A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Instrument Flight Rules
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

AOPA Sells-Out California Pilots in Military Airspace Grab?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 5th 04, 09:02 PM
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default AOPA Sells-Out California Pilots in Military Airspace Grab?


Another attempted military airspace grab?

The USMC wants to convert the San Onofre High and Low MOAs, that lie
along the busy, aircraft-congested Pacific coastline, into a
Restricted Area: R-2503D. The USMC say they need 38% higher
Restricted Airspace to conduct live-fire artillery and aerial drone
operations that would pose a mortal danger to civil air commerce
flights along the coastline between 2,000 feet and 11,000 feet.

This proposed amendment would convert the San Onofre High and Low
MOAs (and the associated CFA) into Restricted Area R–2503D, which
would extend from 2,000 feet MSL up to 11,000 feet MSL, or 38% (3,000
feet) higher than the existing San Onofre MOAs it would replace.

Despite the fact that the military were originally denied the
exclusive airspace use provided by a restricted area that INCLUDES
VICTOR AIRWAYS, they are again requesting it. But this time they want
to include remotely operated aircraft INCAPABLE OF COMPLYING WITH
SEE-AND-AVOID REGULATIONS, and significantly increase its height above
the existing 8,000 foot MOA. (What is curious is how the live
artillery fire and drones will not affect air commerce below 2,000
feet.)

If this NPRM were adopted, the Oceanside VOR-A Approach, Carlsbad
(McClellan-Palomar) ILS Rwy 24 and VOR GPS-A approaches, the holding
function of Oceanside VORTAC (OCN), V-23 and V-208 would all be
negatively impacted.

Although R–2503D would be limited to a maximum use of 20 days per year
from 0600 to 2400 hours local time, and no more than 90 days per year
between 0001 and 0600 local time, during those times (up to 110-days
annually) (the way the NPRM is currently worded) civil aircraft would
be banned from use of Victor Airways V-23 and V-208 below 11,000 feet,
the Oceanside VOR-A Approach, and the holding function of Oceanside
VORTAC, thus negatively impacting air commerce.

The USMC has requested these changes because the existing special use
airspace does not permit essential large-scale amphibious assault
activities (including artillery live-fire, fixed-wing close air
support, and remotely operated aircraft operations).


AOPA supports this military airspace grab!:

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...04-1-161x.html
AOPA is backing the creation of one restricted area in California
and the modification of another in Georgia because, in each case,
the result would actually improve general aviation operations
around military training areas.

Near Camp Pendleton in southern California, close cooperation
between the U.S. Marine Corps, the Southern California Airspace
Working Group (of which AOPA is part), and local pilots, a new
restricted area proposed on Friday may actually ease operations
along the coastline.

"From the outset, the Marine Corps sought out the general aviation
community and worked with us to minimize the impact of their
proposal," said AOPA Manager of Air Traffic Heidi Williams. "As a
result, we've got a proposal that will let the Marines train they
way they fight while allowing GA pilots to use adjacent Victor
airways."

The Marines want to replace the San Onofre High and Low military
operations areas with a new restricted area, R-2503D, which will
directly overly R-2503A, extending up to 11,000 feet, and would
include a number of mitigation efforts.


I am unable to find any language from AOPA nor FAA that supports the
contention, that this new Restricted Area will permit civil flights to
use the Oceanside VOR-A Approach, Carlsbad (McClellan-Palomar) ILS Rwy
24 and VOR GPS-A approaches, the holding function of Oceanside VORTAC
(OCN), V-23 and V-208 when the proposed Restricted Area R-2503D is
"hot." Did AOPA and the FAA fail to disclose an explanation of their
mitigation efforts, or did I miss something?


The comment period for the notice of proposed rule making (NPRM)
closes on May 10, 2004.

Voice your comments to the FAA he http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/

----------------------------------------------------------
Here's the NPRM:

