A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Scared of mid-airs



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 3rd 06, 04:28 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student,rec.aviation.military
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,953
Default Scared of mid-airs

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 15:25:29 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote 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.


With regard to low-level MTRs, isn't the ceiling 500' AGL to 1,500'
AGL? Why not just fly over top of the proposed MTR restricted
airspace? If that approach should happen to interfere with
navigation, then the pilot would do what he always does to enter R
airspace: Contact ATC. I don't see the problem you apparently do.
What am I overlooking?

Isn't joint-use under VFR more practical?


Joint use of MTR airspace causes a hazard to air navigation because of
the high speeds involved. Practicality is trumped by air safety in my
mind. Is it not in yours?


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.


Would you characterize yourself as typical of the skill level attained
by the majority of military fighter pilots?

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.


I don't recall having said the exemption isn't necessary.

My objection is to the _hazard_ operating in excess of the speed limit
the National Airspace System designers chose while creating the
system. If you think the 250 knot limit below 10,000' is unwarranted,
perhaps your credentials are superior to those who designed the
system. Doubtful.

Let's do a little analysis.

VFR minimum visibility: 3 statute miles = 15,480'

250 knots: 417' per second

Time to impact at 250 knots closing: 37 seconds (3 statute miles)

These times do not take into consideration the speed of BOTH aircraft,
and more importantly, they do not allow for the time it takes to
recognize the threat, decide to maneuver out of the path, and the time
it takes for the aircraft to respond and actually finish clearing the
path.

More likely, the exemption was issued as a necessary expedient at a
time when the sky was much bigger (if you know what I mean), and there
was less oversight. Today that exemption creates a negative impact on
air safety, and the whole issue should be objectively reexamined by
qualified engineers.



[...]
  #2  
Old August 3rd 06, 04:59 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student,rec.aviation.military
Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 660
Default Scared of mid-airs


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

With regard to low-level MTRs, isn't the ceiling 500' AGL to 1,500'
AGL? Why not just fly over top of the proposed MTR restricted
airspace? If that approach should happen to interfere with
navigation, then the pilot would do what he always does to enter R
airspace: Contact ATC. I don't see the problem you apparently do.
What am I overlooking?


That contacting ATC doesn't mean you'll be cleared to enter a Restricted
Area.




Isn't joint-use under VFR more practical?


Joint use of MTR airspace causes a hazard to air navigation because of
the high speeds involved. Practicality is trumped by air safety in my
mind. Is it not in yours?


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.


Would you characterize yourself as typical of the skill level attained
by the majority of military fighter pilots?

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.


I don't recall having said the exemption isn't necessary.

My objection is to the _hazard_ operating in excess of the speed limit
the National Airspace System designers chose while creating the
system. If you think the 250 knot limit below 10,000' is unwarranted,
perhaps your credentials are superior to those who designed the
system. Doubtful.

Let's do a little analysis.

VFR minimum visibility: 3 statute miles = 15,480'

250 knots: 417' per second

Time to impact at 250 knots closing: 37 seconds (3 statute miles)

These times do not take into consideration the speed of BOTH aircraft,
and more importantly, they do not allow for the time it takes to
recognize the threat, decide to maneuver out of the path, and the time
it takes for the aircraft to respond and actually finish clearing the
path.

More likely, the exemption was issued as a necessary expedient at a
time when the sky was much bigger (if you know what I mean), and there
was less oversight. Today that exemption creates a negative impact on
air safety, and the whole issue should be objectively reexamined by
qualified engineers.



[...]



  #3  
Old August 3rd 06, 05:35 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student,rec.aviation.military
Jose[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,632
Default Scared of mid-airs

then the pilot would do what he always does to enter R
airspace: Contact ATC. I don't see the problem you apparently do.
What am I overlooking?

That contacting ATC doesn't mean you'll be cleared to enter a Restricted
Area.


I think there's the implication that one might be able to obtain
permssion to do so via ATC (and if not, one stays away).

