Scared of mid-airs

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 17:24:00 GMT, Jose
wrote:

A flight plan is an expression of intention to fly.

Obviously you are being difficult. "Flying on an IFR flight plan"
implies either uncontrolled airspace, or a clearance. The former is an
invitation to an FAA hearing. The latter implies ATC coordination.

Guess which one I'm referring to.

If you are intending to fly in uncontrolled airspace you will not get
ATC services. You might be flying in IMC, but you provide your own
separation. Whether or not you have ATC involved has NO RELATION to
whether or not a flight plan is filed.

A flight plan is an expression of an intent to fly. It is filed,
whether IFR or VFR with a Flight Service Station, which has no control
authority.

Don't mix flight plans with ATC clearances.


When the flight launches, ATC then provides services.

Exactly.

Did you miss the part where I said ALL MILITARY FLIGHTS ARE OPERATING
ON FLIGHT PLANS AND IFR?

No. But you seem to be dodging the issue by hiding behind stuff like "A
flight plan is an expression of intention to fly." Did you miss the
part where you yourself said "Training time along an MTR, within a MOA,
in restricted airspace, or on a range is usually done without ATC
involvement."? The IFR I am familiar with always has ATC involvement.

And you seem to have snipped the part where I spelled out a typical
training sortie on an IFR flight plan. Maybe you didn't read it. Maybe
you didn't understand it. Maybe you are simply being difficult.

Let me repeat--upon reaching the training airspace, the flight is
dropped from ATC control and exercises a delay enroute. They are still
on an IFR flight plan and will resume ATC control after completion of
their delay period.

And, since you have apparent comprehension issues, let me repeat what
I pointed out above:

A flight plan is an expression of an intent to fly. It is filed,
whether IFR or VFR with a Flight Service Station, which has no control
authority.

Don't mix flight plans with ATC clearances.

Are you on an ATC clearance at that point? Are you on an ATC clearance
in an MTR (IR or VR)?

...they operate together and the sky does not seem
to be raining airplanes.

And, the military is NOT "blaming anybody who happens to be in the way
for the MAC."

Who was responsible for the MAC where the cessna, while attempting to
turn away, was speared by an F-something at 350 knots or so?

The investigation determines who is responsible. There was an
investigation. It was conducted in great detail. Mr. Dighera is
unwilling to accept the outcome of the investigation. I am unwilling
to accept the outcome of the OJ trial.

The Cessna could be responsible even if turning away. In the case
under discussion, the investigation indicated that the Cessna was not
responsible. Merely because an airplane is involved in a mid-air with
a faster aircraft is not prima facie evidence that it was the faster
aircraft's fault.

Yes, one example, but an egregious one in my book, and one you seem to
be defending.

Ever been on an airliner?

Ever flown a bug smasher?

Yes. But, that doesn't relate to the example I gave (creative snipping
on your part again.) You imply some sort of invisibility of aircraft
operating at 400 knots and I pointed out how easy it is to see them in
a circumstance that you were likely to encounter.

Jose

Do you have an aeronautical rating? How many hours have you accrued?

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