|
| 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. |
|
|||||||
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
April 5th 04, 09:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
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 
|
|
#2
April 6th 04, 02:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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
April 6th 04, 01:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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
April 6th 04, 01:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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
April 6th 04, 02:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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
April 6th 04, 02:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#8
April 7th 04, 03:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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
April 10th 04, 05:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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
April 10th 04, 06:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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: 1140FCAD8F8E9A41B5234D738B6398B702EA3784@AOPAMAIL 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 | |
|
|
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 03:26 PM |
| AOPA and ATC Privatization | Chip Jones | Instrument Flight Rules | 139 | November 12th 03 09:26 PM |
Linear Mode