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
  #4  
Old August 3rd 06, 05:37 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student,rec.aviation.military
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,953
Default Scared of mid-airs

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 15:59:33 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
. net:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

With regard to low-level MTRs, isn't the ceiling 500' AGL to 1,500'
AGL? Why not just fly over top of the proposed MTR restricted
airspace? If that approach should happen to interfere with
navigation, then the pilot would do what he always does to enter R
airspace: Contact ATC. I don't see the problem you apparently do.
What am I overlooking?


That contacting ATC doesn't mean you'll be cleared to enter a Restricted
Area.



True. Wouldn't you presume, that any denial of access into R airspace
would be predicated on the fact that there is training activity
occurring with in that R airspace (it's hot)? If so, it probably
wouldn't be a good idea to enter that MTR at that time even if it
remained joint use. Right?

  #5  
Old August 3rd 06, 06:01 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student,rec.aviation.military
Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 660
Default Scared of mid-airs


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

True. Wouldn't you presume, that any denial of access into R airspace
would be predicated on the fact that there is training activity
occurring with in that R airspace (it's hot)? If so, it probably
wouldn't be a good idea to enter that MTR at that time even if it
remained joint use. Right?


Right. Given that one does not need permission to enter when it isn't hot,
what was your point?


  #6  
Old August 3rd 06, 07:07 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student,rec.aviation.military
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,953
Default Scared of mid-airs

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:01:59 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
. net:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

True. Wouldn't you presume, that any denial of access into R airspace
would be predicated on the fact that there is training activity
occurring with in that R airspace (it's hot)? If so, it probably
wouldn't be a good idea to enter that MTR at that time even if it
remained joint use. Right?


Right. Given that one does not need permission to enter when it isn't hot,
what was your point?


So you're saying ATC doesn't grant permission to enter R airspace, and
it is up to the pilot to enter or not based on ATC's information
regarding scheduled activity within it? There's no _clearance_
involved then?

Given:

http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap3/aim0304.html#3-4-3
Section 4. Special Use Airspace
3-4-3. Restricted Areas
Penetration of restricted areas without authorization from the
using or controlling agency may be extremely hazardous to the
aircraft and its occupants.

It would seem that a pilot would require authorization from the
controlling agency (usually ATC) if not a clearance.

Unfortunately, I don't find 'authorization' contained in the
Pilot/Controller Glossary: http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/PCG/A.HTM

What form would that authorization take?


[Clearance is contained in the Pilot/Controller Glossary:

AIR TRAFFIC CLEARANCE- An authorization by air traffic control for
the purpose of preventing collision between known aircraft, for an
aircraft to proceed under specified traffic conditions within
controlled airspace. The pilot-in-command of an aircraft may not
deviate from the provisions of a visual flight rules (VFR) or
instrument flight rules (IFR) air traffic clearance except in an
emergency or unless an amended clearance has been obtained.
Additionally, the pilot may request a different clearance from
that which has been issued by air traffic control (ATC) if
information available to the pilot makes another course of action
more practicable or if aircraft equipment limitations or company
procedures forbid compliance with the clearance issued. Pilots may
also request clarification or amendment, as appropriate, any time
a clearance is not fully understood, or considered unacceptable
because of safety of flight. Controllers should, in such instances
and to the extent of operational practicality and safety, honor
the pilot's request. 14 CFR Part 91.3(a) states: "The pilot in
command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the
final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft." THE PILOT
IS RESPONSIBLE TO REQUEST AN AMENDED CLEARANCE if ATC issues a
clearance that would cause a pilot to deviate from a rule or
regulation, or in the pilot's opinion, would place the aircraft in
jeopardy.

It would seem, that a clearance is only applicable in within
controlled airspace, of which R airspace may or may not be, right?]
  #7  
Old August 3rd 06, 10:31 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student,rec.aviation.military
Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 721
Default Scared of mid-airs


Larry Dighera wrote:

So you're saying ATC doesn't grant permission to enter R airspace, and
it is up to the pilot to enter or not based on ATC's information
regarding scheduled activity within it? There's no _clearance_
involved then?


