Pilot input request for research project

All,
I am beginning work on a research project enroute to a Masters Degree from Air University (i.e. the US Air Force). It is very much aviation related, so I thought I would solicit input from the RV community here (since its easy and I read the boards all the time). Here is my draft research question:

"What is the best way to deconflict military aircraft performing low-level training, both from each other and from civilian aircraft?"

My research is going to focus on two areas:
1. What would a centralized low-level scheduling system look like and how can it integrate with other users of the National Airspace System?
2. If a sufficiently advanced system were used, would we still need Military Training Routes?

For the first question, I want to explore ways we can integrate general aviation SA-building systems with the military scheduling system. For example, the moving-map displays that many of us have are beginning to use datalinks to include weather, TFRs, and traffic. Could the same datalinks be used to overlay information about scheduled low-altitude military training? (i.e. indicate to pilots when to look out for high-speed military airplanes in their area)

Even if you couldn't get real-time updates from datalinks, would general aviation (i.e. you guys) use a web-based system to check for scheduled traffic in your flying area? What would it take to integrate with other commonly used tools like Weathermeister? (Dan, are you reading?)

For the second question, I want to make the argument that MTRs are no longer needed if you have a computer-based system. Presumably, the reason MTRs were established many years ago were to facilitate scheduling and deconfliction by limiting high-speed, low-altitude flight to certain corridors. If the computer can deconflict flights automatically, as well as inform the general flying public as to where the flights will take place, there is no reason to limit flights to those corridors anymore. Instead, a database can be built with no-fly areas and other restrictions, and military guys can build their routes around them. The result would be increased training effectiveness, enhanced safety, and minimized noise complaints by avoiding overflights of the same areas all the time.

If anyone has any thoughts, inputs, or especially good research sources, I would greatly appreciate your help!

Common data link network?

JordanGrant said:

All,
"What is the best way to deconflict military aircraft performing low-level training, both from each other and from civilian aircraft?"

My research is going to focus on two areas:
1. What would a centralized low-level scheduling system look like and how can it integrate with other users of the National Airspace System?
2. If a sufficiently advanced system were used, would we still need Military Training Routes?

Click to expand...

Jordan,

I will have to give this some more thought, but at first blush your second question will be a difficult one to implement. On this site you see guys outfitting their planes with some fancy avionics but the majority of folks flying out there don't have any of this stuff. The area jets would fly low level are out in rural areas and there are lots of guys flying out there that never look at a notam, computer or file a flight plan and they like it that way. During the Salt Lake Olympics we had a guy fly right through the TFR, once forced to land they discovered he had been flying in the Utah, Wyoming, Montana area for years with no medical and I am not sure his plane was even registered.

I see you are in Osan and in 1986 when I was there we did have low level zones, we just scheduled a zone(s) and made up our own routes. It may still be that way. I think it was workable because the density of GA aircraft is low. I also flew with the aero club there and never had any issues with near misses with fast moving jets. In Germany we had low fly areas, but these areas really were not big enough for LL routes, we did routinely fly VFR in the country, and there were a few collisions between fighter and GA planes and parachute jumpers. I believe the low fly areas are all gone in Germany now. In fact I think they deploy to newfinland for low level training.

I really don't see how you can integrate the two users (Mil and GA) without a communication system or network that all users can look at. This would be a big expense for the GA user. However if money were not issue I can see a data link network that could provide an air picture around an aircraft which would alert users to activities in the area. You could just add symbology to any of the GPS map displays.

BTW, I am retired reserve but was with the 701st COS, not sure if we ever met at UFL, how is the ROK and the ville?

Hello Jordan,

I would propose a computer based site to be used for charting low level activity. I do agree that there are some private pilots that never look at anything.....but they are becoming a small minority and no system would include them...even charts with MOA's.
For several years as I was getting my private...and early flying we had a low level B52 route right off the end of the grass strip runway....the B52's were at about 800' and fast! This caused several problems and near misses...until the training radar facility started to give us a schedule. This fixed the problem...and lowered the pucker factor as we were climbing out in the high work load enviroment of making sure everything was going to run and getting the aircraft cleaned up.

If a person checked the web site with an N number they could then fly through the Military airspace if it was not hot...improving routing and safety.

Dave62

Conflict... of interests?

Jordan,

The biggest issue for you to overcome, IMHO, is the inherent conflict of interest between the need for realistic training, and the need to work and play nicely with others.

In a combat situation your mission is to get fire and steel on the target, not to avoid air traffic conflicts. Here's how I see it:

During combat flight operations: a) if you're a fast mover -- anything else flying is a target, b) if you're not a fast mover anything else flying is your CAP or a bad guy. My point is, you're NOT worried about maintaining safe separation from civvie aircraft.

That's how the current system -- theoretically at least -- is set up. Training crews can concentrate on the mission (during the time they're on the route) without worrying about safe separation.

Whatever system you propose MUST remove the crew from safe separtion duties such that they can concentrate solely on training to make it as realistic as possible.

Regards,

Mark Sletten

I would use a NOTAM system

As someone who flies in Nevada, which is FULL of MOAs, a good partial solution for me would be to have REALISTIC training times. Many of the MOAs and training routes here in NV are used very infrequently (at least in my experience). I have even been on the radio many times and been unable to raise the control facility during the "scheduled" hours.

Basically, if I knew the approximate times (I realize that it is best that military training runs not to get tied down too closely) when areas were active, I could avoid those areas. A simple NOTAM-like system would certainly work for me. As a member of AOPA, I get automatic NOTAMs by email whenever they are issued for my area (I get about one a week for the drone flights at Beale AFB, for example).

greg

RVG8tor said:

there are lots of guys flying out there that never look at a notam, computer or file a flight plan and they like it that way.

Click to expand...

Of course, that's true - but its also true that those guys don't look at the things that are available today (i.e. MTRs on charts). So having more information available is only a positive - even if some choose not to use it.

I see you are in Osan and in 1986 when I was there we did have low level zones, we just scheduled a zone(s) and made up our own routes. It may still be that way.

Click to expand...

I've not actually flown in Korea, Germany or Great Britain, but I know the systems are different than the US. One data point will be these other systems - especially the one in Britain. They do a similar thing there with zones and plotting their own routes.

BTW, I am retired reserve but was with the 701st COS, not sure if we ever met at UFL, how is the ROK and the ville?

Click to expand...

The ROK is probably the same as you remember it. I avoid Songtan as much as possible, so I'm not the guy to ask about the ville. I did UFL last year, working in Combat Plans and Strategy. I don't know if we crossed paths or not.

Thanks for your input!

Reply to Dave62

Dave62 said:

Hello Jordan,

I would propose a computer based site to be used for charting low level activity...If a person checked the web site with an N number they could then fly through the Military airspace if it was not hot...improving routing and safety.

Click to expand...

At a minimum, the web based solution is possible - with or without MTRs. I don't think any system would change the military airspace out there, though. To check for hot MOAs or restricted areas, you're still going to need to talk to a controller. I'm focusing on low-altitude, VFR training that we already do without positive deconfliction.

Thanks for your feedback!

Reply to MSletten

Msletten said:

Jordan,
My point is, you're NOT worried about maintaining safe separation from civvie aircraft.
That's how the current system -- theoretically at least -- is set up. Training crews can concentrate on the mission (during the time they're on the route) without worrying about safe separation.
Whatever system you propose MUST remove the crew from safe separtion duties such that they can concentrate solely on training to make it as realistic as possible.

Click to expand...

