On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 18:58:00 GMT, "Allen"
wrote in ::
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
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
Go to www.cannon.af.mil . There is a 421 page .pdf of the proposed areas.
The proposal creates a new MOA on the flight path.
Many thanks for that link. Here are some excerpts from the USAF EIS
with my comments interspersed:
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR
NEW MEXICO TRAINING RANGE INITIATIVE
a. Responsible Agency: United States Air Force
b. Cooperating Agency: Federal Aviation Administration
c. Proposals and Actions: This Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) analyzes the potential environmental consequences
of a proposal to modify the training airspace near Cannon Air
Force Base (AFB), New Mexico. The proposal would improve airspace
for training primarily New Mexico-based pilots. The existing
airspace no longer suffices to train aircrews in all of the
tactics they will be expected to use in combat. The Proposed
Action and two action alternatives are comprised of four elements:
modifying the configuration of existing airspace (including
expanding the size, operational altitudes, and usefulness of the
Pecos Military Operations Area [MOA] and associated Air Traffic
Control Assigned Airspace [ATCAA], and moving Jet Route J-74
[J-74] and deconflicting commercial traffic five to seven nautical
miles (nm) north of the modified training airspace); creating new
airspace (the Capitan MOA/ATCAA to connect the existing Beak MOA
and the expanded Pecos MOA); flying at supersonic speeds above
10,000 feet above mean sea level (MSL) or approximately 5,000 to
6,000 feet above ground level (AGL) in the airspace; and extending
the use of defensive countermeasures (chaff and flares) to the
new and modified airspace. Alternative A modifies the airspace
configuration, establishes the Capitan MOA/ATCAA, includes
supersonic flight above 10,000 feet MSL, and expands defensive
chaff and flares use. Alternative A does not move J-74. Under
Alternative A, other deconfliction methods could be instituted to
route commercial traffic around active Pecos North ATCAA airspace.
Alternative B modifies the Pecos MOA/ATCAA airspace, reroutes J-74
traffic, includes supersonic flight above 10,000 feet MSL, and
extends use of defensive chaff and flares. The Capitan MOA/ATCAA
would not be created under Alternative B. Under the No-Action
Alternative, aircrews would continue to train in the existing
airspace, fly at supersonic speeds above 30,000 feet MSL, and use
defensive chaff and flares.
If proposed alternative A or B were implemented, would the military
airspace above 10,000' be returned to civil use?
d. Comments and Inquiries: Written comments on this document
should be directed to Ms. Brenda Cook, New Mexico Training Range
Initiative EIS Project Manager, HQ ACC/CEVP, 129 Andrews Street,
Suite 102, Langley AFB, VA 23665-2769. Telephone inquiries may be
made to Cannon AFB Public Affairs at (505) 784-4131.
...
Under No-Action, aircrews would be required to travel to bases or
locations with adequately sized airspace for training with current
weapons and tactics. This would both reduce training opportunities
and increase costs.
...
Under the Proposed Action and Alternative B, rerouting commercial
traffic from the current J-74 and other directly routed civilian
aircraft would add one to two minutes of additional flight time
for a re-routed aircraft.
...
The increase in sonic booms from one per five days under No-Action
to two per three days under the Proposed Action or Alternatives A
or B would not be expected to affect wildlife or livestock
behavior.
...
Predicted peak overpressure noise from sonic booms would not be
strong enough to cause damage to structures in good condition.
...
Sonic booms are not expected to occur at pressure levels that
could damage structures, although older windows or objects on
shelves could be vibrated or damaged. Change in sonic booms from
one per five days to two per three days or any chaff or flare
residual materials would not be in amounts that would affect
property values or land use. The added risk of flare-induced fire
in the affected area, compared to other potential sources of fire,
would be very low. Therefore, no effects on socioeconomic resource
are expected from the Proposed Action or Alternative A or B. In
the unlikely event of property damage due to an Air Force
activity, the Air Force has established procedures for damage
claims.
I'm sure that is a great comfort to Ms. Jacques Olivier and her
daughter:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...12X22313&key=1
An annual total of 60,770 chaff bundles and 40,286 flares would
continue to be authorized throughout the new, modified, and
existing airspace. ... About 5 million chaff strands are dispensed
in each bundle of chaff.
...
These mishap rates do not consider combat losses due to enemy
action. F-16C aircraft have flown more than 3,336,700 hours since
the aircraft entered the Air Force inventory during Fiscal Year
1985. Over that period, 120 Class A mishaps have occurred and 113
aircraft have been destroyed.
That would be an average of one F-16C non-combat Class A mishap every
two months!
