Scared of mid-airs

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.

Larry Dighera wrote:

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

I've never known a fighter pilot to have anything but respect for
the potential of a midair...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.

And on what do you base your statements: a contact group equal to
zero? Unlike yours, my reference group is populated -- and not least
by myself and scores of others to whom I have entrusted my safety as
they have entrusted theirs to me. You have chosen a set of four
according to the particular quality of their having been involved in
a fatal mid-air with a civilian aircraft. I suggest it is not I who
have the more biased and limited view of the problem.


How would you characterize the respect for a potential midair
demonstrated by Parker...? (I don't expect you to
answer that, it would require some courage on your part.)

Not a problem, Larry -- I can let the official report speak for
itself, prepared as it has been by those much closer to the problem
than I. As to our respective degrees of courage in the face of
USENET onslaughts -- each is probably adequate to the task. Anyway,
I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.


Jack