Scared of mid-airs

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 19:14:53 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 17:01:33 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote in
::

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 11:35:46 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
wrote:

True, but often they have an AWACS or military ground radar.


No kidding? They also often have their own radar and have been trained
to look at it and interpret it with greater detail than following an
up/down arrow on a TCAS.

Unfortunately, military pilots often have their on-board radar set to
reject slow moving targets like light GA aircraft, so it isn't being
used for collision avoidance with civil aircraft. That should change.

And what military aircraft radars are using MTI with thresholds above
GA aircraft speeds? Stick with what you know, Larry. Avoid discussions
of specific military equipment, training, tactics, procedures, are
even attitudes.

They've also been trained to provide their
own separation and to operate in areas without the
all-seeing/all-knowing motherliness of Air Traffic Control.

Some have;some haven't:

How much training experience in the military aviation business do you
have? Stick with what you know--apparently Google searches are your
forte:

Civil aircraft to the right of military aircraft:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...26X00109&key=1

F-16s lacked required ATC clearance:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...12X22313&key=1

A6 pilot expected to exit MTR eight minutes after route closu
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...11X12242&key=1

A6 hit glider that had right of way:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...13X33340&key=1

Nevertheless as Mr. Dighera incessantly points out, "stuff"
happens--

If I infer your intent correctly, the 'stuff' to which you
euphemistically refer are the deaths of civil pilots due to being
impaled in midair collisions by high-speed, low-level military
aircraft often on MTR runs.

Or, conversely the numbers of deaths of military pilots due to
mid-airs with GA pilots operating cluelessly in restricted, warning,
prohibited airspace, MOAs and oil burner routes. It's a two-edged
sword, Larry.

but it ain't murder.

Some are, and some aren't.

Mid-airs aren't murder. Accidents happen. Most accident boards find
causative factors. But it isn't murder.

But the military's miserable record in reprimanding its airmen who
wrongfully kill innocent pilots, and shortsighted safety initiatives
are pathetic.

You are the pathetic one with innuendo, hyperbole, exaggeration and
disgusting rhetoric. No one goes out to have a mid-air.

You've got to agree, that rocketing through congested
terminal airspace at 500 knots without the required ATC clearance,
lopping 9' of wingtip from a glider with an A6, and failing to see and
avoid a crop duster are manslaughter, which is called Third Degree
Murder in Florida.

Until you can show me some experience in flying a military tactical
aircraft in a leadership position of a flight of four in congested
airspace with weather factors involved, I'll simply discount your
commentary as someone with a fixation.



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

In article ,
Ed Rasimus wrote:

(snip)
Or, conversely the numbers of deaths of military pilots due to
mid-airs with GA pilots operating cluelessly in restricted, warning,
prohibited airspace, MOAs and oil burner routes. It's a two-edged
sword, Larry.

IIRC, Ed, only in prohibited airspace can a mil pilot not expect to
encounter a civil VFR. Restricted airspace can be "cold," thus available
to VFR use. MOAs and oil Burner routes are *NOT* protected airspace!

They may, or may not be charted -- only ATC knows if the military is
active in them, so the responsibility of collision avoidance falls on
all pilots -- especially those operating beyond 250 KIAS.



Mid-airs aren't murder. Accidents happen. Most accident boards find
causative factors. But it isn't murder.

It depends on the nature of caution exercised in their avoidance.
Blasting through Class B or C airspace at 500 KIAS, without a clearance
is certainly highly negligent.

(snip)

You've got to agree, that rocketing through congested
terminal airspace at 500 knots without the required ATC clearance,
lopping 9' of wingtip from a glider with an A6, and failing to see and
avoid a crop duster are manslaughter, which is called Third Degree
Murder in Florida.

Until you can show me some experience in flying a military tactical
aircraft in a leadership position of a flight of four in congested
airspace with weather factors involved, I'll simply discount your
commentary as someone with a fixation.


That is what we have restricted areas for -- not to be done in congested
airspace.

