Scared of mid-airs

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

With regard to low-level MTRs, isn't the ceiling 500' AGL to 1,500'
AGL? Why not just fly over top of the proposed MTR restricted
airspace? If that approach should happen to interfere with
navigation, then the pilot would do what he always does to enter R
airspace: Contact ATC. I don't see the problem you apparently do.
What am I overlooking?


That contacting ATC doesn't mean you'll be cleared to enter a Restricted
Area.




Isn't joint-use under VFR more practical?

Joint use of MTR airspace causes a hazard to air navigation because of
the high speeds involved. Practicality is trumped by air safety in my
mind. Is it not in yours?


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).

How much time do you have driving an airplane at 300 knots or more?
I've got about 4000 hours of tactical jet operation and never seemed
to find it too difficult to see-and-avoid other aircraft.

Would you characterize yourself as typical of the skill level attained
by the majority of military fighter pilots?

Let's also note something regarding your favorite 250 knot restriction
below 10M'. For a period of time (long ago, galaxy far, far away), I
operated an aircraft that flew final approach at typical landing
weight at 205 KIAS. That was landing configuration with gear and flaps
down. In clean configuration, 350 knots was generally the minimum
maneuverable speed. At 250 knots clean, my agile fighter suddenly
became a shuddering block of non-aerodynamic technology with little
more G available than your Cessna 172. Not practical.

Today, aircraft operate comfortably at lower speeds, but still need
operational flexibility and therefore the exemption of the 250 knot
restriction remains necessary.

I don't recall having said the exemption isn't necessary.

My objection is to the _hazard_ operating in excess of the speed limit
the National Airspace System designers chose while creating the
system. If you think the 250 knot limit below 10,000' is unwarranted,
perhaps your credentials are superior to those who designed the
system. Doubtful.

Let's do a little analysis.

VFR minimum visibility: 3 statute miles = 15,480'

250 knots: 417' per second

Time to impact at 250 knots closing: 37 seconds (3 statute miles)

These times do not take into consideration the speed of BOTH aircraft,
and more importantly, they do not allow for the time it takes to
recognize the threat, decide to maneuver out of the path, and the time
it takes for the aircraft to respond and actually finish clearing the
path.

More likely, the exemption was issued as a necessary expedient at a
time when the sky was much bigger (if you know what I mean), and there
was less oversight. Today that exemption creates a negative impact on
air safety, and the whole issue should be objectively reexamined by
qualified engineers.



[...]

then the pilot would do what he always does to enter R
airspace: Contact ATC. I don't see the problem you apparently do.
What am I overlooking?
That contacting ATC doesn't mean you'll be cleared to enter a Restricted
Area.

I think there's the implication that one might be able to obtain
permssion to do so via ATC (and if not, one stays away).

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 15:59:33 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
. net:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

With regard to low-level MTRs, isn't the ceiling 500' AGL to 1,500'
AGL? Why not just fly over top of the proposed MTR restricted
airspace? If that approach should happen to interfere with
navigation, then the pilot would do what he always does to enter R
airspace: Contact ATC. I don't see the problem you apparently do.
What am I overlooking?


That contacting ATC doesn't mean you'll be cleared to enter a Restricted
Area.


True. Wouldn't you presume, that any denial of access into R airspace
would be predicated on the fact that there is training activity
occurring with in that R airspace (it's hot)? If so, it probably
wouldn't be a good idea to enter that MTR at that time even if it
remained joint use. Right?

With regard to low-level MTRs, isn't the ceiling 500' AGL to 1,500'
AGL? Why not just fly over top of the proposed MTR restricted
airspace?

There may be overlying SUA, or overlying clouds, or GL may already be
pretty high up.

If that approach should happen to interfere with
navigation, then the pilot would do what he always does to enter R
airspace: Contact ATC.

I've attempted that, and also contacting the FSS as printed on the
charts themselves, and often the putative controlling agency doesn't
know whether it's hot or not.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 16:02:22 GMT, Jose
wrote in :

then the pilot would do what he always does to enter R
airspace: Contact ATC.

I've attempted that, and also contacting the FSS as printed on the
charts themselves, and often the putative controlling agency doesn't
know whether it's hot or not.

That is true. Why do you suppose that occurs?

Do you think ATC is so disorganized, that they can't find the military
activity information, or do you think the military has provided
ambiguous information, what? It would seem, that given the system in
place for activating and deactivating Restricted airspace, there
should be a concrete answer available at all times.

