Scared of mid-airs

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 11:35:46 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
wrote in
sm5zg.84645$ZW3.36876@dukeread04::


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


True. But how often can military ground radar paint low level
targets?

To me, if the military is going to train at high-speed in joint use
airspace in the same sky as civil aircraft (most all of which are
equipped with Mode C transponders), it would be prudent for those
aircraft to be TCAS equipped. But, I suppose we'll have to wait for
more military/civil midair collisions before anything is done about,
if then.

Larry, how about once getting your facts straight? All current
production US fighters (and most operational ones - except A-10s, early
F-16s, and early F-18s) have transponder interrogators perfectly
capable of detecting Mode 3/C transponders, using any squawk. Most
also have PD radars that can easily detect conflicting traffic over a
120 degree cone in front - at low altitude. And AWACS can see both.
So what is your problem, other than a pathological hatred of the
military? You seem to think military aviators are oblivious to the
threat of mid-airs. Newsflash, dude - they are much better trained,
more professional, and safer than any civilian bug-smasher driver - and
I've been on both sides.

If civilians read the NOTAMS, checked their charts (oh yeah - remember
those?), and did a little preflight planning, they could easily avoid
conflict with military traffic. But that would take some precious time
and effort, wouldn't it.

How about getting civilian pilots to stay current, not fly in IMC
without a clearance or training, and maintain their aircraft to minimum
levels of safety - then you would possibly see a decrease in GA
accidents and fatalities.

Kirk
2000 hrs in F-4s
100 hours in AWACS
600 hours in ASEL
2000 hours in gliders

wrote

Larry, how about once getting your facts straight?

So what is your problem, other than a pathological hatred of the
military? You seem to think military aviators are oblivious to the
threat of mid-airs. Newsflash, dude - they are much better trained,
more professional, and safer than any civilian bug-smasher driver - and
I've been on both sides.


You'll have to excuse Larry. He is sometimes a little..... Humm, I don't
know which word to use, here. g

Thanks for the info, though!
--
Jim in NC

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 17:25:32 -0400, "Morgans"
wrote in ::

He is sometimes a little..... Humm, I don't know which word to use, here. g

How about 'honest'?

On 30 Jul 2006 12:01:10 -0700, wrote in
.com::

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 11:35:46 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
wrote in
sm5zg.84645$ZW3.36876@dukeread04::

To me, if the military is going to train at high-speed in joint use
airspace in the same sky as civil aircraft (most all of which are
equipped with Mode C transponders), it would be prudent for those
aircraft to be TCAS equipped. But, I suppose we'll have to wait for
more military/civil midair collisions before anything is done about,
if then.

Larry, how about once getting your facts straight?

I try, but it's difficult for a civilian to get information on
military aircraft.

All current production US fighters (and most operational ones -
except A-10s, early F-16s, and early F-18s) have transponder
interrogators perfectly capable of detecting Mode 3/C transponders,
using any squawk.

Thank you for this information. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be
the entire story.

On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 04:20:45 GMT, "Lego"
wrote:

Interpreting the scope is a different matter (see above post). It
requires a great deal of training and targets can be missed.
(especially slow moving low flying aircraft for which the
radar isn't optimized) The radar isn't magic... it isn't like a
video game. The radar will sweep until ... 1- The air to ground
radar is selected. This is used to update the system. 2 - A
visual fix is being updated . We don't fly in air to ground mode
as it is worthless unless you are updating your system or doing
some kind of weapon employment. It is a fact that the radar is
always on. Ask any F-16 pilot

In the four military/civil MACs at the links below, you'll find no
mention of military radar use for traffic deconfliction.

Most also have PD radars that can easily detect conflicting traffic over a
120 degree cone in front - at low altitude.

While the aircraft may be so equipped, is the radar to which you refer
required to be used for _collision_avoidance_ during the time military
aircraft are operating in joint use airspace? Can you cite a
regulation that so mandates it?

And AWACS can see both.

Both, transponders and targets?

