The Latest Military Airspace Grab: 700 Square Miles!

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 12:41:48 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On 16 Feb 2005 01:52:38 -0800, wrote in
s.com::


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)

Most of Europe operates under a combination of (maybe it's changed
since I was in the business, but I doubt it), OAT "Operational Air
Traffic" and GAT "General Air Traffic" control. This means there are
two over-lapping (and hence competing) systems of air traffic control
with regulations, airspace, controllers, radars, etc.

On the one hand, it helps the military get the mission done, on the
other, it makes GA flying a bit more complicated for the little guy.
The airlines aren't much impacted.

That's interesting. Virtually the entire US lies under controlled
airspace; there is very little Class G.

That's true, but don't confuse that "controlled airspace" with special
use airspace or military requirement. "Area positive control" is the
airspace above a certain altitude MSL that is ALL controlled airspace
meaning you can only enter if on an IFR flight plan. So, no VFR there,
but it ISN'T military special use.

And another showing low level military flying areas:
http://www.mod.uk/linked_files/uk_lfas.gif

Given the current trend, I would expect the US to be totally blanketed
with military airspace, like the UK appears to be, if the military
thought they could get away with it.

Dare I suggest a bit of inflammatory hyperbole there? We've already
pointed out that with the reduction of military installation in the
last thirty years there have been huge cancellations and eliminations
of no-longer needed military airspace. And, we've also discussed at
great length the fairly easy accessibility of a lot of airspace which
is designated special use, but open when not active. What parts of
this have you not understood?

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

Absolutely! Big sky theory applies.


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

Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 12:41:48 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On 16 Feb 2005 01:52:38 -0800, wrote in
s.com::


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)

Most of Europe operates under a combination of (maybe it's changed
since I was in the business, but I doubt it), OAT "Operational Air
Traffic" and GAT "General Air Traffic" control. This means there are
two over-lapping (and hence competing) systems of air traffic control
with regulations, airspace, controllers, radars, etc.

On the one hand, it helps the military get the mission done, on the
other, it makes GA flying a bit more complicated for the little guy.
The airlines aren't much impacted.

That's interesting. Virtually the entire US lies under controlled
airspace; there is very little Class G.

That's true, but don't confuse that "controlled airspace" with
special
use airspace or military requirement. "Area positive control" is the
airspace above a certain altitude MSL that is ALL controlled airspace
meaning you can only enter if on an IFR flight plan. So, no VFR
there,
but it ISN'T military special use.

And another showing low level military flying areas:
http://www.mod.uk/linked_files/uk_lfas.gif

Given the current trend, I would expect the US to be totally
blanketed
with military airspace, like the UK appears to be, if the military
thought they could get away with it.

Dare I suggest a bit of inflammatory hyperbole there? We've already
pointed out that with the reduction of military installation in the
last thirty years there have been huge cancellations and eliminations
of no-longer needed military airspace. And, we've also discussed at
great length the fairly easy accessibility of a lot of airspace which
is designated special use, but open when not active. What parts of
this have you not understood?

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

Absolutely! Big sky theory applies.


and long may it continue!

David

wrote

and long may it continue!

David

Please, please, take the time to snip out most of the preceding post.
Failing to do so is very rude.
--
Jim in NC

Apologies and thankyou for pointing it out ...and i've just sent a new
definition of 'very rude' to Letetia Baldridge
(http://www.letitia.com/)

David