d b wrote:
I'd have to disagree about the predictability of airspace loss. It
was predictable when the FAA came into existance. So far, the
predictions have been met or exceeded.

The predicton is simple. If it is possible to use a rule to restrict
those who now use the airspace, it will be used to restrict those
who use the airspace. The second corollary is that all rules are
restrictions in one form or another.

I'm trying to think of an example where the opposite has happened.
I can think of no airspace that was unavailable in the past and is
now available.

The Hanford nuclear reservation (near Richland, WA, where I live) had a
640 square mile, 10,000' restriction on it when I began to fly gliders
in the 70's. In the early '80s, the FAA badgered the DOE into dropping
that restriction, and now we fly freely over it.

The FAA's objections, along with others, have kept the Yakima Firing
Range restricted area (Washington state) from growing, for which we are
very thankful.

We have added several wave windows in Washington and Oregon over the
last 20 years, so we can now use Class A airspace that was previously
unavailable.

The Umatilla Depot TFR (Oregon) that was imposed after 9/11 was a 5 mile
radius restriction to 10,000'; it was recently reduced to one fifth of
that and to only 5000'.

I'm sure you will understand why I might have different view of the FAA.
--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA