Scared of mid-airs

Larry Dighera wrote:

What is being done as a result of the MACs caused by the military's
hazardous, high-speed, low-level operations?

Perhaps we should consider some of the alternatives.

How about we turn all the airspace associated with the low level
training routes into restricted airspace?

That works for me.


Jack

With a telephoto lens, all telescopes have electronic
displays, but many pilots carry [ied] binoculars.


"Red Rider" wrote in message
m...
|A telescope, ROTFLMAO. "Shiver me timbers mate's, pieces of
eight on dead
| men's chest" and all that other pirate talk, The telescope
must have been
| introduced by the "Jolly Rogers". The mental image of a
GIB from
| VF-84/VF-103 standing up in the back seat scanning the sky
with a spyglass
| and shouting to the pilot, "Thar be the target!" was just
too much for me to
| bear.
|
| It's an "AN/AXX-1 Television Camera Set (TCS)". Even with
enhancements and
| under the best of conditions you can probably ID a DC-10
at 80 miles, F-111
| at 40 miles, C-130 at 35 miles and F-5 at 10 miles.
However there are newer
| designs that may be able to do better, especially with all
the computing
| power available today in smaller packages.
|
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:FF6zg.84651$ZW3.43673@dukeread04...
| With a few possible exceptions, fighter aircraft radar
is
| two types, a search and a fire control radar. Both have
a
| fairly small cone in which to detect a target. They
depend
| on being vectored in the general direction of a threat
in
| order to detect a target. Also, military aircraft have
| radar detectors that warn the pilot/crew that they are
being
| painted by somebody's radar.
|
| But it isn't really a system designed for anti-collision
| use, but to keep from being shot down or to find a
target to
| shoot. The F14 even has a telescope to allow visual
| confirmation of targets that are 100 miles away after
the
| radar has found the target, rules of engagement require
| visual confirmation.
|
|
| --
| James H. Macklin
| ATP,CFI,A&P
|
| "Ed Rasimus" wrote in
message
| ...
| | On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 11:35:46 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
| | wrote:
| |
| | True, but often they have an AWACS or military ground
| radar.
| |
| |
| | No kidding? They also often have their own radar and
have
| been trained
| | to look at it and interpret it with greater detail
than
| following an
| | up/down arrow on a TCAS. They've also been trained to
| provide their
| | own separation and to operate in areas without the
| | all-seeing/all-knowing motherliness of Air Traffic
| Control.
| |
| | Nevertheless as Mr. Dighera incessantly points out,
| "stuff"
| | happens--but it ain't murder.
| |
| | Ed Rasimus
| | Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
| | "When Thunder Rolled"
| | www.thunderchief.org
| | www.thundertales.blogspot.com
|
|
|
|

If you're not in a cloud, you are required to look out the
windows.



wrote in message
oups.com...
| Orval Fairbairn wrote:
|
| The above posting is not correct. IFR planes have a
unique box *only*
| against other IFR traffic -- VFR traffic is not
mentioned. That is why
| you *have* to keep a lookout for traffic when you are
under IFR.
|
|
| Er... what do you mean by "keep a lookout for traffic
under IFR"?
| Lookout on the radar, surely??
|
| Ramapriya
|

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 05:45:01 GMT, 588 wrote in
::

Larry Dighera wrote:

What is being done as a result of the MACs caused by the military's
hazardous, high-speed, low-level operations?

Perhaps we should consider some of the alternatives.

How about we turn all the airspace associated with the low level
training routes into restricted airspace?

That works for me.


That repugnant solution occurred to me also. Great minds ...

But, that is only one alternative.

An equally onerous solution would be to curtail MTR operations in the
CONUS.

In my opinion, a more just and equitable solution to the hazard caused
by MTR operations, would be to:

1. Have the military assume sole responsibility for the hazard
their speed regulation exemption causes.

2. Equip military aircraft operating on MTRs with collision
avoidance equipment. (this is actually being done slowly).

3. Actually prosecute military pilots who collide with civil
aircraft not participating in their maneuvers.

One would remove the inequity imposed on civil pilots by the speed
regulation exemption that permits the military to cause this hazard to
civil aviation operations.

Two is a simple technical fix that is so obvious as to make its
omission a glaring example of governmental inelegance. While the cost
may deter its implementation, the cost of the destroyed military
aircraft and law suit settlements has to exceed the cost of
implementing it.

Three is an attempt to get the military to actually discipline its
ranks. And it would send a clear message to those hot shot military
pilots who ignore regulations, that they will face personal
consequences for their transgressions. The reprimand received by the
flight lead who led his wingman into a fatal collision with the Cessna
in Florida is an affront to the concept of justice, a public black eye
for military justice, and encourages other military pilots to flout
regulations.

(I know you were just venting, but perhaps you can tap that great mind
of yours, and come up with some constructive comments. It is easy to
be destructive like a suicide bomber, but it takes effort to be
constructive like those who built what the bombers' explosives
destroy. Hopefully, the effort won't be too difficult for you.)

--

There is no expedient to which a man will not resort
to avoid the real labor of thinking.
-- Sir Joshua Reynolds

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 05:39:05 GMT, 588 wrote in
::

Larry Dighera wrote:


...failing to acknowledge the
culpability of the military in each of the military/civil MAC NTSB
reports I cited, is tacit agreement that each was the fault of the
military flight.


Failing to acknowledge culpability is the same as admitting fault,
in your world?


Deliberately failing to even read the NTSB reports of military/civil
MACs shows a fear of facing the facts. If one fears facing facts, he
has tacitly implied he is uncomfortable acknowledging the truth, and
thus implied he believes the military culpable.

The truth is, that the military pilots in those MACs:

1. Collided with a glider that had the right of way.

2. Violated regulations resulting in the death of a civil pilot.

3. Failed to see-and-avoid a crop duster while operating on a MTR
beyond the active time period submitted to the FAA.

4. Collided with a civil aircraft approaching from the right, and
thus had the right-of-way.

Given those facts, as contained in the NTSB reports, it's easy to see
why Mr. Rasimus shied away from informing himself about them.

You can attempt to discredit me personally by deliberately
misinterpreting my words, but you will not be successful if you fail
to discuss the issues I have raised. So far you haven't even
attempted to do that in good faith. I think that says a lot more
about your honesty and integrity than I could ever manage.

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 05:23:24 GMT, 588 wrote in
::

Larry Dighera wrote:

Larry, how about once getting your facts straight?

I try, but it's difficult for a civilian to get information on
military aircraft.

It never seems to stop you from pretending that you do know.

Without an example of that to which you are referring, I am unable to
comment.

Military fighter aircraft pilots have little physical harm to fear
from colliding with a typical GA aircraft....

An unwarranted assumption, apparently based on an obsessive
ignorance, considering your perennial ranting on this subject and
lack of regard for information that has been provided to you
repeatedly over a period of years.

I am unaware of any information presented to me in the past years that
contradicts my statement.

A fighter pilots ejects and lives. The steaming remains of the pilot
of the aircraft he hit are splattered over four square miles of
country club fairways and greens. Those are the facts. They are not
hyperbole. They were reported by eye witnesses. If you have
contradictory information, please present it. Otherwise, you look
foolish.

I've never known a fighter pilot to have anything but respect for
the potential of a midair -- more, in fact than the average
transport pilot, and immensely more than the average light plane
pilot, in my experience.

That is a result of the limited set of fighter pilots with whom you
have been in contact. You obviously hadn't known those military
pilots involved in the four military/civil MACs whose NTSB links I
posted.

How would you characterize the respect for a potential midair
demonstrated by Parker when he violated regulations by failing to
brief terminal airspace, and dove into congested Class B and C
airspace with the required ATC clearance? (I don't expect you to
answer that, it would require some courage on your part.)

Apparently, all your "experience" was bought at the news stand,
considering how little relevance your complaints have to the real world.

If you consider NTSB and military accident reports, and eye witness
reports unreliable, what information sources meet your criteria for
relevance?

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 05:07:37 GMT, 588 wrote in
::

Orval al wrote:
In article ,
Ed Rasimus wrote:

(snip)
Or, conversely the numbers of deaths of military pilots due to
mid-airs with GA pilots operating cluelessly in restricted, warning,
prohibited airspace, MOAs and oil burner routes. It's a two-edged
sword, Larry.

IIRC, Ed, only in prohibited airspace can a mil pilot not expect to
encounter a civil VFR.

That is what we have restricted areas for -- not to be done in congested
airspace.


Which is it, Orv?


I'm sure you are intelligent enough to parse Orval's meaning; you're
just being deliberately obtuse, right?

GA aircraft don't enter Prohibited Areas, thus they aren't found
there. Restricted areas were created for hazardous military
operations; terminal airspace is congested and inappropriate for
hazardous military operations.

If I can understand his meaning, surely someone who possesses your
towering intellect should have no trouble comprehending his meaning.

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 01:03:19 GMT, "Red Rider"
wrote:

It's an "AN/AXX-1 Television Camera Set (TCS)". Even with enhancements and
under the best of conditions you can probably ID a DC-10 at 80 miles, F-111
at 40 miles, C-130 at 35 miles and F-5 at 10 miles. However there are newer
designs that may be able to do better, especially with all the computing
power available today in smaller packages.

The F-5 at ten miles with the TCS gave me a flashback moment (and at
my age they are always appreciated.)

Mission was out of Holloman with me leading a T-38 four-ship to the
Red Rio tactical range. Escorted by a pair of F-15As out of the 49th
TFW. Target area defended by a pair of Nellis Aggressor F-5s. Run in
at low altitude at 450 knots (Attn Mr. Dighera--this is what we do.
It's a training situation in controlled restricted airspace. Light
planes HAVE blundered into it despite restrictions.)

Eagles flying out-rigger and slightly aft of my flight. I called
visual on "MiGs, left 11 slightly high at four miles". Eagles with
their cosmic radar and A/A specialization hadn't seen them.

GCI over-seeing the mission confirmed during debrief play-back that
the actual contact distance was 11 miles. Mark 1/Mod O eyeball!!!

Them was the good ol' days.


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

Larry Dighera wrote:
I would have to see examples of hyperbole to be able to find facts
that support those statements.

also Larry Dighera:
You've got to agree, that rocketing through congested
terminal airspace at 500 knots without the required ATC clearance,

If you speak here of the Florida mishap, there's your example--
the CLOSURE rate was near 500 knots, but not the speed of
the USAF aircraft.

And since he was not aware that he was in terminal airspace
(per a cite you named), there's a deliberate misstatement
to boot.


I am unable to find any reasonable excuse for what Parker did. It was
a clear day. He was descending into Class B airspace, canceled IFR,
and dove his flight of two into the terminal airspace at twice the
speed limit imposed on all other aircraft in that airspace without ATC
clearance. He may have lost situational awareness, but I find it
impossible to believe he didn't know that continuing his descent would
put him within Class B airspace without a clearance and without
communications with ATC. That's against regulations.

His nav system position error was sufficient that he was not
aware he was entering terminal airspace. What about that
do you not understand? Or do you simply refuse to believe
it because it isn't convenient?

Per the F-16 Dash 1 he was allowed to be at 350 knots at
that altitude, and was traveling only slightly faster at the time
of the collision. What about that statement (from the
accident investigation) do you not understand?



Jeff

On 07/30/06 22:22, wrote:
Orval Fairbairn wrote:

The above posting is not correct. IFR planes have a unique box *only*
against other IFR traffic -- VFR traffic is not mentioned. That is why
you *have* to keep a lookout for traffic when you are under IFR.


Er... what do you mean by "keep a lookout for traffic under IFR"?
Lookout on the radar, surely??

Ramapriya


You're confusing Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) with Instrument Meteorological
Conditions (IMC). Regardless if the flight is IFR or VFR, when you are in
VMC, you must see and avoid other aircraft (and other flying things as well...)



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA