flying a low level training route

Mistake Not...

Mistake Not...

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Jun 18, 2013
Messages
1,251
Display Name
Display name:
Mistake Not...
How is it done? I ask, because the data that describes them has the start altitude for a segment as MSL, but the end for the same segment AGL.

I'm guessing this to allow for temperature corrections to the MSL altitude? Or... something? Are baro altitudes even used for the low level routes, or something like a radar altimeter?
 
You know those are for the military, right?
 
Low level training route is kind of a generic description. You talking MTRs or something else?
 
Velocity173 said:
Low level training route is kind of a generic description. You talking MTRs or something else?
Click to expand...

The data is for MTRs. But I'm not familiar with the group's use of this term. Are MTRs a thing? Or a term for a class of route types?
 
Mistake Not... said:
The data is for MTRs. But I'm not familiar with the group's use of this term. Are MTRs a thing? Or a term for a class of route types?
Click to expand...

Yeah, they're a thing. Cooter, 35 or one of the other fighter guys can give more specifics but here's a basic breakdown:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_training_route

Not all military low level routes fall under MTRs though. That's why I asked. In the AF they have special "slow routes" for C-130s that use a speed less than 250 kts. These routes technically don't fall under the classification of MTRs. One goes right past my work / home. The Army also uses nap of the earth (NOE) routes that are not publicly posted. Some are in Restriced areas while others (Ft Rucker Alert Area) are completely in class G airspace. Altitudes on these (if indicated) will be above highest obstacle (AHO). Basically using your eyeballs backed up with a radar / radio altimeter.
 
Ah. Cool. Thanks.

We have a dataset describing MTRs and are trying to figure out what the data means so we can draw it in 3D. What's complicating it is the weirdness of the data. One of each segment's data is apparently AGL. So that triggers a debate about "Well, which terrain resolution should be used to get a ground height so we can compute AGL". I'm the only pilot in the group and all I know about training routes is "stay away / stay above". Some of these are 500ft AGL, so low level, I guess. I was just wondering what a military pilot would do with a way point that was expressed as "500 AGL". Either temperature correct a pressure altitude or use a radar altimiter (I guess).
 
Mistake Not... said:
Ah. Cool. Thanks.

We have a dataset describing MTRs and are trying to figure out what the data means so we can draw it in 3D. What's complicating it is the weirdness of the data. One of each segment's data is apparently AGL. So that triggers a debate about "Well, which terrain resolution should be used to get a ground height so we can compute AGL". I'm the only pilot in the group and all I know about training routes is "stay away / stay above". Some of these are 500ft AGL, so low level, I guess. I was just wondering what a military pilot would do with a way point that was expressed as "500 AGL". Either temperature correct a pressure altitude or use a radar altimiter (I guess).
Click to expand...
For VR routes, you use the segment AGL as your no lower than reference for that segment. We would set our Radar Altimeter to alert us when 10% less than that value. It isn't an absolute as other factors along that segment can drive a higher altitude.

I'm not sure what you're asking exactly, but the "floor" for that segment would be NLT 500 above the terrain with buffers for other features like towers, airports, towns, etc.

The top of the route will be an MSL altitude.

If you post a description of what you're looking at, I can probably tell you more.
 
Last edited:
The AIM has a decent description as well.

MILITARY TRAINING ROUTES
−
Airspace of
defined vertical and lateral dimensions established
for the conduct of military flight training at airspeeds
in excess of 250 knots IAS.
(See IFR MILITARY TRAINING ROUTES.)
(See VFR MILITARY TRAINING ROUTES.
 
Well, I can't get as detailed as I'd like, but if you were using something like Foreflight, and had the ability to look at the map / world in 3D, how would you want to see MTRs drawn? Not just as line you looked down on, but if you could get a 3D perspective, say, would it help your understanding or usage (like, mission planning)?
 
What an OPSEC trainwreck this thread is becoming. OP, I understand you're data mining for your commercial solution peddling to the DoD, but this is one where your need to know is just not there. We appreciate the interest, but we got it covered. We have the in-house products we need to conduct this training already. The boilerplate advice you've been given is the correct one: stay high and stay away from these corridors below 1500 AGL. Make crossings at 90 degree angles to minimize transit time, if you must tool around low through them.

The last thing we need is the proliferation of fancy 3D imaging of LL corridors so every Joe Foreflight can go nosing around the track and create a bigger hazard to everybody's safety of flight. Playing curious kitten with MTRs is not a good way of spending your time. To the mil gallery, just a friendly reminder: Though MTRs and LL procedures are matter of public record and indeed well established in the realm of UNCLASSIFIED, they are still FOUO. Behave accordingly to the best of your judgement.

 
Mistake Not... said:
Well, I can't get as detailed as I'd like, but if you were using something like Foreflight, and had the ability to look at the map / world in 3D, how would you want to see MTRs drawn? Not just as line you looked down on, but if you could get a 3D perspective, say, would it help your understanding or usage (like, mission planning)?
Click to expand...

Really similar to a VFR Airway as far as a 3D presentation.
 
hindsight2020 said:
What an OPSEC trainwreck this thread is becoming. OP, I understand you're data mining for your commercial solution peddling to the DoD, but this is one where your need to know is just not there. We appreciate the interest, but we got it covered. We have the in-house products we need to conduct this training already. The boilerplate advice you've been given is the correct one: stay high and stay away from these corridors below 1500 AGL. Make crossings at 90 degree angles to minimize transit time, if you must tool around low through them.

