flying low...military video

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


My proposal is designed to provide additional impetus
to those military pilots to exercise caution in their
deconfliction and decision making.

The best alternative here is to make MTR non-joint use by making them
restricted areas. This would give the military the training routes they need
while protecting low-flying civilians. However, this is a fairly draconian
action and I think the current charting of "here be dragons" is a good
compromise between this option and the opposite end of doing away with MTRs
altogether.

Your proposal for "deconflicting" this airspace takes away key training
options and makes it harder to give military pilots realistic training.
Combat missions are not often flown with active radar to avoid alerting the
enemy so requiring pilots training here to always use radar takes away
combat realism. Your idea of TCAS relies on transponder signals which are
not available from many aircraft including half of those you listed. It also
relies on radio signals that, like radar, could disclose the location of
aircraft to an enemy so its use is also unrealistic training.

Here is your linked text (from an anti-US military site, BTW) in its
unedited form:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...y/airspace.htm
A Military Training Route, or MTR, is basically a long,
low-altitude corridor that serves as a flight path to
a particular destination. The
corridor is often 10 miles wide, 70 to 100 miles long, and
may range from 500 to 1,500 feet
above ground level; occasionally, they
are higher. MTRs are designed to provide realistic low-altitude
training conditions for pilots. In times of conflict, to avoid
detection by enemy radar, tactical fighter aircraft are often
called upon to fly hundreds of miles at low altitude over varying
terrain. Obviously, navigation is extremely difficult on
high-speed low-altitude flights. That's why it is imperative that
fighter pilots have ample opportunity to practice these necessary
and demanding skills.

Even this site admits "it is imperative that fighter pilots have ample
opportunity to practice" high speed, low altitude flights. MTRs are vital to
training military pilots in simulated wartime conditions. This may include
activities hazardous to other aircraft including night flight without
navigation lights or flying nap-of-the-earth without active radar. I'm not
prepared to take away this key training tool.

These routes are charted and defined for pilots to know of them. If you're
not comfortable with the safety margins, avoid them. They really do
constitute a tiny percentage of the US NAS.

Okay, now lets hear your reasoning as to why you believe my proposal
is counter productive, please.

Done.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://openspf.org
____________________

On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 11:06:26 -0500, "John T"
wrote in
:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


My proposal is designed to provide additional impetus
to those military pilots to exercise caution in their
deconfliction and decision making.

The best alternative here is to make MTR non-joint use by making them
restricted areas. This would give the military the training routes they need
while protecting low-flying civilians. However, this is a fairly draconian
action and I think the current charting of "here be dragons" is a good
compromise between this option and the opposite end of doing away with MTRs
altogether.

We both agree that the high-speed military operations conducted in
joint-use MTRs below 10,000' feet create a significant hazard to civil
operation appropriate for containment within formal Restricted Areas.
Good. That's a step toward understanding the issue.

Your proposal for "deconflicting" this airspace takes away key training
options and makes it harder to give military pilots realistic training.

My proposal was for the military to exclusively shoulder the
responsibility for the hazard they cause. Here is what I proposed:

I believe the aircraft causing the hazard to aerial navigation, by
virtue of their exemption from FARs, should shoulder the _entire_
burden of deconflicting their airspace. Currently, it is my
belief that MTR aircraft are not required to employ any on-board
radar equipment for that purpose, nor are they required to be TCAS
equipped. That is inequitable and negligent, IMNSHO.

Combat missions are not often flown with active radar to avoid alerting the
enemy so requiring pilots training here to always use radar takes away
combat realism.

So you're justifying the deaths of those civil pilots killed by
military aviators on MTRs in the name of realistic training
conditions? I hope not! If so, let's put your progeny in the path of
a blazing F-16, and see if your attitude changes.

Your idea of TCAS relies on transponder signals which are
not available from many aircraft including half of those you listed.

Perhaps. But I'd be happy if the military pilot operating on a MTR
were alerted to _my_ transponder. ATC radar can't see me in
uninhabited desert areas down close to the terrain

If that's not an option, perhaps an AWACS could call out conflicting
traffic to those military airmen operating on low-level MTRs.