You want somebody with experience leading a flight of four in congested
airspace? Voila - here I am. 1967-1971 and 1976-1980 at Homestead AFB
as an RTU instructor pilot going from Homestead to Avon Park and back
with 4 F4s. Most the time leading the flight; sometimes in the back
seat of #3 as a back-up flight lead, to the tune of about 800 hours.
Most flights were on an IFR clearance up around 25000 (depending on
ATC); others VFR down at 1000 feet and 360K as the WSOs learned about
low-level nav and radar mapping. Once inside Avon Park Range, skipping
about between 15,000 and the deck from 300 to 500K; eyes peeled for
careless or ignorant GA birds tooling through our private airspace.
Note that all rpt all fighter crews are graded on visual and radar
lookout. When leader spots a bogey in your sector before you do - you
will hear about it during debrief. Bogey-spotting equals life to a
fighter crew member even in these days of good radar. And I notice Mr.
Dighera omits any mention of air transport aircraft running into GA
aircraft and vice-versa; as occurred several times on the West Coast to
the loss of several hundred lives.
Walt BJ

On 30 Jul 2006 15:10:51 -0700, "WaltBJ"
wrote in . com::

And I notice Mr. Dighera omits any mention of air transport aircraft running into GA
aircraft and vice-versa; as occurred several times on the West Coast to
the loss of several hundred lives.

If you are referring to the Cerritos midair of 1986, it caused a
regulation change that resulted in all GA aircraft with electrical
systems being equipped with Mode C transponders for use in terminal
airspace.

What is being done as a result of the MACs caused by the military's
hazardous, high-speed, low-level operations? Nothing.

Orval al wrote:
In article ,
Ed Rasimus wrote:

(snip)
Or, conversely the numbers of deaths of military pilots due to
mid-airs with GA pilots operating cluelessly in restricted, warning,
prohibited airspace, MOAs and oil burner routes. It's a two-edged
sword, Larry.

IIRC, Ed, only in prohibited airspace can a mil pilot not expect to
encounter a civil VFR.

That is what we have restricted areas for -- not to be done in congested
airspace.


Which is it, Orv?



Jack

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 05:07:37 GMT, 588 wrote in
::

Orval al wrote:
In article ,
Ed Rasimus wrote:

(snip)
Or, conversely the numbers of deaths of military pilots due to
mid-airs with GA pilots operating cluelessly in restricted, warning,
prohibited airspace, MOAs and oil burner routes. It's a two-edged
sword, Larry.

IIRC, Ed, only in prohibited airspace can a mil pilot not expect to
encounter a civil VFR.

That is what we have restricted areas for -- not to be done in congested
airspace.


Which is it, Orv?


I'm sure you are intelligent enough to parse Orval's meaning; you're
just being deliberately obtuse, right?

GA aircraft don't enter Prohibited Areas, thus they aren't found
there. Restricted areas were created for hazardous military
operations; terminal airspace is congested and inappropriate for
hazardous military operations.

If I can understand his meaning, surely someone who possesses your
towering intellect should have no trouble comprehending his meaning.

In article ,
588 wrote:

Orval al wrote:
In article ,
Ed Rasimus wrote:

(snip)
Or, conversely the numbers of deaths of military pilots due to
mid-airs with GA pilots operating cluelessly in restricted, warning,
prohibited airspace, MOAs and oil burner routes. It's a two-edged
sword, Larry.

IIRC, Ed, only in prohibited airspace can a mil pilot not expect to
encounter a civil VFR.

That is what we have restricted areas for -- not to be done in congested
airspace.


Which is it, Orv?


Both restricted and prohibited airspace are "sterile." Actually,
military aircraft also should not be in *prohibited* airspace, OTW, it
is *restricted* airspace.

MOAs, Warning areas and Oil Burner routes are joint use, so we can
expect anybody to be there legally.

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article ,
Ed Rasimus wrote:

(snip)
Or, conversely the numbers of deaths of military pilots due to
mid-airs with GA pilots operating cluelessly in restricted, warning,
prohibited airspace, MOAs and oil burner routes. It's a two-edged
sword, Larry.

IIRC, Ed, only in prohibited airspace can a mil pilot not expect to
encounter a civil VFR. Restricted airspace can be "cold," thus available
to VFR use. MOAs and oil Burner routes are *NOT* protected airspace!

They may, or may not be charted -- only ATC knows if the military is
active in them, so the responsibility of collision avoidance falls on
all pilots -- especially those operating beyond 250 KIAS.


As a former military air traffic controller I read these posts with
some bemusement. While I don't fully agree with Larry's viewpoint, I
think that some of what he says has merit.