How common is it for AWACS to be employed for MTR training flights?

So what is your problem, other than a pathological hatred of the
military?

I have absolutely no enmity toward military pilots; in fact I respect
them for their bravery and skill.

The source of my concern is strictly a matter of self preservation.

Military fighter aircraft pilots have little physical harm to fear
from colliding with a typical GA aircraft due to the weight and speed
differential as well as a much more robust airframe and ejection seat
to provide them with a safe landing. The GA pilot is like a
fluttering moth poised hovering above the rush hour traffic in such a
situation. His chances of survival in a collision are slight at best.
I have to share the sky with the military, and their military/civil
MAC record isn't as good as one would expect.

Please take the time to objectively research these mishaps, and see if
you don't begin to understand my point of view:

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


You seem to think military aviators are oblivious to the
threat of mid-airs.

I believe their commanders do not appreciate the hazard to the public
their high-speed, low-level operations pose to civil aviation. And I
think their safety procedures lack due prudence. But what I find most
troubling is the lack of consequences a military aviator faces as a
result of carelessness, incompetence, recklessness, and regulation
violations. If the military pilot thinks he can disintegrate a civil
flight, punch out, and live to fly another day without loss of rank,
pay, or freedom, what incentive does he have to watch out for us
little guys with whom he shares the skies?

Newsflash, dude - they are much better trained,
more professional, and safer than any civilian bug-smasher driver - and
I've been on both sides.

I would expect nothing less.

Most civil aircraft are incapable of achieving any where near the
speed of military aircraft, so the same level of skill isn't required
of civil pilots. The cost of military aircraft is hundreds of times
more than the typical civil aircraft, so the pilots are not selected
as carefully. And civil pilots are not screened and tested to the
same standards as military pilots. Thanks for the flash. :-(

If civilians read the NOTAMS, checked their charts (oh yeah - remember
those?), and did a little preflight planning, they could easily avoid
conflict with military traffic. But that would take some precious time
and effort, wouldn't it.

There are those civil airmen who do the things you suggest, and there
are those who are negligent, but none of those actions would have
prevented the for mishaps above.

And it is completely unreasonable and negligent for the FAA to expect
a Cessna 172 pilot to have adequate time to search his windscreen for
conflicting traffic, identify it, and take effective evasive action
when the closing speed is in excess of 500 knots.

Further, the inequity in expecting the civil pilot to evade the hazard
caused by high-speed, low-level military operations is unjust. The
military should be _solely_ responsible for the hazards they create.

How about getting civilian pilots to stay current, not fly in IMC
without a clearance or training, and maintain their aircraft to minimum
levels of safety - then you would possibly see a decrease in GA
accidents and fatalities.

You can attempt to steer the discussion toward civil airman
incompetence, but this message thread is about MACs.

Kirk
2000 hrs in F-4s
100 hours in AWACS
600 hours in ASEL
2000 hours in gliders

I'm impressed by those numbers, but not by your attitude.

I would expect to see some true safety consciousness, and remorse for
the carnage and destruction of civil pilots and aircraft caused by
military/civil mishaps. Oh well...

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 21:04:46 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On 30 Jul 2006 12:01:10 -0700, wrote in
s.com::

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 11:35:46 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
wrote in
sm5zg.84645$ZW3.36876@dukeread04::

To me, if the military is going to train at high-speed in joint use
airspace in the same sky as civil aircraft (most all of which are
equipped with Mode C transponders), it would be prudent for those
aircraft to be TCAS equipped. But, I suppose we'll have to wait for
more military/civil midair collisions before anything is done about,
if then.

Larry, how about once getting your facts straight?

I try, but it's difficult for a civilian to get information on
military aircraft.

That's what we've been trying to point out to you. You don't know what
you are talking about. Lacking information on systems, training,
procedures, responsibilities, attitudes, etc. you are simply asserting
an unfounded opinion.

All current production US fighters (and most operational ones -
except A-10s, early F-16s, and early F-18s) have transponder
interrogators perfectly capable of detecting Mode 3/C transponders,
using any squawk.

