New proposed MOA new Ely NV

[Ron Gleason]

I am new to the sailplane community in the Salt Lake City area. I hope
fly more sites around NV and the west.

Hill Air Force in South Ogden UT has applied for a new MOA, White Elk
MOA, that would run north of Ely NV to south of Wells NV covering the
area over highway 93 in White Pine County. This new MOA is west of the
existing Wendover MOA and would add 2400 square miles.

I am not familar with the Ely NV soaring site but I have to believe
this is MOA will be problamatic. I hope the soaring community at the
Ely site is working to ensure that the soaring folks are represented
during the public comment period.

A quote from the 8/13 article in the Standard Examiner:

The Air Force is still planing for the expansion but has already
changed the proposed altitude range from 7,500-12,500 feet to
14,000-18,000 feet.

the compromise, Air Force officals say, would still allow pilots to
train while limiting the impact on Ely, NV.

The process for establishing the MOA will take 6 to 24 months to
complete.

[Ron Gleason]

Ttitle of the post should have read 'New proposed MOA near Ely NV

[Ron Gleason]

Found this article in the Ely Times

http://www.elynews.com/articles/2006/07/21/news/news02.txt

[raulb]

Much of the airspace that we utilize in the western US is a MOA. For
the MOST part, it is not a problem. You just have to be aware that
there is always the chance you could come around in that thermal and
see an F-16 headed at you at mach 1.

It just depends upon what they want to do with that airspace grab. If
they want to restrict is, then you might have a problem. Yet even
then, occasionally we can overfly Edwards AFB (provided we ask first).


Ron Gleason wrote:
>
> Hill Air Force in South Ogden UT has applied for a new MOA, White Elk
> MOA, that would run north of Ely NV to south of Wells NV covering the
> area over highway 93 in White Pine County. This new MOA is west of the
> existing Wendover MOA and would add 2400 square miles.
>
> I am not familar with the Ely NV soaring site but I have to believe
> this is MOA will be problamatic.

[Ray Lovinggood]

Why do we refer to airspace in the units of square
measure?

I'm not that great of a pilot and I need some vertical
room to move around in. I can't hold an altitude worth
a flip when I'm in a glider. And the few times that
I'm behind the yoke of a Cessna, I can't do much better.

I tend to think of airspace using units of volume.

So, I see the Air Force wanting 'x' cubic miles of
airspace rather than square miles.

So, when the Federales over in these parts start talking
about expanding the Class C airspace around RDU into
a Class B airspace, I respond to them and refer to
the amount of air VOLUME they are taking away from
us.

Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina, USA



At 15:42 14 August 2006, Ron Gleason wrote:
>I am new to the sailplane community in the Salt Lake
>City area. I hope
>fly more sites around NV and the west.
>
>Hill Air Force in South Ogden UT has applied for a
>new MOA, White Elk
>MOA, that would run north of Ely NV to south of Wells
>NV covering the
>area over highway 93 in White Pine County. This new
>MOA is west of the
>existing Wendover MOA and would add 2400 square miles.
>
>I am not familar with the Ely NV soaring site but I
>have to believe
>this is MOA will be problamatic. I hope the soaring
>community at the
>Ely site is working to ensure that the soaring folks
>are represented
>during the public comment period.
>
>A quote from the 8/13 article in the Standard Examiner:
>
>The Air Force is still planing for the expansion but
>has already
>changed the proposed altitude range from 7,500-12,500
>feet to
>14,000-18,000 feet.
>
>the compromise, Air Force officals say, would still
>allow pilots to
>train while limiting the impact on Ely, NV.
>
>The process for establishing the MOA will take 6 to
>24 months to
>complete.
>
>

[Kilo Charlie]

"raulb" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Much of the airspace that we utilize in the western US is a MOA. For
> the MOST part, it is not a problem. You just have to be aware that
> there is always the chance you could come around in that thermal and
> see an F-16 headed at you at mach 1.
>
> It just depends upon what they want to do with that airspace grab. If
> they want to restrict is, then you might have a problem. Yet even
> then, occasionally we can overfly Edwards AFB (provided we ask first).

You may think its not a problem but we had a wakeup call in AZ this spring
when after numerous discussions between Luke AFB and our local glider club
in preparation for a regional contest here there appeared an article in our
local paper touting how the glider contest was shutting down Luke and the
costs incurred and that the only solution acceptable to them was to shut us
out of all MOAs during the week. Nevermind that we had been holding
contests here for years and that in the past Luke had no issue with it,
simply putting a hard deck on their operations at the level the lift was
predicted to go each day. That is the way I've seen it done at numerous
other sites around the country.

I've flown Ely for 2 years now and spent the majority of each flight between
14 and 18K so it would be unacceptable for them to operate below 18K. Rest
assured that if there is not a stink made re this they will get everything
they are asking for and then some. Luke is currently pushing for more
restrictions in AZ MOAs.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

[BTIZ]

this should be forwarded to SSA and to AOPA
I'll forward to the new Region 11 Rep.

B

"Ron Gleason" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>I am new to the sailplane community in the Salt Lake City area. I hope
> fly more sites around NV and the west.
>
> Hill Air Force in South Ogden UT has applied for a new MOA, White Elk
> MOA, that would run north of Ely NV to south of Wells NV covering the
> area over highway 93 in White Pine County. This new MOA is west of the
> existing Wendover MOA and would add 2400 square miles.
>
> I am not familar with the Ely NV soaring site but I have to believe
> this is MOA will be problamatic. I hope the soaring community at the
> Ely site is working to ensure that the soaring folks are represented
> during the public comment period.
>
> A quote from the 8/13 article in the Standard Examiner:
>
> The Air Force is still planing for the expansion but has already
> changed the proposed altitude range from 7,500-12,500 feet to
> 14,000-18,000 feet.
>
> the compromise, Air Force officals say, would still allow pilots to
> train while limiting the impact on Ely, NV.
>
> The process for establishing the MOA will take 6 to 24 months to
> complete.
>

[Gerhard Wesp[_4_]]

raulb > wrote:
> there is always the chance you could come around in that thermal and
> see an F-16 headed at you at mach 1.

That's not a problem. The problem is when you *don't* see that F-16
headed at you. In most cases he won't see you either. In most cases,
the F-16 has a better chance than the glider to make a normal landing
after those types of collisions.

Regards
-Gerhard
--
Gerhard Wesp / Holderenweg 2 / CH-8134 Adliswil
+41 (0)76 505 1149 (mobile) / +41 (0)44 668 1878 (office)
+41 (0)44 668 1818 (fax)
http://gwesp.tx0.org/