Restricted areas signaling \u201cunusual, often invisible, hazards to aircraft\u201d\u2014like artillery or aerial fire\u2014will inch closer to the Tinian airport if the Federal Aviation Administration deems the U.S. military\u2019s proposals for these areas safe.<\/p>\n
FAA Joint Order 7400.2k says a restricted area must exclude airspace 1,500 feet above ground level and below within a 3-nautical-mile radius of public airports.<\/p>\n
The Department of Defense leads the push for the change to this order.<\/p>\n
The CNMI Joint Military Training draft environmental impacts statement states that \u201cit is assumed\u201d that the FAA change to this order \u201cwill be approved as requested by [the military] in part, to support this proposed action\u201d of restricted areas around Tinian.<\/p>\n
The draft EIS details special use airspace, or SUA, inclusive of restricted areas and \u201cmilitary operations areas\u201d as high as 30,000 feet. SUA is a must-have for live-fire training on Tinian to happen.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe order states that a reduction to the 3-nautical mile exclusionary airspace surrounding Tinian International Airport may be approved by the [FAA] on a case-by-case basis after a risk-based analysis in accordance with the safety risk management process, and development of a risk resolution implementation plan,\u201d the draft EIS says.<\/p>\n
A meeting with the Marines Corps Forces Pacific and the Commonwealth Ports Authority yesterday did not provide a clear update on this rule making, it was learned.<\/p>\n
What was mainly discussed was a Tinian airport layout plan, or ALP, inclusive of military infrastructure and activity on the north side of CPA\u2019s property.<\/p>\n
This needs to be accepted by CPA, and then submitted to the FAA for approval.<\/p>\n
AECOM engineers, who designed the proposed ALP, were at the meeting.<\/p>\n
CPA board members, U.S. Air Force and MARFORPAC officials, Environmental Protection Agency\u2019s Carl Goldstein, and Marianas Visitors Authority\u2019s Perry Tenorio were at the meeting.<\/p>\n
FAA representative Tom Sylva declined to comment on where the FAA was on the rule making at the meeting\u2019s end.<\/p>\n
Sylva instead referred to MARFPORPAC operations officer Tim Robert, who said their proposal for special use airspace is \u201cin its final draft stage in preparation for submission to the FAA.\u201d<\/p>\n
But he clarified that this was separate from the FAA rule making. \u201cThis is a standard special airspace proposal, with a standard process,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
\u201cFAA is and has previously been in the process of reviewing and amending one of their internal regulations\u2014but that\u2019s not part of our special use airspace or special use airspace proposal process. That\u2019s a total[ly] separate internal FAA matter.\u201d<\/p>\n
The rule is regarding how close an SUA can be established within proximity of a commercial civilian airport, he said. \u201cThat has nothing to do with military use of the airport, or military training. It\u2019s about an internal FAA regulation that previously stated three miles was the limit\u2026 FAA is internally reviewing that to make sure if that still makes sense or doesn\u2019t.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cBottom line, it\u2019s either safe or it\u2019s not, and that\u2019s an FAA determination,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n
According to the FAA, special use airspace is normally designated to support DOD requirements. The FAA explains that a past memorandum of understanding with DOD details the impact analysis of special use airspace. This understanding designates when DOD is the lead agency and when FAA is the cooperating agency for federal compliance with rules.<\/p>\n
The ALP<\/p>\n
Sources within the meeting said a concern was brought up on the impact to commercial \u201cflight paths when live-fire ranges are turned on.\u201d The military has reassured that those concerns have been noted. They meet with local carrier Star Marianas today.<\/p>\n
It was also gathered that the co-use of the military\u2019s aviation fuel at the airport was also discussed as a possible benefit to CPA. The military had suggested previously that this could be shared.<\/p>\n
But yesterday, they deferred to the Defense Logistics Agency\u2014which is known for buying fuel\u2014for a method to sell or share this fuel with CPA.<\/p>\n
Robert described the meeting as more informational, highlighting discussion about navigational aids and air traffic control tower requirements and radar requirements to ensure safety.<\/p>\n
They are \u201cworking to come up with a solution,\u201d he said. A Tinian ALP is \u201cconstant\u201d in all proposed training alternatives in the EIS, he noted.<\/p>\n
The buildup focuses on the north side of Tinian as CPA previously directed. But that does not eliminate the Air Force alternatives for the southern side, Robert clarified.<\/p>\n
\u201cCould be north, could be south,\u201d he said. \u201cCJMT is north, and that includes divert on the north, but that does not preclude Air Force from doing divert [activity] on the south,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
CPA executive director Maryann Lizama said the meeting went well. \u201cThey shared their draft ALP,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n
\u201cCPA would like to see some other things incorporated\u201d like navigation aids, control towers, and instrumental landing systems that are \u201cusually situated in an airfield,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Restricted areas signaling \u201cunusual, often invisible, hazards to aircraft\u201d\u2014like artillery or aerial fire\u2014will inch closer…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":47,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[124,1173,126,200],"class_list":["post-198658","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-local-news","tag-cpa","tag-dod","tag-faa","tag-military"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/198658","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/47"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=198658"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/198658\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=198658"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=198658"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=198658"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}