Scared of mid-airs

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

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 15:09:27 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote in
::

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 14:35:16 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 20:52:49 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote in
::

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 20:46:38 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 20:13:06 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote in
::

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.

Right. That's why equipping GA aircraft with TCAS-equivalent systems
makes sense; it puts the tools to avoid 99% of MACS in the hands of
the GA pilot, not ATC nor the military.

You are still missing the point.

Actually, I believe it is you who are missing a very important point:
the inadequate time available to deconflict at high rates of closure.

I think several people in this forum with extensive experience over
several decades of operating high performance aircraft worldwide have
expressed the well founded opinion that visual deconfliction is not
significantly degraded or inadequate at operational speeds. You seem
to be unwilling to acknowledge experience of others in areas in which
you have no familiarity beyond your own opinion.

First, I'd like to see some quotes of the "well founded opinions" to
which you refer; Message-ID numbers will be fine.

Second, I am perfectly willing to acknowledge _unbiased_ opinion, and
objectively conducted test results.


It is "wetware" not "hardware" this is the critical component.

Agreed. But if the 'wetware' isn't up to the task, it would seem
logical to augment its abilities through technological means. After
all, isn't that what you claim occurs on military flights when they
use radar for collision avoidance?

My point is that you think a hardware gadget will solve the problem.
It might help, but it won't be the total, fail-safe solution. TCAS is
an aid when other already-installed systems don't provide similar or
better information. Look out the window! That's basic.

Why do you state the obvious; looking out the window is mandated by
regulations. We all know that. Unfortunately, looking out the
windows was totally inadequate to separate the aircraft involved in
the four military/civil MACs posted earlier. There is no question of
that fact.

After that, listen to controllers and try to get the "big picture."

In the case of the Florida MAC, the Cessna pilot was being controlled
in Class C airspace by ATC at the time. The trainee controller failed
to issue the traffic alert his equipment was giving him. There was no
opportunity for the Cessna pilot to get information on the Ninja
flight from ATC, as Ninja lead Parker failed to establish radio
contact with ATC as required by regulations (civil and military).

If you've got radar, use it [for deconfliction].

It's clear the AIB report, that the Ninja flight did not use their
radars for deconfliction.

If you want advisories, ask.

The Cessna was being controlled by ATC at the time of the MAC. He
shouldn't have to ask for traffic advisories, even though ATC was not
providing separation to VFR aircraft in Class C airspace.

While the advise you advocate is obvious to any competent pilot, it
would not have prevented any of the four military/civil MACs I cited.
If the civil aircraft involved in those MACs had been equipped with
collision avoidance technology, there is a very good chance those MACs
would not have occurred. Why won't you acknowledge that fact?

If you demand deconfliction, go IFR, but recognize that unless you are in IMC
someone might be there to threaten you.

In the case of the Florida MAC, I doubt even that would have worked.

TCAS is a nice gadget, but it isn't a panacea. Looking out the window
and recognizing, whether you are GA, commercial or military, that there
is always the possibility of mishap is the essential element.

Given the fact that the Cessna 172 hit by the F-16 in Florida (for
example) was in a right bank at the time of the left-on-left collision
impact, it would seem that there is insufficient time available for
human capabilities to successfully accomplish see-and-avoid separation
at high rates of closure. Visual separation failed in the other
military/civil MACs I mentioned in earlier posts also.

At the most basic, "**** happens." There is no perfect system. Someone
somewhere will find a way to get into an accident.

That sort of complacency is inappropriate for someone truly interested
in air safety.

The system is broken. Technical fixes are available. Failing to
acknowledge them is tantamount to sticking your head in the sand.

This is not an indication of operations in excess of human
capabilities.

We disagree about that.

Before turning left in a slow moving aircraft, it is
prudent to look left and clear. It is equally prudent to look right
and clear prior to turning to make sure that the train doesn't hit you
during the period you are involved in the turn.

