Scared of mid-airs

On 2 Aug 2006 06:07:11 -0700, "
wrote:


588 wrote:
wrote:

So the training needs of the military have a higher priority than
anything else in the US airspace system?

Your interpretation, not mine. But to pursue that idea, the point of
having and training the military is in order to continue to have a
National Airspace System. Thus the priority.


Read the law - specifically Title 49. Number one priority is safety
and the main concern after that is commerce. With your logic the
military could claim rights over every and anything due to national
security concerns overiding all other aspects, i.e. if you don't let us
take your airspace/property/anything else we want for training the
country will be open to attack and we will founder. The lawmakers were
wise enough in 1958 and again in later years to reject this line of
thinking.

I think the umbrage being taken here is that you've jumped from "user"
priority to "objectives" priority. First you wear your prejudice on
your sleeve with the somewhat inflammatory remarks about the DOD
wanting to take over and run all the airspace coupled with the bit
about letting GA stay home and watch "Wings".

Then when people point out that the military have a higher priority
than GA (and they should), you quickly shift from prioritizing
military/commercial/GA to "number one priority is safety." It's
apples and oranges.

List who gets to use a block of airspace--"Mr Safety" doesn't make the
list.

Nobody denies that the military services require blocks of airspace for
training purposes.
That their needs always over-ride the needs of all other airspace users
is questionable.



So we should allow free range
by military aviation and IFR airline traffic
(that's big money) but the GA population should stay home and watch
"Wings" on TV?

Stay on topic, tpn18. Airliners don't fit in this particular discussion.

Any type of traffic fits in this discussion. My point is that we
shouldn't cede control of airspace to military and purely commercial
interests. By far the largest number of aircraft in the U.S. belong to
the general aviation fleet. Some people seem to forget that. The
system is for everybody.

And, everybody has been using the system with a remarkable degree of
efficiency for decades. Airlines run schedules and fairly high on-time
efficiency rates. GA folks get to do GA things, whether biz-jetting to
meetings, dancing the sky on laughter silvered wings, or simply
learning to fly at the local pasture. And, the military gets to
operate with relatively minimal impact on their requirements and
little interference on the other players.

The FAA continues to control the airspace where they can do it best.
They mesh with military terminal control facilities and they interact
with special use airspace schedulers and controllers. No one I've
heard of seriously is seeking military takeover of airspace control
for the CONUS. Your paranoia seems to be recurring.


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

On 1 Aug 2006 17:42:49 -0700, "
wrote:


Ed Rasimus wrote:

[stuff snipped]

Nah, I'd rather just go out hunting for civilians to run into
willy-nilly. I'll smash a couple of Cessnas before lunch, then bail
out by the golf course before taking the rest of the day off.


Ed, you are showing your age - the days of willy-nilly are long gone.
Nowadays everything is done by the book (or T.O). If you do it the way
it's supposed to be done you can plan for downing two Cessnas in the
morning, punch out in time to get a nooner with one of the ladies from
your fighter pilot harem, get in 18 holes of golf, get yourself another
airplane for the afternoon, take in a low-level MTR or two and down two
or more GA aircraft (add three in the afternoon to your morning score
and you're an ace in one day), and punch out again just in time for
happy hour at the O club.

Ah, the life of a USAF aviator....;-)

John Hairell )

You're right. The guys and gals doing the job today are a hell of a
lot more professional and efficient than I was. It's all a function of
"doing more with less."


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

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 20:52:49 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote in
::

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 20:46:38 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 20:13:06 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote in
::

Reread what Dudley said. "A pilot who flies without being constantly
aware that he/she is the main aspect of the mid-air avoidance equation
is misguided."

That won't change one bit with a futuristic automated system.

Right. That's why equipping GA aircraft with TCAS-equivalent systems
makes sense; it puts the tools to avoid 99% of MACS in the hands of
the GA pilot, not ATC nor the military.

You are still missing the point.

Actually, I believe it is you who are missing a very important point:
the inadequate time available to deconflict at high rates of closure.