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 15:28:47 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 15:25:29 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote in
::

OK, your homework for this week is to pick a major USAF tactical base.
You seem familiar with MacDill, but you could use Langley, Luke,
Nellis, Seymour-Johnson or similar. Now, draw up a minimum of four low
level MTRs, each a minimum of 300 miles in length. Be sure that entry
and exit points are close enough to base of origin for local
operations during a typical 90 minute flight. Have at least two of the
routes terminate on a weapons range. Consider the routes restricted
airspace. Now, how does your GA traffic go anywhere? You have
effectively created boxes that don't allow anyone else to use the
airspace.

With regard to low-level MTRs, isn't the ceiling 500' AGL to 1,500'
AGL? Why not just fly over top of the proposed MTR restricted
airspace? If that approach should happen to interfere with
navigation, then the pilot would do what he always does to enter R
airspace: Contact ATC. I don't see the problem you apparently do.
What am I overlooking?

You've added a factor not previously in evidence. If you draw the MTR
with those altitude specs, then you MAY be able to create routes that
would be meet training requirements and allow for reasonably
unhindered GA traffic.

You're overlooking the fact that ATC doesn't usually have coverage at
those altitudes in areas typically employed for MTRs. They won't be
able to offer you the desired "no responsibility on the part of the GA
pilot" guarantee of no threat because they can't see traffic at those
altitudes.

Additionally, training maneuvers on an MTR may require formation
repositioning, simulated evasive maneuvers, simulated armed
reconnaisance maneuvering and even simulated weapons delivery
maneuvers and re-attacks. Those requirements could seriously mitigate
your ability to create 500-1500' AGL corridors.

Isn't joint-use under VFR more practical?

Joint use of MTR airspace causes a hazard to air navigation because of
the high speeds involved. Practicality is trumped by air safety in my
mind. Is it not in yours?

If you ask that last sentence question, you must not have been paying
attention throught the last 120 messages here. The (relatively) high
speeds involved are not the problem you continually try to make them.

How much time do you have driving an airplane at 300 knots or more?
I've got about 4000 hours of tactical jet operation and never seemed
to find it too difficult to see-and-avoid other aircraft.

Would you characterize yourself as typical of the skill level attained
by the majority of military fighter pilots?

You demonstrate here that you actually don't know many military
fighter pilots (BTW, there is no other kind--all fighter pilots are
military). Show me a fighter pilot who does not contend that his
personal skill level is above the average and I'll show you a pilot
who will lose tomorrow.

My skill level was generally above the majority. But the training
level I required of those who were my students, those in my squadron
and those in my flights was more than adequate to do the job safely.

Let's also note something regarding your favorite 250 knot restriction
below 10M'. For a period of time (long ago, galaxy far, far away), I
operated an aircraft that flew final approach at typical landing
weight at 205 KIAS. That was landing configuration with gear and flaps
down. In clean configuration, 350 knots was generally the minimum
maneuverable speed. At 250 knots clean, my agile fighter suddenly
became a shuddering block of non-aerodynamic technology with little
more G available than your Cessna 172. Not practical.

Today, aircraft operate comfortably at lower speeds, but still need
operational flexibility and therefore the exemption of the 250 knot
restriction remains necessary.

I don't recall having said the exemption isn't necessary.

My objection is to the _hazard_ operating in excess of the speed limit
the National Airspace System designers chose while creating the
system. If you think the 250 knot limit below 10,000' is unwarranted,
perhaps your credentials are superior to those who designed the
system. Doubtful.

My credentials may be different than theirs. But, they recognized the
operational and aerodyamic necessity of the exception as well as I do.
You are apparently the only one who does not recognize that some high
performance tactical aircraft require that exemption to operate
safely. 'Tis you Moriarty, not I.

Let's do a little analysis.

VFR minimum visibility: 3 statute miles = 15,480'

250 knots: 417' per second

Time to impact at 250 knots closing: 37 seconds (3 statute miles)

OK, hold your breath for 37 seconds. It's an incredibly long time.

These times do not take into consideration the speed of BOTH aircraft,
and more importantly, they do not allow for the time it takes to
recognize the threat, decide to maneuver out of the path, and the time
it takes for the aircraft to respond and actually finish clearing the
path.

Three seconds? Maybe five if you can't make a decision quickly.

More likely, the exemption was issued as a necessary expedient at a
time when the sky was much bigger (if you know what I mean), and there
was less oversight. Today that exemption creates a negative impact on
air safety, and the whole issue should be objectively reexamined by
qualified engineers.

Not engineers you twit. Operators!

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

OK, hold your breath for 37 seconds. It's an incredibly long time.

