that aircraft below 10,000 MSL (except in some
special use airspace) is already restricted to airspeeds below 250
KIAS.


That's not correct. Aircraft below 10,000 feet MSL cannot exceed 250 KIAS
unless the minimum safe airspeed for any particular operation is greater
than that speed, the aircraft may then be operated at that minimum speed.

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 20:43:01 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
.. .

How does expansion of a MOA for operations above 10,000 feet in New
Mexico relate to a mid-air collision in Florida on a low-level
training route?


The Florida midair did not occur on a low-level training route.

It didn't occur in a MOA, didn't involve supersonic operations, and,
the incident is not relevant to the discussion of the proposed changes
to airspace in New Mexico were my points. You are correct, the midair
did not take place on an LLN route. Feel better now?



You might also note that aircraft below 10,000 MSL (except in some
special use airspace) is already restricted to airspeeds below 250
KIAS.


That's not correct. Aircraft below 10,000 feet MSL cannot exceed 250 KIAS
unless the minimum safe airspeed for any particular operation is greater
than that speed, the aircraft may then be operated at that minimum speed.

You're entering this a bit late. Your additional phrase regarding
operational necessity has been discussed in some detail here.


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

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...

What part of "accident" is so difficult to understand. For what crime
would you prosecute the flight lead? Murder? Did he premeditate? What
crime?


The flight lead clearly did not intend for anyone to be killed, but his
unlawful actions did result in the death of another human being. Sounds
like manslaughter to me.



We live in a litigious society. Folks threaten to sue when the spill
hot coffee in their laps and to avoid the costs of the litigation, the
prospective defendant will often reach a settlement. No criminal
charges were brought, because no prosecuter with an ounce of judgement
would be able to define a "crime" and no civil action was brought,
because Ms Olivier really couldn't prove that a flight lead decision
was in any way malicious toward her husband.


Does malice have to be shown? Wouldn't malice make it murder and not
manslaughter?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

When a pilot deliberately descends into congested terminal airspace
with the required ATC clearance, it's not an accident; it's reckless
endangerment of all the aircraft operating legally within the terminal
airspace. If you disagree, please explain how Parker could have
_accidentally_ descended into the Class B and C airspace, perform a G
Check, and search for the MTR?


I don't recall anything in the report that indicated the descent into Class
B or Class C airspace was deliberate. As I recall there was a significant
navigational error.