HUGE INCREASE IN MOAs PLANNED...Please Help!!!

Ghery said:
Interesting. Our shuttles were Part 91 flights. Just operated like 121 (except we didn't have to mess with TSA nonsense).
Click to expand...

Sorry, I shouldn't have been so specific.....it was to facilitate traffic in class A transiting above.

As an aside, I brought a jet up for static display in 2015 or 2016 to the Hillsboro airshow and saw the little Intel fleet. Seemed like a nice perk, or at least convenient means of business travel. My older brother has been an engineer at that site for maybe 15-20 years now, as was my brother-in-law (sister's husband) until he retired about 5 years ago.
 
35 AoA said:
Bear with me, but I am failing to connect a larger local SUA with buying more fuel/spare parts/service. Bigger SUA =/= more flights/flight hours. We would be flying/maintaining the same amount of jets the same amount of time, with the same amount of fuel, regardless of whether SUA expansions go forward or not. It is a question of how to maximize the training value of those precious flight hours that we are already paying for. The current SUA structure, nationally, does not support training to realistic, modern threats.

Again, not saying that there aren't valid counterpoints. But this isn't some conspiracy to grab more money. It is a real demand signal being sent to senior leadership, by all of us trying to train the next generation of aviators in advanced tactics.
Click to expand...

Sorry, didn't mean to imply it's a conspiracy at all. I see it as group "A" has a great idea, that requires all sorts of changes. Better training, bigger area to train in, more realistic scenarios, etc. They describe that to leadership, and then above that, group "B". Group "B" is equivalent of the pointy haired boss in Dilbert. They have NO idea what the heck group "A" is talking about, just that in their head it's all more money, so that's good for them to report back home. Hey we're doing all this blah blah, and in their mind it's more money, so more money back to them. My bet would be that in this case it ends up being more flights, longer flights, and more adversary flights down the road. That now that we're not fighting as much actual combat, we have to somehow make up that demand for fuel, parts, techs.
 
Albany Tom said:
Sorry, didn't mean to imply it's a conspiracy at all. I see it as group "A" has a great idea, that requires all sorts of changes. Better training, bigger area to train in, more realistic scenarios, etc. They describe that to leadership, and then above that, group "B". Group "B" is equivalent of the pointy haired boss in Dilbert. They have NO idea what the heck group "A" is talking about, just that in their head it's all more money, so that's good for them to report back home. Hey we're doing all this blah blah, and in their mind it's more money, so more money back to them. My bet would be that in this case it ends up being more flights, longer flights, and more adversary flights down the road. That now that we're not fighting as much actual combat, we have to somehow make up that demand for fuel, parts, techs.
Click to expand...

Yeah I think you make some valid points. Particularly the part about "group B" being out of touch. Certainly there are examples of various DoD entities fighting for funds purely for the sake of keeping those funds. I don't think of this as another example of that though. It's an important requirement for present and future training, that has been on the back burner for years due to other obligations. Maybe think of it as a better way of arguing for the status quo budget compared to years past, while getting more value out of those dollars? More adversary flights is a distinct possibility, but that also requires separate pots of money to be increased. On the subject of adversaries, we need more and better aircraft than we have today. So yes, that is a money issue. But in the byzantine system of DoD funding, this particular issue (SUA expansion) has no bearing on that one. You may well have a flag or SES arguing for both, but the approval process is separate, and both have different funding sources. Point being, expanded SUA doesn't necessarily equate to even more bandits, even if it would logically make sense for it to.
 
MOA's are non-regulatory airspace. They are created, deleted and modified without going through the rulemaking process. Can certainly complain but the gov. is going to do it anyway.
 
martym said:
MOA's are non-regulatory airspace. They are created, deleted and modified without going through the rulemaking process. Can certainly complain but the gov. is going to do it anyway.
Click to expand...

MOAs go through the same process as Restricted Areas. Has nothing to do with regulatory vs non regulatory. Each FAA region does an annual review on all its R areas, MOAs an W areas. If that annual review indicates that the airspace doesn’t meet the user’s needs, the user submits an airspace proposal to modify the SUA.
 
35 AoA said:
…It is a question of how to maximize the training value of those precious flight hours that we are already paying for. The current SUA structure, nationally, does not support training to realistic, modern threats….
Click to expand...
I’d guess 40NM setups for F-16 mission sets at LUF and HIll are of pretty marginal value for the F-35, especially if a realistic ground threat is part of the game plan and while I recognize there’s a sweet spot for how long to drive to the reset and still be able to get 3 passes in an hour and hit a ground threat, I can see the need for larger MOAs with a tradeoff being higher floors and ceilings. The Viper still needs low level stuff, but I can’t see that for fat Amy.
 
Last edited:
Velocity173 said:
MOAs go through the same process as Restricted Areas. Has nothing to do with regulatory vs non regulatory.
Click to expand...

Restricted Areas and Prohibited Areas are regulated airspace, controlled by 14CFR Part 73 Supbart B and C respectively. Any amendments or modifications to this airspace requires a change to Part 73 of the CFRs by use of the rulemaking process outlined in 14CFR Part 11.

Nonregulatory airspace can be amended or modified by administrative procedure, no change to CFRs required.

Chances of being a fly in the ointment are much better with regulated airspace.

AIM Excerpt:

3-4-1. General

a. Special use airspace consists of that airspace wherein activities must be confined because of their nature, or wherein limitations are imposed upon aircraft operations that are not a part of those activities, or both. Except for controlled firing areas, special use airspace areas are depicted on aeronautical charts.

b. Prohibited and restricted areas are regulatory special use airspace and are established in 14 CFR Part 73 through the rulemaking process.

c. Warning areas, military operations areas (MOAs), alert areas, and controlled firing areas (CFAs) are nonregulatory special use airspace.
 
Last edited:
martym said:
Restricted Areas and Prohibited Areas are regulated airspace, controlled by 14CFR Part 73 Supbart B and C respectively. Any amendments or modifications to this airspace requires a change to Part 73 of the CFRs by use of the rulemaking process outlined in 14CFR Part 11.

Nonregulatory airspace can be amended or modified by administrative procedure, no change to CFRs required.

Chances of being a fly in the ointment are much better with regulated airspace.

AIM Excerpt:

3-4-1. General

a. Special use airspace consists of that airspace wherein activities must be confined because of their nature, or wherein limitations are imposed upon aircraft operations that are not a part of those activities, or both. Except for controlled firing areas, special use airspace areas are depicted on aeronautical charts.

b. Prohibited and restricted areas are regulatory special use airspace and are established in 14 CFR Part 73 through the rulemaking process.

c. Warning areas, military operations areas (MOAs), alert areas, and controlled firing areas (CFAs) are nonregulatory special use airspace.
Click to expand...

I’m referring to the review and request for modification of a MOA or R area. Just because there’s no rule making process with non regulated airspace doesn’t mean the government as you say is going to do it anyway. The FAA still has to review the airspace proposal and determine if an increase in volume is warranted.

2136D942-2005-4DCF-8035-6F9F1004A24C.jpeg
1C88550B-7D96-476B-BC3D-05DB9DA4D656.jpeg
 
35 AoA said:
Sorry, I shouldn't have been so specific.....it was to facilitate traffic in class A transiting above.

As an aside, I brought a jet up for static display in 2015 or 2016 to the Hillsboro airshow and saw the little Intel fleet. Seemed like a nice perk, or at least convenient means of business travel. My older brother has been an engineer at that site for maybe 15-20 years now, as was my brother-in-law (sister's husband) until he retired about 5 years ago.
Click to expand...

No perk about it. It saved the company a fair amount of cash. Far more convenient than the airlines. We had a Beech 1900 running between KOLM and KHIO and ERJ-135s between KHIO, KSJC and KIWA (I think that was the one in the Phoenix area, it was the former Williams AFB). We also ran a shuttle between San Jose and Sacramento. They were always full. Any Blue Badge (full time Intel employee) could ride them, you just had to reserve a seat in advance. If I was riding the shuttle to Arizona from Hillsboro I would either get up early in the morning and drive down to Hillsboro the morning of the flight and park at an Intel facility, or drive down the evening before and spend the night in a hotel nearby. The shuttle down from KOLM did not arrive before the flights south left in the morning.

Great job for your brother and brother-in-law. I worked for about a year at HF, and then moved to DP when we opened it. Retired from DP. That was about 6 1/2 years ago. 20 years, 3 months total with Intel. 3 other employers before that. Ask your brother what HF and DP stand for. :)
 
I would when whatever flys over my house at 500’ doing 600…. Yeah buddy!
 
All of the cattle, equines, and wildlife larger than rodentia must've had a massive extinction event here in the Ozarks when all those F-15 tests were going on.

I'm not saying that we have as many MOA's as the desert areas, but I've had no problems getting around, through, or under them here. If they decided to expand them here, I'm pretty sure we'd all keep flying, the cows would keep making excellent burgers, and the Ozark Walkabouts would still walk around with overalls, a walking stick, and a revolver.
 
Ghery said:
No perk about it. It saved the company a fair amount of cash. Far more convenient than the airlines. We had a Beech 1900 running between KOLM and KHIO and ERJ-135s between KHIO, KSJC and KIWA (I think that was the one in the Phoenix area, it was the former Williams AFB). We also ran a shuttle between San Jose and Sacramento. They were always full. Any Blue Badge (full time Intel employee) could ride them, you just had to reserve a seat in advance. If I was riding the shuttle to Arizona from Hillsboro I would either get up early in the morning and drive down to Hillsboro the morning of the flight and park at an Intel facility, or drive down the evening before and spend the night in a hotel nearby. The shuttle down from KOLM did not arrive before the flights south left in the morning.

Great job for your brother and brother-in-law. I worked for about a year at HF, and then moved to DP when we opened it. Retired from DP. That was about 6 1/2 years ago. 20 years, 3 months total with Intel. 3 other employers before that. Ask your brother what HF and DP stand for. :)
Click to expand...
Aw c’mon. We wanna know to. Whadda they stand for
 
fat has better buoyancy than muscle. That's how they were able to scoop amy off the side of the carrier so quickly before the CCP got to it..
giphy.gif

:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top