![]() |
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 16:08:14 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote in : 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 : 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. Which factor is that? 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. That seemed obvious to me. You're overlooking the fact that ATC doesn't usually have coverage at those altitudes in areas typically employed for MTRs. Agreed. Are you saying there is a requirement for ATC to have radar coverage of all R airspace? Or are you saying, that if the military is going to shoulder responsibility for the hazard to air safety their high-speed, low-level operations create, it would require ATC radar coverage? ATC had perfectly good radar coverage in Florida, but it didn't prevent the MAC. And the Cessna pilot was found to have been partially responsible as a result of being incapable of avoiding at the speeds involved. 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. First, I never indicated that GA should have 'no responsibility'; I said the military should bear sole legal responsibility for the hazards it poses to air safety as a result of operating under its exemption to the 250 knot speed limit below 10,000' feet. Next, There would be no necessity for the military to take sole responsibility as mentioned above, if they were operating in Class R airspace (unless they failed to schedule it with ATC/FSS). Additionally, training maneuvers on an MTR may require formation repositioning, simulated evasive maneuvers, simulated armed reconnaisance [sic] maneuvering and even simulated weapons delivery maneuvers and re-attacks. Those requirements could seriously mitigate your ability to create 500-1500' AGL corridors. [Mitigate: to cause to become less harsh or hostile] Not being familiar with those operations, I ask, would it be feasible to conduct those operations above 10,000'? If not, why not? I presume formation repositioning, simulated evasive maneuvers, simulated armed reconnaissance maneuvering and simulated weapons delivery maneuvers and re-attacks may require larger lateral, and perhaps vertical, boundaries than are currently provided by MTRs. Is that correct? 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. We disagree about that. (And you have evaded the question.) 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) The Flying Tigers were a civilian group. Anyone who thinks the Flying Tigers were not fighter pilots is uninformed and/or delusional. My skill level was generally above the majority. Right. So using your own personal experiences as examples in this discussion is atypical of most military pilots, by your own admission. [...] 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. You'll find it impossible to locate a single instance in which I advocated operating an aircraft below its safe minimum speed. My issue is the operation in excess of the 250 knot speed limit in joint use airspace, and the hazard it causes to civil aviation. 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. I am able to hold my breath for 1.5 minutes. Other's have done so recently for nearly 9 minutes. Of course, fast-movers operate in excess of 250 knots, and the equation does not consider head-on situations as occurred in Florida. The closing speed was 480 knots in that instance, which works out to a little over 19 seconds to visually identify the conflicting traffic at 3 statute miles, decide to take evasive action, and have the aircraft clear of the path of impact. 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. Okay. Four seconds to make the decision to take evasive action, and a couple of seconds to input control commands and for the aircraft to actually clear the path, that leaves 13 seconds to visually identify the head-on traffic at 3 statute miles in minimum VMC. Now, if you consider a fighter at 300 knots approaching a 250 knot airliner head on, the closure rate would be 550 knots permitting only 17 seconds until impact. Subtracting six seconds for decision and maneuvering, leaves 11 seconds to visually identify the threat. That's precious little time to see-and-avoid in single pilot operations. 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! [Ah. Invective and deprecation: the last refuge of the unarmed. Are you aware of how such loss of civility diminishes any respect you may have had? I don't expect you capable of apologizing. Disappointing.] Operators are not skilled in the disciplines of engineering. Operators have a vested interest in the decisions. Engineers use objective calculations to discover system limitations, not necessity nor emotion to arrive at unrealistic conclusions. -- DISCLAIMER If you find a posting or message from me offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate... ;-) -- |
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 |