Scared of mid-airs

On 31 Jul 2006 13:41:45 -0700, "
wrote:


Ed Rasimus wrote:

[stuff snipped]


MOAs typically are at altitudes that place them in positive control
airspace. ATC will not provide clearance for GA aircraft through a MOA
that is in use by the military.


GA IFR or GA VFR?

AIM 3-4-5:

"a. MOAs consist of airspace of defined vertical and lateral limits
established for the purpose of separating certain military training
activities from IFR traffic. Whenever a MOA is being used,
nonparticipating IFR traffic may be cleared through a MOA if IFR
separation can be provided by ATC. Otherwise, ATC will reroute or
restrict nonparticipating IFR traffic."

Many, if not most MOAs are involved with very random traffic--e.g. BFM
maneuvering for example. The result is that IFR traffic is not cleared
through when the MOA is active. If the MOA is vacated (still active
usually) between flights scheduled, ATC "might" clear traffic through.
VFR traffic is possible (but ill-advised) below positive control
airspace.

Some MOAs in which activities like air refueling or intercept practice
is conducted would allow for IFR GA aircraft transit, but typically
(at least in my experience) ATC was reluctant to get involved.

"c. Pilots operating under VFR should exercise extreme caution while
flying within a MOA when military activity is being conducted. The
activity status (active/inactive) of MOAs may change frequently.
Therefore, pilots should contact any FSS within 100 miles of the area
to obtain accurate real-time information concerning the MOA hours of
operation. Prior to entering an active MOA, pilots should contact the
controlling agency for traffic advisories."

FAA 7400.8M subpart B:

"A Military Operations Area (MOA) is airspace established outside
positive control area
to separate/segragate certain nonhazardous military activities from IFR
traffic and to identify for VFR traffic where these activities are
conducted."

[rest snipped]

John Hairell )

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

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 20:33:06 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
wrote:

Just a question for a fighter pilot, what amount of fuel in
minutes is normally on board when you begin a terminal
penetration? If you have good position and radio contact,
how long does it take to get a tanker hook-up?

By regulation you need 20 minutes remaing at the initial approach fix.
If weather conditions require an alternate, you need time to go from
IAF to the alternate IAF plus 20 minutes.

In typical, daily, local airfield operations with a VFR recovery
planned, you will have about 20 minutes left when you begin your
descent along the recovery route.

Tankers are not normally an option. Tankers are not usually co-located
with tactical bases. Schedules for tankers and coordination of
required airspace blocks takes considerable time--days usually.

Unlike carrier operations where tankers often sit deck alert to pass a
few thousand pounds of gas to an emergency aircraft, for USAF tactical
aircraft, tankers are not routinely available.

Since 9/11, how much fighter cover traffic is in civil
airspace that wasn't there before?[general terms, nothing
classified]

"fighter cover traffic"?? Dunno what that means. If you mean CAP
related to homeland security, I would say not more than 50-100 sorties
per day. The majority of US military air traffic is routine training
operations around the country. Pilot training, operational
qualification training, currency training, etc.

It virtually all takes place in joint use airspace and is always done
with an ATC flight plan. It is almost always done under IFR. It is
99.9% in "controlled airspace" since there is very little uncontrolled
airspace in the country.

If ATC is slow with a clearance, are you expected to punch
out?

No, you are expected to operate as you indicated on your flight plan
using common sense and whatever is available to you. There are
detailed procedures, for example, regarding how to deal with radio
failure in flight both VFR and IFR in both VMC and IMC.

Let's get over Larry's fixation that military pilots simply gad about
the country ejecting when it suits them or their day is turning
unpleasant.


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

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...

MOAs typically are at altitudes that place them in positive control
airspace. ATC will not provide clearance for GA aircraft through a MOA
that is in use by the military. MOAs that include airspace below
positive control can have VFR aircraft in transit. We used to get them
all the time in the Beak and Talon MOAs east of Holloman.


MOAs are never in positive control airspace. Many MOAs have an ATCAA
directly above them of the same name and lateral limits.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

But, the point that we are beating here is that see-and-avoid is the
basic responsibility of all players all of the time.


That is true with the obvious exception of operations in IMC.


IMC does not provide an exception.

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,

Jeff Crowell wrote:
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.

Larry Dighera wrote:
Just to assure that we are all both aware, the definition of
'hyperbole' is: extravagant exaggeration.


The USAF Accident Investigation Board's report:

1. "Based on their closure rate of approximately 480 knots," ...

