Scared of mid-airs

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

Ed Rasimus wrote:

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".

Somewhat inflammatory remarks? I used to schedule airspace blocks for
DOD. Where do you think I got my ideas about DOD hogging airspace
from? I worked in a place where we did it every day. DOD ever have an
interest in controlling all airspace? Look into the history of the
national airspace system and come back and then we can discuss it.


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.


Why should the military have priority over GA? The first rule of the
NAS is "first come, first serve".

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

That's an interesting statement coming from a pilot. More fuel for the
fire for Mr. Dighera.


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.

But you can't say that control of airspace has never been thought about
and discussed by various people in the military.


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.

I never said that I'm worried about DOD taking over CONUS airspace, so
no paranoia on my part. My response had to do with another poster
suggesting that all MTR airspace be forbidden to GA aircraft, which you
yourself agreed was unfeasable.

It's a historical fact that the military has at various times had an
interest in controlling all U.S. airspace. This was discussed at
length in the first airspace design class I attended in 1978 when we
were talking about the roots of the SCATANA plan. The idea was more
prevalent in the 1950s at the height of the Cold War when the military
was worried about flights of Russian bombers penetrating U.S. airspace.
I'm not saying that there is a DOD cabal to take over U.S. airspace,
only that at certain times there have been military agencies or groups
of people who have talked about the possibilities, and in the '50s
tried to make it so.

The 1958 Federal Aviation Act gave the FAA sole responsibility for
developing and maintaining a common civil-military system of air
navigation and air traffic control, and the framers of the act went out
of their way to take some of these responsiblities away from the
military and other government entities, which had previously shared
them with the CAA in a hodge-podge fashion.


John Hairell )

On 2 Aug 2006 08:46:19 -0700, "
wrote:


Ed Rasimus wrote:

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".

Somewhat inflammatory remarks? I used to schedule airspace blocks for
DOD. Where do you think I got my ideas about DOD hogging airspace
from? I worked in a place where we did it every day. DOD ever have an
interest in controlling all airspace? Look into the history of the
national airspace system and come back and then we can discuss it.

I used to use airspace blocks. I started operating in the environment
with the military in 1964 and did it continuously until 1987. During
that time I also operated in Europe and Asia. In the process my
assignments included tasks ranging from squadron scheduling (airspace
required for training, you know) to Operations Officer management
(getting entire units operationally ready) to NATO exercise planning
requiring negotiation of airspace from multiple national agencies.
I've even done airspace coordination in battle space to deconflict
fast-movers, army aviation and artillery (FAA wasn't in the plan.)
I've got a working background in the subject both from the ground and
the operator side of the house.


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.


Why should the military have priority over GA? The first rule of the
NAS is "first come, first serve".

That is patently absurd. File a flight plan along the north Florida
coast and see if you can get "first come, first serve(d)" priority
over a Shuttle launch. Or file though White Sands when a retest of a
drone becomes necessary and see if you get your service.

National security and operational expedience can and often do take
priority over "first come" service.

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

That's an interesting statement coming from a pilot. More fuel for the
fire for Mr. Dighera.

Read again slowly and try not to move your lips. Your introduction of
"safety" as a priority when the discussion was prioritization of
military, commercial and GA traffic was the subject. Safety is a goal.
Safety is the number 1 priority goal. Then efficiency, operational
necessity, time criticality, etc. will vie for runners-up.

But if I ask you to build a priority list with military, commercial,
GA, safety, fuel economy, radar availability, cost of gas at the pump,
control of Gaza and protecting the whales, you will have a tough time
creating a rationale. At this point, Mr. Dighera has burned himself
out. His tape is on continous loop and I can do little to inflame or
douse him.


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.

But you can't say that control of airspace has never been thought about
and discussed by various people in the military.

Control of airspace is an operational necessity. That is different
than assumption of control responsibility for the nation. I wouldn't
want LA Center doing control over Nellis ranges and I don't believe
they have the slightest concern over WSMR is being used for a missile
shot or supersonic dissimilar training.

But, for a lot of years during WW-Cold, there was an bi-lateral agency
called NORAD that would have pulled the plug on the FAA in an instant
when the unthinkable occurred. And, during the heyday of Air Defense
Command, you might recall that FAA lost control of military climb
corridors in an instant when there was an air defense scramble.

But you can also take to the bank that the military has no desire to
prioritize whether American out of D/FW gets priority release over
Southwest from Love Field.


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.

I never said that I'm worried about DOD taking over CONUS airspace, so
no paranoia on my part. My response had to do with another poster
suggesting that all MTR airspace be forbidden to GA aircraft, which you
yourself agreed was unfeasable.

It's a historical fact that the military has at various times had an
interest in controlling all U.S. airspace. This was discussed at
length in the first airspace design class I attended in 1978 when we
were talking about the roots of the SCATANA plan. The idea was more
prevalent in the 1950s at the height of the Cold War when the military
was worried about flights of Russian bombers penetrating U.S. airspace.
I'm not saying that there is a DOD cabal to take over U.S. airspace,
only that at certain times there have been military agencies or groups
of people who have talked about the possibilities, and in the '50s
tried to make it so.

The 1958 Federal Aviation Act gave the FAA sole responsibility for
developing and maintaining a common civil-military system of air
navigation and air traffic control, and the framers of the act went out
of their way to take some of these responsiblities away from the
military and other government entities, which had previously shared
them with the CAA in a hodge-podge fashion.

Absolutely. No disagreement here, but you've now embellished with a
lot more detail and gotten beyond the blanket assertion of a DOD cabal
to control the world--or at least the FAA's part of the bureaucratic
pie.

But, when PATCO went on strike, they quickly learned that there were
alternatives to their paternal (pun unintentional) control of the
skies. They weren't missed for long.

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

Just to throw in a little more topic creep, I suggest those interested
do a Google on FLARM.

The Swiss came up with a self contained collision avoidance system for
gliders - which have a horrible mid-air problem in Europe. Simple to
use and inexpensive - about $500 per glider, I think.

Works great - and is wildly popular - in Europe. I think in Austria
and Switzerland, the number of FLARM equipped gliders approaches 90%.
And remember, this is a totally voluntary system, and you have to buy
it yourself and hope the other guy has one.

BUT - the people who make FLARM specifically prohibit it's sale and use
in the US and Canada - due to product liability laws.

No reason something similar couldn't be used by ALL aircraft,
everywhere. Make it portable, give it to a pilot when he gets his
license, require him to have it when he flies.

Yeah right, that'll happen!

OTOH, what I want more than a TCAS (that I can't afford or power) or a
transponder (which doesn't help when me and the F-16 about to hit me
are VFR and/or talking to different agencies, if at all) when I fly my
glider is a simple transponder detector - so I will be warned when
there is traffic nearby - and those are avialable for about $500 today.

Re bugsmashers: Have you ever seen a Cessna or Piper with a clean
windscreen? No way you can see and avoid looking through all the dirt
and bugs. Anyway, it's much more fun to look at the pretty color GPS
display - it even has a map!

War story - flying gliders out west in Az, have frequently picked up
mil jets (mainly Luke F-16s and Yuma AV-8s) visually and aurally - and
they seem to have had no problem seeing me (the Marines in particular
seem to like checking out gliders up close - I just wave at them as
they go by...). Ditto airliners - although when they are letting down,
737s don't make any noise at all. But it's the Cessna or Bonanza that
sneaks up on you that scares me the most. Fortunately, out west
gliders are usually above them. In Illinois, however, I'm forced to
fly smack in the middle of the VFR altitude favored the most - so my
paranoia is way up there!

Kirk
LS6 "66"