http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p78/274726.pdf
http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf89/274726_web.pdf
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 59 /
Friday, March 26, 2004 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 73
[Docket No. FAA–2003–16722; Airspace
Docket No. 03–AWP–19]
RIN 2120–AA66
Establishment of Restricted Area
2503D, Camp Pendleton; CA
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
SUMMARY: This action proposes to
establish a restricted area (R–2503D)
over Camp Pendleton, CA. Specifically,
this action proposes to convert the
current San Onofre High and Low
Military Operations Areas (MOA) and
the associated Controlled Firing Area
(CFA) to R–2503D. The FAA is taking
this action to assist the Camp Pendleton
U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) Base, CA,
mission of providing realistic fleet
training requirements and to enhance
safety.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before May 10, 2004.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on this
proposal to the Docket Management
System, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Room Plaza 401, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC
20590–0001. You must identify FAA
Docket No. FAA–2003–16722, and
Airspace Docket No. 03–AWP–19, at the
beginning of your comments. You may
also submit comments on the Internet at
http://dms.dot.gov.
http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken
McElroy, Airspace and Rules, Office of
System Operations and Safety, ATOP–R,
Federal Aviation Administration, 800
03–AWP–19) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management
System (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may
also submit comments through the
Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.
Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those
comments a self-addressed, stamped
postcard on which the following
statement is made: ‘‘Comments to FAA
Docket No. FAA–2003–16722, and
Airspace Docket No. 03–AWP–19.’’ The
postcard will be date/time stamped and
returned to the commenter.
All communications received on or
before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before
taking action on the proposed rule. The
proposal contained in this action may
be changed in light of comments
received. All comments submitted will
be available for examination in the
public docket both before and after the
closing date for comments. A report
summarizing each substantive public
contact with FAA personnel concerned
with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.
Availability of NPRM’s
An electronic copy of this document
may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://dms.dot.gov. Recently
published rulemaking documents can
also be accessed through the FAA’s Web
page at http://www.faa.gov, or the
Federal Register’s Web page at http://
www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
You may review the public docket
containing the proposal, any comments
received and any final disposition in
person in the Dockets Office (see
ADDRESSES section for address and
phone number) between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. An informal docket
may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the
Regional Air Traffic Division, AWP–
520, 15000 Aviation Boulevard,
Lawndale, CA 90261.
Persons interested in being placed on
a mailing list for future NPRM’s should
contact the FAA’s Office of Rulemaking,
(202) 267–9677, for a copy of Advisory
Circular No. 11–2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which
describes the application procedure.
The Proposal
The FAA is proposing an amendment
to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR) part 73 (part 73) to revise and
expand the dimensions of the current
San Onofre MOAs over the Camp
Pendleton, CA, area. The USMC has
requested these changes because the
existing special use airspace does not
permit essential large-scale amphibious
assault activities (including artillery
live-fire, fixed-wing close air support,
and remotely operated aircraft
operations).
The existing restricted areas over
Camp Pendleton are R–2503A,
extending from the surface up to 2000
feet mean sea level (MSL); R–2503B,
extending from the surface up to 15,000
feet MSL; and R–2503C, extending from
15,000 feet MSL to FL 270. These areas
will not be changed. The San Onofre
High and Low MOAs lie adjacent to the
restricted areas from 2,000 feet MSL up
to, but not including 8,000 feet MSL.
This proposed amendment would
convert the San Onofre High and Low
MOAs, and the associated CFA to R–
2503D, which would extend from 2,000
feet MSL up to 11,000 feet MSL. The
San Onofre MOA and CFA designations
would be revoked.
The time of designation for R–2503D
would be intermittent by NOTAM 24
hours in advance, and limited to a
maximum use of 20 days per year from
0600 to 2400 hours local time, and no
more than 90 days per year between
0001 and 0600 local time. The restricted
area would be available for joint-use and
scheduled for training operations on an
as needed basis subject to the maximum
use limits.
The FAA has determined that this
proposed regulation only involves an
established body of technical
regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to
keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation: (1)
Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not
a ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3)
does not warrant preparation of a
regulatory evaluation as the anticipated
impact is so minimal. Since this is a
routine matter that will only affect air
traffic procedures and air navigation, it
is certified that this rule, when
promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Environmental Review
This proposal will be subject to the
appropriate environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1D,
Policies and Procedures for Considering
Environmental Impacts, prior to any
FAA final regulatory action.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73
Airspace, Navigation (air).
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the
Federal Aviation Administration
proposes to amend 14 CFR part 73 as
follows:
PART 73—SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE
1. The authority citation for part 73
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113,
40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–
1963 Comp., p. 389.
§ 73.25 [Amended]
2. § 73.25 is amended as follows:
* * * * *
R–2503D Camp Pendleton, CA [Added]
Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 33°22'42? N.;
long. 117°36'45? W.; to lat. 33°27'13? N.;
long. 117°34'17? W.; to lat. 33°18'41? N.;
long. 117°23'58? W.; to lat. 33°17'30? N.;
long. 117°16'43? W.; to lat. 33°14'09?N.;
long. 117°26'38? W.; to the point of the
beginning by following a line 1 NM from
and parallel to the shoreline.
Designated altitudes. 2,000 feet MSL to
11,000 feet MSL.
Time of designation. Intermittent by
NOTAM 24 hours in advance not to exceed
20 days per year from 0600 to 2400 local time
and not more than 90 days per year between
0001 and 0600 local.
Controlling agency. FAA, Southern
California TRACON.
Using agency. U.S. Marine Corps,
Commanding General, MCB Camp Pendleton,
CA.
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC, March 18, 2004.
Reginald C. Matthews,
Manager, Airspace and Rules.
[FR Doc. 04–6747 Filed 3–25–04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P


* notice of proposed rulemaking:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text....1.2.2&idno=14
Ads
  #2  
Old April 6th 04, 02:37 AM
Aloft
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

20 days a year/90 nights a year is not what I'd call an airspace "grab",
more like an improvement in safety for those few times a year when the
Marines want to do a full dress rehearsal.

Do you fly around that area much? If you did, you'd know what a hazard is
created whenever the Marines conduct a full-scale exercise, as they did this
last weekend. Despite NOTAMs and flyers on FBO bulletin boards, idiots
still continue to blunder into those hot areas, threatening not only their
own lives, but the lives of the military aircrews operating there. You know
the type I'm talking about; the 60-something pilot who's flown that
coastline a thousand times so he doesn't own a current terminal chart, never
bothers to check NOTAMs, doesn't feel comfortable talking to SoCal so he
doesn't, never bothers to check FBO bulletin boards, etc, etc. Basically
your airborne Sunday driver. Now, I'm sure you're saying, "well, that type
of pilot won't even know about the restricted area". He'll find out when
ATC asks him to jot down a telephone number.

And by-the-by, R-2503A already encompasses the airspace in question from the
surface to 2000 ft.



  #3  
Old April 6th 04, 01:07 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

You're going to have a difficult time in these times to deny the Marine Corps what they need at Pendleton.

Without assessing the instrument approach procedures you cite, I can only speculate that they would be unaffected because that part of
Pendleton is all housing and other buildings, thus, their operations don't extend that far south.

As to the KCRQ ILS it would have minimal impact because no one ever uses the transition from OCN VOR except perhaps an occasional practice
flight, and those are often refused because of conflict with the normal flow onto the ILS.

Larry Dighera wrote:

Another attempted military airspace grab?

The USMC wants to convert the San Onofre High and Low MOAs, that lie
along the busy, aircraft-congested Pacific coastline, into a
Restricted Area: R-2503D. The USMC say they need 38% higher
Restricted Airspace to conduct live-fire artillery and aerial drone
operations that would pose a mortal danger to civil air commerce
flights along the coastline between 2,000 feet and 11,000 feet.

This proposed amendment would convert the San Onofre High and Low
MOAs (and the associated CFA) into Restricted Area R–2503D, which
would extend from 2,000 feet MSL up to 11,000 feet MSL, or 38% (3,000
feet) higher than the existing San Onofre MOAs it would replace.

Despite the fact that the military were originally denied the
exclusive airspace use provided by a restricted area that INCLUDES
VICTOR AIRWAYS, they are again requesting it. But this time they want
to include remotely operated aircraft INCAPABLE OF COMPLYING WITH
SEE-AND-AVOID REGULATIONS, and significantly increase its height above
the existing 8,000 foot MOA. (What is curious is how the live
artillery fire and drones will not affect air commerce below 2,000
feet.)

If this NPRM were adopted, the Oceanside VOR-A Approach, Carlsbad
(McClellan-Palomar) ILS Rwy 24 and VOR GPS-A approaches, the holding
function of Oceanside VORTAC (OCN), V-23 and V-208 would all be
negatively impacted.

Although R–2503D would be limited to a maximum use of 20 days per year
from 0600 to 2400 hours local time, and no more than 90 days per year
between 0001 and 0600 local time, during those times (up to 110-days
annually) (the way the NPRM is currently worded) civil aircraft would
be banned from use of Victor Airways V-23 and V-208 below 11,000 feet,
the Oceanside VOR-A Approach, and the holding function of Oceanside
VORTAC, thus negatively impacting air commerce.

