![]() |
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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
UBL wants a truce - he's scared of the CIA UAV | John Doe | Aviation Marketplace | 1 | January 19th 06 08:58 PM |
The kids are scared, was Saddam evacuated | D. Strang | Military Aviation | 0 | April 7th 04 10:36 PM |
Scared and trigger-happy | John Galt | Military Aviation | 5 | January 31st 04 12:11 AM |