Scared of mid-airs

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.

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:

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.

but it ain't murder.

Some are, and some aren't.

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

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.

Larry Dighera wrote:

What is being done as a result of the MACs caused by the military's
hazardous, high-speed, low-level operations?

Perhaps we should consider some of the alternatives.

How about we turn all the airspace associated with the low level
training routes into restricted airspace?

That works for me.


Jack

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 05:45:01 GMT, 588 wrote in
::

Larry Dighera wrote:

What is being done as a result of the MACs caused by the military's
hazardous, high-speed, low-level operations?

Perhaps we should consider some of the alternatives.

How about we turn all the airspace associated with the low level
training routes into restricted airspace?

That works for me.


That repugnant solution occurred to me also. Great minds ...

But, that is only one alternative.

An equally onerous solution would be to curtail MTR operations in the
CONUS.

In my opinion, a more just and equitable solution to the hazard caused
by MTR operations, would be to:

1. Have the military assume sole responsibility for the hazard
their speed regulation exemption causes.

2. Equip military aircraft operating on MTRs with collision
avoidance equipment. (this is actually being done slowly).

3. Actually prosecute military pilots who collide with civil
aircraft not participating in their maneuvers.

One would remove the inequity imposed on civil pilots by the speed
regulation exemption that permits the military to cause this hazard to
civil aviation operations.

Two is a simple technical fix that is so obvious as to make its
omission a glaring example of governmental inelegance. While the cost
may deter its implementation, the cost of the destroyed military
aircraft and law suit settlements has to exceed the cost of
implementing it.

Three is an attempt to get the military to actually discipline its
ranks. And it would send a clear message to those hot shot military
pilots who ignore regulations, that they will face personal
consequences for their transgressions. The reprimand received by the
flight lead who led his wingman into a fatal collision with the Cessna
in Florida is an affront to the concept of justice, a public black eye
for military justice, and encourages other military pilots to flout
regulations.

(I know you were just venting, but perhaps you can tap that great mind
of yours, and come up with some constructive comments. It is easy to
be destructive like a suicide bomber, but it takes effort to be
constructive like those who built what the bombers' explosives
destroy. Hopefully, the effort won't be too difficult for you.)

--

There is no expedient to which a man will not resort
to avoid the real labor of thinking.
-- Sir Joshua Reynolds

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.