![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 15:28:47 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote: On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 15:25:29 GMT, Ed Rasimus wrote in :: OK, your homework for this week is to pick a major USAF tactical base. You seem familiar with MacDill, but you could use Langley, Luke, Nellis, Seymour-Johnson or similar. Now, draw up a minimum of four low level MTRs, each a minimum of 300 miles in length. Be sure that entry and exit points are close enough to base of origin for local operations during a typical 90 minute flight. Have at least two of the routes terminate on a weapons range. Consider the routes restricted airspace. Now, how does your GA traffic go anywhere? You have effectively created boxes that don't allow anyone else to use the airspace. With regard to low-level MTRs, isn't the ceiling 500' AGL to 1,500' AGL? Why not just fly over top of the proposed MTR restricted airspace? If that approach should happen to interfere with navigation, then the pilot would do what he always does to enter R airspace: Contact ATC. I don't see the problem you apparently do. What am I overlooking? You've added a factor not previously in evidence. If you draw the MTR with those altitude specs, then you MAY be able to create routes that would be meet training requirements and allow for reasonably unhindered GA traffic. You're overlooking the fact that ATC doesn't usually have coverage at those altitudes in areas typically employed for MTRs. They won't be able to offer you the desired "no responsibility on the part of the GA pilot" guarantee of no threat because they can't see traffic at those altitudes. Additionally, training maneuvers on an MTR may require formation repositioning, simulated evasive maneuvers, simulated armed reconnaisance maneuvering and even simulated weapons delivery maneuvers and re-attacks. Those requirements could seriously mitigate your ability to create 500-1500' AGL corridors. Isn't joint-use under VFR more practical? Joint use of MTR airspace causes a hazard to air navigation because of the high speeds involved. Practicality is trumped by air safety in my mind. Is it not in yours? If you ask that last sentence question, you must not have been paying attention throught the last 120 messages here. The (relatively) high speeds involved are not the problem you continually try to make them. How much time do you have driving an airplane at 300 knots or more? I've got about 4000 hours of tactical jet operation and never seemed to find it too difficult to see-and-avoid other aircraft. Would you characterize yourself as typical of the skill level attained by the majority of military fighter pilots? You demonstrate here that you actually don't know many military fighter pilots (BTW, there is no other kind--all fighter pilots are military). Show me a fighter pilot who does not contend that his personal skill level is above the average and I'll show you a pilot who will lose tomorrow. My skill level was generally above the majority. But the training level I required of those who were my students, those in my squadron and those in my flights was more than adequate to do the job safely. Let's also note something regarding your favorite 250 knot restriction below 10M'. For a period of time (long ago, galaxy far, far away), I operated an aircraft that flew final approach at typical landing weight at 205 KIAS. That was landing configuration with gear and flaps down. In clean configuration, 350 knots was generally the minimum maneuverable speed. At 250 knots clean, my agile fighter suddenly became a shuddering block of non-aerodynamic technology with little more G available than your Cessna 172. Not practical. Today, aircraft operate comfortably at lower speeds, but still need operational flexibility and therefore the exemption of the 250 knot restriction remains necessary. I don't recall having said the exemption isn't necessary. My objection is to the _hazard_ operating in excess of the speed limit the National Airspace System designers chose while creating the system. If you think the 250 knot limit below 10,000' is unwarranted, perhaps your credentials are superior to those who designed the system. Doubtful. My credentials may be different than theirs. But, they recognized the operational and aerodyamic necessity of the exception as well as I do. You are apparently the only one who does not recognize that some high performance tactical aircraft require that exemption to operate safely. 'Tis you Moriarty, not I. Let's do a little analysis. VFR minimum visibility: 3 statute miles = 15,480' 250 knots: 417' per second Time to impact at 250 knots closing: 37 seconds (3 statute miles) OK, hold your breath for 37 seconds. It's an incredibly long time. These times do not take into consideration the speed of BOTH aircraft, and more importantly, they do not allow for the time it takes to recognize the threat, decide to maneuver out of the path, and the time it takes for the aircraft to respond and actually finish clearing the path. Three seconds? Maybe five if you can't make a decision quickly. More likely, the exemption was issued as a necessary expedient at a time when the sky was much bigger (if you know what I mean), and there was less oversight. Today that exemption creates a negative impact on air safety, and the whole issue should be objectively reexamined by qualified engineers. Not engineers you twit. Operators! Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" www.thunderchief.org www.thundertales.blogspot.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
UBL wants a truce - he's scared of the CIA UAV | John Doe | Aviation Marketplace | 1 | January 19th 06 08:58 PM |
The kids are scared, was Saddam evacuated | D. Strang | Military Aviation | 0 | April 7th 04 10:36 PM |
Scared and trigger-happy | John Galt | Military Aviation | 5 | January 31st 04 12:11 AM |