If that's not to the military's liking, or too expensive, why not have
inexpensive, portable FLARMlike http://www.flarm.com/index_en.html
devices available for military pilot use on low-level MTRs? That
would certainly be preferable to killing civilian pilots in the name
of realistic military training. Who knows; it might save some
military pilots too.

If I were tasked to fly MTRs, be assured I would be _formally_
demanding such safety measures from my superiors.

It also
relies on radio signals that, like radar, could disclose the location of
aircraft to an enemy so its use is also unrealistic training.

Putting the public at risk, so that realistic military training can be
conducted, is reprehensible, shortsighted and stupid (not to mention
probably illegal). There's got to be a better way.

Title 49's number one priority is air safety, and the main concern
after that is commerce; it looks like the law of the land places
military training in third place at best.

Here is your linked text (from an anti-US military site, BTW) in its
unedited form:

(What makes you characterize that site as "anti-US military"? It
seems to be neutral and unbiased to me.

Apparently the site's author was once affiliated with The Federation
of American Scientists. Here's what they have to say about
themselves:

http://www.fas.org/static/about.jsp
The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) was formed in 1945 by
atomic scientists from the Manhattan Project who felt that
scientists, engineers and other innovators had an ethical
obligation to bring their knowledge and experience to bear on
critical national decisions, especially pertaining to the
technology they unleashed - the Atomic Bomb.)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...y/airspace.htm
A Military Training Route, or MTR, is basically a long,
low-altitude corridor that serves as a flight path to
a particular destination. The
corridor is often 10 miles wide, 70 to 100 miles long, and
may range from 500 to 1,500 feet
above ground level; occasionally, they
are higher. MTRs are designed to provide realistic low-altitude
training conditions for pilots. In times of conflict, to avoid
detection by enemy radar, tactical fighter aircraft are often
called upon to fly hundreds of miles at low altitude over varying
terrain. Obviously, navigation is extremely difficult on
high-speed low-altitude flights. That's why it is imperative that
fighter pilots have ample opportunity to practice these necessary
and demanding skills.

Even this site admits "it is imperative that fighter pilots have ample
opportunity to practice" high speed, low altitude flights. MTRs are vital to
training military pilots in simulated wartime conditions. This may include
activities hazardous to other aircraft including night flight without
navigation lights or flying nap-of-the-earth without active radar. I'm not
prepared to take away this key training tool.

I have no issue with the military's necessity for realistic training.

But necessity is no excuse for negligence, and finding the civil pilot
to have been a cause of a MAC due to his inability to see-and-avoid at
the closing speeds involved on MTRs is arrogance beyond belief.

The NAS was designed with a 250 knot speed limit below 10,000' for a
reason; operations in excess of that limit are impudent. To fault a
civil pilot for his inability to see-and-avoid at speeds twice that
limit (as has occurred) is unreasonable. It's not the civil pilot
who's causing the hazard, nor is he trained to the same standards as
the military pilots.

These routes are charted and defined for pilots to know of them.

Are you aware of the number of military pilots who are unaware that
low-level MTRs are within joint-use airspace? Many military pilots
believe they have exclusive right to that _partially_ charted
airspace. (Only the centerlines of ten mile wide MTRs are charted!)

If you're not comfortable with the safety margins, avoid them.

There are flight missions that make that line of reasoning nearly
impossible; pipeline patrol and low-level aerial photography come to
mind.

Have you ever personally attempted to learn the current operational
status of a MTR from FSS? My experience has been an exercise in
frustration. When I am going to conduct a low-level mission, I
attempt to contact the military authority charged with the operation
of the MTRs involved. But it's often difficult to find the correct
military phone numbers and the contact correct personnel. It has been
my experience, that contacting FSS, as mentioned in the AIM, is not a
reliable alternative. That should change also.

They really do constitute a tiny percentage of the US NAS.

I hope you're not trying to rationalize the hazard created by
Low-level Military Training Routes on that basis. Try telling that to
the widows and daughters of those civil pilots who were killed by
military pilots operating on low-level MTRs.

Okay, now lets hear your reasoning as to why you believe my proposal
is counter productive, please.

Done.