Mark, I would respectfully disagree with this point. On a military low-level sortie, we are VERY concerned about looking out for traffic and safe separation, precisely because we are VFR - just like everyone else. Even in scheduled MOAs under Air Force controllers, we are still responsible for see-and-avoid. We have the advantage (in fast-movers) of a fire control radar that is designed to find and track air targets. It is harder to find small, slow targets, but we always have the radar out searching for them for safety reasons. This is also realistic training. In wartime, that radar is searching for threats and also for friendly traffic - there are other fighters out there. No system will remove military crews from safe separation duties.

The advantage to my proposed system, though, is that general aviators can now look BACK - they know that there are threats out there scheduled for a certain time, so they can look out and possibly plan routes around them.

Thank you for your thoughts!

BTW - I have a friend named Mark Sletten that is an F-16 driver here at Osan. He claims that he did not post that message, but I wonder....

Reply to Greg

Greg Arehart said:

a good partial solution for me would be to have REALISTIC training times.

Basically, if I knew the approximate times (I realize that it is best that military training runs not to get tied down too closely) when areas were active, I could avoid those areas. A simple NOTAM-like system would certainly work for me.

Click to expand...

This is exactly the line I want to go down. With or without MTRs, this part of the system is certainly doable. It should be fairly easiy to set up the web site to send automatic e-mails to people based on a requested area (or requested MTRs). Then you'll know when those routes are being used. If it was a roll-your-own-route system, then you could be automatically e-mailed when a flight was planned to be in your area. I want to be able to plot the traffic (for a given time) on the same map with airspace, TFRs, etc. Ideally, in the cockpit (same kind of data stream as TFRs?)

Cheers,

notam

Flying in the northeast conditions one to look for traffic, amazing how much we don't see. Unfortunately, any system will not be perfect, but if the system can provide an increased measure of safety then it would be an improvement. Here is how I see it:

- There will be a large number of underequipped aircraft, for budgetary and political reasons this will probably not change quickly.
- any system that you employ will need an active aircraft avoidance system on board the military aircraft to keep the fools from killing you
- I would like the system to be similar to the TFR system used now that gets spread around the internet and is finding its way into equipped cockpits. The MFR should have times that are realistic and reasonable. The MFR information needs to integrated into the IFR flight planning system.
- Some areas will need to be restricted during training times due to terrain preventing adequate radar coverage and information to the military pilot and ATC. Training time restrictions should be as short as possible and realistic.
- There should be some safe fly zones where there won't be any fast movers, located so as to provide reasonable pilots with older avionics a way to negotiate through or between military areas without as much concern for conflicts. Maybe if a range of altitudes can be left safe, such as 2500 - 5000 agl. Obviously, an airport should have a fairly wide corridor around it.

IMHO the system will necessarily be a transition to what our kids will be flying in 30 years from now. The system should take advantage of the technology that is available today, including the datalinks. Personally, I'd like to see the system send out information that could be interpreted by the current avionics like a moving weather system. Most prudent pilots give weather a wide berth and I would treat a fast moving red dot the same way if displayed on a screen.

Jordan,

Two issues that I can think of.

1. No-electric aircraft such as cubs, champs, etc. can't be fitted with "systems" to help them detect other aircraft. And, I'm not sure the owners of such craft would want the electrics. I know I wouldn't have wanted when I had my T-Craft. The worst part is these are the aircraft that can least afford to go around MOA's and such because of their limited performance.

2. A web based solution is still a big question mark. There are guys out there who do not have computers and/or check the web. Yep, it's true. Also, some of the guys who check web sites will do so on Friday night and get up early on Saturday morning and go flying w/o checking again. Thus advance planning is key.

MOA is shared airspace, not military airspace

JordanGrant said:

Mark, I would respectfully disagree with this point. On a military low-level sortie, we are VERY concerned about looking out for traffic and safe separation, precisely because we are VFR - just like everyone else. Even in scheduled MOAs under Air Force controllers, we are still responsible for see-and-avoid. We have the advantage (in fast-movers) of a fire control radar that is designed to find and track air targets. It is harder to find small, slow targets, but we always have the radar out searching for them for safety reasons. This is also realistic training. In wartime, that radar is searching for threats and also for friendly traffic - there are other fighters out there. No system will remove military crews from safe separation duties.
..............................