It is "wetware" not "hardware" this is the critical component.

Agreed. But if the 'wetware' isn't up to the task, it would seem
logical to augment its abilities through technological means. After
all, isn't that what you claim occurs on military flights when they
use radar for collision avoidance?

TCAS is a nice gadget, but it isn't a panacea. Looking out the window
and recognizing, whether you are GA, commercial or military, that there
is always the possibility of mishap is the essential element.

Given the fact that the Cessna 172 hit by the F-16 in Florida (for
example) was in a right bank at the time of the left-on-left collision
impact, it would seem that there is insufficient time available for
human capabilities to successfully accomplish see-and-avoid separation
at high rates of closure. Visual separation failed in the other
military/civil MACs I mentioned in earlier posts also.

Given this information:

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/sa15.pdf
An experimental scan training course conducted with military
pilots found the average time needed to conduct the operations
essential to flying the airplane was 20 seconds – 17 seconds for
the outside scan, and three seconds for the panel scan.

It would seem like 17 seconds in inadequate time for non-military
trained pilots to successfully deconflict, not to mention the
deconfliction failures of the military pilots in the afore mentioned
MACs.

You can't have a mechanical, fool-proof solution.

Agreed. Of course, I never claimed equipping GA aircraft with TCAS
capability would be 100% effective.

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 17:07:16 -0400, Bob Noel
wrote in
::

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

That won't change one bit with a futuristic automated system.

Right. That's why equipping GA aircraft with TCAS-equivalent systems
makes sense; it puts the tools to avoid 99% of MACS in the hands of
the GA pilot, not ATC nor the military.

ADS-B would be way better than TCAS (not merely equivalent). TCAS
is not sufficiently accurate in azimuth to provide horizontal escape
guidance.


Thank you for providing this information. Can you compare the
specifications/capabilities of TCAS vs ADS-B for us? It looks like
ADS-B is on the horizon currently.

On 1 Aug 2006 17:42:49 -0700, "
wrote in
.com::


Ed Rasimus wrote:

[stuff snipped]

Nah, I'd rather just go out hunting for civilians to run into
willy-nilly. I'll smash a couple of Cessnas before lunch, then bail
out by the golf course before taking the rest of the day off.


Ed, you are showing your age - the days of willy-nilly are long gone.
Nowadays everything is done by the book (or T.O). If you do it the way
it's supposed to be done you can plan for downing two Cessnas in the
morning, punch out in time to get a nooner with one of the ladies from
your fighter pilot harem, get in 18 holes of golf, get yourself another
airplane for the afternoon, take in a low-level MTR or two and down two
or more GA aircraft (add three in the afternoon to your morning score
and you're an ace in one day), and punch out again just in time for
happy hour at the O club.

Ah, the life of a USAF aviator....;-)

John Hairell )

I hope the wife and daughter of the Cessna pilot killed in the Florida
MAC isn't reading this article, or the one to which it is in response.
Ed's publicly published lack of respect is so rude and inconsiderate
of the dead flight instructor, that it is certainly unbecoming a US
military officer, but it does reveal what I hope is not the typical
fighter pilot's lack of reverence and nonchalance toward their
responsibility in killing innocent civilians while they're playing
their fun war games.

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 14:35:16 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 20:52:49 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote in
::

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 20:46:38 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 20:13:06 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote in
: :

Reread what Dudley said. "A pilot who flies without being constantly
aware that he/she is the main aspect of the mid-air avoidance equation
is misguided."

That won't change one bit with a futuristic automated system.

Right. That's why equipping GA aircraft with TCAS-equivalent systems
makes sense; it puts the tools to avoid 99% of MACS in the hands of
the GA pilot, not ATC nor the military.

You are still missing the point.

Actually, I believe it is you who are missing a very important point:
the inadequate time available to deconflict at high rates of closure.