Really? I don't see where you address my proposal that the military
should bear full and exclusive responsibility for the hazard they
create. Perhaps you'd be good enough to point out that portion of
your response. Thank you.

I'd believe that they were SAAF aircraft, but I also wonder if they are
French? The French have had a presence in Dijibouti, Chad, and various
desert like west African countries. I remember reading that they
conducted combat ops in Chad at one point in the 80's.
Could this be old French video from West Africa? (Mauritania, Mali)

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


We both agree that the high-speed military operations conducted in
joint-use MTRs below 10,000' feet create a significant hazard to civil
operation appropriate for containment within formal Restricted Areas.

It's good you see reason from time to time. So, let's agree to make MTRs
"Restricted" and call it day, shall we?

So you're justifying the deaths of those civil pilots killed by
military aviators on MTRs in the name of realistic training
conditions? I hope not!

No, I'm not "justifying" any such deaths, but you're deflecting the
argument. I merely highlighted how your proposal takes away realism from
military training.

If so, let's put your progeny in the path of
a blazing F-16, and see if your attitude changes.

This is the typical specious argument posed in similar discussions. For the
record, my attitude has not changed.

If that's not an option, perhaps an AWACS could call out conflicting
traffic to those military airmen operating on low-level MTRs.

Decent idea. Do you know they don't?

If that's not to the military's liking, or too expensive, why not have
inexpensive, portable FLARMlike http://www.flarm.com/index_en.html
devices available for military pilot use on low-level MTRs?

This device, like TCAS, broadcasts a radio signal. This negates realism (by
emitting a beacon that would not be used in combat). Once again, the best
option remains making the MTR "Restricted" to separate civil from military
traffic.

If I were tasked to fly MTRs, be assured I would be _formally_
demanding such safety measures from my superiors.

I have absolutely no doubt about that.

Putting the public at risk, so that realistic military training can be
conducted, is reprehensible, shortsighted and stupid (not to mention
probably illegal). There's got to be a better way.

We've already agreed there is: Restricted airspace.

By the way, were those four incidents you listed the only ones you found in
the NTSB database? Statistically, it seems the threat of low flying military
aircraft is much lower than that posed by other GA aircraft.

(What makes you characterize that site as "anti-US military"? It
seems to be neutral and unbiased to me.

That doesn't surprise me in the least. Other readers will reach their own
conclusions - some will even agree with you.

But necessity is no excuse for negligence, and finding the civil pilot
to have been a cause of a MAC due to his inability to see-and-avoid at
the closing speeds involved on MTRs is arrogance beyond belief.

If the pilot were in a "hot" MTR and made no effort to confirm the status of
the airspace, then they at least contributed to the incident.

Are you aware of the number of military pilots who are unaware that
low-level MTRs are within joint-use airspace?

I never claimed such awareness, but it does beg the question: Are you?

Many military pilots
believe they have exclusive right to that _partially_ charted
airspace.

Can you back up this claim?

(Only the centerlines of ten mile wide MTRs are charted!)

Only the centerlines of VOR airways are charted. Do you not know their
bounds? Why would determining the bounds of MTRs be so much more onerous?

If you're not comfortable with the safety margins, avoid them.

There are flight missions that make that line of reasoning nearly
impossible; pipeline patrol and low-level aerial photography come to
mind.

The folks flying these missions must be doing something right as none of the
incidents you've quoted involved them. I submit few such missions expose
their pilots to additional risk as I doubt many pipelines or photo subjects,
for example, run with MTRs.

Have you ever personally attempted to learn the current operational
status of a MTR from FSS? My experience has been an exercise in
frustration. ... That should change also.

No disagreement here, but this is unrelated to your proposal.

They really do constitute a tiny percentage of the US NAS.

I hope you're not trying to rationalize the hazard created by
Low-level Military Training Routes on that basis. Try telling that to
the widows and daughters of those civil pilots who were killed by
military pilots operating on low-level MTRs.

I doubt this conversation would be any more difficult than discussing a
GA-GA MAC - and appears to happen far less frequently, too.

Really? I don't see where you address my proposal that the military
should bear full and exclusive responsibility for the hazard they
create. Perhaps you'd be good enough to point out that portion of
your response. Thank you.

