![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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 ) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
UBL wants a truce - he's scared of the CIA UAV | John Doe | Aviation Marketplace | 1 | January 19th 06 08:58 PM |
The kids are scared, was Saddam evacuated | D. Strang | Military Aviation | 0 | April 7th 04 10:36 PM |
Scared and trigger-happy | John Galt | Military Aviation | 5 | January 31st 04 12:11 AM |