Scared of mid-airs

(don't forget to remove the PED prepend if you are going to go back to
talking about aviation!

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

Jose wrote:
(don't forget to remove the PED prepend if you are going to go back to talking about
aviation!

Jose

I'm being thick here but what's PED? Public Education Dept? Performance
Enhancing Drugs?

Ramapriya

Larry Dighera wrote:

Low-speed aircraft have the same amount of time to spot a high-speed
aircraft before colliding with it as the high-speed aircraft has: the
amount of time it takes for the two aircraft to reach each other.
Pilots of high-speed aircraft must look much farther ahead than pilots
of low-speed aircraft.


If the time is the same, so is the distance, Larry.

As long as you are obsessing, why not do it carefully?

Each of your statements above may be true under a limited set of
circumstances but untrue under many others. If you expect us to go
along on this rant-ride with you, then bother to care as much for
the truth which resides in the details as you claim to care for the
so-called victims of imagined crimes.


Jack

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. Despite the AOPA's stand on the subject, we could more easily
do without the majority of civilian light plane VFR flying in the
US, for example, than we could not do without military flight
training in CONUS.

The presence of random VFR traffic in military training routes
cannot be allowed to disrupt training. Have you considered the
implications of certain forms of political dissent which could
involve obstruction of these routes by civilian aircraft of various
categories? Perhaps you have, after all.

You want the USAF to assume all responsibility for traffic conflicts
in training airspace? No legal entity is going to assume
responsibility for the results of acts committed by persons outside
its control. Therefore, only military pilots would be allowed in
training airspace. Perhaps you have not considered that.

Your wish-list is not going to receive serious consideration, even
here on USENET let alone in the Legislature, without substantial
refinement. Far more evidence than has been shown thus far, that you
are prepared to make a serious effort to understand the problem,
will be required.



It is easy to
be destructive...but it takes effort to be
constructive....

Good advice, perhaps you will keep it in mind.


Jack

588 wrote:

...we could more easily do without
the majority of civilian light plane VFR flying in the US...
than we could not do without military flight training in CONUS.

That should read, "than we _could_ do without military flight
training in CONUS."

See, I do proof read, eventually.



Jack

Larry Dighera wrote:

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 05:23:24 GMT, 588 wrote in
::

I've never known a fighter pilot to have anything but respect for
the potential of a midair...immensely more than the average light plane
pilot, in my experience.

That is a result of the limited set of fighter pilots with whom you
have been in contact.

And on what do you base your statements: a contact group equal to
zero? Unlike yours, my reference group is populated -- and not least
by myself and scores of others to whom I have entrusted my safety as
they have entrusted theirs to me. You have chosen a set of four
according to the particular quality of their having been involved in
a fatal mid-air with a civilian aircraft. I suggest it is not I who
have the more biased and limited view of the problem.


How would you characterize the respect for a potential midair
demonstrated by Parker...? (I don't expect you to
answer that, it would require some courage on your part.)

Not a problem, Larry -- I can let the official report speak for
itself, prepared as it has been by those much closer to the problem
than I. As to our respective degrees of courage in the face of
USENET onslaughts -- each is probably adequate to the task. Anyway,
I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.


Jack

Larry Dighera wrote:

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 05:39:05 GMT, 588 wrote in
::

Larry Dighera wrote:


...failing to acknowledge the
culpability of the military in each of the military/civil MAC NTSB
reports I cited, is tacit agreement that each was the fault of the
military flight.

Failing to acknowledge culpability is the same as admitting fault,
in your world?

You can attempt to discredit me personally by deliberately
misinterpreting my words....


I left it to you to interpret your own words, in order to help you
avoid misinterpretation on the part of your readers -- as your words
clearly required some interpretation. Could you really have asked
for more?


Jack

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 15:32:42 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote in
::
[...]
Thank you for the ejection example you cited. I am saddened to hear
of the pilot's injuries.

