Scared of mid-airs

Larry Dighera wrote:




So it would seem, that in your experience with F-16s (not helos with
which Mr. Rasimus was uncertain), Mr. Rasimus' assertion "the flight
plan type for the military is IFR" is not always the case.

It's a ridiculous assertion.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
news

So you're contradicting Mr. Rasimus' assertion that the military only
flies IFR flight plans?


I'm saying there are VFR flight plans and the military operates VFR on VFR
MTRs.

On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 00:23:01 GMT, Mike Williamson
wrote in
t:

the regulations state that IFR will be used to the maximum extent
possible without impacting mission requirements.

That's the way I understood it to be also.

On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 01:00:31 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
t:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
news

So you're contradicting Mr. Rasimus' assertion that the military only
flies IFR flight plans?


I'm saying there are VFR flight plans and the military operates VFR on VFR
MTRs.


Thanks.

Jeff Crowell wrote:
Speed of the F-16 at impact was 356 KCAS.

Larry Dighera wrote:
Limiting the discussion to your 356 KCAS speed at the time of impact
figure disregards this fact:
http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief2.asp?...A028A &akey=1
"Speeds of up to 450 knots were noted during the descent."

Why would you overlook that 450 knot speed? Does the F-16 Dash 1 only
pertain to the speed at time of impact? :-)

Jeff Crowell:
Somewhere during the entire flight, Ninja 2's speed might
easily have been supersonic;

Larry Dighera:
Perhaps. But any speed in excess of the minimum safe speed is a
violation of regulations below 10,000'.

Of course. But hardly a smoking gun.


would that have had any influence
on the collision? (other than the cosmic scheduling of it all--
obviously, anything which might have occurred to either F-16
or Cessna to speed or delay their movements throughout their
respective flights that day would have prevented this tragedy).
Seen that way, if Ninja had gone even a little faster then this
would have been nothing more than a close miss.

That analysis disregards the fact that there were other aircraft
present in the congested Class B and C terminal airspace that could
have been impacted just as easily by the Ninja flight.

But they were not, were they?


I never debated that Ninja flight recorded a speed of 450
knots during the flight. I'm simply saying that the speed
that really matters is the speed immediately prior to the
collision.

That conclusion is debatable. If we're discussing time to deconflict,
we'd need to know at what point the Ninja flight achieved 450 knots.

For starters, if the accident investigation report does not
specifically say that the 450 knot speed phases of the
flight were not a proximate cause of the mishap, we can
be sure it was not.


I have not seen any claim other than yours that
Ninja was knocking down 450 knots within that critical
interval. And you are clearly selecting your data to put
your argument in the best possible light.

Perhaps. At any rate, I commend you for taking the time to analyze
all the data available. That has to be an enlightening experience.

Excuse me? Care to say what you mean here?


And I'm reassured that by the limited discrepancies you have provided,
the vast majority of what I have said is correct.

That would be just one more example of you making a
conclusion that is not supported by facts. I have been
attempting to limit our discussion to a limited set of data
so that it is easier to keep up.


Similarly, the fact that closure rate was 480 knots of
course has meaning in terms of how much time was
available to both pilots to see and avoid. But to imply or
suggest that this is in any way the same as saying
that Ninja was making almost 500 knots at impact is a
blatant lie.

That conclusion is dependent on malice of intent, which I feel is
unwarranted, and unsupported by the facts. We just choose to
interpret the facts differently.

"Malice of intent"?

You are convinced, in the face of data to the contrary
(and with no data in support), that the mishap pilot got
up with the specific intention of killing a civil air pilot
that day.

You cast away entire chunks of data from the mishap
investigation report just because they do not fit with
your preconceived notion.


Jeff

On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 00:23:01 GMT, Mike Williamson
wrote:

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 22:20:04 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
. net:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

It was largely rhetorical.

If Mr. Rasimus' assertion, that the flight plan type for the military
is IFR is correct, and MTRs are created for military use, why are
there VFR MTRs? Presumably the military won't be operating VFR on VFR
MTRs.


Let's cut this short. There are VFR flight plans and the military operates
VFR on VFR MTRs.



So you're contradicting Mr. Rasimus' assertion that the military only
flies IFR flight plans?


Ed was incorrect- the military does fly at least some missions under
IFR. MOST missions, however, are filed and flown under VFR, and indeed
the regulations state that IFR will be used to the maximum extent
possible without impacting mission requirements. When I say most,
I mean more than probably 90% of military missions are flown IFR. The
only time I've been VFR in the past 3 years in the CONUS is when I'm in
the traffic pattern at an airfield where they don't offer continuous
IFR services. Even in those cases, an IFR flight plan was filed for
the flight.