Thank you for this information. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be
the entire story.

You following cut/paste doesn't have squat to do with what was said.

On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 04:20:45 GMT, "Lego"
wrote:

Wait, your source is "Lego" at earthlink????

Interpreting the scope is a different matter (see above post). It
requires a great deal of training and targets can be missed.

OF course it requires a great deal of training! That's why folks who
get to drive the expensive iron get so much training.

(especially slow moving low flying aircraft for which the
radar isn't optimized)

You don't seem to get the concept of pulse doppler radar. Low-flying
aircraft are just as visible today as high flyers. The old days of
lost in ground clutter went away more than 25 years ago.

The radar isn't magic... it isn't like a
video game.

Smartest thing you said this year. It isn't a video game. It's a
complex weapon system.

The radar will sweep until ...

....until the operator selects "stand-by" or "off".

1- The air to ground
radar is selected. This is used to update the system.

"Lego" apparently doesn't know that the radar will still sweep in A/G
modes. It will "update" if an update mode is selected for weapons or
nav by the operator. Changing from A/G to A/A modes doesn't usually
impact system updates.

2 - A
visual fix is being updated .

Updating nav visually will have nothing to do with radar sweeping or
not. "Lego" seems out to lunch again.

We don't fly in air to ground mode
as it is worthless unless you are updating your system or doing
some kind of weapon employment.

Typically a tactical aircraft will be maneuvering in an A/A mode. The
A/G modes will be employed for low-level nav routes, for A/G weapons
delivery, or for long range mapping as a verification of position or
route guidance. A/G modes would be used for nav system (INS) update.
Anyone who says A/G modes are worthless sounds like they are not
familiar with the weapons system.

It is a fact that the radar is
always on. Ask any F-16 pilot

Profound!

In the four military/civil MACs at the links below, you'll find no
mention of military radar use for traffic deconfliction.

This is the second posting of the list in this thread. You're becoming
repititous and redundant. The last time and this time, the links were
not relevant to the point being addressed.

Most also have PD radars that can easily detect conflicting traffic over a
120 degree cone in front - at low altitude.

While the aircraft may be so equipped, is the radar to which you refer
required to be used for _collision_avoidance_ during the time military
aircraft are operating in joint use airspace? Can you cite a
regulation that so mandates it?

Common sense, rather than regulations, mandates that the operator use
every method at his/her disposal to deconflict the flight path.
Situational awareness requires you to make your best effort to know
the disposition of all of the player which might influence your
flight. This isn't TCAS. It isn't meant to be.

And AWACS can see both.

Both, transponders and targets?

Another admission of cluelessness? Two in one post? YES! BOTH!

How common is it for AWACS to be employed for MTR training flights?

Not common at all. The reason being that ATC and military approach
control facilities are available. AWACS is used to control battle
zones where full ground environment control is not available. Do you
feel you might learn something here?

So what is your problem, other than a pathological hatred of the
military?

I have absolutely no enmity toward military pilots; in fact I respect
them for their bravery and skill.

The source of my concern is strictly a matter of self preservation.

Then look out the window. Use common sense. Fly 20-30 hours per month
in day, night and weather conditions.

Military fighter aircraft pilots have little physical harm to fear
from colliding with a typical GA aircraft due to the weight and speed
differential as well as a much more robust airframe and ejection seat
to provide them with a safe landing.

Bull****! A mid-air in a high performance aircraft isn't a dented
fender. An ejection isn't a "safe" procedure and jettisoning a $50
million dollar aircraft, particularly in a populated area is not done
lightly.

The GA pilot is like a
fluttering moth poised hovering above the rush hour traffic in such a
situation.

Not very wise of the fluttering moth to be in such a precarious
situation. Seems like the moth should take some personal
responsibility.

His chances of survival in a collision are slight at best.
I have to share the sky with the military, and their military/civil
MAC record isn't as good as one would expect.

How many mid-air collisions per year does the military have? You've
repeatedly cited four, but let's go back over 25 years. How many? How
many were with your fluttering moths? Oh, not many, heh.

I flew fighters for 23 years in combat, in training, in Asia, Europe
and the US. I never had a mid-air. No one in my squadron ever had a
mid-air. No one in my wing ever had a mid-air. I know of one mid-air
at a base where I was located. It took place in 1967 and was between
an F-5A and an F-5B in an A/A engagement.

Please take the time to objectively research these mishaps, and see if
you don't begin to understand my point of view:

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


You seem to think military aviators are oblivious to the
threat of mid-airs.

I believe their commanders do not appreciate the hazard to the public
their high-speed, low-level operations pose to civil aviation.

Commanders of flying units actively fly the aircraft with the members
of their unit. They rise to command after years in the profession. If
you believe they "do not appreciate the hazard" you once again
demonstrate that you don't have a clue.


And I
think their safety procedures lack due prudence.

Have you attended a military flying safety course? A flying safety
meeting? Know a flying safety officer? Seen a local procedures manual?
Sat through an operational training course? Have you done any similar
things as a civilian pilot--they are generally non-existant. What you
"think" is irrelevant and unencumbered by facts.

But what I find most
troubling is the lack of consequences a military aviator faces as a
result of carelessness, incompetence, recklessness, and regulation
violations.

A detailed investigation, an accident board and a corollary board,
plus possible court martial don't satisfy you? You can be troubled if
you want, but you're still an ignorant twit.

If the military pilot thinks he can disintegrate a civil
flight, punch out, and live to fly another day without loss of rank,
pay, or freedom, what incentive does he have to watch out for us
little guys with whom he shares the skies?

That is such an outrageous statement that I feel I would be taking
advantage of someone to point out its ridiculousness.

Newsflash, dude - they are much better trained,
more professional, and safer than any civilian bug-smasher driver - and
I've been on both sides.

I would expect nothing less.

Most civil aircraft are incapable of achieving any where near the
speed of military aircraft, so the same level of skill isn't required
of civil pilots. The cost of military aircraft is hundreds of times
more than the typical civil aircraft, so the pilots are not selected
as carefully.

I assume you left out "civilian" pilots are not selected as carefully.
The cost isn't the issue. The life or death consequences are the
issue.

And civil pilots are not screened and tested to the
same standards as military pilots. Thanks for the flash. :-(

If civilians read the NOTAMS, checked their charts (oh yeah - remember
those?), and did a little preflight planning, they could easily avoid
conflict with military traffic. But that would take some precious time
and effort, wouldn't it.

There are those civil airmen who do the things you suggest, and there
are those who are negligent, but none of those actions would have
prevented the for mishaps above.

The point being made was that there have been many more than four
instances of civilian errors leading to mishaps with military
aircraft. You don't seem as upset by them.

And it is completely unreasonable and negligent for the FAA to expect
a Cessna 172 pilot to have adequate time to search his windscreen for
conflicting traffic, identify it, and take effective evasive action
when the closing speed is in excess of 500 knots.

Yet, unreasonable and negligent or not that is EXACTLY what the FAA
requires you to do. Unfair, but if you don't like it stay on the
ground.

Further, the inequity in expecting the civil pilot to evade the hazard
caused by high-speed, low-level military operations is unjust. The
military should be _solely_ responsible for the hazards they create.

Anyone who causes a mid-air is responsible. Assigning "sole"
responsibility indicates you live in some sort of fantasy world. You
can't be irresponsible on your side of the equation.

How about getting civilian pilots to stay current, not fly in IMC
without a clearance or training, and maintain their aircraft to minimum
levels of safety - then you would possibly see a decrease in GA
accidents and fatalities.

You can attempt to steer the discussion toward civil airman
incompetence, but this message thread is about MACs.

Kirk
2000 hrs in F-4s
100 hours in AWACS
600 hours in ASEL
2000 hours in gliders

I'm impressed by those numbers, but not by your attitude.

