Scared of mid-airs

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

Larry Dighera wrote:

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


No, that would be a far less satisfactory solution than converting
airspace associated with military training routes to Restricted
areas. Despite the AOPA's stand on the subject, we could more easily
do without the majority of civilian light plane VFR flying in the
US, for example, than we could not do without military flight
training in CONUS.

The presence of random VFR traffic in military training routes
cannot be allowed to disrupt training. Have you considered the
implications of certain forms of political dissent which could
involve obstruction of these routes by civilian aircraft of various
categories? Perhaps you have, after all.

You want the USAF to assume all responsibility for traffic conflicts
in training airspace? No legal entity is going to assume
responsibility for the results of acts committed by persons outside
its control. Therefore, only military pilots would be allowed in
training airspace. Perhaps you have not considered that.

Your wish-list is not going to receive serious consideration, even
here on USENET let alone in the Legislature, without substantial
refinement. Far more evidence than has been shown thus far, that you
are prepared to make a serious effort to understand the problem,
will be required.



It is easy to
be destructive...but it takes effort to be
constructive....

Good advice, perhaps you will keep it in mind.


Jack

588 wrote:

...we could more easily do without
the majority of civilian light plane VFR flying in the US...
than we could not do without military flight training in CONUS.

That should read, "than we _could_ do without military flight
training in CONUS."

See, I do proof read, eventually.



Jack

588 wrote:

No, that would be a far less satisfactory solution than converting
airspace associated with military training routes to Restricted
areas. Despite the AOPA's stand on the subject, we could more easily
do without the majority of civilian light plane VFR flying in the
US, for example, than we could not do without military flight
training in CONUS.

So the training needs of the military have a higher priority than
anything else in the US airspace system? So we should allow free range
by military aviation and IFR airline traffic
(that's big money) but the GA population should stay home and watch
"Wings" on TV?


The presence of random VFR traffic in military training routes
cannot be allowed to disrupt training. Have you considered the
implications of certain forms of political dissent which could
involve obstruction of these routes by civilian aircraft of various
categories? Perhaps you have, after all.

This was all hashed out in 1958 when the responsiblity for controlling
airspace was given to the FAA, not DOD. DOD gets airspace allocated to
it from the FAA and much of it is dual use. If DOD had its wishes it
would control all airspace and hand certain portions out to civilians.
But since this country is not a military dictatorship things don't run
that way.

You want the USAF to assume all responsibility for traffic conflicts
in training airspace? No legal entity is going to assume
responsibility for the results of acts committed by persons outside
its control. Therefore, only military pilots would be allowed in
training airspace. Perhaps you have not considered that.

DOD would love that, but the fact remains that airspace is a national
asset, not a DOD asset.


John Hairell )

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 04:49:37 GMT, 588 wrote in
::

Larry Dighera wrote:

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

No, that would be a far less satisfactory solution than converting
airspace associated with military training routes to Restricted
areas.

The more I think about such a conversion, the more appropriate I think
it would be. If Restricted airspace were created around MTRs, the
hazardous area would be fully depicted on charts. Instead of MTRs
being shown as a thin gray line, their true lateral dimensions would
be represented. Of course the chart might become so cluttered as to
be incomprehensible, but that doesn't seem to be a factor of concern
for those charged with designing airspace nor their cartographers.

Of course, military high-speed, low-level MTR operations outside the
Restricted airspace bounds would be prohibited. So if a MTR run
impaled a civil aircraft outside of R airspace, there would be no
ambiguity about who was responsible (and don't give me that
see-and-avoid weasel clause; it's absurdly unrealistic at the speeds
involved).

At any rate, such an airspace conversion would confine high-speed,
low-level military operations to ostensibly vacant airspace, rather
than joint use, depict the true size of MTRs on charts, enhance air
safety, and return the NAS to a well engineered system, albeit a bit
more difficult to navigate. (Have you ever been successful contacting
Flight Service at 500' AGL to inquire if a MTR is hot?)

Alternatively, we could REQUIRE BY REGULATION, that all MTR
participants employ TCAS (or radar capable of detecting conflicting
traffic of all categories and AUTOMATICALLY alerting the military
pilot) for collision avoidance.

Choices, choices, ...

Despite the AOPA's stand on the subject, we could more easily
do without the majority of civilian light plane VFR flying in the
US, for example, than we could not [sic] do without military flight
training in CONUS.

Huh?

We could surely do without MTR routes in the CONUS, and did until a
few years ago.

The presence of random VFR traffic in military training routes
cannot be allowed to disrupt training.

Here are three responses to that statement:

1. The presence of 450 knot military training flights within
congested terminal airspace without benefit of the required ATC
clearance cannot be allowed to kill innocent civilians either.

2. MTR training was run out of Europe. They were tired of the hazard
it caused, and the lack of enforcement displayed by the military. Now
we've got it here in the US. Perhaps there is a more suitable, less
congested venue someplace else.

3. As currently implemented, Military Training Routes are joint-use
airspace. To expect that airspace to be free of non-military aircraft
is unrealistic and contrary to federal civil and military regulations.
Just so we all understand the definition of a MTR:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...y/airspace.htm
A Military Training Route, or MTR, is basically a long,
low-altitude [joint use] corridor that serves as a flight path to
a particular destination [with aircraft speeds up to mach 1]. The
corridor is often 10 miles wide, 70 to 100 miles long [although
it's not charted that way], and may range from 500 to 1,500 feet
above ground level [and unrealistically relies solely upon
see-and-avoid for collision avoidance in VMC]; 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 if it endangers the lives of the
public].

Have you considered the
implications of certain forms of political dissent which could
involve obstruction of these routes by civilian aircraft of various
categories? Perhaps you have, after all.

No I haven't. Only someone with a death wish would consider
committing such a stupid act. Get real. What would what you suggest
that might accomplish besides a dead civilian airman and two destroyed
aircraft?

Or are you referring to the glider that was hit on a MTR by an A6? The
glider pilot, who had the right of way, was found by the NTSB to be
the cause of the MAC! There's justice for you. :-(

You want the USAF to assume all responsibility for traffic conflicts
in training airspace?

I would like to see the military assume responsibility for the hazard
their operations under FAR § 91.117(d) cause to civil flights in all
airspace. That exemption to the 250 knot speed limit below 10,000' is
an affront to the design of the NAS. If not, why have a speed limit
at all?

No legal entity is going to assume responsibility for the results of
acts committed by persons outside its control.

That's funny; you've got me chuckling now, given the fact that the
military doesn't take responsibility now for the acts THEY committed.

Therefore, only military pilots would be allowed in
training airspace. Perhaps you have not considered that.

If military operations create a civil hazard, they should be
segregated from civil flights. No problem there. Anything less is
negligence.

Your wish-list is not going to receive serious consideration, even
here on USENET let alone in the Legislature, without substantial
refinement.

I don't doubt that refinement would be beneficial. I'm only a pilot,
not an airspace engineer.

Far more evidence than has been shown thus far, that you
are prepared to make a serious effort to understand the problem,
will be required.

So you've read all I've written on this subject over the past six
years? I think we ALL understand the problem quite well; some just
don't admit there is one.

It is easy to be destructive...but it takes effort to be
constructive....

Good advice, perhaps you will keep it in mind.

Implicit in that parting shot is the notion that I have somehow been
destructive. Lacking any example of that, I will consider it a
pathetic sign of your desperation.


--
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