The USMC has requested these changes because the existing special use
airspace does not permit essential large-scale amphibious assault
activities (including artillery live-fire, fixed-wing close air
support, and remotely operated aircraft operations).

AOPA supports this military airspace grab!:

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...04-1-161x.html
AOPA is backing the creation of one restricted area in California
and the modification of another in Georgia because, in each case,
the result would actually improve general aviation operations
around military training areas.

Near Camp Pendleton in southern California, close cooperation
between the U.S. Marine Corps, the Southern California Airspace
Working Group (of which AOPA is part), and local pilots, a new
restricted area proposed on Friday may actually ease operations
along the coastline.

"From the outset, the Marine Corps sought out the general aviation
community and worked with us to minimize the impact of their
proposal," said AOPA Manager of Air Traffic Heidi Williams. "As a
result, we've got a proposal that will let the Marines train they
way they fight while allowing GA pilots to use adjacent Victor
airways."

The Marines want to replace the San Onofre High and Low military
operations areas with a new restricted area, R-2503D, which will
directly overly R-2503A, extending up to 11,000 feet, and would
include a number of mitigation efforts.


I am unable to find any language from AOPA nor FAA that supports the
contention, that this new Restricted Area will permit civil flights to
use the Oceanside VOR-A Approach, Carlsbad (McClellan-Palomar) ILS Rwy
24 and VOR GPS-A approaches, the holding function of Oceanside VORTAC
(OCN), V-23 and V-208 when the proposed Restricted Area R-2503D is
"hot." Did AOPA and the FAA fail to disclose an explanation of their
mitigation efforts, or did I miss something?

The comment period for the notice of proposed rule making (NPRM)
closes on May 10, 2004.

Voice your comments to the FAA he http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/

----------------------------------------------------------
Here's the NPRM:

http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p78/274726.pdf
http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf89/274726_web.pdf
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 59 /
Friday, March 26, 2004 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 73
[Docket No. FAA–2003–16722; Airspace
Docket No. 03–AWP–19]
RIN 2120–AA66
Establishment of Restricted Area
2503D, Camp Pendleton; CA
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
SUMMARY: This action proposes to
establish a restricted area (R–2503D)
over Camp Pendleton, CA. Specifically,
this action proposes to convert the
current San Onofre High and Low
Military Operations Areas (MOA) and
the associated Controlled Firing Area
(CFA) to R–2503D. The FAA is taking
this action to assist the Camp Pendleton
U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) Base, CA,
mission of providing realistic fleet
training requirements and to enhance
safety.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before May 10, 2004.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on this
proposal to the Docket Management
System, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Room Plaza 401, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC
20590–0001. You must identify FAA
Docket No. FAA–2003–16722, and
Airspace Docket No. 03–AWP–19, at the
beginning of your comments. You may
also submit comments on the Internet at
http://dms.dot.gov.
http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken
McElroy, Airspace and Rules, Office of
System Operations and Safety, ATOP–R,
Federal Aviation Administration, 800
03–AWP–19) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management
System (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may
also submit comments through the
Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.
Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those
comments a self-addressed, stamped
postcard on which the following
statement is made: ‘‘Comments to FAA
Docket No. FAA–2003–16722, and
Airspace Docket No. 03–AWP–19.’’ The
postcard will be date/time stamped and
returned to the commenter.
All communications received on or
before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before
taking action on the proposed rule. The
proposal contained in this action may
be changed in light of comments
received. All comments submitted will
be available for examination in the
public docket both before and after the
closing date for comments. A report
summarizing each substantive public
contact with FAA personnel concerned
with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.
Availability of NPRM’s
An electronic copy of this document
may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://dms.dot.gov. Recently
published rulemaking documents can
also be accessed through the FAA’s Web
page at http://www.faa.gov, or the
Federal Register’s Web page at http://
www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
You may review the public docket
containing the proposal, any comments
received and any final disposition in
person in the Dockets Office (see
ADDRESSES section for address and
phone number) between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. An informal docket
may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the
Regional Air Traffic Division, AWP–
520, 15000 Aviation Boulevard,
Lawndale, CA 90261.
Persons interested in being placed on
a mailing list for future NPRM’s should
contact the FAA’s Office of Rulemaking,
(202) 267–9677, for a copy of Advisory
Circular No. 11–2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which
describes the application procedure.
The Proposal
The FAA is proposing an amendment
to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR) part 73 (part 73) to revise and
expand the dimensions of the current
San Onofre MOAs over the Camp
Pendleton, CA, area. The USMC has
requested these changes because the
existing special use airspace does not
permit essential large-scale amphibious
assault activities (including artillery
live-fire, fixed-wing close air support,
and remotely operated aircraft
operations).
The existing restricted areas over
Camp Pendleton are R–2503A,
extending from the surface up to 2000
feet mean sea level (MSL); R–2503B,
extending from the surface up to 15,000
feet MSL; and R–2503C, extending from
15,000 feet MSL to FL 270. These areas
will not be changed. The San Onofre
High and Low MOAs lie adjacent to the
restricted areas from 2,000 feet MSL up
to, but not including 8,000 feet MSL.
This proposed amendment would
convert the San Onofre High and Low
MOAs, and the associated CFA to R–
2503D, which would extend from 2,000
feet MSL up to 11,000 feet MSL. The
San Onofre MOA and CFA designations
would be revoked.
The time of designation for R–2503D
would be intermittent by NOTAM 24
hours in advance, and limited to a
maximum use of 20 days per year from
0600 to 2400 hours local time, and no
more than 90 days per year between
0001 and 0600 local time. The restricted
area would be available for joint-use and
scheduled for training operations on an
as needed basis subject to the maximum
use limits.
The FAA has determined that this
proposed regulation only involves an
established body of technical
regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to
keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation: (1)
Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not
a ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3)
does not warrant preparation of a
regulatory evaluation as the anticipated
impact is so minimal. Since this is a
routine matter that will only affect air
traffic procedures and air navigation, it
is certified that this rule, when
promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Environmental Review
This proposal will be subject to the
appropriate environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1D,
Policies and Procedures for Considering
Environmental Impacts, prior to any
FAA final regulatory action.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73
Airspace, Navigation (air).
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the
Federal Aviation Administration
proposes to amend 14 CFR part 73 as
follows:
PART 73—SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE
1. The authority citation for part 73
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113,
40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–
1963 Comp., p. 389.
§ 73.25 [Amended]
2. § 73.25 is amended as follows:
* * * * *
R–2503D Camp Pendleton, CA [Added]
Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 33°22'42? N.;
long. 117°36'45? W.; to lat. 33°27'13? N.;
long. 117°34'17? W.; to lat. 33°18'41? N.;
long. 117°23'58? W.; to lat. 33°17'30? N.;
long. 117°16'43? W.; to lat. 33°14'09?N.;
long. 117°26'38? W.; to the point of the
beginning by following a line 1 NM from
and parallel to the shoreline.
Designated altitudes. 2,000 feet MSL to
11,000 feet MSL.
Time of designation. Intermittent by
NOTAM 24 hours in advance not to exceed
20 days per year from 0600 to 2400 local time
and not more than 90 days per year between
0001 and 0600 local.
Controlling agency. FAA, Southern
California TRACON.
Using agency. U.S. Marine Corps,
Commanding General, MCB Camp Pendleton,
CA.
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC, March 18, 2004.
Reginald C. Matthews,
Manager, Airspace and Rules.
[FR Doc. 04–6747 Filed 3–25–04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

