If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
PED Scared of mid-airs
Orval Fairbairn wrote:
The above posting is not correct. IFR planes have a unique box *only* against other IFR traffic -- VFR traffic is not mentioned. That is why you *have* to keep a lookout for traffic when you are under IFR. An IFR may report a "near miss" when a VFR does not consider it to be a threat. The "1000 above or below within 5 to 20 miles" applie only to Class A airspace, *not* to B, C, D, etc.; else traffic flow would trickle to a halt. That's the way I understand it. My closest encounter ever was while IFR in VMC. My instructor said, "I have the airplane", and we went into a steep dive. I pulled off the hood to see a Cessna pass over that we would have hit head on. We complained to ATC and they showed no interest. I did some reading and came to the conclusion that their primary job is to keep IFR traffic separated. If they have time, then yeah, they can and should route you around a storm cell or some VFR traffic but those tasks are not their primary mission. I'm sure any errors and omissions in the above will be taken care of by folks more knowledgeable than I am in this area. Tom |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
Scared of mid-airs
With a few possible exceptions, fighter aircraft radar is
two types, a search and a fire control radar. Both have a fairly small cone in which to detect a target. They depend on being vectored in the general direction of a threat in order to detect a target. Also, military aircraft have radar detectors that warn the pilot/crew that they are being painted by somebody's radar. But it isn't really a system designed for anti-collision use, but to keep from being shot down or to find a target to shoot. The F14 even has a telescope to allow visual confirmation of targets that are 100 miles away after the radar has found the target, rules of engagement require visual confirmation. -- James H. Macklin ATP,CFI,A&P "Ed Rasimus" wrote in message ... | On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 11:35:46 -0500, "Jim Macklin" | wrote: | | True, but often they have an AWACS or military ground radar. | | | No kidding? They also often have their own radar and have been trained | to look at it and interpret it with greater detail than following an | up/down arrow on a TCAS. They've also been trained to provide their | own separation and to operate in areas without the | all-seeing/all-knowing motherliness of Air Traffic Control. | | Nevertheless as Mr. Dighera incessantly points out, "stuff" | happens--but it ain't murder. | | Ed Rasimus | Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) | "When Thunder Rolled" | www.thunderchief.org | www.thundertales.blogspot.com |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
Scared of mid-airs
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 11:35:46 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
wrote in sm5zg.84645$ZW3.36876@dukeread04:: True, but often they have an AWACS or military ground radar. True. But how often can military ground radar paint low level targets? To me, if the military is going to train at high-speed in joint use airspace in the same sky as civil aircraft (most all of which are equipped with Mode C transponders), it would be prudent for those aircraft to be TCAS equipped. But, I suppose we'll have to wait for more military/civil midair collisions before anything is done about, if then. |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
Scared of mid-airs
Larry Dighera wrote: On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 11:35:46 -0500, "Jim Macklin" wrote in sm5zg.84645$ZW3.36876@dukeread04:: True, but often they have an AWACS or military ground radar. True. But how often can military ground radar paint low level targets? To me, if the military is going to train at high-speed in joint use airspace in the same sky as civil aircraft (most all of which are equipped with Mode C transponders), it would be prudent for those aircraft to be TCAS equipped. But, I suppose we'll have to wait for more military/civil midair collisions before anything is done about, if then. Larry, how about once getting your facts straight? All current production US fighters (and most operational ones - except A-10s, early F-16s, and early F-18s) have transponder interrogators perfectly capable of detecting Mode 3/C transponders, using any squawk. Most also have PD radars that can easily detect conflicting traffic over a 120 degree cone in front - at low altitude. And AWACS can see both. So what is your problem, other than a pathological hatred of the military? You seem to think military aviators are oblivious to the threat of mid-airs. Newsflash, dude - they are much better trained, more professional, and safer than any civilian bug-smasher driver - and I've been on both sides. 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. How about getting civilian pilots to stay current, not fly in IMC without a clearance or training, and maintain their aircraft to minimum levels of safety - then you would possibly see a decrease in GA accidents and fatalities. Kirk 2000 hrs in F-4s 100 hours in AWACS 600 hours in ASEL 2000 hours in gliders |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
Scared of mid-airs
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 17:01:33 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote in :: On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 11:35:46 -0500, "Jim Macklin" wrote: True, but often they have an AWACS or military ground radar. No kidding? They also often have their own radar and have been trained to look at it and interpret it with greater detail than following an up/down arrow on a TCAS. Unfortunately, military pilots often have their on-board radar set to reject slow moving targets like light GA aircraft, so it isn't being used for collision avoidance with civil aircraft. That should change. They've also been trained to provide their own separation and to operate in areas without the all-seeing/all-knowing motherliness of Air Traffic Control. Some have;some haven't: Civil aircraft to the right of military aircraft: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...26X00109&key=1 F-16s lacked required ATC clearance: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...12X22313&key=1 A6 pilot expected to exit MTR eight minutes after route closu http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...11X12242&key=1 A6 hit glider that had right of way: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...13X33340&key=1 Nevertheless as Mr. Dighera incessantly points out, "stuff" happens-- If I infer your intent correctly, the 'stuff' to which you euphemistically refer are the deaths of civil pilots due to being impaled in midair collisions by high-speed, low-level military aircraft often on MTR runs. but it ain't murder. Some are, and some aren't. But the military's miserable record in reprimanding its airmen who wrongfully kill innocent pilots, and shortsighted safety initiatives are pathetic. You've got to agree, that rocketing through congested terminal airspace at 500 knots without the required ATC clearance, lopping 9' of wingtip from a glider with an A6, and failing to see and avoid a crop duster are manslaughter, which is called Third Degree Murder in Florida. |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
Scared of mid-airs
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 13:11:22 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
wrote: With a few possible exceptions, fighter aircraft radar is two types, a search and a fire control radar. Actually that's only one weapon system radar. The radar searches, if necessary a target is designated and data is fed to weapons, and if necessary the radar is focussed on a sub-set of the entire scan envelope to track the target. Some systems allow for multiple track, some for continuous scanning while simultaneously tracking, some hand-off to autonomous weapons which don't need updates from the launch platform. Both have a fairly small cone in which to detect a target. Well, if you call 45-60 degrees left and right of center and multiple bar width scan a small cone, I guess you're right. But if we are discussing clearing your own flight path, the scan is very adequate. They depend on being vectored in the general direction of a threat in order to detect a target. Quite simply NO! While GCI vectoring is fine (or AWACS), older systems worked quite nicely with dedicated search sectors for flight members (fighters don't fly alone,) and new systems have data fusion systems that integrate data from multiple sources in the aircraft display. Also, military aircraft have radar detectors that warn the pilot/crew that they are being painted by somebody's radar. RHAW or RWR is not relevant to the discussion of flight path clearance here. It also is dependent upon antennae and programming to detect the appropriate frequency and pulse rates of threat radars for presentation. But it isn't really a system designed for anti-collision use, but to keep from being shot down or to find a target to shoot. Or for navigation or for mutual support or for flight path clearance or for weather avoidance, etc. etc. The F14 even has a telescope to allow visual confirmation of targets that are 100 miles away after the radar has found the target, rules of engagement require visual confirmation. Some F-4E aircraft had TISEO and some F-15s had a system called Eagle Eye (might have had other nomenclature or been updated later) but these weren't reaching out to 100 miles. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" www.thunderchief.org www.thundertales.blogspot.com |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
Scared of mid-airs
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 19:14:53 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote: On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 17:01:33 GMT, Ed Rasimus wrote in :: On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 11:35:46 -0500, "Jim Macklin" wrote: True, but often they have an AWACS or military ground radar. No kidding? They also often have their own radar and have been trained to look at it and interpret it with greater detail than following an up/down arrow on a TCAS. Unfortunately, military pilots often have their on-board radar set to reject slow moving targets like light GA aircraft, so it isn't being used for collision avoidance with civil aircraft. That should change. And what military aircraft radars are using MTI with thresholds above GA aircraft speeds? Stick with what you know, Larry. Avoid discussions of specific military equipment, training, tactics, procedures, are even attitudes. They've also been trained to provide their own separation and to operate in areas without the all-seeing/all-knowing motherliness of Air Traffic Control. Some have;some haven't: How much training experience in the military aviation business do you have? Stick with what you know--apparently Google searches are your forte: Civil aircraft to the right of military aircraft: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...26X00109&key=1 F-16s lacked required ATC clearance: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...12X22313&key=1 A6 pilot expected to exit MTR eight minutes after route closu http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...11X12242&key=1 A6 hit glider that had right of way: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...13X33340&key=1 Nevertheless as Mr. Dighera incessantly points out, "stuff" happens-- If I infer your intent correctly, the 'stuff' to which you euphemistically refer are the deaths of civil pilots due to being impaled in midair collisions by high-speed, low-level military aircraft often on MTR runs. Or, conversely the numbers of deaths of military pilots due to mid-airs with GA pilots operating cluelessly in restricted, warning, prohibited airspace, MOAs and oil burner routes. It's a two-edged sword, Larry. but it ain't murder. Some are, and some aren't. Mid-airs aren't murder. Accidents happen. Most accident boards find causative factors. But it isn't murder. But the military's miserable record in reprimanding its airmen who wrongfully kill innocent pilots, and shortsighted safety initiatives are pathetic. You are the pathetic one with innuendo, hyperbole, exaggeration and disgusting rhetoric. No one goes out to have a mid-air. You've got to agree, that rocketing through congested terminal airspace at 500 knots without the required ATC clearance, lopping 9' of wingtip from a glider with an A6, and failing to see and avoid a crop duster are manslaughter, which is called Third Degree Murder in Florida. Until you can show me some experience in flying a military tactical aircraft in a leadership position of a flight of four in congested airspace with weather factors involved, I'll simply discount your commentary as someone with a fixation. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" www.thunderchief.org www.thundertales.blogspot.com |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
Scared of mid-airs
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 17:25:32 -0400, "Morgans"
wrote in :: He is sometimes a little..... Humm, I don't know which word to use, here. g How about 'honest'? |
#130
|
|||
|
|||
Scared of mid-airs
wrote Larry, how about once getting your facts straight? So what is your problem, other than a pathological hatred of the military? You seem to think military aviators are oblivious to the threat of mid-airs. Newsflash, dude - they are much better trained, more professional, and safer than any civilian bug-smasher driver - and I've been on both sides. You'll have to excuse Larry. He is sometimes a little..... Humm, I don't know which word to use, here. g Thanks for the info, though! -- Jim in NC |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
UBL wants a truce - he's scared of the CIA UAV | John Doe | Aviation Marketplace | 1 | January 19th 06 08:58 PM |
The kids are scared, was Saddam evacuated | D. Strang | Military Aviation | 0 | April 7th 04 10:36 PM |
Scared and trigger-happy | John Galt | Military Aviation | 5 | January 31st 04 12:11 AM |