And, I've not seen any numbers of yours and I'm sick and tired of your
attitude.

I would expect to see some true safety consciousness, and remorse for
the carnage and destruction of civil pilots and aircraft caused by
military/civil mishaps. Oh well...

Carnage and destruction my ass. Get over it. Look out the window. If
you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Flying is inherently
dangerous. That's what makes it so thrilling.


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

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 22:12:28 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote in
::

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 21:04:46 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

In the four military/civil MACs at the links below, you'll find no
mention of military radar use for traffic deconfliction.

This is the second posting of the list in this thread. You're becoming
repititous and redundant. The last time and this time, the links were
not relevant to the point being addressed.

I posted them again for your benefit; you obviously didn't read them
the last time I posted them. From your comments, you seem unfamiliar
with their details.

While the aircraft may be so equipped, is the radar to which you refer
required to be used for _collision_avoidance_ during the time military
aircraft are operating in joint use airspace? Can you cite a
regulation that so mandates it?

Common sense, rather than regulations, mandates that the operator use
every method at his/her disposal to deconflict the flight path.

Lacking regulations that mandate the use of radar for traffic
deconfliction, Parker's lack of their use does not constitute a
violation of regulations. Such a regulation may have saved the life
of the pilot into whom Parker led his wingman.


And AWACS can see both.

Both, transponders and targets?

Another admission of cluelessness? Two in one post? YES! BOTH!

I just wanted to assure I understood you correctly.

How common is it for AWACS to be employed for MTR training flights?

Not common at all.

Exactly.

The reason being that ATC and military approach
control facilities are available.

Are ATC and military approach control facilities able to reliably
paint high-speed, low-level military aircraft on MTRs at 200' AGL?
Doubtful. Therefore, there should be a _regulatory_ requirement for
military aircraft on MTRs to employ on-board radar for traffic
deconfliction.

The source of my concern is strictly a matter of self preservation.

Then look out the window. Use common sense. Fly 20-30 hours per month
in day, night and weather conditions.

Spoken like the man with the bulletproof aircraft stout enough to
survive a MAC to the fellow with the aluminum eggshell bugsmasher. Not
only do you lack empathy for your fellow airmen, but insight into
their vulnerability to your high-speed, low-level operations. Are you
entirely incapable of objective, rational thought?

Military fighter aircraft pilots have little physical harm to fear
from colliding with a typical GA aircraft due to the weight and speed
differential as well as a much more robust airframe and ejection seat
to provide them with a safe landing.

Bull****! A mid-air in a high performance aircraft isn't a dented
fender.

My thought exactly, but Parker wasn't made to pay any restitution.

An ejection isn't a "safe" procedure and jettisoning a $50
million dollar aircraft,

Parker's wingman was taken to the hospital for observation and
released. The Cessna pilot was splattered over four acres of country
club fairways. Safety is relative.

The GA pilot is like a fluttering moth poised hovering above the
rush hour traffic in such a situation.

Not very wise of the fluttering moth to be in such a precarious
situation.

You're saying, GA aircraft should not be within Class B and C
airspace? Surely I've missed your meaning.

Seems like the moth should take some personal
responsibility.

The Cessna was in a right bank at the time of impact in the left/left
Florida MAC. The Cessna pilot was taking evasive action in an attempt
to comply with the see-and-avoid regulation. But that wasn't possible
because of the speed of the military aircraft. I'd say the Cessna
pilot was acting as responsibly as possible. Parker, on the other
hand ...

I agree there is a lack of responsibility being exercised in
high-speed, low-level military operations, and it is the military who
are shrugging responsibility commensurate with the hazard they cause.
His chances of survival in a collision are slight at best.

If you'd bothered to read the details of the four military/civil MACs
I cited, you'd know that all the military pilots involved survived
unscathed. The GA pilots often paid with their lives. Given those
statistics, I'd say your assessment above is in error.

I have to share the sky with the military, and their military/civil
MAC record isn't as good as one would expect.