I'm saying ATC doesn't grant permission to enter Restricted Areas when
they're not hot. Have you ever asked ATC for permission to enter a
Restricred Area you knew to be inactive? If so, why?



Given:

http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap3/aim0304.html#3-4-3
Section 4. Special Use Airspace
3-4-3. Restricted Areas
Penetration of restricted areas without authorization from the
using or controlling agency may be extremely hazardous to the
aircraft and its occupants.

It would seem that a pilot would require authorization from the
controlling agency (usually ATC) if not a clearance.


It would seem that paragraph refers to a Restricted Area that is hot.

  #8  
Old August 3rd 06, 05:02 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student,rec.aviation.military
Jose[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,632
Default Scared of mid-airs

With regard to low-level MTRs, isn't the ceiling 500' AGL to 1,500'
AGL? Why not just fly over top of the proposed MTR restricted
airspace?


There may be overlying SUA, or overlying clouds, or GL may already be
pretty high up.

If that approach should happen to interfere with
navigation, then the pilot would do what he always does to enter R
airspace: Contact ATC.


I've attempted that, and also contacting the FSS as printed on the
charts themselves, and often the putative controlling agency doesn't
know whether it's hot or not.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
  #9  
Old August 3rd 06, 05:42 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student,rec.aviation.military
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,953
Default Scared of mid-airs

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 16:02:22 GMT, Jose
wrote in :

then the pilot would do what he always does to enter R
airspace: Contact ATC.


I've attempted that, and also contacting the FSS as printed on the
charts themselves, and often the putative controlling agency doesn't
know whether it's hot or not.


That is true. Why do you suppose that occurs?

Do you think ATC is so disorganized, that they can't find the military
activity information, or do you think the military has provided
ambiguous information, what? It would seem, that given the system in
place for activating and deactivating Restricted airspace, there
should be a concrete answer available at all times.

  #10  
Old August 3rd 06, 06:51 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student,rec.aviation.military
Ed Rasimus[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default Scared of mid-airs

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 16:42:07 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 16:02:22 GMT, Jose
wrote in :

then the pilot would do what he always does to enter R
airspace: Contact ATC.


I've attempted that, and also contacting the FSS as printed on the
charts themselves, and often the putative controlling agency doesn't
know whether it's hot or not.


That is true. Why do you suppose that occurs?

Do you think ATC is so disorganized, that they can't find the military
activity information, or do you think the military has provided
ambiguous information, what? It would seem, that given the system in
place for activating and deactivating Restricted airspace, there
should be a concrete answer available at all times.


Could it be a level of operational intensity that makes
minute-by-minute update impractical?

Example:

Holloman AFB operating four squadrons (32 airplanes each) conducting
Fighter Lead-In Training for recent graduates of Undergraduate Pilot
Training enroute to fighter assignments. Average of 120 sorties per
day ranging from single ship to two, three and four ship flights. Also
second fighter wing with three more squadrons of 18 aircraft each
conducting complex operations coordinated with ground radar
environments and often requiring supersonic airspace.

Schedule published twelve hours before operations commence. Airspace
activated as scheduled, but morning fog precludes launches. Delays of
thirty minutes--should airspace be turned back? Launch when weather
allows and airspace is hot. Schedule is both slipped and compressed to
keep training flow and meet required completions dates.

Flight aborts because of maintenance problems. Beak B is now empty but
A and C remain "hot". Should GA aircraft be cleared through B or
should airspace remain blocked for fifteen minute late launch of
flight? Scheduled A/G mission cancelled because of unavailability of
properly configured aircraft. Add-on to schedule with available
aircraft to fly A/A sortie. Schedule flexes again.

Afternoon weather builds up in Talon N, so unscheduled Beak C takes
additional sorties from Talon N.

And on and on.

Conversely, Saturday and Sunday no scheduled training, so airspace is
released. Maintenance requires a block for a functional check flight
on a repaired airplane. Flexibility to allow delay waiting for ATC to
clear GA aircraft out of the block is no problem. Life goes on.

Isn't that different than your innuendo laden language above?
"ATC is so disorganized..." "military information is so ambiguous..."


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




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.