See above ( Restricted areas). You're welcome.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://openspf.org
____________________

As I see you have nothing constructive to add to the debate, I'll
retire my discussion with you on this topic. Thanks for the
opportunity to air this onerous issue.


There is no expedient to which a man will not resort
to avoid the real labor of thinking.
-- Sir Joshua Reynolds

Your proposal for "deconflicting" this airspace takes away key training
options and makes it harder to give military pilots realistic training.
Combat missions are not often flown with active radar to avoid alerting the
enemy so requiring pilots training here to always use radar takes away
combat realism.

Combat missions are also not usually flown over friendly airspace. They
are flown in wartime. IF they want to train over friendly airspace (and
I agree that they should), they must make some accomodations. The
military is not there for their own amusement, they are there to protect
us, and they should do so here as well as there.

[MTRs] constitute a tiny percentage of the US NAS.

Yes, but they carve it up.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:

Combat missions are also not usually flown over friendly airspace. They
are flown in wartime.

As you mention in your following comment, we're discussing training and the
training we're discussing is for combat. I suspect anybody who's served in
the armed forces has heard the phrase "train like you fight, fight like you
train". Translated, this means the training needs to be as close to combat
as possible without actually firing weapons. (The phrase is closely related
to a civilian counterpart: The Law of Primacy.)

IF they want to train over friendly
airspace (and I agree that they should), they must make some
accomodations. The military is not there for their own amusement,
they are there to protect us, and they should do so here as well as
there.

No doubt. However, there are systems in place to handle this accomodation.
MTRs are charted for all to see. Their bounds are known by trained pilots.
VFR rules apply to military pilots (when operating VFR). While not
necessarily efficient (and gets my vote for improvement area with the
highest "bang/buck ratio"), procedures exist to inform FSS of the status of
these routes which can be queried by pilots near them.

I want to avoid reducing combat realism in military training.

[MTRs] constitute a tiny percentage of the US NAS.

Yes, but they carve it up.

True, but only within certain vertical and horizontal limits (typically
1500 AGL). Is it asking too much for GA aircraft to climb to 3000 AGL near
MTRs (adding a 1500' safety margin)? I submit this is not burdensome in most
cases. I'm sure there are several cases where it isn't practical - like
landing/departing under an MTR - but I expect most aircraft/flights have no
problem achieving 3K AGL.

The next best option I see is to make MTRs restricted, but this option would
carve up the NAS much more than they do now and, frankly, with having to
deal with the DC ADIZ on every flight I make, I'm not much of a proponent of
more restricted airspace.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

While not
necessarily efficient (and gets my vote for improvement area with the
highest "bang/buck ratio"), procedures exist to inform FSS of the status of
these routes which can be queried by pilots near them.

It's not a question of efficiency. It's a question of effectiveness. I
am often unable to determine the status of a route or area by calling
the FSS, or Center, or whatever is printed on my charts. IN fact, I
often get a response that they know nothing about it. Lots of good that
does me crossing a mountainous area with an overcast crossed by an MTR
filled with camoflauged fast aircraft backed by military lawyers who, if
"contact" occurs, will be sure to blame me for "not looking", and to
smear my reputation as surely as my airplane.

I want to avoid reducing combat realism in military training.

I don't.

I want to avoid UNNECESSARILY reducing combat realism. I think that
this reduction in realism is necessary.

Is it asking too much for GA aircraft to climb to 3000 AGL near
MTRs (adding a 1500' safety margin)?

Yes. Sometimes the aircraft cannot climb that high. Sometimes there
are clouds or ice in the way. And sometimes the route is empty but we
can't tell. Then we have to unnecessarily alter our operations, just
like you folks don't like to unnecessarily alter yours when a pilot
transits an MOA uncoordinated.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article ,
Jose wrote:

I want to avoid reducing combat realism in military training.

I don't.

I want to avoid UNNECESSARILY reducing combat realism. I think that
this reduction in realism is necessary.

You base your conclusion on what?

You have evidence to show the decrease in combat effectiveness is
worth it?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

You base your conclusion on what?

My desire to not be skewered by a camoflauged F-16, and blamed for it.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.