Scared of mid-airs

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 13:04:10 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote in
::

there is very little uncontrolled airspace in the country.

Actually, there is quite a bit of Class G airspace in the US. It's
ceiling is just 700' or 1,200' AGL.

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 13:14:24 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
t::


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

But, the point that we are beating here is that see-and-avoid is the
basic responsibility of all players all of the time.


That is true with the obvious exception of operations in IMC.


IMC does not provide an exception.


Considering that IMC is visibility less than three miles, I suppose
you are correct.

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...

Has that been a recent change? The airspace we used at Holloman for
most of the AT-38 training was to the East. The restricted airspace
over White Sands was used mostly by the 49th wing F-15s as it was
supersonic and ran surface to very high altitudes. It was used for
both flight and missile testing including Surface-to-air (ie Patriot)
and air-to-air (against Firebee variants and QF aircraft).

To the East we had the Beaks (A,B and C) and Talons (North, East and
West). They were MOAs and extended from 10,000 AGl to FL 450--which
put them both below and within APC (which in those days commenced at
FL180). We routinely had VFR GA traffic particularly in the Ruidoso
Airport area passing under the Beaks, but only rare exceptions of
folks exercising their VFR transit rights. ATC radar coverage, because
of high terrain on several sides, was intermittent at lower altitudes,
but occasionally ABQ Center would give an advisory of VFR traffic and
would always provide notice of IFR traffic along the bordering
airways. We usually had the traffic before ATC said anything.

Probably the ATCAA is the explanation. We just considered it MOA.


It's been that way since the MOA was created 31 years ago.

Incidentally, ATC CAN clear non-using IFR aircraft through a MOA under the
right conditions. One of those conditions is ATC must also be working the
aircraft using the MOA. I know of no location where this is done, however.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 19:49:59 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote in
::

But, the point that we are beating here is that see-and-avoid is the
basic responsibility of all players all of the time.

That is true with the obvious exception of operations in IMC.

High speed aircraft have high agility, low speed aircraft have lots of
time to
look,

Low-speed aircraft have the same amount of time to spot a high-speed
aircraft before colliding with it as the high-speed aircraft has: the
amount of time it takes for the two aircraft to reach each other.
Pilots of high-speed aircraft must look much farther ahead than pilots
of low-speed aircraft..

but regardless of your speed you keep the front of your airplane
cleared using all of the tools available to you.

High-speed aircraft need only scan a much smaller angle of airspace in
front of them than slow speed aircraft.



Just to jump in here for a second. Let's remember that most of the
high-speed fighters are painted in such a what as to make them hard to spot.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
news

Actually, there is quite a bit of Class G airspace in the US. It's
ceiling is just 700' or 1,200' AGL.


Or higher. Over parts of lakes Michigan and Superior and the upper
peninsula of Michigan there is an area of Class G airspace up to 2600 MSL
and several areas up to 14,500 MSL.

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

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

Considering that IMC is visibility less than three miles, I suppose
you are correct.


IMC is anything less than what is required for VFR flight. In Class E
airspace at 10,000 MSL or higher with less than five statute miles
visibility you're in IMC. In Class E airspace at 10,000 MSL or higher with
a cloud deck less than 1000' above or below you you're in IMC even if
visibility is unlimited.

" 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.

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 14:21:30 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 04:49:37 GMT, 588 wrote in
: :

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.

The more I think about such a conversion, the more appropriate I think
it would be. If Restricted airspace were created around MTRs, the
hazardous area would be fully depicted on charts. Instead of MTRs
being shown as a thin gray line, their true lateral dimensions would
be represented. Of course the chart might become so cluttered as to
be incomprehensible, but that doesn't seem to be a factor of concern
for those charged with designing airspace nor their cartographers.

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. Isn't joint-use under VFR more practical?

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.

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.

At any rate, such an airspace conversion would confine high-speed,
low-level military operations to ostensibly vacant airspace, rather
than joint use, depict the true size of MTRs on charts, enhance air
safety, and return the NAS to a well engineered system, albeit a bit
more difficult to navigate. (Have you ever been successful contacting
Flight Service at 500' AGL to inquire if a MTR is hot?)

Alternatively, we could REQUIRE BY REGULATION, that all MTR
participants employ TCAS (or radar capable of detecting conflicting
traffic of all categories and AUTOMATICALLY alerting the military
pilot) for collision avoidance.