How many mid-air collisions per year does the military have? You've
repeatedly cited four, but let's go back over 25 years. How many? How
many were with your fluttering moths? Oh, not many, heh.

Are you saying that the military/civil MAC rate is acceptable, and
there should be no effort to improve safety?

But what I find most
troubling is the lack of consequences a military aviator faces as a
result of carelessness, incompetence, recklessness, and regulation
violations.

A detailed investigation,

With a medical examination eight days after the MAC in the case of
Parker.

an accident board and a corollary board, plus possible court martial
don't satisfy you?

Parker's CO, Gen. Rosa, told the press, that Parker would receive a
verbal or written reprimand. That doesn't satisfy me. If Parker had
been adjudicated in a court of law, instead of having his CO give him
a talking to, he would be doing time.

If the military pilot thinks he can disintegrate a civil
flight, punch out, and live to fly another day without loss of rank,
pay, or freedom, what incentive does he have to watch out for us
little guys with whom he shares the skies?

That is such an outrageous statement that I feel I would be taking
advantage of someone to point out its ridiculousness.

What is to make a military pilot think otherwise? Not military
discipline in Parker's case.

If civilians read the NOTAMS, checked their charts (oh yeah - remember
those?), and did a little preflight planning, they could easily avoid
conflict with military traffic. But that would take some precious time
and effort, wouldn't it.

There are those civil airmen who do the things you suggest, and there
are those who are negligent, but none of those actions would have
prevented the for mishaps above.

The point being made was that there have been many more than four
instances of civilian errors leading to mishaps with military
aircraft. You don't seem as upset by them.

I'm not aware of them. Please provide links to their NTSB reports.

And it is completely unreasonable and negligent for the FAA to expect
a Cessna 172 pilot to have adequate time to search his windscreen for
conflicting traffic, identify it, and take effective evasive action
when the closing speed is in excess of 500 knots.

Yet, unreasonable and negligent or not that is EXACTLY what the FAA
requires you to do. Unfair, but if you don't like it stay on the
ground.

So, in your mind, changing the system so that military low-level,
high-speed operations would be safer is not an option?

Further, the inequity in expecting the civil pilot to evade the hazard
caused by high-speed, low-level military operations is unjust. The
military should be _solely_ responsible for the hazards they create.

Anyone who causes a mid-air is responsible. Assigning "sole"
responsibility indicates you live in some sort of fantasy world. You
can't be irresponsible on your side of the equation.

I understand what you are saying, and agree to a point. But isn't it
unjust to exempt the military from complying with the 250 knot speed
limit, and only assign half the blame to them. If they had been
operating within the speed limit, there might have been time to
see-and-avoid. I realize it is impractical for the military to
operate within that regulation, but that is not sufficient
justification to jeopardize the safety of civil flights, in my
opinion.


I would expect to see some true safety consciousness, and remorse for
the carnage and destruction of civil pilots and aircraft caused by
military/civil mishaps. Oh well...

Carnage and destruction my ass. Get over it. Look out the window. If
you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Flying is inherently
dangerous. That's what makes it so thrilling.


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

With that attitude, we can just eliminate ATC altogether.

Larry Dighera wrote:

Larry, how about once getting your facts straight?

I try, but it's difficult for a civilian to get information on
military aircraft.

It never seems to stop you from pretending that you do know.


Military fighter aircraft pilots have little physical harm to fear
from colliding with a typical GA aircraft....

An unwarranted assumption, apparently based on an obsessive
ignorance, considering your perennial ranting on this subject and
lack of regard for information that has been provided to you
repeatedly over a period of years.

I've never known a fighter pilot to have anything but respect for
the potential of a midair -- more, in fact than the average
transport pilot, and immensely more than the average light plane
pilot, in my experience.

Apparently, all your "experience" was bought at the news stand,
considering how little relevance your complaints have to the real world.


Jack

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 05:23:24 GMT, 588 wrote in
::

Larry Dighera wrote:

Larry, how about once getting your facts straight?

I try, but it's difficult for a civilian to get information on
military aircraft.