It's a lot of sky to scan. And if nose to nose, you only have 19 seconds.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 16:08:14 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote in
:

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 15:28:47 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 15:25:29 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote in
:

With regard to low-level MTRs, isn't the ceiling 500' AGL to 1,500'
AGL? Why not just fly over top of the proposed MTR restricted
airspace? If that approach should happen to interfere with
navigation, then the pilot would do what he always does to enter R
airspace: Contact ATC. I don't see the problem you apparently do.
What am I overlooking?

You've added a factor not previously in evidence.

Which factor is that?

If you draw the MTR with those altitude specs, then you MAY be able to
create routes that would be meet training requirements and allow for
reasonably unhindered GA traffic.

That seemed obvious to me.

You're overlooking the fact that ATC doesn't usually have coverage at
those altitudes in areas typically employed for MTRs.

Agreed. Are you saying there is a requirement for ATC to have radar
coverage of all R airspace? Or are you saying, that if the military
is going to shoulder responsibility for the hazard to air safety their
high-speed, low-level operations create, it would require ATC radar
coverage?

ATC had perfectly good radar coverage in Florida, but it didn't
prevent the MAC. And the Cessna pilot was found to have been
partially responsible as a result of being incapable of avoiding at
the speeds involved.

They won't be able to offer you the desired "no responsibility on the part
of the GA pilot" guarantee of no threat because they can't see traffic at
those altitudes.

First, I never indicated that GA should have 'no responsibility'; I
said the military should bear sole legal responsibility for the
hazards it poses to air safety as a result of operating under its
exemption to the 250 knot speed limit below 10,000' feet.

Next, There would be no necessity for the military to take sole
responsibility as mentioned above, if they were operating in Class R
airspace (unless they failed to schedule it with ATC/FSS).

Additionally, training maneuvers on an MTR may require formation
repositioning, simulated evasive maneuvers, simulated armed
reconnaisance [sic] maneuvering and even simulated weapons delivery
maneuvers and re-attacks. Those requirements could seriously mitigate
your ability to create 500-1500' AGL corridors.

[Mitigate: to cause to become less harsh or hostile]

Not being familiar with those operations, I ask, would it be feasible
to conduct those operations above 10,000'? If not, why not?

I presume formation repositioning, simulated evasive maneuvers,
simulated armed reconnaissance maneuvering and simulated weapons
delivery maneuvers and re-attacks may require larger lateral, and
perhaps vertical, boundaries than are currently provided by MTRs. Is
that correct?

Isn't joint-use under VFR more practical?

Joint use of MTR airspace causes a hazard to air navigation because of
the high speeds involved. Practicality is trumped by air safety in my
mind. Is it not in yours?

If you ask that last sentence question, you must not have been paying
attention throught the last 120 messages here. The (relatively) high
speeds involved are not the problem you continually try to make them.

We disagree about that. (And you have evaded the question.)


Would you characterize yourself as typical of the skill level attained
by the majority of military fighter pilots?

You demonstrate here that you actually don't know many military
fighter pilots (BTW, there is no other kind--all fighter pilots are
military)

The Flying Tigers were a civilian group. Anyone who thinks the Flying
Tigers were not fighter pilots is uninformed and/or delusional.

My skill level was generally above the majority.

Right. So using your own personal experiences as examples in this
discussion is atypical of most military pilots, by your own admission.

[...] therefore the exemption of the 250 knot restriction remains necessary.

I don't recall having said the exemption isn't necessary.

My objection is to the _hazard_ operating in excess of the speed limit
the National Airspace System designers chose while creating the
system. If you think the 250 knot limit below 10,000' is unwarranted,
perhaps your credentials are superior to those who designed the
system. Doubtful.

My credentials may be different than theirs. But, they recognized the
operational and aerodyamic necessity of the exception as well as I do.
You are apparently the only one who does not recognize that some high
performance tactical aircraft require that exemption to operate
safely. 'Tis you Moriarty, not I.

You'll find it impossible to locate a single instance in which I
advocated operating an aircraft below its safe minimum speed.

My issue is the operation in excess of the 250 knot speed limit in
joint use airspace, and the hazard it causes to civil aviation.


Let's do a little analysis.

VFR minimum visibility: 3 statute miles = 15,480'

250 knots: 417' per second

Time to impact at 250 knots closing: 37 seconds (3 statute miles)

OK, hold your breath for 37 seconds. It's an incredibly long time.

I am able to hold my breath for 1.5 minutes. Other's have done so
recently for nearly 9 minutes.