* notice of proposed rulemaking:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text....1.2.2&idno=14


  #4  
Old April 6th 04, 01:29 PM
Dave Butler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Aloft wrote:
20 days a year/90 nights a year is not what I'd call an airspace "grab",
more like an improvement in safety for those few times a year when the
Marines want to do a full dress rehearsal.

Do you fly around that area much? If you did, you'd know what a hazard is
created whenever the Marines conduct a full-scale exercise, as they did this
last weekend. Despite NOTAMs and flyers on FBO bulletin boards, idiots
still continue to blunder into those hot areas, threatening not only their
own lives, but the lives of the military aircrews operating there. You know
the type I'm talking about; the 60-something pilot who's flown that


What does the age of the pilot have to do with it?

coastline a thousand times so he doesn't own a current terminal chart, never
bothers to check NOTAMs, doesn't feel comfortable talking to SoCal so he
doesn't, never bothers to check FBO bulletin boards, etc, etc. Basically
your airborne Sunday driver. Now, I'm sure you're saying, "well, that type
of pilot won't even know about the restricted area". He'll find out when
ATC asks him to jot down a telephone number.

And by-the-by, R-2503A already encompasses the airspace in question from the
surface to 2000 ft.


  #5  
Old April 6th 04, 02:24 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Aloft wrote:

20 days a year/90 nights a year is not what I'd call an airspace "grab",
more like an improvement in safety for those few times a year when the
Marines want to do a full dress rehearsal.


Agreed.



Do you fly around that area much? If you did, you'd know what a hazard is
created whenever the Marines conduct a full-scale exercise, as they did this
last weekend. Despite NOTAMs and flyers on FBO bulletin boards, idiots
still continue to blunder into those hot areas, threatening not only their
own lives, but the lives of the military aircrews operating there. You know
the type I'm talking about; the 60-something pilot who's flown that
coastline a thousand times so he doesn't own a current terminal chart, never
bothers to check NOTAMs, doesn't feel comfortable talking to SoCal so he
doesn't, never bothers to check FBO bulletin boards, etc, etc. Basically
your airborne Sunday driver. Now, I'm sure you're saying, "well, that type
of pilot won't even know about the restricted area". He'll find out when
ATC asks him to jot down a telephone number.


I live just to the north of the restricted area. It is violated constantly.
Alas, no one enforces it. SoCal doesn't even track aircraft in that area that
are that low.



And by-the-by, R-2503A already encompasses the airspace in question from the
surface to 2000 ft.


Well, the MOA goes further out to sea than does the present restricted airspace.

Keep in mind, too, there is a nuclear power plant in this mix that makes a lot
of folks nervous.


  #6  
Old April 6th 04, 02:25 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default





You know
the type I'm talking about; the 60-something pilot who's flown that


What does the age of the pilot have to do with it?


I took that to mean total time.

  #7  
Old April 6th 04, 11:27 PM
Lee Elson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote in message ...
You're going to have a difficult time in these times to deny the Marine Corps what they need at Pendleton.

That's true of any military base anywhere. Should we just give up and
smile while they take away our airspace?

Without assessing the instrument approach procedures you cite, I can only speculate that they would be unaffected because that part of
Pendleton is all housing and other buildings, thus, their operations don't extend that far south.

As to the KCRQ ILS it would have minimal impact because no one ever uses the transition from OCN VOR except perhaps an occasional practice
flight, and those are often refused because of conflict with the normal flow onto the ILS.

Not true. Every (VFR or IMC) ILS I've done from the north has *always*
used the OCN VOR transition. I've never been "refused" this
transition.

Larry Dighera wrote:

Another attempted military airspace grab?

The USMC wants to convert the San Onofre High and Low MOAs, that lie
along the busy, aircraft-congested Pacific coastline, into a
Restricted Area: R-2503D. The USMC say they need 38% higher
Restricted Airspace to conduct live-fire artillery and aerial drone
operations that would pose a mortal danger to civil air commerce
flights along the coastline between 2,000 feet and 11,000 feet.

This proposed amendment would convert the San Onofre High and Low
MOAs (and the associated CFA) into Restricted Area R?2503D, which
would extend from 2,000 feet MSL up to 11,000 feet MSL, or 38% (3,000
feet) higher than the existing San Onofre MOAs it would replace.

Despite the fact that the military were originally denied the
exclusive airspace use provided by a restricted area that INCLUDES
VICTOR AIRWAYS, they are again requesting it. But this time they want
to include remotely operated aircraft INCAPABLE OF COMPLYING WITH
SEE-AND-AVOID REGULATIONS, and significantly increase its height above
the existing 8,000 foot MOA. (What is curious is how the live
artillery fire and drones will not affect air commerce below 2,000
feet.)

If this NPRM were adopted, the Oceanside VOR-A Approach, Carlsbad
(McClellan-Palomar) ILS Rwy 24 and VOR GPS-A approaches, the holding
function of Oceanside VORTAC (OCN), V-23 and V-208 would all be
negatively impacted.

Although R?2503D would be limited to a maximum use of 20 days per year
from 0600 to 2400 hours local time, and no more than 90 days per year
between 0001 and 0600 local time, during those times (up to 110-days
annually) (the way the NPRM is currently worded) civil aircraft would
be banned from use of Victor Airways V-23 and V-208 below 11,000 feet,
the Oceanside VOR-A Approach, and the holding function of Oceanside
VORTAC, thus negatively impacting air commerce.

