flying low...military video

Larry Dighera wrote:

Your tax dollars at work. :-(

I'm with Gatt on this one. I very seriously doubt any of my tax dollars were
spent on the equipment in this video.

Do you think you could see-and-avoid military aircraft on a MTR?

Do you have an alternative to MTRs?

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

On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 18:31:41 -0500, "John T"
wrote in
:


Do you have an alternative to MTRs?

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.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


Do you have an alternative to MTRs?

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.

So, the direct answer to my question is "no", correct?

Just so we're clear, what is your understanding of the definition and
purpose of "MTR's"?

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

On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 07:18:50 -0500, "John T"
wrote in
:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


Do you have an alternative to MTRs?

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.

So, the direct answer to my question is "no", correct?

Oh please. That kind of attitude isn't constructive. At least I
proposed an idea that may serve to reduce the hazard caused by low
level Military Training Routs. What constructive information have you
provided?

Just so we're clear, what is your understanding of the definition and
purpose of "MTR's"?

Why is that significant?

This video has been around for a while. The last go 'round I think the
consensus was that it was the South African airforce. I would still love it
even if it were my tax dollars. The only problem is it ain't me.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 10:24:57 -0800, "gatt"
wrote in
:

Wild.

http://www.glumbert.com/media/flylow


Your tax dollars at work. :-(

Only the military is exempt from operations at speeds in excess of 250
knots below 10,000'. The kill a civilian in the US now and then due
to not being able to see-and-avoid at those speeds, but oh well....

Do you think you could see-and-avoid military aircraft on a MTR?

"gatt" wrote in message
...
Wild.

http://www.glumbert.com/media/flylow


Looks like the "zoomies" finally learned how to really fly--from Army
Aviators!!!! :-)))))))

Just kidding guys, typical inter service rivalry!! :-)))))))))

Paul
(retired Master Army Aviator)

They really are not going all that fast...


"gatt" wrote in message ...
: Wild.
:
: http://www.glumbert.com/media/flylow
:
: