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 |
#321
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#322
|
|||
|
|||
Scared of mid-airs
"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. |
#323
|
|||
|
|||
Scared of mid-airs
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. |
#324
|
|||
|
|||
Scared of mid-airs
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. |
#325
|
|||
|
|||
Scared of mid-airs
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 |
#326
|
|||
|
|||
Scared of mid-airs
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 |
#327
|
|||
|
|||
Scared of mid-airs
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 |
#328
|
|||
|
|||
Scared of mid-airs
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 |
#329
|
|||
|
|||
Scared of mid-airs
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 |
#330
|
|||
|
|||
Scared of mid-airs
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 |
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 |