However, I never said ejection was without its hazards. And in the
case of the November 16, 2000 MAC, there was no mention of any
injuries to the pilot who ejected. I'm sure the Cessna pilot would
have preferred to eject rather than meet the fate he did. That is my
point: military pilots have an option other than see-and-avoid; they
can exit the aircraft.


I've never known a fighter pilot to have anything but respect for
the potential of a midair -- more, in fact than the average
transport pilot, and immensely more than the average light plane
pilot, in my experience.

That is a result of the limited set of fighter pilots with whom you
have been in contact. You obviously hadn't known those military
pilots involved in the four military/civil MACs whose NTSB links I
posted.

In 23 years in the fighter business I have lived, worked, fought wars
with and watched fighter pilots die for their country. Thousands of
them. Don't spout drivel about limited contact.

You may have overlooked the fact, that I was responding to Jack's
assertion, not yours.

In any event, you misunderstand the issue I am attempting to raise. I
do not have issues with military pilots generally, although those who
were involved in the four MACs I cited seem to have violated
regulations resulting in a MAC. We all have issues with airmen who
violate regulations.

It is the flawed system of permitting high-speed, low-level military
operations within joint use airspace and expecting see-and-avoid
exclusively to provide separation. That is irresponsible on the part
of the FAA and military, and should be corrected.

How would you characterize the respect for a potential midair
demonstrated by Parker when he violated regulations by failing to
brief terminal airspace, and dove into congested Class B and C
airspace with the required ATC clearance? (I don't expect you to
answer that, it would require some courage on your part.)

I will take your failure to provide your opinion as requested above as
concurrence with mine, that Parker's decisions were criminal.

Apparently, all your "experience" was bought at the news stand,
considering how little relevance your complaints have to the real world.

If you consider NTSB and military accident reports, and eye witness
reports unreliable, what information sources meet your criteria for
relevance?

Once again, after 23 years experience in the fighter business, I have
read, been briefed, and face-to-face discussed hundreds of aircraft
accidents with board members as well as participants. Every single
aircraft accident results in an investigation and a board of inquiry.
Almost all have a "corollary board" after the investigation board
which determines culpability and liability. Some result in Flying
Evaluation Boards which consider the qualifications and retention of
the aviators. And some result in Courts-Martial when malfeasance is
indicated by any of the investigations. Can you get that through your
fixated civilian mentality?


I don't question your experience nor qualifications to speak on this
subject. What I find objectionable is your unwillingness to
acknowledge the fact that a lethal problem exists, and your
unwillingness to take action to remedy that.

Do you know what action the military took against Parker? Was he
court marshaled? Was he fined? Was he incarcerated for killing a
civilian as a result of violating regulations? Was he made to pay
restitution to the family of the pilot his actions killed? Was a
corollary board convened? Are you able to speek with knowledge
about the what the military did to Parker as a result of the death his
actions caused?

The invistagory actions you mention may be what ocurrs regularly, but
in Parker's case, I have not heard of any of them except the board of
inquiry report, and Parker's CO's statement that Parker would receive
a verbal or written repremand. Do you have other information on that
specific case?

If not, then I respectfully submit, that the military does not
adiquately repremand those pilots who are involved in military/civil
fatal MACs as evidenced in this case.

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 22:12:28 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote in
::

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 21:04:46 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

In the four military/civil MACs at the links below, you'll find no
mention of military radar use for traffic deconfliction.

This is the second posting of the list in this thread. You're becoming
repititous and redundant. The last time and this time, the links were
not relevant to the point being addressed.

I posted them again for your benefit; you obviously didn't read them
the last time I posted them. From your comments, you seem unfamiliar
with their details.

While the aircraft may be so equipped, is the radar to which you refer
required to be used for _collision_avoidance_ during the time military
aircraft are operating in joint use airspace? Can you cite a
regulation that so mandates it?

Common sense, rather than regulations, mandates that the operator use
every method at his/her disposal to deconflict the flight path.

