I am not sure this is of interest to any one except for local pilots close to the Powder River MOA. The USAF wants to expand the Powder River MOA to nearly quadruple the size of the current airspace they have, and will drop the floor of all 4 MOAs to 500 ft AGL. And put more planes in the air at one time in one area as I understand it. I will be attending one of the scoping meetings and will have more info later. We already have to look out for the big boys in part of the country we fly, if this goes through it will be almost all of the country we fly. Mabe I am seeing ghost, just wish they were someone else's ghost at 500 plus MPH at 500 AGL. Good news is they will be 300-400 feet above me.

http://www.accplanning.org/
http://www.accplanning.org/documents/EI ... _Final.pdf
http://www.accplanning.org/documents/EI ... _Final.pdf

Thanks for posting this. The powder river moa is already a big pain for us. We fly to Gillette Wy several times a week from Bismarck, ND . With the Caravan we often times are forced to go around it. With the Citations we are forced to stay above 27000 feet until we are over it and then chop and drop into Gillette.

We fought this battle once in ND. They wanted to make the whole state an MOA.

This will take action from Congressmen from Wyoming, ND, SD, and Montana to prevent this from happening.

Did anyone attend the community meeting in Rapid City last night?

Cowboy,

Keep us posted, and I assure you that I will send comments. What type aircraft are to be operated there? Too lazy to read the entire AF "summary".

I can tell you from personal experience, that once that camel's nose is under the tent flap, you'll be sleeping with the thing forever. They NEVER give up airspace, and they just keep taking more and more.

If you haven't already, I'd get in touch with Melissa Rudinger of AOPA and get them working on this.

And, don't believe for a MOMENT those guys will limit themselves to 500 agl, just cause that's where the airspace ends. Boys will be boys, the brass will tell you, and we'll hammer anyone who violates our airspace. I heard THAT one, then saw high resolution video AND great still pictures of F-16s operating well outside the airspace. No action by the brass. All talk, no walk. Boys will be boys, and our fighter pilots need to push the envelope.

Course, in the last many years, anyone dumb enough to operate a fast mover really low in no joke combat has got his arse shot down. Ask the Brits.

In Afghanistan, the Navy bombed from waaaaayyyyy up there. Too many guys down there with shoulder fired missiles, not to mention better bombs.

They don't need airspace to 500 agl. Ask them what mission they fly at 500 feet in COMBAT. They will mumble some BS about being "flexible" and the need to train everywhere. Fine, tell em to train at 500 feet over New York City. None of us will be in THAT airspace.

Grrrrrr. Rant over. Sorta.
MTV

Hey! Good to hear about the airspace. We will be in the neighborhood and near the Edgemont MOA. I have been on the ground many times in these areas and the B-52's and B1B's have been sooooo low a freind of mine flying his J-3 out checking cattle had a B52 fly UNDER him! I have seen the bombers flying low from near Crawford NE to Alzada MT. I don't know if it still exits, but there used to be a bombing range area northwest of Belle Fourche SD for the B1's out of Ellsworth ASFB.[/u][/b]

Please Call your US Senators office and tell them you are opposed to this expansion of airspace. This is not no man's land. People live and ranch here. There are many small towns with hospitals that depend on charter. Not to mention those of us who just like to fly for the fun of it. This will cause airline issues, charter issues, commerce issues.

Thanks Fellas!

I have contacted AOPA, Montana Pilots Association, SDPA, NDPA, WPA. AOPA and the MPA are watching this closely. No word from the other three states yet. If any one has questions and can not make one of the meetings let me know and I will ask for you.

Gents, by all means lobby as you desire to protect your local interests/airspace, but do take into consideration that military aviation needs to get their training done the same way you do - the difference is the airspace required to do so. Executing target attacks or intercepts at tactical airspeeds require vastly larger chunks of airspace than stalls or turns around a point. The AF's desire to increase the size of training areas may seem excessive from your perspective, but as someone who has executed training in a variety of MOAs and restricted areas around the country I can tell you that more airspace can only enhance the quality of the training we conduct at home.

Of course that requires sharing and civil behavior on the part of all involved. MOAs aren't exclusive use, so they should not be nearly as disruptive to civilian operations as restricted areas. If there was a push to expand restricted areas I would be solidly on the civilian side of this issue, but MOAs can be lived and dealt with. On many occasions while training in a MOA I've gotten a call from center that a civilian was transiting - we deconflicted and resumed training when he was clear. I don't offer these thoughts directly in response to the Powder River MOA issue, but rather just to offer perspective for you as you represent your interests. Given the flying I do I have pretty good visibility on both sides of the issue but I understand how this could appear to those who operate strictly in the civilian realm.