I think several people in this forum with extensive experience over
several decades of operating high performance aircraft worldwide have
expressed the well founded opinion that visual deconfliction is not
significantly degraded or inadequate at operational speeds. You seem
to be unwilling to acknowledge experience of others in areas in which
you have no familiarity beyond your own opinion.

It is "wetware" not "hardware" this is the critical component.

Agreed. But if the 'wetware' isn't up to the task, it would seem
logical to augment its abilities through technological means. After
all, isn't that what you claim occurs on military flights when they
use radar for collision avoidance?

My point is that you think a hardware gadget will solve the problem.
It might help, but it won't be the total, fail-safe solution. TCAS is
an aid when other already-installed systems don't provide similar or
better information. Look out the window! That's basic. After that,
listen to controllers and try to get the "big picture." If you've got
radar, use it. If you want advisories, ask. If you demand
deconfliction, go IFR, but recognize that unless you are in IMC
someone might be there to threaten you.

TCAS is a nice gadget, but it isn't a panacea. Looking out the window
and recognizing, whether you are GA, commercial or military, that there
is always the possibility of mishap is the essential element.

Given the fact that the Cessna 172 hit by the F-16 in Florida (for
example) was in a right bank at the time of the left-on-left collision
impact, it would seem that there is insufficient time available for
human capabilities to successfully accomplish see-and-avoid separation
at high rates of closure. Visual separation failed in the other
military/civil MACs I mentioned in earlier posts also.

At the most basic, "**** happens." There is no perfect system. Someone
somewhere will find a way to get into an accident.

This is not an indication of operations in excess of human
capabilities. Before turning left in a slow moving aircraft, it is
prudent to look left and clear. It is equally prudent to look right
and clear prior to turning to make sure that the train doesn't hit you
during the period you are involved in the turn.

Given this information:

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/sa15.pdf
An experimental scan training course conducted with military
pilots found the average time needed to conduct the operations
essential to flying the airplane was 20 seconds – 17 seconds for
the outside scan, and three seconds for the panel scan.

It would seem like 17 seconds in inadequate time for non-military
trained pilots to successfully deconflict, not to mention the
deconfliction failures of the military pilots in the afore mentioned
MACs.

Apples/oranges. The F-15 pilot cycle was determined as 20 seconds, but
that relates to the rate at which deviations from desired/required
flight conditions occur. Your non-military trained pilot has
considerably more time in his/her focus cycle to search. Note also,
that with full-bubble canopies, HUDs and multi-sensory data input in
modern tactical aircraft, simple visual scan is much more efficient
than that of the high-wing C-172 pilot.

You can't have a mechanical, fool-proof solution.

Agreed. Of course, I never claimed equipping GA aircraft with TCAS
capability would be 100% effective.

I think we've had a break through here!


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

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 14:48:08 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On 1 Aug 2006 17:42:49 -0700, "
wrote in
s.com::


Ed Rasimus wrote:

[stuff snipped]

Nah, I'd rather just go out hunting for civilians to run into
willy-nilly. I'll smash a couple of Cessnas before lunch, then bail
out by the golf course before taking the rest of the day off.


Ed, you are showing your age - the days of willy-nilly are long gone.
Nowadays everything is done by the book (or T.O). If you do it the way
it's supposed to be done you can plan for downing two Cessnas in the
morning, punch out in time to get a nooner with one of the ladies from
your fighter pilot harem, get in 18 holes of golf, get yourself another
airplane for the afternoon, take in a low-level MTR or two and down two
or more GA aircraft (add three in the afternoon to your morning score
and you're an ace in one day), and punch out again just in time for
happy hour at the O club.

Ah, the life of a USAF aviator....;-)

John Hairell )

I hope the wife and daughter of the Cessna pilot killed in the Florida
MAC isn't reading this article, or the one to which it is in response.
Ed's publicly published lack of respect is so rude and inconsiderate
of the dead flight instructor, that it is certainly unbecoming a US
military officer, but it does reveal what I hope is not the typical
fighter pilot's lack of reverence and nonchalance toward their
responsibility in killing innocent civilians while they're playing
their fun war games.