The USMC has requested these changes because the existing special use
airspace does not permit essential large-scale amphibious assault
activities (including artillery live-fire, fixed-wing close air
support, and remotely operated aircraft operations).

AOPA supports this military airspace grab!:

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...04-1-161x.html
AOPA is backing the creation of one restricted area in California
and the modification of another in Georgia because, in each case,
the result would actually improve general aviation operations
around military training areas.

Near Camp Pendleton in southern California, close cooperation
between the U.S. Marine Corps, the Southern California Airspace
Working Group (of which AOPA is part), and local pilots, a new
restricted area proposed on Friday may actually ease operations
along the coastline.

"From the outset, the Marine Corps sought out the general aviation
community and worked with us to minimize the impact of their
proposal," said AOPA Manager of Air Traffic Heidi Williams. "As a
result, we've got a proposal that will let the Marines train they
way they fight while allowing GA pilots to use adjacent Victor
airways."

The Marines want to replace the San Onofre High and Low military
operations areas with a new restricted area, R-2503D, which will
directly overly R-2503A, extending up to 11,000 feet, and would
include a number of mitigation efforts.


I am unable to find any language from AOPA nor FAA that supports the
contention, that this new Restricted Area will permit civil flights to
use the Oceanside VOR-A Approach, Carlsbad (McClellan-Palomar) ILS Rwy
24 and VOR GPS-A approaches, the holding function of Oceanside VORTAC
(OCN), V-23 and V-208 when the proposed Restricted Area R-2503D is
"hot." Did AOPA and the FAA fail to disclose an explanation of their
mitigation efforts, or did I miss something?

The comment period for the notice of proposed rule making (NPRM)
closes on May 10, 2004.

Voice your comments to the FAA he http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/

----------------------------------------------------------
Here's the NPRM:

http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p78/274726.pdf
http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf89/274726_web.pdf
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 59 /
Friday, March 26, 2004 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 73
[Docket No. FAA?2003?16722; Airspace
Docket No. 03?AWP?19]
RIN 2120?AA66
Establishment of Restricted Area
2503D, Camp Pendleton; CA
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
SUMMARY: This action proposes to
establish a restricted area (R?2503D)
over Camp Pendleton, CA. Specifically,
this action proposes to convert the
current San Onofre High and Low
Military Operations Areas (MOA) and
the associated Controlled Firing Area
(CFA) to R?2503D. The FAA is taking
this action to assist the Camp Pendleton
U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) Base, CA,
mission of providing realistic fleet
training requirements and to enhance
safety.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before May 10, 2004.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on this
proposal to the Docket Management
System, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Room Plaza 401, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC
20590?0001. You must identify FAA
Docket No. FAA?2003?16722, and
Airspace Docket No. 03?AWP?19, at the
beginning of your comments. You may
also submit comments on the Internet at
http://dms.dot.gov.
http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken
McElroy, Airspace and Rules, Office of
System Operations and Safety, ATOP?R,
Federal Aviation Administration, 800
03?AWP?19) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management
System (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may
also submit comments through the
Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.
Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those
comments a self-addressed, stamped
postcard on which the following
statement is made: ??Comments to FAA
Docket No. FAA?2003?16722, and
Airspace Docket No. 03?AWP?19.?? The
postcard will be date/time stamped and
returned to the commenter.
All communications received on or
before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before
taking action on the proposed rule. The
proposal contained in this action may
be changed in light of comments
received. All comments submitted will
be available for examination in the
public docket both before and after the
closing date for comments. A report
summarizing each substantive public
contact with FAA personnel concerned
with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.
Availability of NPRM?s
An electronic copy of this document
may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://dms.dot.gov. Recently
published rulemaking documents can
also be accessed through the FAA?s Web
page at http://www.faa.gov, or the
Federal Register?s Web page at http://
www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
You may review the public docket
containing the proposal, any comments
received and any final disposition in
person in the Dockets Office (see
ADDRESSES section for address and
phone number) between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. An informal docket
may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the
Regional Air Traffic Division, AWP?
520, 15000 Aviation Boulevard,
Lawndale, CA 90261.
Persons interested in being placed on
a mailing list for future NPRM?s should
contact the FAA?s Office of Rulemaking,
(202) 267?9677, for a copy of Advisory
Circular No. 11?2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which
describes the application procedure.
The Proposal
The FAA is proposing an amendment
to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR) part 73 (part 73) to revise and
expand the dimensions of the current
San Onofre MOAs over the Camp
Pendleton, CA, area. The USMC has
requested these changes because the
existing special use airspace does not
permit essential large-scale amphibious
assault activities (including artillery
live-fire, fixed-wing close air support,
and remotely operated aircraft
operations).
The existing restricted areas over
Camp Pendleton are R?2503A,
extending from the surface up to 2000
feet mean sea level (MSL); R?2503B,
extending from the surface up to 15,000
feet MSL; and R?2503C, extending from
15,000 feet MSL to FL 270. These areas
will not be changed. The San Onofre
High and Low MOAs lie adjacent to the
restricted areas from 2,000 feet MSL up
to, but not including 8,000 feet MSL.
This proposed amendment would
convert the San Onofre High and Low
MOAs, and the associated CFA to R?
2503D, which would extend from 2,000
feet MSL up to 11,000 feet MSL. The
San Onofre MOA and CFA designations
would be revoked.
The time of designation for R?2503D
would be intermittent by NOTAM 24
hours in advance, and limited to a
maximum use of 20 days per year from
0600 to 2400 hours local time, and no
more than 90 days per year between
0001 and 0600 local time. The restricted
area would be available for joint-use and
scheduled for training operations on an
as needed basis subject to the maximum
use limits.
The FAA has determined that this
proposed regulation only involves an
established body of technical
regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to
keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation: (1)
Is not a ??significant regulatory action??
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not
a ??significant rule?? under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3)
does not warrant preparation of a
regulatory evaluation as the anticipated
impact is so minimal. Since this is a
routine matter that will only affect air
traffic procedures and air navigation, it
is certified that this rule, when
promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Environmental Review
This proposal will be subject to the
appropriate environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1D,
Policies and Procedures for Considering
Environmental Impacts, prior to any
FAA final regulatory action.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73
Airspace, Navigation (air).
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the
Federal Aviation Administration
proposes to amend 14 CFR part 73 as
follows:
PART 73?SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE
1. The authority citation for part 73
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113,
40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959?
1963 Comp., p. 389.
§ 73.25 [Amended]
2. § 73.25 is amended as follows:
* * * * *
R?2503D Camp Pendleton, CA [Added]
Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 33°22'42? N.;
long. 117°36'45? W.; to lat. 33°27'13? N.;
long. 117°34'17? W.; to lat. 33°18'41? N.;
long. 117°23'58? W.; to lat. 33°17'30? N.;
long. 117°16'43? W.; to lat. 33°14'09?N.;
long. 117°26'38? W.; to the point of the
beginning by following a line 1 NM from
and parallel to the shoreline.
Designated altitudes. 2,000 feet MSL to
11,000 feet MSL.
Time of designation. Intermittent by
NOTAM 24 hours in advance not to exceed
20 days per year from 0600 to 2400 local time
and not more than 90 days per year between
0001 and 0600 local.
Controlling agency. FAA, Southern
California TRACON.
Using agency. U.S. Marine Corps,
Commanding General, MCB Camp Pendleton,
CA.
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC, March 18, 2004.
Reginald C. Matthews,
Manager, Airspace and Rules.
[FR Doc. 04?6747 Filed 3?25?04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910?13?P