2. "Speeds of up to 450 knots were noted during the
descent."

Based on 1 above, you are the one who has exaggerated the closing
speed by 20 knots, but we are both human after all.

You have been claiming that the speed of the USAF flight
was "480 knots (550 mph) at impact" (your post, 7/14),
when actual recorded speed at impact was 356 KCAS
per the accident report. That's an exaggeration of 25%.
Whether that qualifies as "extravagant" I leave to you.
Further, what's the purpose of including the miles per
hour conversion except exaggeration, making the
difference look bigger yet?

As I said above, their CLOSURE rate was near 500
knots. Speed during descent was assuredly much
too high.


The USAF Accident Investigation Board's report:

"Ninja flight's mistake was in transitioning to the tactical
portion of their flight too early, unaware that they were in
controlled airspace."

That was President, Accident Investigation Board Robin E. Scott's
opinion. It is not fact.

Despite the fact that Parker failed to brief terminal airspace prior
to the flight as regulations require, I personally find it difficult,
if not impossible, to believe Parker was unaware, that the 60 mile
diameter Tampa Class B terminal airspace lay below him at the time he
chose to descend below 10,000' into it.

That's opinion, too, annit?


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, I understand that 450 knots within congested terminal airspace
is about one third faster than the 350 knot speed limit you state
above. One third is not 'slightly faster'. It is _significantly_
faster. (The 450 knot figure is quoted from the AIB report at the
beginning of this follow up article.) Perhaps you can provide the
reasoning you used in arriving at your conclusion.

Speed of the F-16 at impact was 356 KCAS.


Incidentally, what is the 'F-16 Dash 1'? Is it the aircraft operation
manual, that provides information regarding minimum speeds for various
flight regimes?

The Dash-1 is the flight manual for that particular aircraft. It
defines, among other things, minimum safe airspeeds. The
equivalent publication for naval aircraft is the NATOPS manual.
The FAA recognizes the Dash-1 and NATOPS pubs as legal
documents for the purpose of setting minimum allowable speeds
below 10,000 MSL.


Jeff

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 13:13:08 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
.. .

MOAs typically are at altitudes that place them in positive control
airspace. ATC will not provide clearance for GA aircraft through a MOA
that is in use by the military. MOAs that include airspace below
positive control can have VFR aircraft in transit. We used to get them
all the time in the Beak and Talon MOAs east of Holloman.


MOAs are never in positive control airspace. Many MOAs have an ATCAA
directly above them of the same name and lateral limits.

Has that been a recent change? The airspace we used at Holloman for
most of the AT-38 training was to the East. The restricted airspace
over White Sands was used mostly by the 49th wing F-15s as it was
supersonic and ran surface to very high altitudes. It was used for
both flight and missile testing including Surface-to-air (ie Patriot)
and air-to-air (against Firebee variants and QF aircraft).

To the East we had the Beaks (A,B and C) and Talons (North, East and
West). They were MOAs and extended from 10,000 AGl to FL 450--which
put them both below and within APC (which in those days commenced at
FL180). We routinely had VFR GA traffic particularly in the Ruidoso
Airport area passing under the Beaks, but only rare exceptions of
folks exercising their VFR transit rights. ATC radar coverage, because
of high terrain on several sides, was intermittent at lower altitudes,
but occasionally ABQ Center would give an advisory of VFR traffic and
would always provide notice of IFR traffic along the bordering
airways. We usually had the traffic before ATC said anything.

Probably the ATCAA is the explanation. We just considered it MOA.


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

Larry Dighera wrote:


In those cases where they are unable to communicate with civilian
aircraft, how does the military assume responsibility for separation
of aircraft?

The Letter of Agreement between DOD and the FAA will spell out who
does what. If for some reason DOD needs some communications to go
through the ARTCC or other designated ATC facility that will be spelled
out in the LOA. Note in 1-48 below that an LOA is not always required
for MARSA to be invoked. There's always an exception to the rule.

For IFR MTRs:

"FAA 7610.4 11-6-12. SEPARATION OF PARTICIPATING AIRCRAFT

a. To the extent practicable, IRs should be established for
standard ATC services and approved separation applied between
individual aircraft.

b. If the provisions of subparagraph a cannot be applied because of
mission requirements, crossing routes, or ATC limitations, routes may
be designated for MARSA operations. The procedures for applying MARSA
shall be contained in the letter of agreement between the scheduling
unit and the appropriate ATC facility. Specific MARSA operating
procedures shall be contained in the DOD FLIP AP/1B and AP/3 narrative
description of the route.

