The Latest Military Airspace Grab: 700 Square Miles!

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 22:50:46 GMT, "Blueskies"
wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message ...

Poor Steve, he doesn't want to be inconvenienced and he'd rather have
those guys and gals who strap their butts into the big iron go to war
to protect him without being properly trained. Maybe they need a
community relations program at Cannon in which guys like Steve get
taken for a ride so they could get a clue. About 30 minutes of
air-to-air should do the job.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

Airspace is airspace. There are no comments about anyone not wanting our pilots to be properly trained. There should be
a big chunk set aside, say, out over the pacific or something, for all the air to air training. They would be able to
turn and burn and go mach whatever without worrying too much (oh, they do that already?). If the folks need to do the
air to ground work, there is already plenty of space out in Nevada and Calif set aside for that. Why all the airspace
grabs these days?

Lemme see, I'm in a fighter unit in Clovis NM. I don't get air
refueling support but twice a year. And, you want me to go out over
the pacific for training? Have you got a map handy? How long do you
think tactical jets fly?

As for A/G, same thing. Fighter stationed at Moody needs to go to NV
or CA for dropping some 25 pound blue bombs?

There aren't a lot of "airspace grabs". There are a lot fewer airbases
and units these days. There is a lot more "joint use" of airspace".

Now, listen to the jets if you can, and then ask the question, "do you
think they're ours?"


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

"Blueskies" wrote in message
...

Airspace is airspace. There are no comments about anyone not wanting our
pilots to be properly trained. There should be a big chunk set aside, say,
out over the pacific or something, for all the air to air training. They
would be able to turn and burn and go mach whatever without worrying too
much (oh, they do that already?). If the folks need to do the air to
ground work, there is already plenty of space out in Nevada and Calif set
aside for that.

Wouldn't that be rather crowded? A bit of a haul for units not located on
the west coast as well. What do you do with all the commercial traffic
heading overseas?

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...

Restricted and prohibited. Prohibited is open never and restricted
requires you to get approval prior to filing through.


Approval is required only when it's hot.



Don't go blundering through R-18xx or whatever simply because it isn't
NOTAM'd as active.


Why not?

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 23:40:45 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
.. .

Restricted and prohibited. Prohibited is open never and restricted
requires you to get approval prior to filing through.


Approval is required only when it's hot.

If you check the FLIP (or civil equivalent) you'll find that some
restricted airspace is "always active" while others are activated when
needed. Usually you can file IFR for the route around and then request
transit enroute. Bottom line is that restricted airspace can vary
considerably.



Don't go blundering through R-18xx or whatever simply because it isn't
NOTAM'd as active.


Why not?


Because those nasty folks at the FAA will take your license away if
you survive the experience. Typically the pubs will tell you the hours
of operation for a chunk of airspace. And, don't think that simply
because ATC gave you a clearance along a route that goes through an
R-xxxx that it is "cold".

I remember (long ago in a galaxy far, far away) getting an IFR cleance
at FL 180 along a route from LAS to FAT. Problem was that the route
had an MEA of FL 240 and was published in those days with the note on
the map of "breaks in radio and radar coverage along this segment".
Blundering along badly iced up, I was astonishe to break into a open
hole in the clouds and find some very significant Sierra Nevada
mountains poking their granite heads up to my altitude. ATC didn't
really catch that one.

I've been in a lot of R-xxxx space and encountered Farmer Jones
cruising along VFR, fat, dumb, happy and endangered.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...

If you check the FLIP (or civil equivalent) you'll find that some
restricted airspace is "always active" while others are activated when
needed. Usually you can file IFR for the route around and then request
transit enroute. Bottom line is that restricted airspace can vary
considerably.


Quite true, nevertheless approval is required only when it's hot.



Because those nasty folks at the FAA will take your license away if
you survive the experience.


Survive? What are the hazards of flying in a cold restricted area? The FAA
isn't going to take away anybody's license for doing so.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

Wouldn't that be rather crowded? A bit of a haul for units not
located on
the west coast as well. What do you do with all the commercial
traffic
heading overseas?

For starters, I'd recommend IR flares and chaff dispensers :-)

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

Blueskies wrote:

There should be
a big chunk set aside, say, out over the pacific or something,

So they get all their training over the Pacific and wind up learning on the job
when they fly missions over the mountains of Afghanistan? Not a good idea.

George Patterson
He who would distinguish what is true from what is false must have an
adequate understanding of truth and falsehood.

"Blueskies" wrote in message
...

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...

Poor Steve, he doesn't want to be inconvenienced and he'd rather have
those guys and gals who strap their butts into the big iron go to war
to protect him without being properly trained. Maybe they need a
community relations program at Cannon in which guys like Steve get
taken for a ride so they could get a clue. About 30 minutes of
air-to-air should do the job.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

Airspace is airspace. There are no comments about anyone not wanting our
pilots to be properly trained. There should be a big chunk set aside, say,
out over the pacific or something, for all the air to air training. They
would be able to turn and burn and go mach whatever without worrying too
much (oh, they do that already?). If the folks need to do the air to
ground work, there is already plenty of space out in Nevada and Calif set
aside for that. Why all the airspace grabs these days?

You need to take a gander at where the air assets are based these days. And
not just the active duty folks, either. Gonna get kind of expensive to have
the ANG F-16's out of Upper Kumquat in Indiana or Illinois being trolled
along by a continuous stream of KC-135's out to your mythical Massive
Pacific MOA during their weekend drill, huh?

Brooks

Keep in mind that the newest weapons systems need a lot of airspace so
their capabilities can be fully exercised. Even in the F4E we really
needed about 100 nm minimum separation so the WSOs had to work for a
radar detection. Many times I've been only 65 or so away and kept radar
contact on the 'oppo' F4 all the way out and all the way back in. And
that was working subsonic. Now try M2.0 speeds and a merge rate of 40
nm/minute really eats up that separation. Of course, if BRAC wants to
close Cannon I don't suppose too many USAF types will shed a tear. I
know I wouldn't, having stopped there a couple times. Walt BJ

Larry Dighera wrote:
Does the military _ever_ return its airspace to public use?


-------------------------------------------------------------------
AVflash Volume 11, Number 7a -- February 14, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------------

GA PILOTS TAKE ON MILITARY IN N.M.
New Mexico has some wide-open skies, but apparently there is not
enough room there for all the military and civilian pilots who want
to
fly. The U.S. Air Force wants to add 700 square miles to the 2,600
square miles now used by the F-16 Falcons based at Cannon Air Force
Base. The airspace expansion would mean rerouting about 40 civilian
flights per day, and intrude onto GA routes between Albuquerque and
Roswell. "They've grabbed up so much airspace, it's going to be
dangerous for small, civilian aircraft," U.S. Pilots Association
President Steve Uslan told The Albuquerque Journal. "And that's a
long
way around, and that means a lot of fuel and a lot of time wasted."
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#189168

I have to add an international flavour (flavor) to this disucssion of
controlled airspace.
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/7/DAP_EIS03.pdf
(Somewhere beneath the mishmash of controlled airspace depicted on page
2 of the document apparently lies a map of the UK)
And another showing low level military flying areas:
http://www.mod.uk/linked_files/uk_lfas.gif

Did a lot of flying in CO and NM I think you've got it easy!

Best wishes
David