BRAC and Fort Rucker

"Fuzzy Footie" wrote in message
...
BamaJohn wrote:

Anyone have any information on how they feel Fort Rucker will fare in
the next round of Base Realignment and Closure. What are its strenths
and what are in weaknesses, and what are its major threats? Any
information is appreciated.

Fort Rucker will probably survive this round due to politics. (Yes, I
know the BRAC is supposed to be non-political.)

If the location of the Army Flight Training Center were to be made on a
strictly military needs basis, the Aviation Center would be moved to
Fort Irwin. Between the NTC and Edwards AFB, there are about 950,000
acres of desert and mountains for maneuver.

Is putting new trainee pilots into a high/hot situation from the outset
really advisable? Not to mention the folks running the NTC would probably
just as soon not have to worry about all of those TH-67's whirling around
while they are trying to do serious work like running a BLUEFOR BCT through
the wringer...

Brooks


--
Fuzz

Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Fuzzy Footie" wrote in message
...

BamaJohn wrote:


Anyone have any information on how they feel Fort Rucker will fare in
the next round of Base Realignment and Closure. What are its strenths
and what are in weaknesses, and what are its major threats? Any
information is appreciated.

Fort Rucker will probably survive this round due to politics. (Yes, I
know the BRAC is supposed to be non-political.)

If the location of the Army Flight Training Center were to be made on a
strictly military needs basis, the Aviation Center would be moved to
Fort Irwin. Between the NTC and Edwards AFB, there are about 950,000
acres of desert and mountains for maneuver.


Is putting new trainee pilots into a high/hot situation from the outset
really advisable? Not to mention the folks running the NTC would probably
just as soon not have to worry about all of those TH-67's whirling around
while they are trying to do serious work like running a BLUEFOR BCT through
the wringer...

Brooks


--
Fuzz


Hey! Evolution in action. While Fort Irwin is probably not the best
climate or altitude to learn, for the foreseeable future that's the
climate they will be flying in. There is enough acreage that they could
keep to propeller heads away from the maneuver forces.

Of course, Forts Campbell, Bragg or Benning have much more 'back' post
area for flight training without flying trainees over civilian
neighborhoods.

--
Fuzz

"Fuzzy Footie" wrote in message
...
Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Fuzzy Footie" wrote in message
...

BamaJohn wrote:


Anyone have any information on how they feel Fort Rucker will fare in
the next round of Base Realignment and Closure. What are its strenths
and what are in weaknesses, and what are its major threats? Any
information is appreciated.

Fort Rucker will probably survive this round due to politics. (Yes, I
know the BRAC is supposed to be non-political.)

If the location of the Army Flight Training Center were to be made on a
strictly military needs basis, the Aviation Center would be moved to
Fort Irwin. Between the NTC and Edwards AFB, there are about 950,000
acres of desert and mountains for maneuver.


Is putting new trainee pilots into a high/hot situation from the outset
really advisable? Not to mention the folks running the NTC would
probably
just as soon not have to worry about all of those TH-67's whirling
around
while they are trying to do serious work like running a BLUEFOR BCT
through
the wringer...

Brooks


--
Fuzz


Hey! Evolution in action. While Fort Irwin is probably not the best
climate or altitude to learn, for the foreseeable future that's the
climate they will be flying in. There is enough acreage that they could
keep to propeller heads away from the maneuver forces.

Of course, Forts Campbell, Bragg or Benning have much more 'back' post
area for flight training without flying trainees over civilian
neighborhoods.

--
Fuzz




I see you've never been trained as a pilot. Hell, Texas ain't big enough to
train pilots in! Been there and done that, got the T-shirt, and wore it out
completely!

John Hart wrote:
"Fuzzy Footie" wrote in message
...

Kevin Brooks wrote:


"Fuzzy Footie" wrote in message
...


BamaJohn wrote:



Anyone have any information on how they feel Fort Rucker will fare in
the next round of Base Realignment and Closure. What are its strenths
and what are in weaknesses, and what are its major threats? Any
information is appreciated.

Fort Rucker will probably survive this round due to politics. (Yes, I
know the BRAC is supposed to be non-political.)

If the location of the Army Flight Training Center were to be made on a
strictly military needs basis, the Aviation Center would be moved to
Fort Irwin. Between the NTC and Edwards AFB, there are about 950,000
acres of desert and mountains for maneuver.


Is putting new trainee pilots into a high/hot situation from the outset
really advisable? Not to mention the folks running the NTC would

probably

just as soon not have to worry about all of those TH-67's whirling

around

while they are trying to do serious work like running a BLUEFOR BCT

through

the wringer...

Brooks



--
Fuzz

Hey! Evolution in action. While Fort Irwin is probably not the best
climate or altitude to learn, for the foreseeable future that's the
climate they will be flying in. There is enough acreage that they could
keep to propeller heads away from the maneuver forces.

Of course, Forts Campbell, Bragg or Benning have much more 'back' post
area for flight training without flying trainees over civilian
neighborhoods.

--
Fuzz





I see you've never been trained as a pilot. Hell, Texas ain't big enough to
train pilots in! Been there and done that, got the T-shirt, and wore it out
completely!



Glad to hear it, but what's that got to do with the small on post flight
area for first phase trainees at Fort Rucker? The post has worked for
years in trying to gain more restricted air space for training.

--
Fuzz

"Fuzzy Footie" wrote in message
...
John Hart wrote:
"Fuzzy Footie" wrote in message
...

Kevin Brooks wrote:


"Fuzzy Footie" wrote in message
...


BamaJohn wrote:



Anyone have any information on how they feel Fort Rucker will fare in
the next round of Base Realignment and Closure. What are its strenths
and what are in weaknesses, and what are its major threats? Any
information is appreciated.

Fort Rucker will probably survive this round due to politics. (Yes, I
know the BRAC is supposed to be non-political.)

If the location of the Army Flight Training Center were to be made on
a
strictly military needs basis, the Aviation Center would be moved to
Fort Irwin. Between the NTC and Edwards AFB, there are about 950,000
acres of desert and mountains for maneuver.


Is putting new trainee pilots into a high/hot situation from the outset
really advisable? Not to mention the folks running the NTC would

probably

just as soon not have to worry about all of those TH-67's whirling

around

while they are trying to do serious work like running a BLUEFOR BCT

through

the wringer...

Brooks



--
Fuzz

Hey! Evolution in action. While Fort Irwin is probably not the best
climate or altitude to learn, for the foreseeable future that's the
climate they will be flying in. There is enough acreage that they could
keep to propeller heads away from the maneuver forces.

Of course, Forts Campbell, Bragg or Benning have much more 'back' post
area for flight training without flying trainees over civilian
neighborhoods.

--
Fuzz





I see you've never been trained as a pilot. Hell, Texas ain't big
enough to
train pilots in! Been there and done that, got the T-shirt, and wore it
out
completely!



Glad to hear it, but what's that got to do with the small on post flight
area for first phase trainees at Fort Rucker? The post has worked for
years in trying to gain more restricted air space for training.

--
Fuzz

That's the point. It ain't all done in a small area in the first phase. I
went through rotary wing primary training in Ft Woters, TX myself, then
after my first tour in 'Nam, I worked there three years as a primary flight
instructor. To handle 200 or 300 primary students, a helicopter primary
school uses up a hell of a lot more airspace than is available at any post
with an active arty impact area. Got to keep'em clear of the GT line, out
of the impact area, and completely away from such things as parachute drops,
not to mention out of commercial air traffic, and seperated from each other.
Might be able to do all that if you draw a 250 - 300 mile radius around a
given place, and can control ALL the airspace from the surface upward.

John Hart wrote:
"Fuzzy Footie" wrote in message
...


Glad to hear it, but what's that got to do with the small on post flight
area for first phase trainees at Fort Rucker? The post has worked for
years in trying to gain more restricted air space for training.