One would put the comments into the entire context of the debate and
hopefully recognize it as sarcasm and satire delivered after hours of
frustration trying to overcome your deep-seated bigotry against the
military professionals who have tried to enlighten you.

And, if you think war and training for it is fun you might consider
some of the possible outcomes.

Meanwhile, I've exercised considerable restraint in avoiding the
simplest, common two-word response to your drivel. Besides, most folks
recognize it as purely rhetorical and a physically impossible act.


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

wrote:

Nobody denies that the military services require blocks of airspace for
training purposes. That their needs always over-ride the needs of all
other airspace users is questionable.

More than questionable.


My point is that we shouldn't cede control of airspace to military
and purely commercial interests. By far the largest number of
aircraft in the U.S. belong to the general aviation fleet....
...The system is for everybody.

Agreed. The main antagonist in this thread seems to think otherwise.
Perhaps you would attempt to explain the concept to LD yourself.


Jack

Scared of Mid-Airs?

Me too, so I stay away from 'em. It's easier if you know where they
are.


Larry Dighera wrote:

(Have you ever been successful contacting
Flight Service at 500' AGL to inquire if a MTR is hot?)

Rarely, and that's an FAA problem. It could be that the lack of FSS
coverage is the real culprit in MAC's. Maybe you should look into
it. FSS performance is a contributing factor in at least one of the
accidents you cite, and the unwillingness of civilian pilots to
consult with the FSS is a factor in two of them. In all four of the
accidents, military pilots were in contact with the appropriate
agencies.


Alternatively, we could REQUIRE BY REGULATION, that all MTR
participants employ TCAS....

Interesting. Try convincing AOPA that all civilian light planes need
to have TCAS so that they can participate in the system. A TCAS unit
will cost more than the value of most of the aircraft in which it
would be installed. Within the airspace where you'll find MTR's,
civilian light planes are not required to have even a basic
transponder. Perhaps the civilian community should begin to do its
part to insure no more MAC's?


We could surely do without MTR routes in the CONUS, and did until a
few years ago.

Low level training routes have been around for more than 40 years,
that I know of. Never liked 'em, only because though I had to be
there, the Cessna's didn't and they didn't care enough to know that
I was there.


1. The presence of 450 knot military training flights within
congested terminal airspace without benefit of the required ATC
clearance cannot be allowed to kill innocent civilians either.

You keep ignoring the facts, about which you have repeatedly been
reminded. None of the four accidents you've cited in your rants
actually fits the above.


2. ...Now we've got [MTR] here in the US. Perhaps there is a...less
congested venue someplace else.

You could be the head negotiator. Let us know how many such venues
you find. Moving all military training offshore sounds like a real
interesting proposition. Have you given it even 5 seconds of
thought? Two should be more than enough.


3. As currently implemented, Military Training Routes are joint-use
airspace. To expect that airspace to be free of non-military aircraft
is unrealistic and contrary to federal civil and military regulations.

It would be safer. Isn't that your concern?


Just so we all understand the definition of a MTR:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...y/airspace.htm
A Military Training Route, or MTR, is basically a long,
low-altitude [joint use] corridor that serves as a flight path to
a particular destination [with aircraft speeds up to mach 1]. The
corridor is often 10 miles wide, 70 to 100 miles long [although
it's not charted that way], and may range from 500 to 1,500 feet
above ground level [and unrealistically relies solely upon
see-and-avoid for collision avoidance in VMC]; 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 if it endangers the lives of the
public].

Yes, read that last sentence again, the one with the word "imperative".

The civil pilot chooses to transit airspace where he knows or should
know that military missions are being flown. He enters at his own
risk, and increases the risk to those military missions in so doing.
Either he is an equal player or he is not. If he can't, as you
claim, be expected to bear an equal share of responsibility for
traffic avoidance, then he has no business operating in that air
space. Those who imply otherwise would increase the danger to all
involved.


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.

No I haven't. Only someone with a death wish would consider
committing such a stupid act.