It never seems to stop you from pretending that you do know.

Without an example of that to which you are referring, I am unable to
comment.

Military fighter aircraft pilots have little physical harm to fear
from colliding with a typical GA aircraft....

An unwarranted assumption, apparently based on an obsessive
ignorance, considering your perennial ranting on this subject and
lack of regard for information that has been provided to you
repeatedly over a period of years.

I am unaware of any information presented to me in the past years that
contradicts my statement.

A fighter pilots ejects and lives. The steaming remains of the pilot
of the aircraft he hit are splattered over four square miles of
country club fairways and greens. Those are the facts. They are not
hyperbole. They were reported by eye witnesses. If you have
contradictory information, please present it. Otherwise, you look
foolish.

I've never known a fighter pilot to have anything but respect for
the potential of a midair -- more, in fact than the average
transport pilot, and immensely more than the average light plane
pilot, in my experience.

That is a result of the limited set of fighter pilots with whom you
have been in contact. You obviously hadn't known those military
pilots involved in the four military/civil MACs whose NTSB links I
posted.

How would you characterize the respect for a potential midair
demonstrated by Parker when he violated regulations by failing to
brief terminal airspace, and dove into congested Class B and C
airspace with the required ATC clearance? (I don't expect you to
answer that, it would require some courage on your part.)

Apparently, all your "experience" was bought at the news stand,
considering how little relevance your complaints have to the real world.

If you consider NTSB and military accident reports, and eye witness
reports unreliable, what information sources meet your criteria for
relevance?

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 13:26:19 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 05:23:24 GMT, 588 wrote in
::

Larry Dighera wrote:

Larry, how about once getting your facts straight?

I try, but it's difficult for a civilian to get information on
military aircraft.

It never seems to stop you from pretending that you do know.

Without an example of that to which you are referring, I am unable to
comment.

Military fighter aircraft pilots have little physical harm to fear
from colliding with a typical GA aircraft....

An unwarranted assumption, apparently based on an obsessive
ignorance, considering your perennial ranting on this subject and
lack of regard for information that has been provided to you
repeatedly over a period of years.

I am unaware of any information presented to me in the past years that
contradicts my statement.

A fighter pilots ejects and lives. The steaming remains of the pilot
of the aircraft he hit are splattered over four square miles of
country club fairways and greens. Those are the facts. They are not
hyperbole. They were reported by eye witnesses. If you have
contradictory information, please present it. Otherwise, you look
foolish.

You wanted an example about you asserting something you apparently
have little familiarity with? How about this part on ejection. Do you
have any idea what the sequence of events is when one ejects? Any
concept of the forces? Know anything about ejection envelopes? You
state it like "he steps off the bus".

We had one incident at Holloman with an AT-38 on a rudder-rig
functional test flight. Shortly after take-off at about 450 knots the
vertical fin and one side of the slab failed pitching the aircraft
violently nose down (liken this to a mid-air result...)

At negative 4Gs, the pilot ejected. Both arms were separated at the
shoulder. One was broken in three place. Both knees were disjointed
and both femurs were broken. As you would state it so simply above, "a
fighter pilot ejected and lived". He lived.

I've never known a fighter pilot to have anything but respect for
the potential of a midair -- more, in fact than the average
transport pilot, and immensely more than the average light plane
pilot, in my experience.

That is a result of the limited set of fighter pilots with whom you
have been in contact. You obviously hadn't known those military
pilots involved in the four military/civil MACs whose NTSB links I
posted.

In 23 years in the fighter business I have lived, worked, fought wars
with and watched fighter pilots die for their country. Thousands of
them. Don't spout drivel about limited contact.

How would you characterize the respect for a potential midair
demonstrated by Parker when he violated regulations by failing to
brief terminal airspace, and dove into congested Class B and C
airspace with the required ATC clearance? (I don't expect you to
answer that, it would require some courage on your part.)

Apparently, all your "experience" was bought at the news stand,
considering how little relevance your complaints have to the real world.