The Cessna pilot was following an ATC instruction to proceed to a
point in space at the time immediately prior to attempting to avoid
the F-16 that killed him. If his turn was not an attempt to avoid the
fighter, why would have been turning contrary to ATC's instructions?
He was an ATP rated flight instructor who surely knew that failing to
follow ATC instructions was against regulations.


Given this information:

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/sa15.pdf
An experimental scan training course conducted with military
pilots found the average time needed to conduct the operations
essential to flying the airplane was 20 seconds – 17 seconds for
the outside scan, and three seconds for the panel scan.

It would seem like 17 seconds in inadequate time for non-military
trained pilots to successfully deconflict, not to mention the
deconfliction failures of the military pilots in the afore mentioned
MACs.

Apples/oranges.

Please try to construct complete sentences. I know you're capable of
it, and it provides your reader a more accurate understanding of the
thoughts you are attempting to convey.

The F-15 pilot cycle was determined as 20 seconds, but
that relates to the rate at which deviations from desired/required
flight conditions occur.

Can you cite a source for that information? I'd like to read the
document that contains that determination.

Your non-military trained pilot has
considerably more time in his/her focus cycle to search.

Perhaps. Upon what do you base that conclusion?

Note also,
that with full-bubble canopies, HUDs and multi-sensory data input in
modern tactical aircraft, simple visual scan is much more efficient
than that of the high-wing C-172 pilot.

Now you're making my point. If the aforementioned objective military
test of highly trained military pilots found that:

"the average time needed to conduct the operations essential to
flying the airplane was 20 seconds – 17 seconds for the outside
scan, and three seconds for the panel scan."

You can bet that a less highly trained civil pilot without the benefit
of a HUD nor bubble canopy, and the necessity to deconflict a
significantly wider angle of arc than a high-speed aircraft, will
require significantly more time deconflicting than the military pilot,
not less time.


You can't have a mechanical, fool-proof solution.

Agreed. Of course, I never claimed equipping GA aircraft with TCAS
capability would be 100% effective.

I think we've had a break through here!


Well, one of us is willing to face reality it seems.

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"

I think several people in this forum with extensive experience over
several decades of operating high performance aircraft worldwide have
expressed the well founded opinion that visual deconfliction is not
significantly degraded or inadequate at operational speeds. You seem
to be unwilling to acknowledge experience of others in areas in which
you have no familiarity beyond your own opinion.

The deconfilction task rests on two pilots, the high performance one
(who should be so trained) and the low performance one (who was, in the
example, the one hit). To expect a typical 172 pilot to be able to
deconflict at F16 speeds is ludicrous, but that is what is being asked
when an F16 at full bore is the conflicting traffic.

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

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 15:12:51 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote in
:

And, if you think war and training for it is fun you might consider
some of the possible outcomes.

You might consider this quote from a naval fighter pilot:


http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safet...perhornet.html
Of his career as a Navy aviator, Webb told him: "Mike, I love this
so much I can't believe they're paying me to do it. I'd do it for
free."

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 15:27:25 GMT, 588 wrote in
:

wrote:

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.

More than questionable.


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....
...The system is for everybody.

Agreed. The main antagonist in this thread seems to think otherwise.
Perhaps you would attempt to explain the concept to LD yourself.


Jack,

Please provide a quote of my words in which I espouse ceding control
of airspace to the military and commercial interests.

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 17:19:58 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 15:12:51 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote in
:

And, if you think war and training for it is fun you might consider
some of the possible outcomes.

You might consider this quote from a naval fighter pilot:


http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safet...perhornet.html
Of his career as a Navy aviator, Webb told him: "Mike, I love this
so much I can't believe they're paying me to do it. I'd do it for
free."

If you don't love what you are doing, you need to get another job.
But, on any given day airplanes of that capability can kill you. And,
when your nation directs, you can take that airplane to places where a
lot of other people are making it their business to kill you.

