Scared of mid-airs

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 )