Even ATC (mil or FAA) sometimes doesn't know what is going on with
low-level training routes - I've seen enough of those activities to
know that (at least in my time) they were operated haphazardly, i.e.
they were sometimes legally active when nobody was using them, and
sometimes there were aircraft using the routes when they weren't
legally active. The NOTAMs weren't always valid, sometimes they were
non-existent, the times were off, etc. Most of this was due to a
misfunctioning in the USAF organizations that scheduled airspace usage
and which coordinated with the FAA. Several times I saw airspace
usage/scheduling conflictions which couldn't be solved because it was
the weekend and none of the USAF scheduling people were at work. I
know of several GA-fast mover near-collisions due to GA aircraft going
through OB routes where the route was not legally active but there were
multiple fast-movers on it. If I were a GA pilot I would assume that
any OB route is hot all the time. As far as where low-level training
routes actually are, I also saw a case where the route had been
modified by the USAF and nobody else had been told.

Besides OB route misuse, I've also seen the misuse of special-use
restricted airspace by the military, not by intent but by sheer
laziness.

Military pilots are most of the time professionals but they work in a
system that allows the simultaneous use of airspace by both civilian
and military users, and not everybody is always playing by the same
rules.


John Hairell )

On 31 Jul 2006 09:04:43 -0700, "
wrote in
.com::


As a former military air traffic controller I read these posts with
some bemusement. While I don't fully agree with Larry's viewpoint, I
think that some of what he says has merit.

Even ATC (mil or FAA) sometimes doesn't know what is going on with
low-level training routes - I've seen enough of those activities to
know that (at least in my time) they were operated haphazardly, i.e.
they were sometimes legally active when nobody was using them, and
sometimes there were aircraft using the routes when they weren't
legally active. The NOTAMs weren't always valid, sometimes they were
non-existent, the times were off, etc. Most of this was due to a
misfunctioning in the USAF organizations that scheduled airspace usage
and which coordinated with the FAA. Several times I saw airspace
usage/scheduling conflictions which couldn't be solved because it was
the weekend and none of the USAF scheduling people were at work. I
know of several GA-fast mover near-collisions due to GA aircraft going
through OB routes where the route was not legally active but there were
multiple fast-movers on it. If I were a GA pilot I would assume that
any OB route is hot all the time. As far as where low-level training
routes actually are, I also saw a case where the route had been
modified by the USAF and nobody else had been told.

Besides OB route misuse, I've also seen the misuse of special-use
restricted airspace by the military, not by intent but by sheer
laziness.

Military pilots are most of the time professionals but they work in a
system that allows the simultaneous use of airspace by both civilian
and military users, and not everybody is always playing by the same
rules.


John Hairell )

Thank you for the information, John.

As someone vastly more familiar with this issue than I, can you
suggest the appropriate military people (or specific agency and
division) to contact about resolving some of the safety issues you
raised?

Or (in your opinion) is it futile to expect to get something
meaningful accomplished with involving my congressional
representatives?

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:41:50 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote in
::

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 19:14:53 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 17:01:33 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote in
::

Unfortunately, military pilots often have their on-board radar set to
reject slow moving targets like light GA aircraft, so it isn't being
used for collision avoidance with civil aircraft. That should change.

And what military aircraft radars are using MTI with thresholds above
GA aircraft speeds?

As I recall, it was during the discussion of the November 16, 2000
MAC, that a military pilot mentioned in rec.aviation.military, that
military radars were not appropriate for traffic deconfliction (my
paraphrase).


They've also been trained to provide their
own separation and to operate in areas without the
all-seeing/all-knowing motherliness of Air Traffic Control.

Some have;some haven't:

How much training experience in the military aviation business do you
have? Stick with what you know--apparently Google searches are your
forte:

You can bluster all you like, but failing to acknowledge the
culpability of the military in each of the military/civil MAC NTSB
reports I cited, is tacit agreement that each was the fault of the
military flight.


Civil aircraft to the right of military aircraft:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...26X00109&key=1

F-16s lacked required ATC clearance:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...12X22313&key=1

A6 pilot expected to exit MTR eight minutes after route closu
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...11X12242&key=1

A6 hit glider that had right of way:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...13X33340&key=1

Nevertheless as Mr. Dighera incessantly points out, "stuff"
happens--

If I infer your intent correctly, the 'stuff' to which you
euphemistically refer are the deaths of civil pilots due to being
impaled in midair collisions by high-speed, low-level military
aircraft often on MTR runs.