Of course, fast-movers operate in excess of 250 knots, and the
equation does not consider head-on situations as occurred in Florida.
The closing speed was 480 knots in that instance, which works out to a
little over 19 seconds to visually identify the conflicting traffic at
3 statute miles, decide to take evasive action, and have the aircraft
clear of the path of impact.


These times do not take into consideration the speed of BOTH aircraft,
and more importantly, they do not allow for the time it takes to
recognize the threat, decide to maneuver out of the path, and the time
it takes for the aircraft to respond and actually finish clearing the
path.

Three seconds? Maybe five if you can't make a decision quickly.

Okay. Four seconds to make the decision to take evasive action, and a
couple of seconds to input control commands and for the aircraft to
actually clear the path, that leaves 13 seconds to visually identify
the head-on traffic at 3 statute miles in minimum VMC.

Now, if you consider a fighter at 300 knots approaching a 250 knot
airliner head on, the closure rate would be 550 knots permitting only
17 seconds until impact. Subtracting six seconds for decision and
maneuvering, leaves 11 seconds to visually identify the threat. That's
precious little time to see-and-avoid in single pilot operations.

More likely, the exemption was issued as a necessary expedient at a
time when the sky was much bigger (if you know what I mean), and there
was less oversight. Today that exemption creates a negative impact on
air safety, and the whole issue should be objectively reexamined by
qualified engineers.

Not engineers you twit. Operators!


[Ah. Invective and deprecation: the last refuge of the unarmed. Are
you aware of how such loss of civility diminishes any respect you may
have had? I don't expect you capable of apologizing. Disappointing.]

Operators are not skilled in the disciplines of engineering. Operators
have a vested interest in the decisions. Engineers use objective
calculations to discover system limitations, not necessity nor emotion
to arrive at unrealistic conclusions.

--

DISCLAIMER If you find a posting or message from me
offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it.
If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to
me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate... ;-)
--

Scared of Mid-Airs?

Me too, so I stay away from 'em. It's easier if you know where they
are.


Larry Dighera wrote:

(Have you ever been successful contacting
Flight Service at 500' AGL to inquire if a MTR is hot?)

Rarely, and that's an FAA problem. It could be that the lack of FSS
coverage is the real culprit in MAC's. Maybe you should look into
it. FSS performance is a contributing factor in at least one of the
accidents you cite, and the unwillingness of civilian pilots to
consult with the FSS is a factor in two of them. In all four of the
accidents, military pilots were in contact with the appropriate
agencies.


Alternatively, we could REQUIRE BY REGULATION, that all MTR
participants employ TCAS....

Interesting. Try convincing AOPA that all civilian light planes need
to have TCAS so that they can participate in the system. A TCAS unit
will cost more than the value of most of the aircraft in which it
would be installed. Within the airspace where you'll find MTR's,
civilian light planes are not required to have even a basic
transponder. Perhaps the civilian community should begin to do its
part to insure no more MAC's?


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

Low level training routes have been around for more than 40 years,
that I know of. Never liked 'em, only because though I had to be
there, the Cessna's didn't and they didn't care enough to know that
I was there.


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.

You keep ignoring the facts, about which you have repeatedly been
reminded. None of the four accidents you've cited in your rants
actually fits the above.


2. ...Now we've got [MTR] here in the US. Perhaps there is a...less
congested venue someplace else.

You could be the head negotiator. Let us know how many such venues
you find. Moving all military training offshore sounds like a real
interesting proposition. Have you given it even 5 seconds of
thought? Two should be more than enough.


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.

It would be safer. Isn't that your concern?


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].

Yes, read that last sentence again, the one with the word "imperative".

The civil pilot chooses to transit airspace where he knows or should
know that military missions are being flown. He enters at his own
risk, and increases the risk to those military missions in so doing.
Either he is an equal player or he is not. If he can't, as you
claim, be expected to bear an equal share of responsibility for
traffic avoidance, then he has no business operating in that air
space. Those who imply otherwise would increase the danger to all
involved.


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.

And yet, you advocate the military take full responsibility for
those who choose, for whatever reason, to enter an MTR, even for
those with what you describe as a death wish? You can't have it both
ways. In order for that to happen the presence of civilian aircraft
would require the cessation or at least the modification of the
mission and the resulting loss of training, increased costs, and
ultimately less safety as these missions would have to be reflown,
requiring a higher sortie count to achieve the necessary training.


What would what you suggest that might accomplish besides
a dead civilian airman and two destroyed aircraft?

