Scared of mid-airs

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 1 Aug 2006 07:18:36 -0700, "
wrote:


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?

Ooops, we begin to see a perspective emerging here.

First, let's note that military training routes will, of necessity be
LONG--you need more than 100 miles to begin to do any effective
low-level nav training. And, you need several routes. Flying the same
LL route three times and it is no longer a training challenge. So, it
is impractical in the first place to declare military training routes
as restricted airspace.

Second, let's further note that tactics are increasingly less reliant
on low-level ingress/egress to a target area and development of modern
nav systems such as GPS make visual nav dead reckoning and pilotage
much less important. So, less need for LL training routes.

But, the response to the suggestion also needs comment. If your
military doesn't get to "train like we fight" then you needlessly
endanger them when the time comes to employ. Should the military have
higher priority when sharing the airspace than Dr. Jones in his
Bonanza on his way to Branson for the weekend? If the military loses,
the golf course will wind up in poor condition.

But that is the extreme. The fact is that the military, the commercial
carriers and GA traffic co-exist quite nicely. Priorities are in place
and airspace is shared. This doesn't absolve GA pilots from the
shouldering some responsibility for their proficiency, currency and
maintenance.


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.

1958 was a very long time ago. Consider that there was no INS, no GPS,
no R-Nav and no jet airliners. Control throughout the country was
principally procedural (remember those flight strips?) and there was
very little radar environment. Speeds were lower, volume was lower,
and the operating altitudes were lower. O'hare was under construction
and D/FW wasn't even on the horizon. Things change.

No one at DOD "wishes it would control all airspace". Never heard such
a thing. There are a lot of ways to skin the joint use cat and the US
system is only one of them. You might also look at the British system
with separate control systems or the predominant European system with
OAT and GAT systems.

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.

The airspace remains a national asset and sharing it realistically is
difficult. No one reasonably would propose restriction of all training
airspace for the military to the exclusion of commercial and GA
traffic. It simply isn't feasible. But all players must realize the
nature of the training going on and be aware of the hazards involved.
No more, no less.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

Ed Rasimus wrote:


Ooops, we begin to see a perspective emerging here.

First, let's note that military training routes will, of necessity be
LONG--you need more than 100 miles to begin to do any effective
low-level nav training. And, you need several routes. Flying the same
LL route three times and it is no longer a training challenge. So, it
is impractical in the first place to declare military training routes
as restricted airspace.

Yes, because it tends to sectorize blocks of usable airspace into
sections where GA aircraft would have trouble going.


Second, let's further note that tactics are increasingly less reliant
on low-level ingress/egress to a target area and development of modern
nav systems such as GPS make visual nav dead reckoning and pilotage
much less important. So, less need for LL training routes.

But, the response to the suggestion also needs comment. If your
military doesn't get to "train like we fight" then you needlessly
endanger them when the time comes to employ. Should the military have
higher priority when sharing the airspace than Dr. Jones in his
Bonanza on his way to Branson for the weekend? If the military loses,
the golf course will wind up in poor condition.

I fully agree with you. But the first priority within the national
airspace system should be safety.


But that is the extreme. The fact is that the military, the commercial
carriers and GA traffic co-exist quite nicely. Priorities are in place
and airspace is shared. This doesn't absolve GA pilots from the
shouldering some responsibility for their proficiency, currency and
maintenance.

Very true. The corollary is that this doesn't absolve the military
from operating safely
where training may conflict with civilian flights. I've seen firsthand
where MTRs and restricted area airspace have been abused by military
users, resulting in hazards to civilians.

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.

1958 was a very long time ago. Consider that there was no INS, no GPS,
no R-Nav and no jet airliners. Control throughout the country was
principally procedural (remember those flight strips?) and there was
very little radar environment. Speeds were lower, volume was lower,
and the operating altitudes were lower. O'hare was under construction
and D/FW wasn't even on the horizon. Things change.

The mechanics of the system may change but the philosophy behind who
"owns" and controls the airspace hasn't changed.

No one at DOD "wishes it would control all airspace". Never heard such
a thing.

There were several pushes in the '50s for DOD to control all US
airspace. The 1958 act was fought over by the various interest groups
but cooler heads prevailed and the civilians won - airspace management
would be the responsiblity of a civilian agency. The 1958 act was
later repealed and replaced by various other laws which are
substantially similar in intent. Even into the '60s there were people
in DOD who advocated control of all airspace by the military and I
remember talk within the military in the '70s and '80s about an effort
to prohibit any civilian aircraft from using MTR airspace for its
entire length and width and height whether an MTR was hot or not. As
a pilot you may not have heard about it but in airspace management
circles there was talk about it. Every few years the issue comes up
again. Also, over the last 30 years DOD has pushed for an
ever-increasing amount of airspace for training purposes. This is in
addition to the large blocks of airspace already in use in the western
states. This is not a new discussion.