* notice of proposed rulemaking:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text....1.2.2&idno=14


--

  #8  
Old April 7th 04, 03:32 AM
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Lee Elson wrote:

Not true. Every (VFR or IMC) ILS I've done from the north has *always*
used the OCN VOR transition. I've never been "refused" this
transition.


Better make sure you're over-water survival gear is in good shape then, because your north arrivals will be further out to sea.~

My experience has been different than your's. Then again, I've haven't arrived via V-23; rather from the east or on transition routing from
off-shore.

  #9  
Old April 10th 04, 05:07 PM
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Thank you for your input on this issue.

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 01:37:36 GMT, "Aloft" wrote in Message-Id:
:

20 days a year/90 nights a year is not what I'd call an airspace "grab",


What would it take for you consider it an airspace grab? The military
already "owns" 50% of the area of the CONUS.

Unfortunately, the Restricted Area doesn't go away when it's not in
use; it's there 24/7.

more like an improvement in safety for those few times a year when the
Marines want to do a full dress rehearsal.


This begs the question, why was the USMC denied a Restricted Area when
the MOAs were implemented? Didn't they want to conduct "full dress
rehearsals" then? There were good reasons for implementing the MOAs
and not Restricted Areas at that time. I'd venture there has been no
significant change in the criteria that prevented the RA in the past.

Do you fly around that area much?


No.

If you did, you'd know what a hazard is created whenever the Marines
conduct a full-scale exercise, as they did this last weekend.


I would expect MOAs to be hazardous when hot. Isn't it interesting
that no Restricted Area to 11,000 feet was required for those
exercises? But then, the USMC wasn't flying their UAVs and lobbing
live artillery shells, were they?

Despite NOTAMs and flyers on FBO bulletin boards, idiots
still continue to blunder into those hot areas, threatening not only their
own lives, but the lives of the military aircrews operating there. You know
the type I'm talking about; the 60-something pilot who's flown that
coastline a thousand times so he doesn't own a current terminal chart, never
bothers to check NOTAMs, doesn't feel comfortable talking to SoCal so he
doesn't, never bothers to check FBO bulletin boards, etc, etc. Basically
your airborne Sunday driver.


I fail to understand how a new Restricted Area will mitigate the
hazard of the type of pilot you mention.

Now, I'm sure you're saying, "well, that type
of pilot won't even know about the restricted area". He'll find out when
ATC asks him to jot down a telephone number.


So you feel that the new 24/7 RA will get pilot's attention after the
fact? Perhaps it would be significantly less intrusive to let
Darwinism take its course.

And by-the-by, R-2503A already encompasses the airspace in question from the
surface to 2000 ft.


Not exactly. The San Onofre Low MOA extends about 3 nm farther
offshore from the R-2503A Restricted Area.


  #10  
Old April 10th 04, 06:45 PM
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 05:07:24 -0700, wrote in
Message-Id: :

You're going to have a difficult time in these times to deny the
Marine Corps what they need at Pendleton.


I agree, that the USMC seems to be attempting to take advantage of
Baby Bush's invasion of Iraq to bolster their request. However, I'm
not aware of any plans the USMC may have to storm foreign beaches in
the immediate future.

Without assessing the instrument approach procedures you cite, I
can only speculate that they would be unaffected because that part of
Pendleton is all housing and other buildings, thus, their operations
don't extend that far south.


While the southern boundaries of the current MOAs and Restricted Areas
end just short of enveloping the Oceanside VORTAC, the proposed
R-2503D Restricted Area would further hamper civil air commerce due to
its increased height and size; the San Onofre High MOA currently ends
about 1/2 mile onshore not 1 mile offshore.

As to the KCRQ ILS it would have minimal impact because no one ever
uses the transition from OCN VOR except perhaps an occasional practice
flight, and those are often refused because of conflict with the
normal flow onto the ILS.


I received this e-mail CC explaination/clarification from AOPA:

Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 12:01:07 -0400
From: "Williams, Heidi"
Subject: FW: Cal. Airspace issue
X-Originating-IP: [208.27.40.67]
To: '"
Cc: '"
Message-id: [email protected]

Lee,

Thanks for your inquiry on AOPA's position regarding the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking for restricted airspace at Camp Pendleton. I
would like to take this opportunity to give you some additional
background on the issue.

The proposed restricted airspace would replace two existing MOA's,
but the overall impact of the restricted area is actually less
severe. Although the San Onofre High and Low MOA's only extend
upward to 7,999, there is a Controlled Firing Area stacked on top
of the MOA's that extends upward to 10,000 msl.


[not 11,000 feet as proposed]

In addition, the
current MOA's extend to three miles offshore


[The San Onofre High MOA does not extend offshore, and the height of
the 'Low MOA is below 4,000 feet.]

thus pushing traffic
beyond the limits of what most GA aircraft are comfortable flying
over water. The proposal moves the boundary to 1nm offshore.
This allows unimpeded use of the shoreline route for aircraft
transiting north/south around the airspace.


[While Victor-23 currently does not pass through Restricted Area nor
MOA, that would not be the case if this NPRM were enacted. I fail to
understand how the proposed change would constitute "unimpeded use."]

AOPA pilot surveys
indicated that over 70% of pilots fly around a MOA rather than
flying through it, so we view this as a positive change.