It comes as a complete surprise to you, I am sure, that there are
people in this world who haven't the brains to assess the risks, and
another group who actually treasure the opportunity to be splattered
in a righteous cause. Nothing new about it, really, but you should
pick up a newspaper now and then, and try to keep up. As pointed out
in the preceding paragraphs, the mere presence of civilian aircraft
in the airspace would be enough to shut down training under the
restrictions you're advocating.


Get real.

Reality is the province of the fighter pilot, Larry. The
"hundred-dollar hamburger" is a lolly-gag for the casual
recreationist, be he ever so experienced. BTDT, all the way round
the block, and back again.


Or are you referring to the glider that was hit on a MTR by an A6 [sic]? 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.

Have you complained to the NTSB? Perhaps the Federal Government
should be responsible for traffic separation -- there's a novel notion.


Civil aircraft to the right of military aircraft:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...26X00109&key=1

The usual NTSB pointless response amounting to, "they ran into each
other because they ran into each other," or, in NTSB-speak, "both
pilots failed to...maintain clearance from other aircraft." But you
think it was all the military's fault. There was nothing about this
accident that made it a "military" type of accident. Any two
civilian aircraft could have had exactly the same accident in the
same place. The T-37 was at 200 kts, well below the speed any number
of civilian aircraft could have been traveling, and was not on an
MTR. The Ag plane was invisible to ATC while operating in marginal
VFR conditions, having neither a transponder nor a radio.


F-16s lacked required ATC clearance:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...12X22313&key=1

Flight lead screws up; and "ATC’s lack of awareness that there was
more than one F-16 aircraft in the formation flight, which reduced
the ATC controllers ability to detect and resolve the conflict that
resulted in the collision," despite the fact that fighters don't go
anywhere alone. Maybe ATC could train their people better, too. What
do you think?


A6 pilot expected to exit MTR eight minutes after route
closu
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...11X12242&key=1

AG Cat pilot unaware of the existence of MTR; this FSS habitually
fails to give useful info to local flights; and so the NTSB cites
"inherent limitations of the see-and-avoid concept." How about the
inherent limitations of ignorant Ag Cat pilots and apathetic FSS
employees?


A6 hit glider that had right of way:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...13X33340&key=1

"THE _A7E_ PLT HAD INFORMED THE NECESSARY FLT SERV STATIONS THAT THE
ROUTE WAS ACTIVE; THE GLIDER PLT HAD NOT CONTACTED THE FLT SERV
STATIONS TO DETERMINE IF THE ROUTE WAS ACTIVE."

Poor preflight planning and preparation on the part of the glider
pilot, according to the NTSB. A proper evaluation of the dangers of
operating in a hot MTR cannot possibly be made if he doesn't know
about the MTR. He just didn't give himself a fighting chance. Would
he even have known if he was circling over the VOR on a busy airway?
Sure, you go where the lift is, within reason, in a glider, but
"situational awareness" -- the same thing you so correctly demand of
the F-16 flight lead above -- is required even of glider pilots. I
would say, "especially of glider pilots", given the characteristics
of that beautiful sport. BTDT, got the glider.


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.

Then change the NAS. The laws of physics remain beyond the reach of
the legislature, despite your passionate objections.


If not, why have a speed limit at all?

Simply to minimize UNNECESSARY high speed operation in an area of
mixed traffic. You cannot continue to ignore the aerodynamic as well
as the operational necessity for some military aircraft to operate
well above your beloved 250 kts, and still expect that you should be
taken seriously. Does it surprise you to know that there are
civilian aircraft which also must operate above 250kts below
10,000'? Their reasons too are valid. BTDT, got the ATPR and the
fancy hat.


If military operations create a civil hazard, they should be
segregated from civil flights.

We disagree only on the mechanism to achieve that end. As has been
stated elsewhere, this is a problem that has no answer but
cooperation and an assumption of both risk and responsibility by all
parties.


So you've read all I've written on this subject over the past six
years?

Unfortunately. Redundant, shallow, and obtuse though it has been.


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.

EXPLICIT in that parting shot is the well-regarded notion that "it
takes effort to be constructive." A great deal of effort is required
to go beyond where the NAS is today -- effort that you seem
unwilling to undertake, given your six-year crusade against the
windmills of your own ignorance.



Jack

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 15:43:18 GMT, 588 wrote in
:

Scared of Mid-Airs?

Me too, so I stay away from 'em. It's easier if you know where they
are.

Another inane remark like that, and you'll find yourself without my
readership.

I find no humor in the needless death and destruction of a MAC. I
sincerely hope your arrogance and disregard for air safety are not
typical of military airmen.