--
Fuzz


That's the point. It ain't all done in a small area in the first phase. I
went through rotary wing primary training in Ft Woters, TX myself, then
after my first tour in 'Nam, I worked there three years as a primary flight
instructor. To handle 200 or 300 primary students, a helicopter primary
school uses up a hell of a lot more airspace than is available at any post
with an active arty impact area. Got to keep'em clear of the GT line, out
of the impact area, and completely away from such things as parachute drops,
not to mention out of commercial air traffic, and seperated from each other.
Might be able to do all that if you draw a 250 - 300 mile radius around a
given place, and can control ALL the airspace from the surface upward.



Understood. It sounds like Fort Irwin is the place. Of course, all
those new WO's and Eltees would hate it being so far from Barstow. Of
course, they could make thunder runs to Las Vegas on the weekends.

It is clear there is no easy answer. Therefore, as the government is
wont to do, primary rotor wing training will stay at Rucker, probably
until the end of time.

--
Fuzz

Fuzzy Footie wrote:

John Hart wrote:

"Fuzzy Footie" wrote in message
...


Glad to hear it, but what's that got to do with the small on post flight
area for first phase trainees at Fort Rucker? The post has worked for
years in trying to gain more restricted air space for training.

--
Fuzz



That's the point. It ain't all done in a small area in the first
phase. I
went through rotary wing primary training in Ft Woters, TX myself, then
after my first tour in 'Nam, I worked there three years as a primary
flight
instructor. To handle 200 or 300 primary students, a helicopter primary
school uses up a hell of a lot more airspace than is available at any
post
with an active arty impact area. Got to keep'em clear of the GT line,
out
of the impact area, and completely away from such things as parachute
drops,
not to mention out of commercial air traffic, and seperated from each
other.
Might be able to do all that if you draw a 250 - 300 mile radius around a
given place, and can control ALL the airspace from the surface upward.



Understood. It sounds like Fort Irwin is the place. Of course, all
those new WO's and Eltees would hate it being so far from Barstow. Of
course, they could make thunder runs to Las Vegas on the weekends.

It is clear there is no easy answer. Therefore, as the government is
wont to do, primary rotor wing training will stay at Rucker, probably
until the end of time.

--
Fuzz

I hear Yuma Proving Ground is on the closing list. Lots of room there
for flight training. A little toasty in summer.
LZ

Well, don't know what the hotshots are going to do, but I suspect it has a
lot more to do with "pork" than suitability of a particular geographical
area. A geographical area has little influence on primary flight training,
actually. The so-called "dangers" to a civilian populace attributed to
flight training is virtually non-existent. Certainly, once in a while, a
student pilot will be involved in some sort of a mishap thet scares the
bejesus out of some civilians, but in actuality, very, very few are actually
injured or killed.





Understood. It sounds like Fort Irwin is the place. Of course, all
those new WO's and Eltees would hate it being so far from Barstow. Of
course, they could make thunder runs to Las Vegas on the weekends.

It is clear there is no easy answer. Therefore, as the government is
wont to do, primary rotor wing training will stay at Rucker, probably
until the end of time.

--
Fuzz

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 23:55:06 GMT, "John Hart"
wrote:

That's the point. It ain't all done in a small area in the first phase. I
went through rotary wing primary training in Ft Woters, TX myself, then
after my first tour in 'Nam, I worked there three years as a primary flight
instructor. To handle 200 or 300 primary students, a helicopter primary
school uses up a hell of a lot more airspace than is available at any post
with an active arty impact area. Got to keep'em clear of the GT line, out
of the impact area, and completely away from such things as parachute drops,
not to mention out of commercial air traffic, and seperated from each other.
Might be able to do all that if you draw a 250 - 300 mile radius around a
given place, and can control ALL the airspace from the surface upward.


I should hope you would be able to keep them separated - a cylindrical
airspace block 3 miles high and 600 miles across contains 848,230
cubic miles of airspace and then some. That comes out to 2800+ cubic
miles of airspace per student at a student load of 300, assuming one
student per aircraft. Think that's enough separation?

BTW, where in the U.S. do you think that you are going to be able to
obtain an area of low-altitude airspace that is 500-600 miles in
diameter and get full control of it? Sounds like a primary flight
instructor's wet dream but it probably ain't gonna happen.

John Hairell )
former Army ATCS (Rucker, Hood, Korea)