And, don't believe for a MOMENT those guys will limit themselves to 500 agl, just cause that's where the airspace ends. Boys will be boys, the brass will tell you, and we'll hammer anyone who violates our airspace. I heard THAT one, then saw high resolution video AND great still pictures of F-16s operating well outside the airspace. No action by the brass. All talk, no walk. Boys will be boys, and our fighter pilots need to push the envelope.

Course, in the last many years, anyone dumb enough to operate a fast mover really low in no joke combat has got his arse shot down. Ask the Brits.

In Afghanistan, the Navy bombed from waaaaayyyyy up there. Too many guys down there with shoulder fired missiles, not to mention better bombs.

They don't need airspace to 500 agl. Ask them what mission they fly at 500 feet in COMBAT. They will mumble some BS about being "flexible" and the need to train everywhere. Fine, tell em to train at 500 feet over New York City. None of us will be in THAT airspace.

You're right MTV, they don't need down to 500 - they need lower, often down to 200' (and helos even lower). Which is why restricted areas often go down to the deck. If you doubt the need to conduct training at those altitudes despite current theater restrictions you should head back to the mountains.

You pride yourself on your professionalism in your flying, show some respect for the professionalism of the military side. Contrary to your depiction, I and the folks I've trained and flown with hold ourselves to high standards to include knowing and honoring all the rules of the road. Mistakes will be made - but they are debriefed and hopefully become learning points so we can do it better the next time.

You got your rant, there's mine - try not to get your panties in a bunch over it.

Cheers, Vick

Vick,

Helicopters don't need MOA airspace to operate, as I'm sure you know. So that argument is specious.

I was told repeatedly by senior (as in O-6) AF airspace personnel that AF aviators currently operate under a 500 agl low altitude limitation, with a very few individual aviators who are permitted to operate as low as 300 agl. I was also told by many AF aviators that they simply do not operate down low in a combat scenario. It sure is fun to play down there, though.

I'm a firm supporter of our military's ability to train, and I do respect the folks out on the pointy end of the stick.

I was heavily involved in the establishment of the Eastern Alaska MOA Complex, which was a multi year process. During that process I spent a lot of hours with all levels of AF and Army aviation as a representative of civil aviation.

The AF in that case did compromise to some degree, even though they wound up with the largest block of training airspace in the country. Now, they (AF Airspace types) are trying to "clean up" some of those little "mistakes", which, by the way, were important concessions to civil aviators.

In many discussions with Air Force aviators, I repeatedly asked them when the last time that US tactical air forces operated at low level IN COMBAT. Every one of them said "Viet Nam".

The argument in the Eastern Alaska MOA complex, for having that airspace low (as in down to 100 feet) was that "we have to be able to train with our partners" --as in the British. Are the Brits training in WY?

But, gotta be prepared, just in case someone wants to reduce the fighter pilot forces real quick by execution .

And as I noted, the Brits became famous in Desert Storm by getting Tornados shot down while operating low level. More than one.

As I said, I have great respect for the aviators operating. I also have great respect for the civilians who have to function around these bits of airspace. In many cases, the MOA airspace creates havoc.

Show me a valid documented situation where US operated high speed aircraft ingressed to a target area at 500 feet in the last 30 years, and I'll shut up on this.

Also, I think to cite "Theater Restrictions" as an excuse is also a bit specious, cause there have been and will be theater restrictions, at least in part to keep people from getting shot down. Certainly there are other political reasons for theater restrictions, but nevertheless, these are operational realities that apply to ALL areas of operation.

I've operated in and around military airspace a lot. I've seen a lot of good behaviour by military pilots and some very bad. I don't mean to suggest that the bad apples represent the whole program at all.

My point is that, having asked this question MANY times to military aviators at all levels, NOT ONE of them has ever given me a valid reason why they need to operate low level.

And, by the way, since the Eastern AK MOA EIS program, I've gotten to know a few of the senior fighter pilots who were involved on the AF side in that. Those guys have told me on several occasions that they felt the AF asked for and got way more airspace than they needed to train. They are now retired, by the way.

MTV

Helicopters don't need MOA airspace to operate, as I'm sure you know. So that argument is specious.

They don't necessarily need it, but they do often train in coordination with fixed wing assets. When the whole gaggle works together it helps to have a block of air that supports the whole package. It's not an airspeed issue, it's a deconfliction issue. Restricted Areas tend to favor these operations for this reason but MOAs can work as well.

Show me a valid documented situation where US operated high speed aircraft ingressed to a target area at 500 feet in the last 30 years, and I'll shut up on this.

I won't turn this into a forum on tactics, but in my previous aircraft we routinely trained down to 300', as did similar naval fighter & attack communities. Flight in the low altitude environment is considered a core competency and is used as a building block toward advanced qualifications. I personally have flown operationally at 300' (under an 800' overcast layer) in support of ground forces - we weren't conducting target attacks, rather we were providing armed reconnaissance, but had we not trained and been qualified in that regime we would not have been able to provide fixed-wing support to the boys on the ground.

By your logic there's no point in learning to fly or stay current on VOR approaches just because the fields you routinely fly into only have ILS's. I'll wager that one time you had to divert into a field that only has a VOR approach would make all that practice worthwhile.

I also have great respect for the civilians who have to function around these bits of airspace. In many cases, the MOA airspace creates havoc.

As do I - and in my free time I'm one of them. My original point was that though MOAs are special use airspace they are not exclusive use, and with good training and an understanding of the airspace structure any VFR flight and many IFR flights should find MOAs to be of little inconvenience. When I'm out and about in my own plane I talk to the appropriate controlling agencies and keep my head on a swivel - and go on my merry way. That assumes that the MOAs are even in use, which they often are not - again, something the controlling agency can tell you.

A bigger issue in my experience is Military Training Routes - I've found it alarming how little many of my strictly civilian friends know about how they are used and how to get information on current activity. Point one out on a sectional and many would tell you they had never even noticed it before - as evidenced by the many unaware light GA aircraft I have encountered in the middle of a route. All it takes is a quick call to FSS to see if anyone is on the route and you've greatly mitigated the risk of a high-aspect/high-closure rate mid-air.

All of this goes back to you, the diligent CFI, ensuring that your students know all the rules of the road. They need to understand SUAs at the same level they understand class A-E airspace, even more so in fact if they are more likely to encounter a MOA rather than a Class Bravo on their next cross-country.

Vick

Here is a list of your Congressional representatives whose states are impacted:

MT-
Senate
Max Baucus (202) 224-2561
Jon Tester (202) 224-2644

House
Dennis Rehberg (202) 225-3211

ND
Senate
Kent Conrad (202)224-2043
Byron Dorgan (202) 224-2551

House
Earl Pomeroy (202) 225-2611

SD

Senate
Tim Johnson (202) 224-5842
John Thune (202) 224-2321

House
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (202)225-2801

WY

Senate
John Barrasso (202) 224-6441
Michael Enzi (202) 224-3424

House
Barbara Cubin (202) 225-2311

mtatc wrote:Here is a list of your Congressional representatives whose states are impacted:

MT-
Senate
Max Baucus (202) 224-2561
Jon Tester (202) 224-2644

House
Dennis Rehberg (202) 225-3211

ND
Senate
Kent Conrad (202)224-2043
Byron Dorgan (202) 224-2551

House
Earl Pomeroy (202) 225-2611

SD

Senate
Tim Johnson (202) 224-5842
John Thune (202) 224-2321

House
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (202)225-2801

WY

Senate
John Barrasso (202) 224-6441
Michael Enzi (202) 224-3424

House
Barbara Cubin (202) 225-2311

Thanks for the information!

My boss, His boss, and I are flying to Bowman ND for the info open house this afternoon.

I will be in touch with our congressmen. I would encourage, even beg all who read this to contact your own as well, no matter where you live. Let then know you are not in favor of any expansion of the Powder River MOA.

mark

Anybody know what is happening with this? I think they have completed their Environmental Impact Statement.

Also, it is worthy of note that the military is now proposing large blocks of RESTRICTED airspace over much of north central North Dakota, with climb corridors in and out of GF AFB.

This is because Vick and his compatriots are rapidly being replaced in the military aviation community by Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS). The good news is that these things (UAS'), unlike Vick and company, NEVER operate low level. Now, why a human operated machine needs to train at low level, but an unmanned machine doesn't? Maybe because there are too many people looking over the shoulder of the UAS operator or perhaps the UAS is too valuable an asset ? A friend who flies Predators in Afghanistan says they routinely operate at about 12 to 14 k.

The base of the proposed Restricted areas in ND are around 6 thousand feet. So, that'll let most of us operate underneath the airspace, but will kill IFR flying in those areas.

