November 7, 2007
AOPA ePublishing staff
By AOPA ePublishing staff
How much protected airspace does the military need to blow up a variety of ordnance? The Navy says its one-half-mile-radius restricted area (R-3404) in Crane, Ind., that extends nearly half a mile into the sky is no longer big enough.
AOPA believes the Navy should develop a way to contain blast fragments within R-3404's current size.
The Navy is proposing to increase R-3404 to a one-nautical-mile radius, extending up to 4,100 feet msl. It claims the extra airspace is needed to separate aircraft from blast fragments generated when disposing of ordnance at the Naval Support Activity Crane's Demolition Range.
But doing so would restrict low-altitude access to one of three victor airways connecting Evansville, Ind., and Indianapolis. When the restricted area is active, which would be daily, according to the proposal, low-altitude access to V-305 would be shut off.
AOPA is opposing the expansion because of the safety implications involved with restricting access to V-305. That's because V-305 has the lowest minimum en route altitude, which means it is sometimes the only viable airway between the two cities during icing season.
The Department of Transportation is seeking comments on the Navy's proposal by Dec. 7. AOPA will be providing comments against the proposal and encourages members to do the same. Identify your comments with: FAA Docket No. FAA-2007-28632 and Airspace Docket No. 07-ASW-3.
Comments can be sent to:
U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Operations, M-30 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE West Building Ground Floor, Rm W12-140 Washington, D.C., 20590-001
November 7, 2007
FAA Systems and Airspace,
Department of Transportation,
AOPA VOICES STRONG SUPPORT FOR LEGISLATION REQUIRING FAA TO REVISE THIRD CLASS MEDICAL REQUIREMENTS
AOPA Foundation President Bruce Landsberg has challenged AOPA President Mark Baker to a dogfight. The battle? To see who can bring in the most "Hat in the Ring Society" donors before the end of the year to support aviation safety, promote community airports, and encourage more people to fly.
The Civil Aviation Medical Association is objecting to the FAA's proposed sleep apnea policy, warning that the evidence doesn't justify the approach.
AOPA thanks our members for their continued support in protecting the freedom to fly.