...
Under the airspace, 14 percent is lands managed by the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM), 16 percent is state land, and 69 percent is
private.
...
There are seven counties underlying or partially underlying the
training airspace.
...
Record searches of both the New Mexico State Register of Cultural
Properties and the NRHP indicate that there are NRHP-listed
properties in one county underlying project MOAs and proposed
expansion areas. As Table 3.6-1 indicates, listed properties in De
Baca county include the De Baca County Courthouse, which was
constructed in 1917; the Fort Sumner Railroad Bridge, which was
constructed in 1906; the Rodrick Drug Store; the Fort Sumner
Women’s Club; and the Fort Sumner Ruins.
...
Towns within the study area range in population from less than 200
to about 1,900 (University of New Mexico [UNM] 2000).
The majority (78 percent) of the land under the airspace is
privately held. The majority of the public land that would be
affected by the Proposed Action is administered by the BLM.
...
Approximately 71 percent of all land under the restricted airspace
is held in private ownership, 21 percent are state lands, and 8
percent is administered by the Air Force (Air Force 2001e).
...
One high-altitude Jet Route, J-74 (J-74), provides direct
east-to-west routing between the Texico VORTAC and the Corona
VORTAC. Jet routes are established under Federal Aviation
Regulation (FAR) Part 71 in Class A airspace to designate
frequently used routings. Jet routes extend from FL 180 to FL 450,
inclusive. They have no specified width; width varies depending
on many aeronautical factors (FAA Order 7400.2 2000). J-74 passes
over the Pecos North High MOA, through the northern portion of the
Pecos ATCAA, and over the restricted airspace associated with
Melrose AFR. Currently, the Pecos ATCAA is capped at FL 300, and
does not conflict with civil traffic generally at FL 310 or
higher. Commercial traffic routed via direct or using J-74
fluctuates from light to heavy, depending on the time of day. Most
traffic involves operations to and from Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas.
Peaks normally occur during mid-morning and mid to late afternoon
(personal communication, Semanek 2004). The 27 FW seldom requests
authorization to use this airspace because it is unavailable for
military use even though it is greatly needed for training. The
lack of access has “conditioned” the 27 FW to constantly work
around this capped airspace, which diminishes the area for
realistic training.
...
IFR traffic would require ATC clearance to transit the active MOA.
However, VFR traffic could transit the active MOA using the
“see-and-avoid” concept.
The USAF's suggestion that VFR traffic employ see-and-avoid techniques
to avoid mid-air collisions with supersonic military fighter aircraft
reveals a their desire to mislead.
...
Currently, J-74 provides routing between the Texico Very High
Frequency Omni-directional Radio Range and Tactical Air Navigation
Aid (VORTAC) (east of the New Mexico Training Range Initiative
[NMTRI] airspace) and the Corona VORTAC (west of the NMTRI
airspace). This route passes through the northern portion of the
Pecos ATCAA. Conflicting use of this airspace is resolved by Air
Traffic Control (ATC). J-74 would be moved under the Proposed
Action. This could be accomplished by establishing a way-point
north of the ATCAA, and the route would be divided into two
segments.
...
Rerouting J-74 and direct traffic to the north encroaches on the
utilization of another jet route further to the north. This is the
area of J-72 ...
...
The average time between aircraft ranges from 2.7 minutes to 20.9
minutes. The peak hour demand, which occurs on Thursday from 11:00
a.m. to noon, would increase peak traffic from 19 flights per hour
to 30 flights per hour (see Table 4.1-1). The Air Force believes
that scheduling and coordination are required to prevent
over-extension of the National Airspace system.
...
The Air Force believes the likely number of aircraft requiring air
traffic control service from FAA controllers falls within their
ability and expertise to deconflict in the area north of the Pecos
MOA/ATCAA complex. To fully unencumber active available airspace
for military training, IFR traffic transiting this active airspace
must file their flight plans to avoid the Pecos airspace complex
through the Aeronautical Information System Replacement system.
The existing Pecos MOA complex would be expanded laterally and
vertically under the Proposed Action. The MOAs would be expanded
laterally to conform with the lateral boundaries of the ATCAA
overlying the complex. This expansion would include a southerly
expansion of the Pecos South Low MOA, thus adding additional low
altitude military airspace in that region (down to 500 feet AGL).
Is that an additional airspace grab?
The proposed westward expansion of the Pecos complex would result
in the MOA overlying portions of one Federal Airway, V-291. This
airway provides routing between the Corona VORTAC and Roswell. The
proposed MOA expansion would not totally prohibit use of this
airway.