Lacking regulations that mandate the use of radar for traffic
deconfliction, Parker's lack of their use does not constitute a
violation of regulations. Such a regulation may have saved the life
of the pilot into whom Parker led his wingman.


And AWACS can see both.

Both, transponders and targets?

Another admission of cluelessness? Two in one post? YES! BOTH!

I just wanted to assure I understood you correctly.

How common is it for AWACS to be employed for MTR training flights?

Not common at all.

Exactly.

The reason being that ATC and military approach
control facilities are available.

Are ATC and military approach control facilities able to reliably
paint high-speed, low-level military aircraft on MTRs at 200' AGL?
Doubtful. Therefore, there should be a _regulatory_ requirement for
military aircraft on MTRs to employ on-board radar for traffic
deconfliction.

The source of my concern is strictly a matter of self preservation.

Then look out the window. Use common sense. Fly 20-30 hours per month
in day, night and weather conditions.

Spoken like the man with the bulletproof aircraft stout enough to
survive a MAC to the fellow with the aluminum eggshell bugsmasher. Not
only do you lack empathy for your fellow airmen, but insight into
their vulnerability to your high-speed, low-level operations. Are you
entirely incapable of objective, rational thought?

Military fighter aircraft pilots have little physical harm to fear
from colliding with a typical GA aircraft due to the weight and speed
differential as well as a much more robust airframe and ejection seat
to provide them with a safe landing.

Bull****! A mid-air in a high performance aircraft isn't a dented
fender.

My thought exactly, but Parker wasn't made to pay any restitution.

An ejection isn't a "safe" procedure and jettisoning a $50
million dollar aircraft,

Parker's wingman was taken to the hospital for observation and
released. The Cessna pilot was splattered over four acres of country
club fairways. Safety is relative.

The GA pilot is like a fluttering moth poised hovering above the
rush hour traffic in such a situation.

Not very wise of the fluttering moth to be in such a precarious
situation.

You're saying, GA aircraft should not be within Class B and C
airspace? Surely I've missed your meaning.

Seems like the moth should take some personal
responsibility.

The Cessna was in a right bank at the time of impact in the left/left
Florida MAC. The Cessna pilot was taking evasive action in an attempt
to comply with the see-and-avoid regulation. But that wasn't possible
because of the speed of the military aircraft. I'd say the Cessna
pilot was acting as responsibly as possible. Parker, on the other
hand ...

I agree there is a lack of responsibility being exercised in
high-speed, low-level military operations, and it is the military who
are shrugging responsibility commensurate with the hazard they cause.
His chances of survival in a collision are slight at best.

If you'd bothered to read the details of the four military/civil MACs
I cited, you'd know that all the military pilots involved survived
unscathed. The GA pilots often paid with their lives. Given those
statistics, I'd say your assessment above is in error.

I have to share the sky with the military, and their military/civil
MAC record isn't as good as one would expect.

How many mid-air collisions per year does the military have? You've
repeatedly cited four, but let's go back over 25 years. How many? How
many were with your fluttering moths? Oh, not many, heh.

Are you saying that the military/civil MAC rate is acceptable, and
there should be no effort to improve safety?

But what I find most
troubling is the lack of consequences a military aviator faces as a
result of carelessness, incompetence, recklessness, and regulation
violations.

A detailed investigation,

With a medical examination eight days after the MAC in the case of
Parker.

an accident board and a corollary board, plus possible court martial
don't satisfy you?

Parker's CO, Gen. Rosa, told the press, that Parker would receive a
verbal or written reprimand. That doesn't satisfy me. If Parker had
been adjudicated in a court of law, instead of having his CO give him
a talking to, he would be doing time.

If the military pilot thinks he can disintegrate a civil
flight, punch out, and live to fly another day without loss of rank,
pay, or freedom, what incentive does he have to watch out for us
little guys with whom he shares the skies?

That is such an outrageous statement that I feel I would be taking
advantage of someone to point out its ridiculousness.

What is to make a military pilot think otherwise? Not military
discipline in Parker's case.

