![]() |
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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
My proposal is designed to provide additional impetus to those military pilots to exercise caution in their deconfliction and decision making. The best alternative here is to make MTR non-joint use by making them restricted areas. This would give the military the training routes they need while protecting low-flying civilians. However, this is a fairly draconian action and I think the current charting of "here be dragons" is a good compromise between this option and the opposite end of doing away with MTRs altogether. Your proposal for "deconflicting" this airspace takes away key training options and makes it harder to give military pilots realistic training. Combat missions are not often flown with active radar to avoid alerting the enemy so requiring pilots training here to always use radar takes away combat realism. Your idea of TCAS relies on transponder signals which are not available from many aircraft including half of those you listed. It also relies on radio signals that, like radar, could disclose the location of aircraft to an enemy so its use is also unrealistic training. Here is your linked text (from an anti-US military site, BTW) in its unedited form: http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...y/airspace.htm A Military Training Route, or MTR, is basically a long, low-altitude corridor that serves as a flight path to a particular destination. The corridor is often 10 miles wide, 70 to 100 miles long, and may range from 500 to 1,500 feet above ground level; 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 this site admits "it is imperative that fighter pilots have ample opportunity to practice" high speed, low altitude flights. MTRs are vital to training military pilots in simulated wartime conditions. This may include activities hazardous to other aircraft including night flight without navigation lights or flying nap-of-the-earth without active radar. I'm not prepared to take away this key training tool. These routes are charted and defined for pilots to know of them. If you're not comfortable with the safety margins, avoid them. They really do constitute a tiny percentage of the US NAS. Okay, now lets hear your reasoning as to why you believe my proposal is counter productive, please. Done. -- John T http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://openspf.org ____________________ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
24 Mar 2006 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | March 25th 06 02:23 AM |
7 Mar 2006 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | March 8th 06 03:44 AM |
Air Force One Had to Intercept Some Inadvertent Flyers / How? | Rick Umali | Piloting | 29 | February 15th 06 04:40 AM |
Updated List of Military Information-Exchange Forums | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | November 20th 05 04:13 AM |