There are a lot of ways to skin the joint use cat and the US
system is only one of them. You might also look at the British system
with separate control systems or the predominant European system with
OAT and GAT systems.

Remember it's joint use but not joint-owned. Airspace for DOD usage
is delegated to DOD by the FAA. I used to get 5 blocks of restricted
airspace from the FAA and had to do it on a daily basis. It could be
and sometimes was denied. We controlled the restricted areas but
didn't own them.

The airspace remains a national asset and sharing it realistically is
difficult. No one reasonably would propose restriction of all training
airspace for the military to the exclusion of commercial and GA
traffic. It simply isn't feasible. But all players must realize the
nature of the training going on and be aware of the hazards involved.
No more, no less.


I agree. But the details of how the system works aren't always clear
to the public and GA pilots, and DOD and the FAA have a way of doing
things with airspace with little public input.


John Hairell )

" wrote in message
ups.com...

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?



I don't think that what he said at all. But the military has places on the
ground where they can drive their tanks and shoot their guns. I think the
safety and needs of all would be met if we created the same thing in the
sky.

Designate certain airspace as military training areas under military ATC. If
your GA path happens to go into that area you contact a military controller
and ask for clearance. If your are putting along at 2500 AGL and the mil
flights are all playing above 10,000 the controller clears you through the
airspace on a certain heading and alt.

Basically just create special Class B airspace for the military to train in.

wrote:

So the training needs of the military have a higher priority than
anything else in the US airspace system?

Your interpretation, not mine. But to pursue that idea, the point of
having and training the military is in order to continue to have a
National Airspace System. Thus the priority.


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?

Stay on topic, tpn18. Airliners don't fit in this particular discussion.


Jack

588 wrote:
wrote:

So the training needs of the military have a higher priority than
anything else in the US airspace system?

Your interpretation, not mine. But to pursue that idea, the point of
having and training the military is in order to continue to have a
National Airspace System. Thus the priority.


Read the law - specifically Title 49. Number one priority is safety
and the main concern after that is commerce. With your logic the
military could claim rights over every and anything due to national
security concerns overiding all other aspects, i.e. if you don't let us
take your airspace/property/anything else we want for training the
country will be open to attack and we will founder. The lawmakers were
wise enough in 1958 and again in later years to reject this line of
thinking.

Nobody denies that the military services require blocks of airspace for
training purposes.
That their needs always over-ride the needs of all other airspace users
is questionable.



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?

Stay on topic, tpn18. Airliners don't fit in this particular discussion.

Any type of traffic fits in this discussion. My point is that we
shouldn't cede control of airspace to military and purely commercial
interests. By far the largest number of aircraft in the U.S. belong to
the general aviation fleet. Some people seem to forget that. The
system is for everybody.


John Hairell )

On 2 Aug 2006 06:07:11 -0700, "
wrote:


588 wrote:
wrote:

So the training needs of the military have a higher priority than
anything else in the US airspace system?

Your interpretation, not mine. But to pursue that idea, the point of
having and training the military is in order to continue to have a
National Airspace System. Thus the priority.


Read the law - specifically Title 49. Number one priority is safety
and the main concern after that is commerce. With your logic the
military could claim rights over every and anything due to national
security concerns overiding all other aspects, i.e. if you don't let us
take your airspace/property/anything else we want for training the
country will be open to attack and we will founder. The lawmakers were
wise enough in 1958 and again in later years to reject this line of
thinking.

I think the umbrage being taken here is that you've jumped from "user"
priority to "objectives" priority. First you wear your prejudice on
your sleeve with the somewhat inflammatory remarks about the DOD
wanting to take over and run all the airspace coupled with the bit
about letting GA stay home and watch "Wings".

Then when people point out that the military have a higher priority
than GA (and they should), you quickly shift from prioritizing
military/commercial/GA to "number one priority is safety." It's
apples and oranges.

List who gets to use a block of airspace--"Mr Safety" doesn't make the
list.

Nobody denies that the military services require blocks of airspace for
training purposes.
That their needs always over-ride the needs of all other airspace users
is questionable.



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?

Stay on topic, tpn18. Airliners don't fit in this particular discussion.

Any type of traffic fits in this discussion. My point is that we
shouldn't cede control of airspace to military and purely commercial
interests. By far the largest number of aircraft in the U.S. belong to
the general aviation fleet. Some people seem to forget that. The
system is for everybody.

And, everybody has been using the system with a remarkable degree of
efficiency for decades. Airlines run schedules and fairly high on-time
efficiency rates. GA folks get to do GA things, whether biz-jetting to
meetings, dancing the sky on laughter silvered wings, or simply
learning to fly at the local pasture. And, the military gets to
operate with relatively minimal impact on their requirements and
little interference on the other players.

The FAA continues to control the airspace where they can do it best.
They mesh with military terminal control facilities and they interact
with special use airspace schedulers and controllers. No one I've
heard of seriously is seeking military takeover of airspace control
for the CONUS. Your paranoia seems to be recurring.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com