Scared of mid-airs

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...

Has that been a recent change? The airspace we used at Holloman for
most of the AT-38 training was to the East. The restricted airspace
over White Sands was used mostly by the 49th wing F-15s as it was
supersonic and ran surface to very high altitudes. It was used for
both flight and missile testing including Surface-to-air (ie Patriot)
and air-to-air (against Firebee variants and QF aircraft).

To the East we had the Beaks (A,B and C) and Talons (North, East and
West). They were MOAs and extended from 10,000 AGl to FL 450--which
put them both below and within APC (which in those days commenced at
FL180). We routinely had VFR GA traffic particularly in the Ruidoso
Airport area passing under the Beaks, but only rare exceptions of
folks exercising their VFR transit rights. ATC radar coverage, because
of high terrain on several sides, was intermittent at lower altitudes,
but occasionally ABQ Center would give an advisory of VFR traffic and
would always provide notice of IFR traffic along the bordering
airways. We usually had the traffic before ATC said anything.

Probably the ATCAA is the explanation. We just considered it MOA.


It's been that way since the MOA was created 31 years ago.

Incidentally, ATC CAN clear non-using IFR aircraft through a MOA under the
right conditions. One of those conditions is ATC must also be working the
aircraft using the MOA. I know of no location where this is done, however.

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article ,
588 wrote:

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

Legally, restricted and prohibited airspace are not the same things.
Both are examples of special use airspace, and are regulatory in
nature. There shouldn't be any aircraft operating in prohibited
airspace unless they have authorization from the using agency, be they
government or civilian. There can be all sorts of aircraft operating
in restricted airspace, even civilian ones with authorization. You may
also find artillery shells and anti-aircraft missiles in restricted
airspace, amongst many other aerial hazards. Legally I don't think
there's any such thing as "sterile" airspace. For every type of
airspace prohibition there's an exception that allows somebody to
operate there.


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

From AIM 3-4-5:

"a. MOAs consist of airspace of defined vertical and lateral limits
established for the purpose of separating certain military training
activities from IFR traffic. Whenever a MOA is being used,
nonparticipating IFR traffic may be cleared through a MOA if IFR
separation can be provided by ATC. Otherwise, ATC will reroute or
restrict nonparticipating IFR traffic."

Note the emphasis on separating military activities from IFR traffic,
not VFR traffic.

Note also that MARSA may be in use on low level training routes and
MOAs and that a military controlling facility that may be using MARSA
may not be able to communicate with civilian aircraft. Also there are
both IFR and VFR low level training routes and procedures differ for
each.


John Hairell )

On 31 Jul 2006 13:28:31 -0700, "
wrote in
.com::

Note also that MARSA may be in use on low level training routes and
MOAs and that a military controlling facility that may be using MARSA
may not be able to communicate with civilian aircraft.

In those cases where they are unable to communicate with civilian
aircraft, how does the military assume responsibility for separation
of aircraft? Do they relay communications through FAA ATC?

Also there are both IFR and VFR low level training routes and procedures
differ for each.

I presume, no separation is provided for flights on low-level IFR
MTRs, while it is provided, or the military takes responsibility for
separation, on IFR MTRs.

Larry Dighera wrote:


In those cases where they are unable to communicate with civilian
aircraft, how does the military assume responsibility for separation
of aircraft?

The Letter of Agreement between DOD and the FAA will spell out who
does what. If for some reason DOD needs some communications to go
through the ARTCC or other designated ATC facility that will be spelled
out in the LOA. Note in 1-48 below that an LOA is not always required
for MARSA to be invoked. There's always an exception to the rule.

For IFR MTRs:

"FAA 7610.4 11-6-12. SEPARATION OF PARTICIPATING AIRCRAFT

a. To the extent practicable, IRs should be established for
standard ATC services and approved separation applied between
individual aircraft.

b. If the provisions of subparagraph a cannot be applied because of
mission requirements, crossing routes, or ATC limitations, routes may
be designated for MARSA operations. The procedures for applying MARSA
shall be contained in the letter of agreement between the scheduling
unit and the appropriate ATC facility. Specific MARSA operating
procedures shall be contained in the DOD FLIP AP/1B and AP/3 narrative
description of the route.

NOTE-
ATC facilities' sole responsibility concerning the use of MARSA is
to provide separation between participating and nonparticipating
aircraft. (See para-
graph 1-48, Use of MARSA.)"

VFR MTRs are coordinated with the local FSS.

Do they relay communications through FAA ATC?

Yes, if need be communications can be relayed via the ARTCC or other
ATC facilities.

I presume, no separation is provided for flights on low-level IFR
MTRs, while it is provided, or the military takes responsibility for
separation, on IFR MTRs.

I assume you mean VFR MTRs in the first part of your sentence. MARSA
can be used for IFR MTRs, plus see and avoid on the pilots' part, as
always. See and avoid is used for VFR MTRs.

"FAA 7610.4K

1-4-8. USE OF MILITARY AUTHORITY ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR SEPARATION
OF AIRCRAFT (MARSA)

The application of MARSA is a military service prerogative and will not
be invoked by individual units or pilots except as follows:

a. Military service commands authorizing MARSA shall be responsible
for its implementation and terms of use. When military operations
warrant an LOA and MARSA will be applied, the authority to invoke MARSA
shall be contained in the LOA. It must be noted that an LOA will not be
required in all cases involving MARSA.

b. ATC facilities do not invoke or deny MARSA. Their sole
responsibility concerning the use of MARSA is to provide separation
between military aircraft engaged in MARSA operations and other
non-participating IFR aircraft.

c. DOD shall ensure that military pilots requesting special use
airspace (SUA)/ATC assigned airspace (ATCAA) have coordinated with the
scheduling agency, obtained approval for entry, and are familiar with
appropriate MARSA procedures. ATC is not responsible for determining
which military aircraft are authorized to enter SUA/ATCAA."


John Hairell )

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?

Larry Dighera wrote:
On 31 Jul 2006 09:04:43 -0700, "

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?

You would have to study the entire legal environment of military
operations in US airspace to understand how it works. You need to read
the law, understand how it is applied via regulations and by other
means, and you need to get copies of all of the Letters of Agreement
between the FAA, DOD, and other agencies as to who is allowed to use
what airspace when and who has responsibilities for controlling it.
Only then will you get an idea of who is responsible for what, and at
that time you will find out if you have legal recourse. You will also
need to hunt down all applicable military regulations, SOPs, board
findings, documents, message traffic, etc if you are researching any
specific accident.

Basically you need deep pockets and an attorney who has a deep
background in aviation law and airspace usage. Approaching things from
the standpoint of state law probably won't help.


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

Even with congressional help it will be a long uphill battle to get
anything changed in how US airspace is utilized. Even the NTSB can't
make the FAA change, and DOD has a strong pull when it comes to
airspace matters.


John Hairell )