Scared of mid-airs

On 2 Aug 2006 08:46:19 -0700, "
wrote:


Ed Rasimus wrote:

I think the umbrage being taken here is that you've jumped from "user"
priority to "objectives" priority. First you wear your prejudice on
your sleeve with the somewhat inflammatory remarks about the DOD
wanting to take over and run all the airspace coupled with the bit
about letting GA stay home and watch "Wings".

Somewhat inflammatory remarks? I used to schedule airspace blocks for
DOD. Where do you think I got my ideas about DOD hogging airspace
from? I worked in a place where we did it every day. DOD ever have an
interest in controlling all airspace? Look into the history of the
national airspace system and come back and then we can discuss it.

I used to use airspace blocks. I started operating in the environment
with the military in 1964 and did it continuously until 1987. During
that time I also operated in Europe and Asia. In the process my
assignments included tasks ranging from squadron scheduling (airspace
required for training, you know) to Operations Officer management
(getting entire units operationally ready) to NATO exercise planning
requiring negotiation of airspace from multiple national agencies.
I've even done airspace coordination in battle space to deconflict
fast-movers, army aviation and artillery (FAA wasn't in the plan.)
I've got a working background in the subject both from the ground and
the operator side of the house.


Then when people point out that the military have a higher priority
than GA (and they should), you quickly shift from prioritizing
military/commercial/GA to "number one priority is safety." It's
apples and oranges.


Why should the military have priority over GA? The first rule of the
NAS is "first come, first serve".

That is patently absurd. File a flight plan along the north Florida
coast and see if you can get "first come, first serve(d)" priority
over a Shuttle launch. Or file though White Sands when a retest of a
drone becomes necessary and see if you get your service.

National security and operational expedience can and often do take
priority over "first come" service.

List who gets to use a block of airspace--"Mr Safety" doesn't make the
list.

That's an interesting statement coming from a pilot. More fuel for the
fire for Mr. Dighera.

Read again slowly and try not to move your lips. Your introduction of
"safety" as a priority when the discussion was prioritization of
military, commercial and GA traffic was the subject. Safety is a goal.
Safety is the number 1 priority goal. Then efficiency, operational
necessity, time criticality, etc. will vie for runners-up.

But if I ask you to build a priority list with military, commercial,
GA, safety, fuel economy, radar availability, cost of gas at the pump,
control of Gaza and protecting the whales, you will have a tough time
creating a rationale. At this point, Mr. Dighera has burned himself
out. His tape is on continous loop and I can do little to inflame or
douse him.


And, everybody has been using the system with a remarkable degree of
efficiency for decades. Airlines run schedules and fairly high on-time
efficiency rates. GA folks get to do GA things, whether biz-jetting to
meetings, dancing the sky on laughter silvered wings, or simply
learning to fly at the local pasture. And, the military gets to
operate with relatively minimal impact on their requirements and
little interference on the other players.

But you can't say that control of airspace has never been thought about
and discussed by various people in the military.

Control of airspace is an operational necessity. That is different
than assumption of control responsibility for the nation. I wouldn't
want LA Center doing control over Nellis ranges and I don't believe
they have the slightest concern over WSMR is being used for a missile
shot or supersonic dissimilar training.

But, for a lot of years during WW-Cold, there was an bi-lateral agency
called NORAD that would have pulled the plug on the FAA in an instant
when the unthinkable occurred. And, during the heyday of Air Defense
Command, you might recall that FAA lost control of military climb
corridors in an instant when there was an air defense scramble.

But you can also take to the bank that the military has no desire to
prioritize whether American out of D/FW gets priority release over
Southwest from Love Field.


The FAA continues to control the airspace where they can do it best.
They mesh with military terminal control facilities and they interact
with special use airspace schedulers and controllers. No one I've
heard of seriously is seeking military takeover of airspace control
for the CONUS. Your paranoia seems to be recurring.

I never said that I'm worried about DOD taking over CONUS airspace, so
no paranoia on my part. My response had to do with another poster
suggesting that all MTR airspace be forbidden to GA aircraft, which you
yourself agreed was unfeasable.

It's a historical fact that the military has at various times had an
interest in controlling all U.S. airspace. This was discussed at
length in the first airspace design class I attended in 1978 when we
were talking about the roots of the SCATANA plan. The idea was more
prevalent in the 1950s at the height of the Cold War when the military
was worried about flights of Russian bombers penetrating U.S. airspace.
I'm not saying that there is a DOD cabal to take over U.S. airspace,
only that at certain times there have been military agencies or groups
of people who have talked about the possibilities, and in the '50s
tried to make it so.

The 1958 Federal Aviation Act gave the FAA sole responsibility for
developing and maintaining a common civil-military system of air
navigation and air traffic control, and the framers of the act went out
of their way to take some of these responsiblities away from the
military and other government entities, which had previously shared
them with the CAA in a hodge-podge fashion.

Absolutely. No disagreement here, but you've now embellished with a
lot more detail and gotten beyond the blanket assertion of a DOD cabal
to control the world--or at least the FAA's part of the bureaucratic
pie.

But, when PATCO went on strike, they quickly learned that there were
alternatives to their paternal (pun unintentional) control of the
skies. They weren't missed for long.

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