Choices, choices, ...

Do you consider the fact that tactical aircraft regularly and
routinely fly with other aircraft. It is part of the mission
requirements. We fly in formations (not Thunderbird fingertip) that
mean we are inside TCAS thresholds. We rendezvous with other aircraft
both tactical and tanker. We intercept threats. We fly air combat
maneuvers. All require flight at short ranges and transiting
co-altitudes. TCAS would be impractical in terms of continual warnings
and (heaven forbid) uncommanded fly-up/fly-down commands.

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 [sic] do without military flight
training in CONUS.

Huh?

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

Military Training Routes have been around CONUs for as long as I can
remember. When I first started flying J-3 Cubs in 1962, there were
"Oil Burner Routes" for SAC that criss-crossed the nation. Dunno what
you mean by doing without.

The presence of random VFR traffic in military training routes
cannot be allowed to disrupt training.

Here are three responses to that statement:

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.

Belaboring again. You recently posted the extract indicating that
speeds were "as high as 450" during the descent. That doesn't equate
with the follow-on "within congested terminal airspace". The record
indicates that the flight speed was 350 and below when entering the
TCA. You also seem to imply that the flight was not on an ATC
clearance. They most assuredly were, but were operating VFR and
without ATC direct control. Slight difference.

2. MTR training was run out of Europe. They were tired of the hazard
it caused, and the lack of enforcement displayed by the military. Now
we've got it here in the US. Perhaps there is a more suitable, less
congested venue someplace else.

Military Training Routes are not a new thing. You would blanch at the
European low level training had you any familiarity. NATO nations,
operating within their own countries were considerably more flexible
in their enforcement than USAF. For example, USAF fighters in Germany
were restricted to 1500' AGL for low level training (not a realistic
floor, but those were the rules.) It was not at all uncommon for
Dutch, Belgian or Danish aircraft to pass several hundred feet below
us and almost simultaneously have them under-flown by the Germans.

Today, of course, we wouldn't really want to have the US dependent
upon a military force as "well equipped, well trained, well led, and
well-motivated" as a European force--would we?

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. If not, why have a speed limit
at all?

If you slow a tactical aircraft down to speeds below which it is
marginally maneuverable you've not improved safety.

No legal entity is going to assume responsibility for the results of
acts committed by persons outside its control.

That's funny; you've got me chuckling now, given the fact that the
military doesn't take responsibility now for the acts THEY committed.

The military has for as long as I was involved taken responsibility
for its actions. The process is often considerably more thorough and
timely than civil courts. It is also less prone to emotional outcome.

Therefore, only military pilots would be allowed in
training airspace. Perhaps you have not considered that.

If military operations create a civil hazard, they should be
segregated from civil flights. No problem there. Anything less is
negligence.

You really wouldn't like the outcome of that.

I don't doubt that refinement would be beneficial. I'm only a pilot,
not an airspace engineer.

And your qualifications/ratings are what?

So you've read all I've written on this subject over the past six
years? I think we ALL understand the problem quite well; some just
don't admit there is one.

Actually some are willing to expand their knowledge on a complex
subject and allow for new conclusions.

Implicit in that parting shot is the notion that I have somehow been
destructive. Lacking any example of that, I will consider it a
pathetic sign of your desperation.

You aren't destructive. You simply refuse to acknowledge any other
information while continually repeating what you've already said. Many
of the suggestions you've offered are impractical or infeasible.

Bottom line is that you demonstrate a fixation on civil guilt for an
accident. There has been due process and the result didn't satisfy
you. That's fine, the verdict in the OJ trial didn't satisfsy me
either, but that's the way the law, rules and regulations have it
done.


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

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 14:41:11 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 13:04:10 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote in
::

there is very little uncontrolled airspace in the country.

Actually, there is quite a bit of Class G airspace in the US. It's
ceiling is just 700' or 1,200' AGL.

That's very true, but try to go from one town to another without
transiting controlled airspace. Uncontrolled airspace allows farmer
Brown to fly around the property and count his cows, but not much
more.

Consider also that in most areas flying below 1500' is prohibited.
500' in "other than congested areas" is allowable, but you'd be
surprised how few buildings it takes for the FAA to consider it
congested.

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