Mike

MIke,

Without getting into quibbling, let me note that your last sentence
supports what I said in the first post and pretty much makes your
first comment regarding my correctness invalid.

In the tactical community (and the UPT training environment as well),
the IFR flight plan is always filed and the VFR portions are conducted
as a delay enroute. The aircrew involved on local sorties usually does
not handle the flight plan at all, but simply "signs out" with crew
and tail number and call-sign. The "canned flight plan" was filed with
ATC with the day's schedule. It is, however, an IFR flight plan.

Long ago (in a galaxy...) we used to take T-37s on X-country flights
VFR on VFR flight plans. I did it so regularly that I could pretty
much find my way from Willy to Nellis without a map. But, that sort of
flexibility went away and with VERY RARE exceptions, the flights are
always going to be on an IFR flight plan.
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 16:59:21 -0600, Newps wrote:



Larry Dighera wrote:



If Mr. Rasimus' assertion, that the flight plan type for the military
is IFR is correct, and MTRs are created for military use, why are
there VFR MTRs? Presumably the military won't be operating VFR on VFR
MTRs.

The military often flies on an IFR flight plan and then takes
responsibility for its own separation from other military aircraft and
the ground. It's really nothing more than flight following. ATC just
waits for them to get done playing, get separated and then we take over.
However to say they are always IFR is ridiculous. Ya can't fly at 200
agl in yer B52 IFR.

Do not confuse IFR--the rules, with IMC--the weather. You can drive
yer BUFF along the low level route under visual rules in visual
weather--but you departed the home drome on an IFR flight plan and
when you complete the route you will resume your IFR flight plan for
recovery.


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

On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 00:10:54 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 16:55:12 -0600, Newps wrote
in :



Larry Dighera wrote:

Yes, but our resident fighter pilot asserts:

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 16:34:22 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote in
:


Regardless, the flight plan type for the military is IFR.


If that were true, it prompts my questioning the need for VFR MTRs.

Oh heavens no. It's not uncommon for the F16's around here to show up
VFR unannounced, do a few approaches and then a few patterns and then
disappear VFR. And of course the helicopters are always flitting around
VFR. They may stop, they may just get flight following for awhile as
long as we can see them.

So it would seem, that in your experience with F-16s (not helos with
which Mr. Rasimus was uncertain), Mr. Rasimus' assertion "the flight
plan type for the military is IFR" is not always the case.

Let's establish some things with Newp. Where is "here" and who is
"we"? Where did the F-16s come from? Does he work at an ATC facility?
At a military or joint-use airport?

The Vipers departed their home station on an IFR flight plan--they
most likely conduct most of their mission in visual conditions and
under visual flight rules--but they depart the home station and
recover on an IFR flight plan. The departed on an instrument
departure, whether to a training area or a range or another airport.
The will recover on an instrument penetration which may terminate in
an instrument approach or a VFR hand-off to tower.

It is still an IFR flight plan.


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

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 18:37:17 -0600, Newps wrote:



Larry Dighera wrote:




So it would seem, that in your experience with F-16s (not helos with
which Mr. Rasimus was uncertain), Mr. Rasimus' assertion "the flight
plan type for the military is IFR" is not always the case.

It's a ridiculous assertion.

Can you establish some credentials. If I am wrong, I will admit it.
But right now we have you with a pseudonym and posting from
.

Are you a controller? Military? A pilot? Civilian or military? Are you
part of the ATC structure? Do you handle the flight plans? Work in
base ops? Are you in scheduling?

I have made mistakes in the past--my first wife comes to mind. But, I
flew fasts jets for the company for 23 years at various locations
around the world. That gives me a leg up on Mr. Dighera and unless you
possess some currency qualifications, it would seem to give me some
insight over you as well. If wrong, I'm happy to admit it.


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

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 18:17:30 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote in
:


If Mr. Rasimus' assertion, that the flight plan type for the military
is IFR is correct, and MTRs are created for military use, why are
there VFR MTRs? Presumably the military won't be operating VFR on VFR
MTRs.

The military can and does operated on VFR routes, but they are still
on an IFR flight plan.

Okay. That's reasonable, if non intuitive.

Why would you doubt my "assertion"?

Surely you must agree, that are all fellable, even you.

Do you have any military aviation experience?

I got caught at 500' over the approach end of George AFB in a glider
once in the '70s.* :-) I'm not proud of it, but we all make
mistakes. Some are more grievous than others. Unfortunately, my
choices were between landing among the Joshua Trees or on a runway.
Fortunately, the tower personnel were generous.

Would I lie to you?

Lacking any historic evidence that might support that notion, I am
comfortable giving you the benefit of the doubt initially extended to
all.

*
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...e=source&hl=en