Vick's comment that we should simply consult with "the controlling agency" as he noted here: " an understanding of the airspace structure any VFR flight and many IFR flights should find MOAs to be of little inconvenience. When I'm out and about in my own plane I talk to the appropriate controlling agencies and keep my head on a swivel - and go on my merry way. That assumes that the MOAs are even in use, which they often are not - again, something the controlling agency can tell you." is a good point, and it may work in Arizona.

Throughout MOST of the Powder River MOA and this proposed Restricted airspace, communications with the controlling agency simply isn't possible unless you have a satellite phone and the phone number of those guys, OR you are at pretty high altitude. And by the way, there's no RADAR that covers most of that airspace, so contacting the controlling agency will only afford you with the information that there are or are not aircraft operating in the airspace. That may be helpful, IF there are no military types out there, but if there are, it's still totally see and avoid. And, camoflaged airplanes are hard to see.

But, don't worry, as the saying goes "The last fighter pilot has already been born". Soon all this tactical stuff will be done with UAS and military aviators will be restricted to hauling the UAS back and forth to the theater of operations in the back of a cargo airplane.

Meetings to review the Restricted airspace proposal for North Dakota are to be held at 4:30 to 7:30, with a presentation at 5:30 and public comments to follow at the following locations:

Grand Forks, ND: Monday February 8, Alerus Center Junior Ballroom 3

Devil's Lake, ND: Tuesday February 9, Lake Region State College Dining Room

Carrington, ND: Wednesday February 10, Chieftan Conference Center Tepee Room

Langdon, ND: Thursday, February 11, NDSU Langdon Research Extension Center

I encourage anyone who might fly through this airspace to attend one of these meetings.

MTV

Since I put this post up I have found myself on the local airport board. I am to attend a meeting in Billings MT for county commissioners and airport boards this week on this MOA. Question for those you that do a lot of cross country flying, do you go through MOA's or around them? What will this do to general aviation traffic in this area? Could sure use some input from you folks to take with me. Thanks

Citabriacowboy wrote:Since I put this post up I have found myself on the local airport board. I am to attend a meeting in Billings MT for county commissioners and airport boards this week on this MOA. Question for those you that do a lot of cross country flying, do you go through MOA's or around them? What will this do to general aviation traffic in this area? Could sure use some input from you folks to take with me. Thanks

We'll see you there. The MPA prez and myself(MPA Eastern Director) will be there as well as the MT administrator for Aeronautics. Pretty much everybody is against the expansion. As for myself when I go eastbound from Billings I go right thru the MOA.

This MOA will directly affect me on a daily basis and I support it. I fly through the old one now and will fly through the new one as well. I'm not going to whine about safety as I'm confident an F-15's radar will have no problem seeing me.
Folks, the Military has to train, if you don't like it pack your stuff and leave. I'm sure they have lot's of affordable flying in more progressive less militarized societies like Europe as a whole

It's a MOA, not a Restricted area, there is a difference. It seems to me if you where truly concerned with general aviation safety you need stick with fueling airplanes and how to fly in bad weather than what the military does over our great country.

I'm frankly surprised any of you rough-n-tuff backcountry guys have got the stones to actually fly.

Nuff' said.

670x wrote:This MOA will directly affect me on a daily basis and I support it. I fly through the old one now and will fly through the new one as well. I'm not going to whine about safety as I'm confident an F-15's radar will have no problem seeing me.

The military has already said that in this MOA their aircraft would not be able to rely on their radars to detect us. In fact most of them would be turned off. Another problem is Lifeguard flights. We have many that depart Billings IFR. The military says that they will make room for any IFR Lifeguard flight that needs to get thru. Problem is it costs tens of millions of dollars every time the military holds an exercise. These things cannot be stopped in the middle or even before they begin. The timing of what has to happen with all the people involved is unbelievably complex. If assets do not get into the proper position at the proper time the exercise cannot be run. You should see the military complain about dollars wasted when an exercise gets interrupted. With good reason. The US Gov't already owns about 90 percent of the state of Nevada. The only downside to going there is the initial expense of getting assets there. But it sure beats the unpredictability of launching a Lifeguard flight thru there.

Scott, what night is the meeting? I fly direct Billings to Sioux Falls and back several times a year in my Super Cub and Cessna 180. At altitudes from 100 agl to 13500 depending on the wind. Never have seen an other aircraft. I fly right through the Powder River MOA with out talking to anybody and will continue to do so, no matter how big it gets.