What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Another airspace grab

Additional restricted area will have an adverse effect on climate change by forcing longer distances to go around. I think this is the correct language.
 
and...

BillL said:
Additional restricted area will have an adverse effect on climate change by forcing longer distances to go around. I think this is the correct language.
Click to expand...

And not to mention all that extra lead that will be spewed into the air.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Would not be comfortable flying that route below 6K on a windy day, which is the norm down there. Maybe Axel could chime in and let us know the reasoning behind the change.

For the record, I am against any more restricted airspace out here. Just want to hear the other side.
 
I understand the 'nose under the tent' fear from the GA side. But I have been on the other side of the current CFA. The number of manhours and tax dollars that get wasted at times because of a single light aircraft shooting the gap would be eye opening. Two hour windows up to 36 days a year during normal working hours seems reasonable.
 
catmandu said:
I understand the 'nose under the tent' fear from the GA side. But I have been on the other side of the current CFA. The number of manhours and tax dollars that get wasted at times because of a single light aircraft shooting the gap would be eye opening. Two hour windows up to 36 days a year during normal working hours seems reasonable.
Click to expand...

I agree with this; however, I just think a TFR for those times would be the better way.
 
I fly this route quite often so I will certainly voice my opposition.

That said, I really hope nobody uses the argument that our airplanes "spew lead" into the atmosphere. The very last thing we need to do is to give the opponents of GA more ammunition to shut us down completely. After all, we are already fighting the dubious "elevated lead levels in drinking water" studies at several airports right now. Please focus on the GOOD we bring to the economy and our communities, not "avoiding more bad".
 
Last edited:
Since they are going to issue a TFR for the 2 hour period when the R2511 is active, why don't they just use the TFR instead of permanently lock out the airspace by the use of the restricted airspace. I am afraid changing the airspace to be more restrictive will be easier done once it is designated as R2511
 
Toobuilder said:
I fly this route quite often so I will certainly voice my opposition.
That said, I really hope nobody uses the argument that our airplanes "spew lead" into the atmosphere. The very last thing we need to do is to give the oponents of GA more ammunition to shut us down completely. After all, we are already fighting the dubious "elevated lead levels in drinking water" studies at several airports right now. Please focus on the GOOD we bring to the economy and our communities, not "avoiding more bad".
Click to expand...

Amen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Flight following directly over the top of EDW is not tough (usually at or above 7,000 on weekends), but FF is tough to get up around Trona and normal RV cruise altitudes. That, and the other blocks of R areas are rarely consistently cold at the same time to make navigating direct from MHV to VGT worth it (my typical mission).

True, this proposal is not "terribly" intrusive as proposed, but the 6000 foot floor is concerning. Plenty of times that we get clouds out here that would make that restriction pretty uncomfortable. Id like to see it bumped up to 12,000 at a minimum. And the other thing to remember is that like airports, once surrendered, airspace rarely "comes back" to the people. I say we fight for every foot of runway and airspace we have left.
 
airspace rarely "comes back" to the people. I say we fight for every foot of runway and airspace we have left.
Click to expand...


I am not buying the proposed limited use of 36 times a year. Once the area is set as restricted airspace, it will become more restrictive, never less.
 
I'm pretty heavily against this, and I've been on both sides of it flying the RV out of Inyokern, and the Hornet out of China Lake.

I agree that there are limited times when civil traffic through the gap interferes with expensive test events...but I don't see why a TFR isn't sufficient to address those times.

36 times a year is certainly reasonable, but my fear is that once the airspace is established, it will become easier to change the schedule to something more difficult for GA traffic to work around.

At a very minimum I'd like to see the floor of the proposed area increased to ~15k. This could be supplemented with a TFR below 15k if required. As it is currently written 6k would potentially be a safety issue as it would put .mil jets returning to China Lake and Edwards down in the same airspace as VFR GA traffic through the gap. Typically returning to NID we would remain at 16-20k as long as possible before bombing down into NID to avoid any VFR traffic down "low".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top