Scared of mid-airs

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?

How is the former an invitation to an FAA hearing?

There was a case where a pilot took off on an IFR flight plan in
uncontrolled airspace (yes I'm aware of the uncontrolled airspace below
700') and was cited for careless and reckless. I don't remember the
details, but somebody here will probably recognize the case.

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 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

Don't mix flight plans with ATC clearances.

Ok, I won't. But then your statement that every military flight is on a
flight plan is disengenuous.

Let me repeat--upon reaching the training airspace, the flight is
dropped from ATC control and exercises a delay enroute.

That's the part that counts. Never mind the flight plan stuff, that's a
red herring.

The investigation determines who is responsible. There was an
investigation. It was conducted in great detail.

Was this investigation conducted by a disinterested third party?

More to the point, what would the outcome (consequences to the pilot)
have been had the pilot of the fighter been, say, a civilian on his way
to an airshow? Yes, I'm asking you to speculate, but it doesn't seem to
be a very difficult speculation.

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

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 15:20:25 GMT, Jose
wrote:

Don't mix flight plans with ATC clearances.

Ok, I won't. But then your statement that every military flight is on a
flight plan is disengenuous.

The question was regarding FLIGHT PLANS. I answered, based on my
experience in the military as a pilot. I stated that ALL military
flights are on a FLIGHT PLAN. I confirmed that there are both VFR and
IFR FLIGHT PLANS. I stated that in the USAF, the governing regulations
specify that flights will be on an IFR FLIGHT PLAN "to the maximum
extent practicable." I further indicated, in direct response to
queries, that with very few exceptions all USAF military flights are
on IFR FLIGHT PLANS.

Exactly how is that statement of facts based on experience and in
reply to a direct and specific series of questions being in any way
disingenuous?

Let me repeat--upon reaching the training airspace, the flight is
dropped from ATC control and exercises a delay enroute.

That's the part that counts. Never mind the flight plan stuff, that's a
red herring.

The questions involved confusion regarding how military flights manage
to do all of their VFR maneuvering if they are on IFR FLIGHT PLANS. I
described the procedure.

If you are unfamiliar with terminology, that isn't my problem.
Providing specific answers to specific questions, even when they are
asked by those without clue, isn't introducing red herrings.

The investigation determines who is responsible. There was an
investigation. It was conducted in great detail.

Was this investigation conducted by a disinterested third party?

An accident investigation is convened based on very specific
regulations. Composition of that board is IAW those regs. A board will
always have a presiding officer (usually O-6) and always from another
organization than the unit which had the accident. There will also be
a trained Flying Safety Officer (graduate of flight safety school
which used to be at Univ. of Southern Calif.--dunno if it's still
there.) There will be a flight surgeon--to provide medical expertise.
And there will be a "pilot officer" member of the board--a pilot
qualified in the aircraft, but not a member of the unit. And, there
will be a maintenance officer qualified in the aircraft type. There
may be additional members based on expertise required to make
determinations.

The principle reason for the accident board is to determine cause and
therefore to prevent future occurences of mishaps from the same cause.
The interest is safety. Findings usually involve a primary cause and
one or more secondary or contributing causes.

Should there be evidence of pilot error or malfeasance, there will be
an additional board convened to deal with those specific issues. This
is called a corollary board. The corollary board can and does assess
damages.

Depending upon board findings, there may be an Article 34
hearing--similar to an arraignment in civil court which could lead to
a court-martial. There could also be a recommendation for a
FEB--Flight Evaluation Board, which would make a determination
regarding continuation of involved crew-members on flight status.

More to the point, what would the outcome (consequences to the pilot)
have been had the pilot of the fighter been, say, a civilian on his way
to an airshow? Yes, I'm asking you to speculate, but it doesn't seem to
be a very difficult speculation.

Jose

You are asking if a civilian flying a fighter aircraft would be
subject to similar proceedings? That would be such as a "war-bird"
enthusiast? Or a manufacturer employed test or demo pilot?

Those individuals would not be involved in the military process, but
would be subject to NTSB accident investigation. Outcome would
probably be very similar with the principal difference being that if
there were suspicion of criminal behavior (flying under influence of
drugs/alcohol for example leading to a mishap), the proceedings would
take place in civil court.

Now, I can only sit back and wonder what of the above will be
considered disingenuous or red herring.



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

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 18:13:39 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote in
:


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.

So the "justice" applied in the OJ trial is the level the military
aspires to:


http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...a/15314278.htm
Posted on Sat, Aug. 19, 2006
Some prosecutors, victims seeking justice outside military system
MARTHA MENDOZA
Associated Press

Dissatisfied with the military's handling of sexual assault cases
involving recruiters, some local prosecutors and victims are
challenging the misconduct on their own, charging everything from
a violation of an Indian treaty to racketeering.

Most such cases are handled administratively by the military - for
example, 13 of the 19 Air Force recruiters whose misconduct was
confirmed since 2004 received letters of reprimand in their
personnel files and fines that ranged from $200 to $1,200.

In seeking greater penalties, victims and local authorities have
taken unusual tacks.

...

In another case, prosecutor Barbara Trathen of Hamilton County,
Ind., has charged National Guard recruiter Sgt. Eric Vetesy -
accused of assaulting seven young women - with racketeering along
with 31 charges of rape and sexual battery. His trial is scheduled
for later this summer.

Vetesy, a married father of three, met most of his alleged
victims, ages 16 to 20, while recruiting at Indianapolis-area high
schools, according to the indictment. Victims told the grand jury
he threw them against a wall of the armory, raped them on a
countertop and forced them to fondle him.

...

One of the victims, 17, shared portions of her handwritten journal
with the AP.

"I lost my virginity to (the recruiter) ... in the back room on
the sofa. I didn't want to have sex but I didn't want him to be
upset with me and make me go all the way back to my old recruiter.
He was also the type of guy to bad mouth a person if he didn't get
what he wanted," she wrote about their first encounter.

Both recruiters were demoted after court-martial proceedings, but
acquitted of the most serious charges they faced. Both have since
left the military.


More he
http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=104&sid=886674
Military Recruiters Cited for Misconduct
Aug 20th - 1:12am

By MARTHA MENDOZA
AP National Writer

(AP) - More than 100 young women who expressed interest in joining
the military in the past year were preyed upon sexually by their
recruiters. Women were raped on recruiting office couches,
assaulted in government cars and groped en route to entrance
exams.

A six-month Associated Press investigation found that more than 80
military recruiters were disciplined last year for sexual
misconduct with potential enlistees. The cases occurred across all
branches of the military and in all regions of the country.

"This should never be allowed to happen," said one 18-year-old
victim. "The recruiter had all the power. He had the uniform. He
had my future. I trusted him."

At least 35 Army recruiters, 18 Marine Corps recruiters, 18 Navy
recruiters and 12 Air Force recruiters were disciplined for sexual
misconduct or other inappropriate behavior with potential
enlistees in 2005, according to records obtained by the AP under
dozens of Freedom of Information Act requests. That's
significantly more than the handful of cases disclosed in the past
decade.

The AP also found:

_The Army, which accounts for almost half of the military, has had
722 recruiters accused of rape and sexual misconduct since 1996.

_Across all services, one out of 200 frontline recruiters _ the
ones who deal directly with young people _ was disciplined for
sexual misconduct last year.

_Some cases of improper behavior involved romantic relationships,
and sometimes those relationships were initiated by the women.

_Most recruiters found guilty of sexual misconduct are disciplined
administratively, facing a reduction in rank or forfeiture of pay;
military and civilian prosecutions are rare.

_The increase in sexual misconduct incidents is consistent with
overall recruiter wrongdoing, which has increased from just over
400 cases in 2004 to 630 cases in 2005, according to a General
Accounting Office report released this week.

...

Not all of the victims are young women. Former Navy recruiter
Joseph Sampy, 27, of Jeanerette, La., is serving a 12-year
sentence for molesting three male recruits.

"He did something wrong, something terrible to people who were the
most vulnerable," State District Judge Lori Landry said before
handing down the sentence in July, 2005. "He took advantage of his
authority."

One of Sampy's victims is suing him and the Navy for $1.25
million. The trial is scheduled for next spring.

___



http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...a/15314281.htm