The last thing we need is the proliferation of fancy 3D imaging of LL corridors so every Joe Foreflight can go nosing around the track and create a bigger hazard to everybody's safety of flight. Playing curious kitten with MTRs is not a good way of spending your time. To the mil gallery, just a friendly reminder: Though MTRs and LL procedures are matter of public record and indeed well established in the realm of UNCLASSIFIED, they are still FOUO. Behave accordingly to the best of your judgement.

Click to expand...

Your username is apt.

I work for DoD.
 
hindsight2020 said:
What an OPSEC trainwreck this thread is becoming. OP, I understand you're data mining for your commercial solution peddling to the DoD, but this is one where your need to know is just not there. We appreciate the interest, but we got it covered. We have the in-house products we need to conduct this training already. The boilerplate advice you've been given is the correct one: stay high and stay away from these corridors below 1500 AGL. Make crossings at 90 degree angles to minimize transit time, if you must tool around low through them.

The last thing we need is the proliferation of fancy 3D imaging of LL corridors so every Joe Foreflight can go nosing around the track and create a bigger hazard to everybody's safety of flight. Playing curious kitten with MTRs is not a good way of spending your time. To the mil gallery, just a friendly reminder: Though MTRs and LL procedures are matter of public record and indeed well established in the realm of UNCLASSIFIED, they are still FOUO. Behave accordingly to the best of your judgement.

Click to expand...

Warning! objects in HUD are closer than they appear.
 
hindsight2020 said:
What an OPSEC trainwreck this thread is becoming. OP, I understand you're data mining for your commercial solution peddling to the DoD, but this is one where your need to know is just not there. We appreciate the interest, but we got it covered. We have the in-house products we need to conduct this training already. The boilerplate advice you've been given is the correct one: stay high and stay away from these corridors below 1500 AGL. Make crossings at 90 degree angles to minimize transit time, if you must tool around low through them.

The last thing we need is the proliferation of fancy 3D imaging of LL corridors so every Joe Foreflight can go nosing around the track and create a bigger hazard to everybody's safety of flight. Playing curious kitten with MTRs is not a good way of spending your time. To the mil gallery, just a friendly reminder: Though MTRs and LL procedures are matter of public record and indeed well established in the realm of UNCLASSIFIED, they are still FOUO. Behave accordingly to the best of your judgement.

Click to expand...
Your callsign isn't "Spool", is it?
 
Anyway. I appreciate the input from the many experienced military aviators, both on my dumb threads and in general. And anyone who's actually worked the civilian contracting side of this knows how stove piped and isolated we can be.

I once had a .gov go between that insisted that all questions be routed through his office, and only the ones he thought didn't make his org look bad were sent on to the green suiters. It's... frustrating.
 
Is the AP/1B FOUO? Serious question, I can't remember off the top of my head.
 
 
Mistake Not... said:
Anyway. I appreciate the input from the many experienced military aviators, both on my dumb threads and in general. And anyone who's actually worked the civilian contracting side of this knows how stove piped and isolated we can be.

I once had a .gov go between that insisted that all questions be routed through his office, and only the ones he thought didn't make his org look bad were sent on to the green suiters. It's... frustrating.
Click to expand...
To answer your question, you'll need more info than can be easily passed in a forum. If you work for the DoD then your leadership should pay for a visit to one of the Training Commands so that you can sit in on the ground school and some simulators. That would give you a good idea of what the pilots are using.
 
(Just for the record. I -do- know what FOUO means. :) I mean, I'd never seen an AP/1B. )
 
Cooter said:
To answer your question, you'll need more info than can be easily passed in a forum. If you work for the DoD then your leadership should pay for a visit to one of the Training Commands so that you can sit in on the ground school and some simulators. That would give you a good idea of what the pilots are using.
Click to expand...

What I really need is a use case or three that shows how a pilot would use the graphically displayed information for flight planning purposes. But the tail is wagging the dog... "Display this data." "Who's it for?" "You know... pilots." "What are they doing to do with it?" *crickets*

I'm guessing, but do not know, that if you're planning to fly an MTR, a 3D graphical rendering probably isn't of much use.
 
Mistake Not... said:
(Just for the record. I -do- know what FOUO means. :) I mean, I'd never seen an AP/1B. )
Click to expand...

Fighters Only Use the Overhead. :D

Sorry, that just came to me. For Offical Use Only.
 
I would happily show this thread to our FSO. I'm certain nothing I've posted crosses any lines.

The truth is, in many cases, a fancy rendering doesn't help with understanding. I think it actually can detract in some situations (complex airspace).
 
Velocity173 said:
Fighters Only Use the Overhead. :Dverything in the USAF inventory
Sorry, that just came to me. For Offical Use Only.
Click to expand...

Know you're kidding but I've had just about everything in the USAF inventory in the break besides fighters. C130s especially.
 
I will say that there is an extreme......I don't even know if extreme is aggressive enough of a term........overproliferation of either redundant (and)/or useless software for DoD aviation "mission planning" purposes. Like millions upon millions of wasted dollars in contracts every year for federated and non-federated apps that bundle with JMPS, that nobody has ever used, other than the software developers. The entire enterprise is a solution looking for a problem, IMHO. I promise that there are already multiple funded software programs that are way more than adequate for mission planning the < 2% of annual flights that actually go to an MTR. Most of the low levels in my community, are within the confines of MOAs, and the planning involved is literally, "the minimum altitude is 200', don't hit anything". Has worked surprisingly well for decades now. Anyway, I don't mean for that to be overly sarcastic, so I'll get off my soap box.
 
No, no... I'm right there with you. But as long as they keep paying us, we'll keep working. :)

I often wonder where all of the really cool tech comes from that you guys get to play with. From what I've seen, it must be aliens, 'cause nothing useful could possibly result from the civilian contracting I've been involved with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top