...
The proposed southerly expansion of the Pecos South Low MOA, into
the area of the previously defined “Roswell Shelf,” would result
in lowering MOA airspace in that region from 11,000 feet MSL to
500 feet AGL.
...
Expansion of the Pecos MOA complex could interact with traffic on
the “Worth-3” SID.
...
Depending on which airspace were active for training, rerouting
could require flying around the entire Pecos MOA/ATCAA complex.
The more likely effect to private pilots would be to schedule a
flight at a time other than the hours during the typical two days
per month when the Capitan MOA/ATCAA was in use. As is always the
case, if an emergency, such as a life-flight were required, the
Air Force would immediately shift or end training to accommodate
the emergency.
...
The increase in sonic booms from supersonic activity would be
noticeable and can be intrusive. They will occur on average two
times in three days ... Public concerns expressed during scoping
include annoyance of people who are startled by booms, possible
damage to structures (particularly brittle objects like older
windows) and potential adverse effects on domestic and wild
animals. ... Sonic booms under the Proposed Action are not
expected to damage viable structures, such as foundations,
buildings, windmills, radio towers, or water tanks. ... Not all
structures are in good condition. Brittle elements such as windows
and plaster can weaken with age, and become susceptible to
breakage at low boom levels. ... Nonetheless, the presence of
susceptible structures, for whatever reason, means that some
damage attributable to sonic booms is to be expected.
...
Short-term reactions to new noises may include temporary shifts in
habitat use or activities. For example, prairie dogs and swift
foxes might spend more time in their burrows, where they would be
somewhat insulated from noises (Francine et al. 1995). Lesser
prairie-chickens are known to cease lekking activities for several
minutes to several hours in response to noise disturbances (Giesen
and Connelly 1993); therefore, a sudden onset low-level noise
event from an aircraft overflight could disturb lekking
prairie-chickens. ... Under the Proposed Action, a greater number
of sorties would include supersonic flight and supersonic flight
would occur at lower altitudes than under existing conditions.
Consequently, animals would be exposed to louder noise levels from
sonic booms than they are at present.
...
Several special-status species are rare in New Mexico, but could
be present during spring and fall migration, particularly along
the Pecos River (NMDGF 2002a, 2002b). These are brown pelican,
piping plover, mountain plover, black tern (Chlidonias niger),
interior least tern, peregrine falcon, bald eagle, and Baird’s
sparrow. These temporary visitors may not be habituated to
aircraft noise. Migrating birds require quality stopover habitat
to rest and eat. Noise disturbance, therefore, could cause
individual special-status birds and other migratory birds (e.g.,
ducks and geese) to leave their stopover area prematurely.
However, negative impacts to special-status populations would not
be expected. ... Wintering bald eagles are sensitive to noise
disturbance (Grubb and King 1991) and may be disturbed by aircraft
noise However, because of the short duration of a noise event
occurring at a particular location on the ground, any resulting
physiological or behavioral disturbance would be short-lived.
...
Noise from supersonic flight would increase in all parts of the
airspace, but at levels that would not be expected to
significantly impact biological resources. Resident wild animals
and livestock experiencing new noise levels may initially
experience negative effects and may temporarily shift habitat use
or activities as a result (Harrington and Veitch 1991).
...
Under the Proposed Action, the number of supersonic events
throughout the airspace would increase relative to current
conditions. Supersonic flights at 10,000 feet MSL could increase
the frequency and intensity of sonic booms.
...
The proposed MOA expansions and new airspace would not prohibit
general aviation use. MOAs are joint use airspace and both
military and civil pilots are required to operate under
see-and-avoid rules of flight.
Clearly, see-and-avoid failed to separate military and civil aircraft
at _subsonic_ speeds in these military-civil mishaps:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...13X33340&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?...1FA028A&rpt=fi
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...26X00109&key=2
That the USAF can muster the audacity to suggest that see-and-avoid
would be a successful technique for separating _supersonic_ aircraft
is hubris beyond comprehension.
Other socioeconomic factors, such as business activity,
employment, interest rates, and land scarcity (or availability)
are much more likely to affect property values than an altitude
redistribution of flight pattern changes in existing training
aircraft overflights.
What of the reduction of property values do supersonic military
aircraft operations above 30,000' feet over the affected area?
The New Mexico Air National Guard (NMANG) is proposing to create
the Smitty MOA underneath the current CATO MOA, which is 60 miles
southwest of Albuquerque. An EA analyzing this action is underway.
Creation of this new MOA would not affect Cannon AFB or its
airspace
Is this yet another attempted military airspace grab?