![]() |
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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 21:54:16 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote in : On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 20:50:20 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote: On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 16:08:14 GMT, Ed Rasimus wrote in : On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 15:28:47 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote: On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 15:25:29 GMT, Ed Rasimus wrote in : 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? You've added a factor not previously in evidence. Which factor is that? The factor described in the next sentence--a specific and very limited altitude block. That 'factor' is just the current height of low-level MTRs; it's not new. If you draw the MTR with those altitude specs, then you MAY be able to create routes that would be meet training requirements and allow for reasonably unhindered GA traffic. That seemed obvious to me. Note the capitalized qualifier. You most probably will not be able to create satisfactory training conditions and you will still very likely impinge on GA traffic's ability to move unhindered. Are you saying that the current dimensions of low-level MTRs do not meet military training needs? You're overlooking the fact that ATC doesn't usually have coverage at those altitudes in areas typically employed for MTRs. Agreed. Are you saying there is a requirement for ATC to have radar coverage of all R airspace? Or are you saying, that if the military is going to shoulder responsibility for the hazard to air safety their high-speed, low-level operations create, it would require ATC radar coverage? You keep seeking foolproof deconfliction. Actually, I keep saying the those flights that are not exempt from the 250 knot speed limit below 10,000' should be separated from high-speed military flights enjoying the exemption. I don't for a minute regard that as foolproof. There is NO requirement for ATC to have radar coverage anywhere. Then why did you think I was " overlooking the fact that ATC doesn't usually have coverage at those altitudes in areas typically employed for MTRs?" They won't be able to offer you the desired "no responsibility on the part of the GA pilot" guarantee of no threat because they can't see traffic at those altitudes. First, I never indicated that GA should have 'no responsibility'; I said the military should bear sole legal responsibility for the hazards it poses to air safety as a result of operating under its exemption to the 250 knot speed limit below 10,000' feet. If the military bears "sole responsibility" there is then "no responsibility" for anyone else. Q.E.D. Obviously, if a GA pilot is violating regulations, he is responsible for the hazard to air safety those violations may pose to other flights and those over whom he operates, right? Next, There would be no necessity for the military to take sole responsibility as mentioned above, if they were operating in Class R airspace (unless they failed to schedule it with ATC/FSS). Additionally, training maneuvers on an MTR may require formation repositioning, simulated evasive maneuvers, simulated armed reconnaisance [sic] maneuvering and even simulated weapons delivery maneuvers and re-attacks. Those requirements could seriously mitigate your ability to create 500-1500' AGL corridors. [Mitigate: to cause to become less harsh or hostile] Mitigate---to lessen. Add training requirements, not simply a path from A to B and you lessen your ability to create a MTR within restricted narrow altitude blocks that doesn't interfere with GA traffic. Are these 'training requirements' you mention currently conducted outside the confines of the MTR routes as defined in the National Imaging and Mapping Agency MTR database? http://164.214.2.62/products/webchum/QryChoice.cfm Not being familiar with those operations, I ask, would it be feasible to conduct those operations above 10,000'? If not, why not? No. You can't do effective low altitude training at high altitude. I presume formation repositioning, simulated evasive maneuvers, simulated armed reconnaissance maneuvering and simulated weapons delivery maneuvers and re-attacks may require larger lateral, and perhaps vertical, boundaries than are currently provided by MTRs. Is that correct? Yes. Are those maneuvers conducted within MOAs or R airspace? [...] Okay. Four seconds to make the decision to take evasive action, and a couple of seconds to input control commands and for the aircraft to actually clear the path, that leaves 13 seconds to visually identify the head-on traffic at 3 statute miles in minimum VMC. Now, if you consider a fighter at 300 knots approaching a 250 knot airliner head on, the closure rate would be 550 knots permitting only 17 seconds until impact. Subtracting six seconds for decision and maneuvering, leaves 11 seconds to visually identify the threat. That's precious little time to see-and-avoid in single pilot operations. If you can't make see-and-avoid decisions in less time than that, I wonder how you drive to work in the morning. I don't drive to work. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
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 |