NOTE-
ATC facilities' sole responsibility concerning the use of MARSA is
to provide separation between participating and nonparticipating
aircraft. (See para-
graph 1-48, Use of MARSA.)"

VFR MTRs are coordinated with the local FSS.

Do they relay communications through FAA ATC?

Yes, if need be communications can be relayed via the ARTCC or other
ATC facilities.

I presume, no separation is provided for flights on low-level IFR
MTRs, while it is provided, or the military takes responsibility for
separation, on IFR MTRs.

I assume you mean VFR MTRs in the first part of your sentence. MARSA
can be used for IFR MTRs, plus see and avoid on the pilots' part, as
always. See and avoid is used for VFR MTRs.

"FAA 7610.4K

1-4-8. USE OF MILITARY AUTHORITY ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR SEPARATION
OF AIRCRAFT (MARSA)

The application of MARSA is a military service prerogative and will not
be invoked by individual units or pilots except as follows:

a. Military service commands authorizing MARSA shall be responsible
for its implementation and terms of use. When military operations
warrant an LOA and MARSA will be applied, the authority to invoke MARSA
shall be contained in the LOA. It must be noted that an LOA will not be
required in all cases involving MARSA.

b. ATC facilities do not invoke or deny MARSA. Their sole
responsibility concerning the use of MARSA is to provide separation
between military aircraft engaged in MARSA operations and other
non-participating IFR aircraft.

c. DOD shall ensure that military pilots requesting special use
airspace (SUA)/ATC assigned airspace (ATCAA) have coordinated with the
scheduling agency, obtained approval for entry, and are familiar with
appropriate MARSA procedures. ATC is not responsible for determining
which military aircraft are authorized to enter SUA/ATCAA."


John Hairell )

588 wrote:

No, that would be a far less satisfactory solution than converting
airspace associated with military training routes to Restricted
areas. Despite the AOPA's stand on the subject, we could more easily
do without the majority of civilian light plane VFR flying in the
US, for example, than we could not do without military flight
training in CONUS.

So the training needs of the military have a higher priority than
anything else in the US airspace system? So we should allow free range
by military aviation and IFR airline traffic
(that's big money) but the GA population should stay home and watch
"Wings" on TV?


The presence of random VFR traffic in military training routes
cannot be allowed to disrupt training. Have you considered the
implications of certain forms of political dissent which could
involve obstruction of these routes by civilian aircraft of various
categories? Perhaps you have, after all.

This was all hashed out in 1958 when the responsiblity for controlling
airspace was given to the FAA, not DOD. DOD gets airspace allocated to
it from the FAA and much of it is dual use. If DOD had its wishes it
would control all airspace and hand certain portions out to civilians.
But since this country is not a military dictatorship things don't run
that way.

You want the USAF to assume all responsibility for traffic conflicts
in training airspace? No legal entity is going to assume
responsibility for the results of acts committed by persons outside
its control. Therefore, only military pilots would be allowed in
training airspace. Perhaps you have not considered that.

DOD would love that, but the fact remains that airspace is a national
asset, not a DOD asset.


John Hairell )

I'm being thick here but what's PED? Public Education Dept? Performance
Enhancing Drugs?

It's one of the conventions we've established here for subject lines.
Others a

OT - off topic
FS - for sale
POL - political discussion (sometimes a thread moves that way)
PED - pedantry (little nitpicking having nothing to do with aviation)

The last two were recently added. Although nothing like this is ever
official on Usenet, if we adopt them it helps people to filter out stuff
they don't want to see.

There are a few others which escape me at the moment. The idea is to
start the subject line with one of these if the topic warrants it (or to
modify the existing subject line thus if you are replying in such a
manner).

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 04:49:37 GMT, 588 wrote in
::

Larry Dighera wrote:

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

No, that would be a far less satisfactory solution than converting
airspace associated with military training routes to Restricted
areas.

The more I think about such a conversion, the more appropriate I think
it would be. If Restricted airspace were created around MTRs, the
hazardous area would be fully depicted on charts. Instead of MTRs
being shown as a thin gray line, their true lateral dimensions would
be represented. Of course the chart might become so cluttered as to
be incomprehensible, but that doesn't seem to be a factor of concern
for those charged with designing airspace nor their cartographers.

