On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 07:53:57 -0500, "John T"
wrote in
:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


Oh please. That kind of attitude isn't constructive.

No less so than evading a direct answer to a simple question,

Please tell me how "an alternative to MTRs" is more constructive than
suggesting specific changes to military regulations that may result in
more diligence in military flyers concerns for deconfliction.

but that's what we've come to expect from you, so it's good to see you're consistent.

You make that sound like you speak for more than yourself alone. Who
else do you count as being among the "we" you mention?

At least I
proposed an idea that may serve to reduce the hazard caused by low
level Military Training Routs.

This is precisely why I asked my follow-up question. Your proposal
demostrates a lack of understanding of the purpose and use of MTRs.

Are you able to articulate that alleged "lack of understanding"?

What constructive information have you provided?

I'm trying to lead a horse to water. You have no trouble digging up the most
inane anti-government/anti-military minutiae, but you won't bother to
research a key piece of NAS architecture.

If you characterize these representative military-civil MACs as inane
minutiae, it is you who needs to consider a more humane attitude
toward civil flyers.


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


As you can see, it is the civil pilot who usually loses his life at
the hands of military pilots operating on low-level MTRs. My proposal
is designed to provide additional impetus to those military pilots to
exercise caution in their deconfliction and decision making.

I would think military pilots would be supportive of measures designed
to enhance air safety. If there are design flaws in the system, is it
wrong to attempt to address them?

As I said, at least you're consistent.

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

Why is that significant?

This is key to understanding why your "proposal" is counter-productive. Come
back when you've done your homework.

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.
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].

Okay, now lets hear your reasoning as to why you believe my proposal
is counter productive, please.

I'm expecting to see some sincere, constructive, thoughtful, reasoning
from you. If you choose to continue to bait me with innuendo and
insincere arguments, you will have publicly demonstrated your true
reasons for participating in this message thread.