Or, conversely the numbers of deaths of military pilots due to
mid-airs with GA pilots operating cluelessly in restricted, warning,
prohibited airspace, MOAs and oil burner routes.

That is interesting. I hadn't considered that, especially MOAs,
Warning, and Oil Burner Routes.

If civil flights cause a MAC in Restricted or Prohibited airspace due
to lack of a ATC clearance, they are culpable. But the others are
joint use airspace. Each civil and military flight within them is by
regulation responsible for visual see-and-avoid separation in VMC.

The military doesn't own MOAs, Warning, and Oil Burner Routes. The
source of the hazard, in my opinion, is the high speed of the military
aircraft affording insufficient time for successful traffic
deconfliction. That has to be acknowledged, and modifications made to
assure some likelihood of avoiding a MAC.

Perhaps you'd be good enough to invest the requisite time to research
representative NTSB reports that illustrate the types of MACs to which
you refer. That might be productive.

It's a two-edged sword, Larry.

Indeed.

but it ain't murder.

Some are, and some aren't.

Mid-airs aren't murder. Accidents happen. Most accident boards find
causative factors. But it isn't murder.

Florida law defines third-degree murder as the killing of a person
without intent or premeditation, a terminology that in other states
would closely match the interpretation of manslaughter crimes.

That makes it murder in Florida. Out.

But the military's miserable record in reprimanding its airmen who
wrongfully kill innocent pilots, and shortsighted safety initiatives
are pathetic.

You are the pathetic one with innuendo, hyperbole, exaggeration and
disgusting rhetoric.

I am unaware of any deliberate innuendo.

I would have to see examples of hyperbole to be able to find facts
that support those statements.

Perhaps it is your prejudice that obstructs your objective
comprehension of the facts, and makes you so incredulous as to think
you needn't bother with them.

No one goes out to have a mid-air.

I'll agree with you there. Just like no one intends to cause an auto
accident.

But certain flaws in judgment can constitute criminal negligence. And,
the FAA's regulatory exemption to system limitations can easily
precipitate a high-speed, low-level MAC. It's time the whole issue
were reexamined.

You've got to agree, that rocketing through congested
terminal airspace at 500 knots without the required ATC clearance,
lopping 9' of wingtip from a glider with an A6, and failing to see and
avoid a crop duster are manslaughter, which is called Third Degree
Murder in Florida.

Until you can show me some experience in flying a military tactical
aircraft in a leadership position of a flight of four in congested
airspace with weather factors involved, I'll simply discount your
commentary as someone with a fixation.


The flight to which that statement referred was a flight of two,
visibility 10 miles.

I am unable to find any reasonable excuse for what Parker did. It was
a clear day. He was descending into Class B airspace, canceled IFR,
and dove his flight of two into the terminal airspace at twice the
speed limit imposed on all other aircraft in that airspace without ATC
clearance. He may have lost situational awareness, but I find it
impossible to believe he didn't know that continuing his descent would
put him within Class B airspace without a clearance and without
communications with ATC. That's against regulations.

He broke other regulations in preparation for the flight. His failure
to comply with regulations resulted in the death of an ATP rated
airman, and the destruction of a $30-million aircraft, not to mention
the hazard he caused to those on the ground, his wingman, and other
flights. For this, he did not lose any pay, rank, nor have to pay a
fine nor restitution, nor was he incarcerated, as a civilian might be.
That is a public example of injustice. It does not endear the
military to the public, nor does it strike fear in the hearts of other
military airmen who would commit similar acts of hubris or
incompetence. Face it.

To turn a blind eye to the facts on the grounds that you have military
fighter experience, and I don't, is patently ridiculous, and telling.
Take the time to cool down a bit. Read the NTSB reports; they're
short and interesting. Invest the requisite time to mentally put
yourself in the position of the command pilot of each flight. Try to
envision what could be done to prevent that type of MAC from occurring
in the future.

Offer some constructive insight and information. You won't look so
shaken. And with your experience and additional point of view, we'll
ALL learn something.

Perhaps safety can be enhanced. What do you think?