[As currently charted, aircraft above 4,000 feet on V-23 do not need
to fly around the MOAs, but they will need to fly around the proposed
R-2503D restricted area.]

Most important though is that the Marines will be limited to no
more than 20 days of use per year from 0600-2400 - this remains
unchanged from the current MOA usage. Most of the year (345 days),
there is no impact on general aviation and the Victor routes
because the restricted area is not in use.


[That statement is bogus. While it is currently possible to transit
the area along the coast above 4,000 feet without requesting
permission, if the NPRM is adopted it will not be possible to remain
on V-23 without requesting permission from ZIA Center.]

As for impacts to the Oceanside VOR-A Approach, Carlsbad
(McClellan-Palomar) ILS Rwy 24 and VOR GPS-A approaches, the
holding function of Oceanside VORTAC (OCN), V-23 and V-208 would
all be LESS impacted than they are today. The Marines and SOCAL
TRACON have operated under a Letter of Agreement(LOA) since
implementation of the MOA's in 1994 to allow all of these
instrument operations to occur even when the MOA's
are active through real-time coordination between the FAA and
Marine ATC facilities. This is in fact transparent to the pilot
and will continue should the restricted airspace be implemented.


[I see no evidence of that in the NPRM.]

Despite the proposed airspace designation changes, the Marines and
FAA (SOCAL TRACON) have agreed that the LOA will continue to be in
effect and thus eliminate the burden on pilots. Again, this LOA
means pilots will continue to operate using these instrument
procedures as they do today.
In fact, the boundary change lessens the impacts considering it
moves the airspace boundary further from the Oceanside VOR.


[The NPRM does not seem to support that contention. The southern most
point of the propose R-2503D Restricted Area appears to be: lat.
33°14'09?N.; long. 117°26'38? W. Oceanside VORTAC lies at lat
33°14.44'N.; long. 117"25.06' W.]

The Marines have attempted to reach out to the pilot community
over the past two years through participation in FAA safety
seminars and holding meetings at multiple local airports and with
several aviation groups. During those meetings pilots asked for
the frequency for the range to be included on the charts. Both
the Marines and FAA agreed with that request and the frequency
will be charted to allow pilots to interact directly with the
Marines should they wish to coordinate transition through the
airspace.


[It's about time.]

While we certainly understand the concern over what appears to be
a loss of airspace and access to an important Victor Airway, the
Marines and FAA are willing to accommodate the users through their
coordination to allow the same operations and accessibility that
occur today.


[Personally, I would feel much more comfortable if that language were
added to the NPRM.]

And in many ways, we believe the changes will allow
additional opportunity for users to gain access to a shoreline
route that has not been an option since 1994.


[I fail to understand how a Restricted Area provides additional access
over a Military Operations Area.]

As we move forward in crafting AOPA's comments on the NPRM, we
will certainly relay the concerns of our members and appreciate
your willingness to share the impacts from your local perspective.

Sincerely,

Heidi J. Williams
Manager
Air Traffic, Regulatory & Certification Policy



If, as Ms. Williams states, "Most of the year (345 days), there is no
impact on general aviation and the Victor routes because the
restricted area is not in use." then perhaps removing the existing
MOAs and Restricted Areas and issuing Temporary Flight Restrictions
would be more appropriate than instituting a full time Restricted
Area.



Larry Dighera wrote:

Another attempted military airspace grab?

The USMC wants to convert the San Onofre High and Low MOAs, that lie
along the busy, aircraft-congested Pacific coastline, into a
Restricted Area: R-2503D. The USMC say they need 38% higher
Restricted Airspace to conduct live-fire artillery and aerial drone
operations that would pose a mortal danger to civil air commerce
flights along the coastline between 2,000 feet and 11,000 feet.

This proposed amendment would convert the San Onofre High and Low
MOAs (and the associated CFA) into Restricted Area R–2503D, which
would extend from 2,000 feet MSL up to 11,000 feet MSL, or 38% (3,000
feet) higher than the existing San Onofre MOAs it would replace.

Despite the fact that the military were originally denied the
exclusive airspace use provided by a restricted area that INCLUDES
VICTOR AIRWAYS, they are again requesting it. But this time they want
to include remotely operated aircraft INCAPABLE OF COMPLYING WITH
SEE-AND-AVOID REGULATIONS, and significantly increase its height above
the existing 8,000 foot MOA. (What is curious is how the live
artillery fire and drones will not affect air commerce below 2,000
feet.)

If this NPRM were adopted, the Oceanside VOR-A Approach, Carlsbad
(McClellan-Palomar) ILS Rwy 24 and VOR GPS-A approaches, the holding
function of Oceanside VORTAC (OCN), V-23 and V-208 would all be
negatively impacted.

Although R–2503D would be limited to a maximum use of 20 days per year
from 0600 to 2400 hours local time, and no more than 90 days per year
between 0001 and 0600 local time, during those times (up to 110-days
annually) (the way the NPRM is currently worded) civil aircraft would
be banned from use of Victor Airways V-23 and V-208 below 11,000 feet,
the Oceanside VOR-A Approach, and the holding function of Oceanside
VORTAC, thus negatively impacting air commerce.

The USMC has requested these changes because the existing special use
airspace does not permit essential large-scale amphibious assault
activities (including artillery live-fire, fixed-wing close air
support, and remotely operated aircraft operations).

AOPA supports this military airspace grab!:

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...04-1-161x.html
AOPA is backing the creation of one restricted area in California
and the modification of another in Georgia because, in each case,
the result would actually improve general aviation operations
around military training areas.

Near Camp Pendleton in southern California, close cooperation
between the U.S. Marine Corps, the Southern California Airspace
Working Group (of which AOPA is part), and local pilots, a new
restricted area proposed on Friday may actually ease operations
along the coastline.

"From the outset, the Marine Corps sought out the general aviation
community and worked with us to minimize the impact of their
proposal," said AOPA Manager of Air Traffic Heidi Williams. "As a
result, we've got a proposal that will let the Marines train they
way they fight while allowing GA pilots to use adjacent Victor
airways."

The Marines want to replace the San Onofre High and Low military
operations areas with a new restricted area, R-2503D, which will
directly overly R-2503A, extending up to 11,000 feet, and would
include a number of mitigation efforts.


