Scared of mid-airs

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.

There is a huge fraction of our taxes going to the military. Take a
little of that money and modify the military version of TCAS to exclude
a programmable set of aircraft.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

It's one of the conventions we've established here for subject lines.
Others a

OT - off topic
FS - for sale
POL - political discussion (sometimes a thread moves that way)
PED - pedantry (little nitpicking having nothing to do with aviation)

The last two were recently added. Although nothing like this is ever
official on Usenet, if we adopt them it helps people to filter out stuff
they don't want to see.

There are a few others which escape me at the moment. The idea is to
start the subject line with one of these if the topic warrants it (or to
modify the existing subject line thus if you are replying in such a
manner).

For individual people:

ZZZ for Zoom (Jim C.)
JJJ for Juan J.

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 15:06:04 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
. net::


"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.

Agreed. I was speaking generally.

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.


That's also true for Class G airspace at night at more than 1,200 feet
above the surface and at or above 10,000 feet MSL.

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 15:48:37 GMT, Jose
wrote:

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.

There is a huge fraction of our taxes going to the military. Take a
little of that money and modify the military version of TCAS to exclude
a programmable set of aircraft.

Jose

Actually the "huge fraction" is at the lowest percentage of GDP that
it has been since WW II.

You imply that a "little money" is all that is necessary. You also
need a "little space" in the airframe. A "little frontage on the
instrument panel". A "little interface with the stab-aug/autopilot". A
"little programming" each day to tell it who you'll be working with.

Start by recognizing that tactical jets always operate in formations
of 2 or 4 aircraft. That their mission involves approaching, not
avoiding, other aircraft. That their maneuvering is not straight/level
cruise to and from the terminal. And, that no one I can think of wants
some additional noise in the head-set, lights flashing on the panel,
or uncommanded inputs to the flight controls trying to do what the
computer thinks best for you.

TCAS is a solution to a particular problem. It isn't a substitute for
situational awareness and electronics isn't the answer to avoiding
mid-airs. It can help but it isn't perfect.

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 )

Actually the "huge fraction" is at the lowest percentage of GDP that
it has been since WW II.

How much money does that actually turn out to be?

You also need a "little space" in the airframe...

In other words, it will take some work on the military's part. But we
had to find "a little space" too, after they invented class Bravo and
the Mode C veil. That's one of the things that money buys you. But you
don't need any interface with the autopilot; you just need blips on a
display showing what's out there. There shouldn't be much other than
what you expect, but the one time there is, you'll know it well in advance.

TCAS is a solution to a particular problem.

Yes, and something similar can be created to assist the military in
avoiding us civilians - the ones you risk your lives to protect in the
first place.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 17:34:46 GMT, Jose
wrote:

Actually the "huge fraction" is at the lowest percentage of GDP that
it has been since WW II.

How much money does that actually turn out to be?

How much money doesn't matter. The GDP is the basis and the percentage
spent on defense has been in decline for decades. The number in $$ is
huge, but the GDP is even more mind-boggling. It really is irrelevant
to the discussion, unless magenta herrings are your desired lunch.

You also need a "little space" in the airframe...

In other words, it will take some work on the military's part. But we
had to find "a little space" too, after they invented class Bravo and
the Mode C veil. That's one of the things that money buys you. But you
don't need any interface with the autopilot; you just need blips on a
display showing what's out there. There shouldn't be much other than
what you expect, but the one time there is, you'll know it well in advance.

You might note that military aircraft are already squawking Modes 1,
2, 3, 4 and C.

So, how do "blips on a display" provided by TCAS differ from the
already existing blips on the radar display? Given that tactical jets
start out with a pretty expensive, pretty capable, pretty
discriminating sensor system and that next-gen aircraft not only will
be displaying their own sensors but also data fusion of info from
other cooperating aircraft such as tactical partners, AWACS, JSTARs,
etc and satellites for a three dimensional fully spherical
environment, exactly what is TCAS going to offer that isn't already
there in a better and more detailed presentation?

TCAS is a solution to a particular problem.

Yes, and something similar can be created to assist the military in
avoiding us civilians - the ones you risk your lives to protect in the
first place.

Jose

Nah, I'd rather just go out hunting for civilians to run into
willy-nilly. I'll smash a couple of Cessnas before lunch, then bail
out by the golf course before taking the rest of the day off.

Are you intentionally dense or is it an accident of birth?


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

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 18:06:32 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote in
::

You might note that military aircraft are already squawking Modes 1,
2, 3, 4 and C.

For some reason, I hadn't appreciate the fact that military aircraft
were squawking Mode C until I read that.

An experienced fighter pilot once uttered these words of wisdom:

For instance, a pilot who has no fear of a mid-air is an idiot.
A pilot who flies without being constantly aware that he/she is
the main aspect of the mid-air avoidance equation is misguided.
--Dudley Henriques

Given the fact that the ATC trainee failed to broadcast the traffic
alert to the Cessna pilot in Florida, it would seem that it may be the
GA aircraft that needs to be equipped with TCAS. That might be the
easiest and most effective solution to the issue of MTR deconfliction.
Have I overlooked anything (beside the cost)?

When Lockheed-Martin and Boeing finally automate US ATC at some future
date, the whole subject will be rendered moot, as the computer will
'see' a fast-mover on a low-level MTR, and instantly route conflicting
aircraft away without the military informing FSS of MTR activity or
anything. We can dream ...

Larry Dighera wrote:


When Lockheed-Martin and Boeing finally automate US ATC at some future
date, the whole subject will be rendered moot, as the computer will
'see' a fast-mover on a low-level MTR, and instantly route conflicting
aircraft away without the military informing FSS of MTR activity or
anything. We can dream ...


Don't hold your breath. You'll also need 100 percent low-level radar
coverage of the U.S., to be available 100 percent of the time, and a
massive amount of computer processing power.

John Hairell )

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 19:08:28 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 18:06:32 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote in
::

You might note that military aircraft are already squawking Modes 1,
2, 3, 4 and C.

For some reason, I hadn't appreciate the fact that military aircraft
were squawking Mode C until I read that.

Wonder how you missed that.

An experienced fighter pilot once uttered these words of wisdom:

For instance, a pilot who has no fear of a mid-air is an idiot.
A pilot who flies without being constantly aware that he/she is
the main aspect of the mid-air avoidance equation is misguided.
--Dudley Henriques

I've known and corresponded with Dudley for many years. He is a highly
experienced pilot with lots of hours in a lot of types of aircraft,
including a lot of flight test time and aerial demo experience. I
respect him highly and hope he will not take offense if I point out
the one detail. Mr. Henriques is not "an experienced fighter pilot."


Given the fact that the ATC trainee failed to broadcast the traffic
alert to the Cessna pilot in Florida, it would seem that it may be the
GA aircraft that needs to be equipped with TCAS. That might be the
easiest and most effective solution to the issue of MTR deconfliction.
Have I overlooked anything (beside the cost)?

When Lockheed-Martin and Boeing finally automate US ATC at some future
date, the whole subject will be rendered moot, as the computer will
'see' a fast-mover on a low-level MTR, and instantly route conflicting
aircraft away without the military informing FSS of MTR activity or
anything. We can dream ...

Reminds me of the old joke about the "fully automated airliner".
"Nothing can go wrong...go wrong...go wrong..."

Reread what Dudley said. "A pilot who flies without being constantly
aware that he/she is the main aspect of the mid-air avoidance equation
is misguided."

That won't change one bit with a futuristic automated system.


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