And yet, you advocate the military take full responsibility for
those who choose, for whatever reason, to enter an MTR, even for
those with what you describe as a death wish? You can't have it both
ways. In order for that to happen the presence of civilian aircraft
would require the cessation or at least the modification of the
mission and the resulting loss of training, increased costs, and
ultimately less safety as these missions would have to be reflown,
requiring a higher sortie count to achieve the necessary training.


What would what you suggest that might accomplish besides
a dead civilian airman and two destroyed aircraft?

It comes as a complete surprise to you, I am sure, that there are
people in this world who haven't the brains to assess the risks, and
another group who actually treasure the opportunity to be splattered
in a righteous cause. Nothing new about it, really, but you should
pick up a newspaper now and then, and try to keep up. As pointed out
in the preceding paragraphs, the mere presence of civilian aircraft
in the airspace would be enough to shut down training under the
restrictions you're advocating.


Get real.

Reality is the province of the fighter pilot, Larry. The
"hundred-dollar hamburger" is a lolly-gag for the casual
recreationist, be he ever so experienced. BTDT, all the way round
the block, and back again.


Or are you referring to the glider that was hit on a MTR by an A6 [sic]? The
glider pilot, who had the right of way, was found by the NTSB to be
the cause of the MAC! There's justice for you.

Have you complained to the NTSB? Perhaps the Federal Government
should be responsible for traffic separation -- there's a novel notion.


Civil aircraft to the right of military aircraft:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...26X00109&key=1

The usual NTSB pointless response amounting to, "they ran into each
other because they ran into each other," or, in NTSB-speak, "both
pilots failed to...maintain clearance from other aircraft." But you
think it was all the military's fault. There was nothing about this
accident that made it a "military" type of accident. Any two
civilian aircraft could have had exactly the same accident in the
same place. The T-37 was at 200 kts, well below the speed any number
of civilian aircraft could have been traveling, and was not on an
MTR. The Ag plane was invisible to ATC while operating in marginal
VFR conditions, having neither a transponder nor a radio.


F-16s lacked required ATC clearance:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...12X22313&key=1

Flight lead screws up; and "ATC’s lack of awareness that there was
more than one F-16 aircraft in the formation flight, which reduced
the ATC controllers ability to detect and resolve the conflict that
resulted in the collision," despite the fact that fighters don't go
anywhere alone. Maybe ATC could train their people better, too. What
do you think?


A6 pilot expected to exit MTR eight minutes after route
closu
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...11X12242&key=1

AG Cat pilot unaware of the existence of MTR; this FSS habitually
fails to give useful info to local flights; and so the NTSB cites
"inherent limitations of the see-and-avoid concept." How about the
inherent limitations of ignorant Ag Cat pilots and apathetic FSS
employees?


A6 hit glider that had right of way:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...13X33340&key=1

"THE _A7E_ PLT HAD INFORMED THE NECESSARY FLT SERV STATIONS THAT THE
ROUTE WAS ACTIVE; THE GLIDER PLT HAD NOT CONTACTED THE FLT SERV
STATIONS TO DETERMINE IF THE ROUTE WAS ACTIVE."

Poor preflight planning and preparation on the part of the glider
pilot, according to the NTSB. A proper evaluation of the dangers of
operating in a hot MTR cannot possibly be made if he doesn't know
about the MTR. He just didn't give himself a fighting chance. Would
he even have known if he was circling over the VOR on a busy airway?
Sure, you go where the lift is, within reason, in a glider, but
"situational awareness" -- the same thing you so correctly demand of
the F-16 flight lead above -- is required even of glider pilots. I
would say, "especially of glider pilots", given the characteristics
of that beautiful sport. BTDT, got the glider.


I would like to see the military assume responsibility for the hazard
their operations under FAR § 91.117(d) cause to civil flights in all
airspace. That exemption to the 250 knot speed limit below 10,000' is
an affront to the design of the NAS.