I am unable to find any language from AOPA nor FAA that supports the
contention, that this new Restricted Area will permit civil flights to
use the Oceanside VOR-A Approach, Carlsbad (McClellan-Palomar) ILS Rwy
24 and VOR GPS-A approaches, the holding function of Oceanside VORTAC
(OCN), V-23 and V-208 when the proposed Restricted Area R-2503D is
"hot." Did AOPA and the FAA fail to disclose an explanation of their
mitigation efforts, or did I miss something?

The comment period for the notice of proposed rule making (NPRM)
closes on May 10, 2004.

Voice your comments to the FAA he http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/

----------------------------------------------------------
Here's the NPRM:

http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p78/274726.pdf
http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf89/274726_web.pdf
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 59 /
Friday, March 26, 2004 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 73
[Docket No. FAA–2003–16722; Airspace
Docket No. 03–AWP–19]
RIN 2120–AA66
Establishment of Restricted Area
2503D, Camp Pendleton; CA
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
SUMMARY: This action proposes to
establish a restricted area (R–2503D)
over Camp Pendleton, CA. Specifically,
this action proposes to convert the
current San Onofre High and Low
Military Operations Areas (MOA) and
the associated Controlled Firing Area
(CFA) to R–2503D. The FAA is taking
this action to assist the Camp Pendleton
U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) Base, CA,
mission of providing realistic fleet
training requirements and to enhance
safety.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before May 10, 2004.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on this
proposal to the Docket Management
System, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Room Plaza 401, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC
20590–0001. You must identify FAA
Docket No. FAA–2003–16722, and
Airspace Docket No. 03–AWP–19, at the
beginning of your comments. You may
also submit comments on the Internet at
http://dms.dot.gov.
http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken
McElroy, Airspace and Rules, Office of
System Operations and Safety, ATOP–R,
Federal Aviation Administration, 800
03–AWP–19) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management
System (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may
also submit comments through the
Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.
Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those
comments a self-addressed, stamped
postcard on which the following
statement is made: ‘‘Comments to FAA
Docket No. FAA–2003–16722, and
Airspace Docket No. 03–AWP–19.’’ The
postcard will be date/time stamped and
returned to the commenter.
All communications received on or
before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before
taking action on the proposed rule. The
proposal contained in this action may
be changed in light of comments
received. All comments submitted will
be available for examination in the
public docket both before and after the
closing date for comments. A report
summarizing each substantive public
contact with FAA personnel concerned
with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.
Availability of NPRM’s
An electronic copy of this document
may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://dms.dot.gov. Recently
published rulemaking documents can
also be accessed through the FAA’s Web
page at http://www.faa.gov, or the
Federal Register’s Web page at http://
www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
You may review the public docket
containing the proposal, any comments
received and any final disposition in
person in the Dockets Office (see
ADDRESSES section for address and
phone number) between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. An informal docket
may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the
Regional Air Traffic Division, AWP–
520, 15000 Aviation Boulevard,
Lawndale, CA 90261.
Persons interested in being placed on
a mailing list for future NPRM’s should
contact the FAA’s Office of Rulemaking,
(202) 267–9677, for a copy of Advisory
Circular No. 11–2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which
describes the application procedure.
The Proposal
The FAA is proposing an amendment
to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR) part 73 (part 73) to revise and
expand the dimensions of the current
San Onofre MOAs over the Camp
Pendleton, CA, area. The USMC has
requested these changes because the
existing special use airspace does not
permit essential large-scale amphibious
assault activities (including artillery
live-fire, fixed-wing close air support,
and remotely operated aircraft
operations).
The existing restricted areas over
Camp Pendleton are R–2503A,
extending from the surface up to 2000
feet mean sea level (MSL); R–2503B,
extending from the surface up to 15,000
feet MSL; and R–2503C, extending from
15,000 feet MSL to FL 270. These areas
will not be changed. The San Onofre
High and Low MOAs lie adjacent to the
restricted areas from 2,000 feet MSL up
to, but not including 8,000 feet MSL.
This proposed amendment would
convert the San Onofre High and Low
MOAs, and the associated CFA to R–
2503D, which would extend from 2,000
feet MSL up to 11,000 feet MSL. The
San Onofre MOA and CFA designations
would be revoked.
The time of designation for R–2503D
would be intermittent by NOTAM 24
hours in advance, and limited to a
maximum use of 20 days per year from
0600 to 2400 hours local time, and no
more than 90 days per year between
0001 and 0600 local time. The restricted
area would be available for joint-use and
scheduled for training operations on an
as needed basis subject to the maximum
use limits.
The FAA has determined that this
proposed regulation only involves an
established body of technical
regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to
keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation: (1)
Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not
a ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3)
does not warrant preparation of a
regulatory evaluation as the anticipated
impact is so minimal. Since this is a
routine matter that will only affect air
traffic procedures and air navigation, it
is certified that this rule, when
promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Environmental Review
This proposal will be subject to the
appropriate environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1D,
Policies and Procedures for Considering
Environmental Impacts, prior to any
FAA final regulatory action.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73
Airspace, Navigation (air).
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the
Federal Aviation Administration
proposes to amend 14 CFR part 73 as
follows:
PART 73—SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE
1. The authority citation for part 73
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113,
40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–
1963 Comp., p. 389.
§ 73.25 [Amended]
2. § 73.25 is amended as follows:
* * * * *
R–2503D Camp Pendleton, CA [Added]
Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 33°22'42? N.;
long. 117°36'45? W.; to lat. 33°27'13? N.;
long. 117°34'17? W.; to lat. 33°18'41? N.;
long. 117°23'58? W.; to lat. 33°17'30? N.;
long. 117°16'43? W.; to lat. 33°14'09?N.;
long. 117°26'38? W.; to the point of the
beginning by following a line 1 NM from
and parallel to the shoreline.
Designated altitudes. 2,000 feet MSL to
11,000 feet MSL.
Time of designation. Intermittent by
NOTAM 24 hours in advance not to exceed
20 days per year from 0600 to 2400 local time
and not more than 90 days per year between
0001 and 0600 local.
Controlling agency. FAA, Southern
California TRACON.
Using agency. U.S. Marine Corps,
Commanding General, MCB Camp Pendleton,
CA.
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC, March 18, 2004.
Reginald C. Matthews,
Manager, Airspace and Rules.
[FR Doc. 04–6747 Filed 3–25–04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

* notice of proposed rulemaking:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text....1.2.2&idno=14


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) Rich Stowell Aerobatics 28 January 2nd 09 02:26 PM
AOPA and ATC Privatization Chip Jones Instrument Flight Rules 139 November 12th 03 08:26 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2020 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.