If you consider NTSB and military accident reports, and eye witness
reports unreliable, what information sources meet your criteria for
relevance?

Once again, after 23 years experience in the fighter business, I have
read, been briefed, and face-to-face discussed hundreds of aircraft
accidents with board members as well as participants. Every single
aircraft accident results in an investigation and a board of inquiry.
Almost all have a "corollary board" after the investigation board
which determines culpability and liability. Some result in Flying
Evaluation Boards which consider the qualifications and retention of
the aviators. And some result in Courts-Martial when malfeasance is
indicated by any of the investigations. Can you get that through your
fixated civilian mentality?



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

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 15:32:42 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote in
::
[...]
Thank you for the ejection example you cited. I am saddened to hear
of the pilot's injuries.

However, I never said ejection was without its hazards. And in the
case of the November 16, 2000 MAC, there was no mention of any
injuries to the pilot who ejected. I'm sure the Cessna pilot would
have preferred to eject rather than meet the fate he did. That is my
point: military pilots have an option other than see-and-avoid; they
can exit the aircraft.


I've never known a fighter pilot to have anything but respect for
the potential of a midair -- more, in fact than the average
transport pilot, and immensely more than the average light plane
pilot, in my experience.

That is a result of the limited set of fighter pilots with whom you
have been in contact. You obviously hadn't known those military
pilots involved in the four military/civil MACs whose NTSB links I
posted.

In 23 years in the fighter business I have lived, worked, fought wars
with and watched fighter pilots die for their country. Thousands of
them. Don't spout drivel about limited contact.

You may have overlooked the fact, that I was responding to Jack's
assertion, not yours.

In any event, you misunderstand the issue I am attempting to raise. I
do not have issues with military pilots generally, although those who
were involved in the four MACs I cited seem to have violated
regulations resulting in a MAC. We all have issues with airmen who
violate regulations.

It is the flawed system of permitting high-speed, low-level military
operations within joint use airspace and expecting see-and-avoid
exclusively to provide separation. That is irresponsible on the part
of the FAA and military, and should be corrected.

How would you characterize the respect for a potential midair
demonstrated by Parker when he violated regulations by failing to
brief terminal airspace, and dove into congested Class B and C
airspace with the required ATC clearance? (I don't expect you to
answer that, it would require some courage on your part.)

I will take your failure to provide your opinion as requested above as
concurrence with mine, that Parker's decisions were criminal.

Apparently, all your "experience" was bought at the news stand,
considering how little relevance your complaints have to the real world.

If you consider NTSB and military accident reports, and eye witness
reports unreliable, what information sources meet your criteria for
relevance?

Once again, after 23 years experience in the fighter business, I have
read, been briefed, and face-to-face discussed hundreds of aircraft
accidents with board members as well as participants. Every single
aircraft accident results in an investigation and a board of inquiry.
Almost all have a "corollary board" after the investigation board
which determines culpability and liability. Some result in Flying
Evaluation Boards which consider the qualifications and retention of
the aviators. And some result in Courts-Martial when malfeasance is
indicated by any of the investigations. Can you get that through your
fixated civilian mentality?


I don't question your experience nor qualifications to speak on this
subject. What I find objectionable is your unwillingness to
acknowledge the fact that a lethal problem exists, and your
unwillingness to take action to remedy that.

Do you know what action the military took against Parker? Was he
court marshaled? Was he fined? Was he incarcerated for killing a
civilian as a result of violating regulations? Was he made to pay
restitution to the family of the pilot his actions killed? Was a
corollary board convened? Are you able to speek with knowledge
about the what the military did to Parker as a result of the death his
actions caused?

The invistagory actions you mention may be what ocurrs regularly, but
in Parker's case, I have not heard of any of them except the board of
inquiry report, and Parker's CO's statement that Parker would receive
a verbal or written repremand. Do you have other information on that
specific case?

If not, then I respectfully submit, that the military does not
adiquately repremand those pilots who are involved in military/civil
fatal MACs as evidenced in this case.