If civilians read the NOTAMS, checked their charts (oh yeah - remember
those?), and did a little preflight planning, they could easily avoid
conflict with military traffic. But that would take some precious time
and effort, wouldn't it.

There are those civil airmen who do the things you suggest, and there
are those who are negligent, but none of those actions would have
prevented the for mishaps above.

The point being made was that there have been many more than four
instances of civilian errors leading to mishaps with military
aircraft. You don't seem as upset by them.

I'm not aware of them. Please provide links to their NTSB reports.

And it is completely unreasonable and negligent for the FAA to expect
a Cessna 172 pilot to have adequate time to search his windscreen for
conflicting traffic, identify it, and take effective evasive action
when the closing speed is in excess of 500 knots.

Yet, unreasonable and negligent or not that is EXACTLY what the FAA
requires you to do. Unfair, but if you don't like it stay on the
ground.

So, in your mind, changing the system so that military low-level,
high-speed operations would be safer is not an option?

Further, the inequity in expecting the civil pilot to evade the hazard
caused by high-speed, low-level military operations is unjust. The
military should be _solely_ responsible for the hazards they create.

Anyone who causes a mid-air is responsible. Assigning "sole"
responsibility indicates you live in some sort of fantasy world. You
can't be irresponsible on your side of the equation.

I understand what you are saying, and agree to a point. But isn't it
unjust to exempt the military from complying with the 250 knot speed
limit, and only assign half the blame to them. If they had been
operating within the speed limit, there might have been time to
see-and-avoid. I realize it is impractical for the military to
operate within that regulation, but that is not sufficient
justification to jeopardize the safety of civil flights, in my
opinion.


I would expect to see some true safety consciousness, and remorse for
the carnage and destruction of civil pilots and aircraft caused by
military/civil mishaps. Oh well...

Carnage and destruction my ass. Get over it. Look out the window. If
you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Flying is inherently
dangerous. That's what makes it so thrilling.


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

With that attitude, we can just eliminate ATC altogether.

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 20:36:47 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 19:49:59 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote in
::

But, the point that we are beating here is that see-and-avoid is the
basic responsibility of all players all of the time.

That is true with the obvious exception of operations in IMC.

No, even in IMC, if I am operating an aircraft with radar (or other
sensors) and I detect a threat of collision it would still be my
responsibility to deviate and avoid the collision, even without ATC
approval.

ATC is NOT magic. During the PATCO strike (Reagan years), when the
controllers walked off the job, we stood down at Holloman for two
days. At that point we could no longer suspend our training operations
and we resumed flying. We filed flight plans VFR/IFR with MARSA
(military assumes responsibility for separation of aircraft). In areas
that were not positive control, we remained VMC. In positive control
airspace, we proceeded IMC when necessary and used own radars and
military RAPCON coverage to deconflict--which really wasn't necessary
since no GA aircraft would be transiting in APC under IMC without
ATC--would they?

When controllers returned to work, they had learned that they were not
essential to our operations and we had a year or two of
non-interference from Big Brother as we went about our business. (Oh,
there were no mid-airs of any kind.)

High speed aircraft have high agility, low speed aircraft have lots of time to
look,

Low-speed aircraft have the same amount of time to spot a high-speed
aircraft before colliding with it as the high-speed aircraft has: the
amount of time it takes for the two aircraft to reach each other.
Pilots of high-speed aircraft must look much farther ahead than pilots
of low-speed aircraft..

That's ludicrous. You can look as far ahead as I can. Both high speed
and low speed aviators have the same degree of visual acuity and the
same obligation to maintain the highest possible level of situational
awareness.

but regardless of your speed you keep the front of your airplane
cleared using all of the tools available to you.

High-speed aircraft need only scan a much smaller angle of airspace in
front of them than slow speed aircraft.

Bull**** again. In fact, we operate with greater responsibility for
look-out for mutual support than GA operators. That's the price of
being a weapon system. There are people out there trying to kill you.

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