Spend some time in an organization in which 60% of those that start
the tour don't complete it and you will begin to understand.


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

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 15:43:18 GMT, 588 wrote in
:

Scared of Mid-Airs?

Me too, so I stay away from 'em. It's easier if you know where they
are.

Another inane remark like that, and you'll find yourself without my
readership.

I find no humor in the needless death and destruction of a MAC. I
sincerely hope your arrogance and disregard for air safety are not
typical of military airmen.

On 1 Aug 2006 13:13:02 -0700, "
wrote in
. com::


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.

Such ATC automation won't happen in my time, although I'd bet it could
be accomplished using the current level of technology.

You'll also need 100 percent low-level radar
coverage of the U.S., to be available 100 percent of the time,

Um.. Space-based radar might be coaxed into doing an adequate job. If
not radar coverage, satellite transponder intergeneration and/or GPS
driven data-link technology might do it. (During a solar flair, all
bets are off...) Wait a minute. Aren't Free Flight, SATS
http://sats.nasa.gov/, and ADS-B supposed to accomplish most of this
virtually without ATC intervention?

and a massive amount of computer processing power.

That's the easy part. Designing the system, writing the code, and
debugging will be a never ending tasks.

Ed Rasimus wrote:

I used to use airspace blocks.

Using is not scheduling...

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.)

If this activity was in the U.S. the FAA was in the plan, but you might
have not known it.
Who did the using agency (not the scheduling activity) coordinate with
to release the airspace for DOD usage?

I've got a working background in the subject both from the ground and
the operator side of the house.

Yes, you were the guys that I sometimes coordinated with from the other
side of the house and I often dealt with aircraft in MTRs that hadn't
been scheduled, fast movers flying through restricted areas where there
happened to be scheduled artillery fire, fast movers dropping ordnance
where they shouldn't, groups of fast movers buzzing helicopters, etc.
BTW, I also saw plenty of well-done coordination but not always.
The not always part is what I'm concerned about.

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

That is patently absurd.

The National Airspace System's first priority is the separation of
aerial traffic, period.
FAA 7100.65 assigns priorities for air traffic controllers. The first
operational priority (FAA 71110.65 2-1-4) is:

'Provide air traffic control service to aircraft on a "first come,
first served" basis as circumstances permit'.

"As circumstances permit" covers the contingencies.

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.


Nobody is saying that GA aircraft can transit through these areas. But
in the course of normal operations the military has no higher
operational priority than any civilian, barring some over-riding need.

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

Those are exceptions and are coordinated with the FAA.

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.

Ad hominem attack - that's below you. I highly respect your viewpoint
as an aviator and am not making any personal attacks on you.

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.

Semantics. I'm suggesting that safety should be given the highest
priority when it comes to assigning airspace blocks and the
prioritization of traffic.


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.

Well, nuke the whales and remove one factor from the equation.

Control of airspace is an operational necessity. That is different
than assumption of control responsibility for the nation.

Nope, it's the same thing. The agency that owns the airspace (the FAA)
controls it. It's
loaned to the military who sub-control it. But some of them may think
they control it because they don't know any better.

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 ZLA can yank all of that airspace back from loan to DOD with just
one phone call. Been there, seen it done, been on both ends in fact.
So you tell me: who controls it? DOD is the "using agency", always.


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.

That was based on a plan which coordinated what agency would do what in
an emergency. NORAD didn't "pull the plug" on the FAA; NORAD or
somebody at the national level invoked the requisite plan, and the FAA
did its part and the other agencies did their part.

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.

Yes, but that was coordinated with the FAA in an LOA. When ADC was
done protecting the country, the FAA got that block of airspace back.


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.


But if they were given the chance to make a decision on whether a
flight of F-15s Southwest got out of DFW first, who would they pick?

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.

Their successors are learning the same bitter lessons that the PATCO
controllers learned...


John Hairell )