Scared of mid-airs

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 )