Click to expand...

That's the way I understand the system as well, though many controllers try to discourage flight through MOAs so they don't have to deal with it. Also, based on a article I read in AOPA, I think some military pilots don't understand this or don't want to deal with it either.

When I'm IFR I don't get to choose, but when VFR I virtually never fly around MOAs. I do fly straight and level, and am always on flight following. So, the controllers know where I am at, and my virtually stationary 160kt airplane should be easy to avoid.

One exception recently was on a flight over the Hunter MOA (central CA). There was a solid cloud deck underneath me. The controller kept whining: MOA is hot, MOA is hot................. Finally the combination of the weather and the controller got the best of me and I went around.

JordanGrant said:

Mark, I would respectfully disagree with this point. On a military low-level sortie, we are VERY concerned about looking out for traffic and safe separation, precisely because we are VFR - just like everyone else.

Click to expand...

Actually, we aren't in disagreement. Perhaps I worded my suggestion poorly. I believe training the way it's done today SUFFERS because so much attention is diverted to see and avoid. I simply made the point that your suggested system should eliminate that to the maximum extent possible to provide for the most realistic training possible -- the way it happens in combat.

I meant to say that's the way the current system is SUPPOSED to work, but fails miserably. Worrying about civvie traffic while combat training detracts from the objective, and it shouldn't be that way. I guess you could say it adds to the stress to more realistically simulate combat, but I don't think the civvies involved would like knowing they are serving that purpose.

JordanGrant said:

BTW - I have a friend named Mark Sletten that is an F-16 driver here at Osan. He claims that he did not post that message, but I wonder....

Click to expand...

No, I'm not an F-16 driver... but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Groan...

Seriously, I'm not THAT Mark Sletten... as far as you know...

Regards,

Mark

P.S. I was a KC-135 boomer for 20 years, retarred in 2001.

Going through MOAs

Steve Brown said:

When I'm IFR I don't get to choose, but when VFR I virtually never fly around MOAs. I do fly straight and level, and am always on flight following. So, the controllers know where I am at, and my virtually stationary 160kt airplane should be easy to avoid.

Click to expand...

That's a perfectly valid technique - in fact, that's what I do myself when I'm flying my RV. The only thing is, make sure that you at least check in with a controller and find out the MOA status. The controller will tell you if the MOA is hot. If it is hot, I strongly suggest that you go around, over, or under. The fighters inside that MOA will probably have to knock off whatever they are doing once you penetrate the airspace. Then they'll have to hold while they wait for you to get through - or just cancel their mission and head home. Both of these options are not good uses of the taxpayer's JP-8 and don't do great things for the military/civilian relationship in sharing airspace.

The system that I'm researching and proposing is going to deal with low-level training routes, though, not special-use airspace like MOAs. I'm curious - how cognizant are you of crossing VFR or IFR training routes when you're flying? Personally, I pay it no attention at all when I'm in my RV-6. If I had a way to check for scheduled traffic, though, I might look that up before flying.

Thanks for taking the time to post,

<<You could just add symbology to any of the GPS map displays.>>

Mike hits the nail here for sure. Even the J-3 guys are tending toward 396-496 class portable GPS units on internal battery power. Perhaps your study proposal could suggest something as simple as a red line across the display depicting the real-time use of an low level training route? From a technical standpoint, that might not be hard to add to the current data stream format.....and reach a high number of real time airspace users without an additional avionics purchase.

Dan, how does that information get to the GPS unit?

XM

Many Gps units have real time XM weather updates now. TFRs are real time red circles on my 396. It would be easy to add Hot MOAs and hot Low altitude traing areas and have it real time updated on the gps dispay. As time goes on more and more of will have this in the airplane for a lot of reasons.