Of course, military high-speed, low-level MTR operations outside the
Restricted airspace bounds would be prohibited. So if a MTR run
impaled a civil aircraft outside of R airspace, there would be no
ambiguity about who was responsible (and don't give me that
see-and-avoid weasel clause; it's absurdly unrealistic at the speeds
involved).

At any rate, such an airspace conversion would confine high-speed,
low-level military operations to ostensibly vacant airspace, rather
than joint use, depict the true size of MTRs on charts, enhance air
safety, and return the NAS to a well engineered system, albeit a bit
more difficult to navigate. (Have you ever been successful contacting
Flight Service at 500' AGL to inquire if a MTR is hot?)

Alternatively, we could REQUIRE BY REGULATION, that all MTR
participants employ TCAS (or radar capable of detecting conflicting
traffic of all categories and AUTOMATICALLY alerting the military
pilot) for collision avoidance.

Choices, choices, ...

Despite the AOPA's stand on the subject, we could more easily
do without the majority of civilian light plane VFR flying in the
US, for example, than we could not [sic] do without military flight
training in CONUS.

Huh?

We could surely do without MTR routes in the CONUS, and did until a
few years ago.

The presence of random VFR traffic in military training routes
cannot be allowed to disrupt training.

Here are three responses to that statement:

1. The presence of 450 knot military training flights within
congested terminal airspace without benefit of the required ATC
clearance cannot be allowed to kill innocent civilians either.

2. MTR training was run out of Europe. They were tired of the hazard
it caused, and the lack of enforcement displayed by the military. Now
we've got it here in the US. Perhaps there is a more suitable, less
congested venue someplace else.

3. As currently implemented, Military Training Routes are joint-use
airspace. To expect that airspace to be free of non-military aircraft
is unrealistic and contrary to federal civil and military regulations.
Just so we all understand the definition of a MTR:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...y/airspace.htm
A Military Training Route, or MTR, is basically a long,
low-altitude [joint use] corridor that serves as a flight path to
a particular destination [with aircraft speeds up to mach 1]. The
corridor is often 10 miles wide, 70 to 100 miles long [although
it's not charted that way], and may range from 500 to 1,500 feet
above ground level [and unrealistically relies solely upon
see-and-avoid for collision avoidance in VMC]; occasionally, they
are higher. MTRs are designed to provide realistic low-altitude
training conditions for pilots. In times of conflict, to avoid
detection by enemy radar, tactical fighter aircraft are often
called upon to fly hundreds of miles at low altitude over varying
terrain. Obviously, navigation is extremely difficult on
high-speed low-altitude flights. That's why it is imperative that
fighter pilots have ample opportunity to practice these necessary
and demanding skills [even if it endangers the lives of the
public].

Have you considered the
implications of certain forms of political dissent which could
involve obstruction of these routes by civilian aircraft of various
categories? Perhaps you have, after all.

No I haven't. Only someone with a death wish would consider
committing such a stupid act. Get real. What would what you suggest
that might accomplish besides a dead civilian airman and two destroyed
aircraft?

Or are you referring to the glider that was hit on a MTR by an A6? The
glider pilot, who had the right of way, was found by the NTSB to be
the cause of the MAC! There's justice for you. :-(

You want the USAF to assume all responsibility for traffic conflicts
in training airspace?

I would like to see the military assume responsibility for the hazard
their operations under FAR § 91.117(d) cause to civil flights in all
airspace. That exemption to the 250 knot speed limit below 10,000' is
an affront to the design of the NAS. If not, why have a speed limit
at all?

No legal entity is going to assume responsibility for the results of
acts committed by persons outside its control.

That's funny; you've got me chuckling now, given the fact that the
military doesn't take responsibility now for the acts THEY committed.

Therefore, only military pilots would be allowed in
training airspace. Perhaps you have not considered that.

If military operations create a civil hazard, they should be
segregated from civil flights. No problem there. Anything less is
negligence.

Your wish-list is not going to receive serious consideration, even
here on USENET let alone in the Legislature, without substantial
refinement.

I don't doubt that refinement would be beneficial. I'm only a pilot,
not an airspace engineer.

Far more evidence than has been shown thus far, that you
are prepared to make a serious effort to understand the problem,
will be required.

So you've read all I've written on this subject over the past six
years? I think we ALL understand the problem quite well; some just
don't admit there is one.

It is easy to be destructive...but it takes effort to be
constructive....

Good advice, perhaps you will keep it in mind.

Implicit in that parting shot is the notion that I have somehow been
destructive. Lacking any example of that, I will consider it a
pathetic sign of your desperation.


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