Then change the NAS. The laws of physics remain beyond the reach of
the legislature, despite your passionate objections.


If not, why have a speed limit at all?

Simply to minimize UNNECESSARY high speed operation in an area of
mixed traffic. You cannot continue to ignore the aerodynamic as well
as the operational necessity for some military aircraft to operate
well above your beloved 250 kts, and still expect that you should be
taken seriously. Does it surprise you to know that there are
civilian aircraft which also must operate above 250kts below
10,000'? Their reasons too are valid. BTDT, got the ATPR and the
fancy hat.


If military operations create a civil hazard, they should be
segregated from civil flights.

We disagree only on the mechanism to achieve that end. As has been
stated elsewhere, this is a problem that has no answer but
cooperation and an assumption of both risk and responsibility by all
parties.


So you've read all I've written on this subject over the past six
years?

Unfortunately. Redundant, shallow, and obtuse though it has been.


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

Good advice, perhaps you will keep it in mind.

Implicit in that parting shot is the notion that I have somehow been
destructive.

EXPLICIT in that parting shot is the well-regarded notion that "it
takes effort to be constructive." A great deal of effort is required
to go beyond where the NAS is today -- effort that you seem
unwilling to undertake, given your six-year crusade against the
windmills of your own ignorance.



Jack

Ed Rasimus wrote:

I think the umbrage being taken here is that you've jumped from "user"
priority to "objectives" priority. First you wear your prejudice on
your sleeve with the somewhat inflammatory remarks about the DOD
wanting to take over and run all the airspace coupled with the bit
about letting GA stay home and watch "Wings".

Somewhat inflammatory remarks? I used to schedule airspace blocks for
DOD. Where do you think I got my ideas about DOD hogging airspace
from? I worked in a place where we did it every day. DOD ever have an
interest in controlling all airspace? Look into the history of the
national airspace system and come back and then we can discuss it.


Then when people point out that the military have a higher priority
than GA (and they should), you quickly shift from prioritizing
military/commercial/GA to "number one priority is safety." It's
apples and oranges.


Why should the military have priority over GA? The first rule of the
NAS is "first come, first serve".

List who gets to use a block of airspace--"Mr Safety" doesn't make the
list.

That's an interesting statement coming from a pilot. More fuel for the
fire for Mr. Dighera.


And, everybody has been using the system with a remarkable degree of
efficiency for decades. Airlines run schedules and fairly high on-time
efficiency rates. GA folks get to do GA things, whether biz-jetting to
meetings, dancing the sky on laughter silvered wings, or simply
learning to fly at the local pasture. And, the military gets to
operate with relatively minimal impact on their requirements and
little interference on the other players.

But you can't say that control of airspace has never been thought about
and discussed by various people in the military.


The FAA continues to control the airspace where they can do it best.
They mesh with military terminal control facilities and they interact
with special use airspace schedulers and controllers. No one I've
heard of seriously is seeking military takeover of airspace control
for the CONUS. Your paranoia seems to be recurring.

I never said that I'm worried about DOD taking over CONUS airspace, so
no paranoia on my part. My response had to do with another poster
suggesting that all MTR airspace be forbidden to GA aircraft, which you
yourself agreed was unfeasable.

It's a historical fact that the military has at various times had an
interest in controlling all U.S. airspace. This was discussed at
length in the first airspace design class I attended in 1978 when we
were talking about the roots of the SCATANA plan. The idea was more
prevalent in the 1950s at the height of the Cold War when the military
was worried about flights of Russian bombers penetrating U.S. airspace.
I'm not saying that there is a DOD cabal to take over U.S. airspace,
only that at certain times there have been military agencies or groups
of people who have talked about the possibilities, and in the '50s
tried to make it so.

The 1958 Federal Aviation Act gave the FAA sole responsibility for
developing and maintaining a common civil-military system of air
navigation and air traffic control, and the framers of the act went out
of their way to take some of these responsiblities away from the
military and other government entities, which had previously shared
them with the CAA in a hodge-podge fashion.


John Hairell )