Scared of mid-airs

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 14:49:54 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 13:28:28 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote in
:

Every flight, every day, by the military is on a flight plan.

Even those flights on VFR MTRs?

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

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 15:12:37 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote in
:

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 14:49:54 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 13:28:28 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote in
:

Every flight, every day, by the military is on a flight plan.

Even those flights on VFR MTRs?

Yes.

Then why are there IFR MTRs and VFR MTRs?

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 15:59:32 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 15:12:37 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote in
:

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 14:49:54 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 13:28:28 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote in
:

Every flight, every day, by the military is on a flight plan.

Even those flights on VFR MTRs?

Yes.

Then why are there IFR MTRs and VFR MTRs?

Because some can be flown in visual conditions and some can be flown
in instrument conditions as well. Regardless of weather conditions,
IAW regulations all military flights are conducted on an IFR flight
plan ("to the maximum extent practicable" -- which is regulation-speak
for all of them).

A "flight plan" is merely a record of your intended route of
flight--it can be a VFR or IFR flight plan. Flight plans are filed
with Flight Service Stations--an entity of the FAA, but not an air
traffic controlling agency.

Regardless, the flight plan type for the military is IFR. (I use the
term "military" with some trepidation as I do not know if Army rotary
wing craft do that.)

You really don't know a lot about this do you? Yet, you are steadfast
in your opinions.

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

A "flight plan" is merely a record of your intended route of
flight-- [...]
Regardless, the flight plan type for the military is IFR.

Well, an IFR flight plan is a little more than that because it causes a
clearance to be issued before I take off (at least in controlled
airspace). A clearance involves coordination with ATC.

Departures are conducted under ATC. Recoveries are conducted under
ATC. Training time along an MTR, within a MOA, in restricted airspace,
or on a range is usually done without ATC involvement.

Well, then maybe it would be a good idea for training time outside of
restricted airspace to involve ATC. That would help make the joint use
of joint use airspace safer, especially if the military is running
camoflaged jets at four hundred knots, and then blaming anybody who
happens to be in the way for the MAC.

If your hypothetical civilian pilot wants ATC to provide him safe
separation from other IFR aircraft...

Thank you for the flying lesson. What I was hoping for however was a
little more assistance in avoiding camoflauged F16s operating at warp
speeds in airspace civilians also use, and are fully entitled to use.

Remember, by your own admission, you are one of the best fighter pilots
there is. Fighter pilots are among the best pilots there are. This
means that, next to your abilities, most everyone else in the air is a
turkey. They do not have anywhere near the judgement, stick skills,
eyeballs, abilities, or aptitudes that you have. But, you have to live
with them. (the alternative is that, for a short while, you'd be one of
only ten pilots in the sky, after which you'd run out of gas and
refineries won't make any more). That =is= the price of being the best.

Even if you can find traffic at 400 knots, the other guy can't see you
running that fast. So if you are going to do that, you need to provide
the other guy, the hoi polloi in the sky, with some better way to avoid
you than a big "keep out" sign or a "catch me if you can" attitude.

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

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 15:17:25 GMT, Jose
wrote:

A "flight plan" is merely a record of your intended route of
flight-- [...]
Regardless, the flight plan type for the military is IFR.

Well, an IFR flight plan is a little more than that because it causes a
clearance to be issued before I take off (at least in controlled
airspace). A clearance involves coordination with ATC.

A flight plan is an expression of intention to fly. It tells who you
are and where/when you are going. If it is IFR, it allows ATC to
integrate you with other existing known traffic. If VFR, it merely
tells folks to start looking at you when fail to reach your
destination by a certain time.

Military flight plans for local training sorties are usually "canned",
meaning that the route and duration are on file. Additional details
such as call-sign, crew, time of day, are added with the filing of the
daily schedule. When the flight launches, ATC then provides services.

Departures are conducted under ATC. Recoveries are conducted under
ATC. Training time along an MTR, within a MOA, in restricted airspace,
or on a range is usually done without ATC involvement.

Well, then maybe it would be a good idea for training time outside of
restricted airspace to involve ATC. That would help make the joint use
of joint use airspace safer, especially if the military is running
camoflaged jets at four hundred knots, and then blaming anybody who
happens to be in the way for the MAC.

Did you miss the part where I said ALL MILITARY FLIGHTS ARE OPERATING
ON FLIGHT PLANS AND IFR?

The takeoff is controlled by the tower (some are military and some, at
joint-use airports are shared control). The departure is controlled by
an ATC agency. Hand-off is made to the regional ARTCC. Open entering a
training area, which might or might not be restricted airspace, a
flight plan delay is exercised for the training period. Upon
completion of the training mission, ARTCC is contacted and once again
provides IFR routing to destination where approach control picks up
the route and eventually hands off to tower.

And, the military is NOT "blaming anybody who happens to be in the way
for the MAC."

If your hypothetical civilian pilot wants ATC to provide him safe
separation from other IFR aircraft...

Thank you for the flying lesson. What I was hoping for however was a
little more assistance in avoiding camoflauged F16s operating at warp
speeds in airspace civilians also use, and are fully entitled to use.

"Warp speeds" are 250 KCAS or higher based on operational requirements
of the aircraft. Civilians operate under the same rules. Civilians are
equally responsible for safe conduct of their flights and maintaining
clearance from other aircraft. All players are under the same rules.

Remember, by your own admission, you are one of the best fighter pilots
there is. Fighter pilots are among the best pilots there are. This
means that, next to your abilities, most everyone else in the air is a
turkey. They do not have anywhere near the judgement, stick skills,
eyeballs, abilities, or aptitudes that you have. But, you have to live
with them. (the alternative is that, for a short while, you'd be one of
only ten pilots in the sky, after which you'd run out of gas and
refineries won't make any more). That =is= the price of being the best.

Oh boy! In terms of accidents (all kinds, not just MACs), the rate per
100,000 flying hours for military aviation is lower than GA. I will
agree fully that GA pilots, as a class, don't have the judgement,
stick skills, eyeballs, abilities or aptitudes of the professionals.

Yet, year after year, they operate together and the sky does not seem
to be raining airplanes. If fact, most GA pilots don't see a military
aircraft in flight for months or even years at a time.

Even if you can find traffic at 400 knots, the other guy can't see you
running that fast. So if you are going to do that, you need to provide
the other guy, the hoi polloi in the sky, with some better way to avoid
you than a big "keep out" sign or a "catch me if you can" attitude.

Jose

Ever been on an airliner? Did you look out the window? Did you see
other airplanes? They were traveling at faster than 400 knots if you
were at cruising altitude and you could see them. All you had to do
was look. I believe you are capable of that.


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

A flight plan is an expression of intention to fly.

Obviously you are being difficult. "Flying on an IFR flight plan"
implies either uncontrolled airspace, or a clearance. The former is an
invitation to an FAA hearing. The latter implies ATC coordination.

Guess which one I'm referring to.

When the flight launches, ATC then provides services.

Exactly.

Did you miss the part where I said ALL MILITARY FLIGHTS ARE OPERATING
ON FLIGHT PLANS AND IFR?

No. But you seem to be dodging the issue by hiding behind stuff like "A
flight plan is an expression of intention to fly." Did you miss the
part where you yourself said "Training time along an MTR, within a MOA,
in restricted airspace, or on a range is usually done without ATC
involvement."? The IFR I am familiar with always has ATC involvement.

Are you on an ATC clearance at that point? Are you on an ATC clearance
in an MTR (IR or VR)?

...they operate together and the sky does not seem
to be raining airplanes.

And, the military is NOT "blaming anybody who happens to be in the way
for the MAC."

Who was responsible for the MAC where the cessna, while attempting to
turn away, was speared by an F-something at 350 knots or so?

Yes, one example, but an egregious one in my book, and one you seem to
be defending.

Ever been on an airliner?

Ever flown a bug smasher?

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

"Jose" wrote in message
m...

Obviously you are being difficult. "Flying on an IFR flight plan" implies
either uncontrolled airspace, or a clearance. The former is an invitation
to an FAA hearing. The latter implies ATC coordination.

Guess which one I'm referring to.


How is the former an invitation to an FAA hearing?

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 17:24:00 GMT, Jose
wrote:

A flight plan is an expression of intention to fly.

Obviously you are being difficult. "Flying on an IFR flight plan"
implies either uncontrolled airspace, or a clearance. The former is an
invitation to an FAA hearing. The latter implies ATC coordination.

Guess which one I'm referring to.

If you are intending to fly in uncontrolled airspace you will not get
ATC services. You might be flying in IMC, but you provide your own
separation. Whether or not you have ATC involved has NO RELATION to
whether or not a flight plan is filed.

A flight plan is an expression of an intent to fly. It is filed,
whether IFR or VFR with a Flight Service Station, which has no control
authority.

Don't mix flight plans with ATC clearances.


When the flight launches, ATC then provides services.

Exactly.

Did you miss the part where I said ALL MILITARY FLIGHTS ARE OPERATING
ON FLIGHT PLANS AND IFR?

No. But you seem to be dodging the issue by hiding behind stuff like "A
flight plan is an expression of intention to fly." Did you miss the
part where you yourself said "Training time along an MTR, within a MOA,
in restricted airspace, or on a range is usually done without ATC
involvement."? The IFR I am familiar with always has ATC involvement.

And you seem to have snipped the part where I spelled out a typical
training sortie on an IFR flight plan. Maybe you didn't read it. Maybe
you didn't understand it. Maybe you are simply being difficult.

Let me repeat--upon reaching the training airspace, the flight is
dropped from ATC control and exercises a delay enroute. They are still
on an IFR flight plan and will resume ATC control after completion of
their delay period.

And, since you have apparent comprehension issues, let me repeat what
I pointed out above:

A flight plan is an expression of an intent to fly. It is filed,
whether IFR or VFR with a Flight Service Station, which has no control
authority.

Don't mix flight plans with ATC clearances.

Are you on an ATC clearance at that point? Are you on an ATC clearance
in an MTR (IR or VR)?

...they operate together and the sky does not seem
to be raining airplanes.

And, the military is NOT "blaming anybody who happens to be in the way
for the MAC."

Who was responsible for the MAC where the cessna, while attempting to
turn away, was speared by an F-something at 350 knots or so?

The investigation determines who is responsible. There was an
investigation. It was conducted in great detail. Mr. Dighera is
unwilling to accept the outcome of the investigation. I am unwilling
to accept the outcome of the OJ trial.

The Cessna could be responsible even if turning away. In the case
under discussion, the investigation indicated that the Cessna was not
responsible. Merely because an airplane is involved in a mid-air with
a faster aircraft is not prima facie evidence that it was the faster
aircraft's fault.

Yes, one example, but an egregious one in my book, and one you seem to
be defending.

Ever been on an airliner?

Ever flown a bug smasher?

Yes. But, that doesn't relate to the example I gave (creative snipping
on your part again.) You imply some sort of invisibility of aircraft
operating at 400 knots and I pointed out how easy it is to see them in
a circumstance that you were likely to encounter.

Jose

Do you have an aeronautical rating? How many hours have you accrued?

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

"Jose" wrote in message
m...

Well, an IFR flight plan is a little more than that because it causes a
clearance to be issued before I take off (at least in controlled
airspace).

Not so. Lots of IFR flight plans are filed without causing any clearance to
be issued.

Lots of IFR flight plans are filed without causing any clearance to
be issued.

All the IFR flight plans I filed caused a clearance to be issued before
I took off. (for the other ones I didn't take off).

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