“So when anyone goes out for training, it’s the same route over and over again,” Calvert says. “The realism and the effectiveness dissipates because you don’t keep having the varied circumstances like you would in the real world.”
Calvert emphasizes that the Santa Fe City Council’s resolution neither supports nor opposes the military’s plans.
Rather, the council is asking the Air Force to be responsive to its concerns regarding environmental, economic, social and cultural impacts.
Public debate over the training area has undoubtedly been thought-provoking. Supporting the military’s mission, he says, “isn’t flag waving, or saying ‘We’re patriotic and those who are against it are not’—I think it’s just being realistic.”
Speaking to SFR the day before Veteran’s Day, Calvert says his personal stance in support of LATN has much to do with ensuring soldiers have the opportunity to return home as veterans.
“When we’re in council, we’re always supporting our service people and thanking them for the job they do, thanking our veterans for the job they did, and mentioning them at council and invoking them in prayers,” he says. “So to do that and, on the other hand, say, ‘We don’t want to be affected by anything you might have to do in the process of doing your duty,’ is to me a little bit hypocritical.”
Calvert himself is a Vietnam-era veteran. He served in the Air Force from 1970 until 1975 and flew the C-141, a cargo plane. (His mission was in no way similar to those pilots face today in Afghanistan, he says, where CV-22 and C-130 pilots will eventually put their training into action.)
“Some people will say, ‘It’s not my war; I don’t support that war,’” he says. “But whether or not you agree with the war, it’s not a reason to punish the airmen who are tasked with that mission and need that training.”
On the other hand, he thinks that people who support the war in Afghanistan—who think it’s essential for national security and defending the United States against terrorism—need to understand some of what war entails. Experiencing the nuisance of low-altitude training flights pales in comparison with what other countries and populations are enduring in these wars, Calvert says, but it does make the war tangible.
And, perhaps, when New Mexicans look up to the skies, feel the roof-shaking roar of a bomber plane or hear the thwap-thwap-thwap of a military helicopter overhead, they will consider the reason the pilots train here: New Mexico’s mountainous and low-population terrain is similar to the landscapes they’ll be staring across in Afghanistan. SFR
The Osprey Saga
The military’s Osprey program began in 1981. Only eight years later, in December 1989, the US Department of Defense directed the Navy to terminate all contracts, saying the aircraft wasn’t affordable when compared to helicopters. Production ceased—until Congress disagreed and continued funding the program over the objections of the Defense Department.
However, in a recent draft proposal to Congress, the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibly and Reform recommended $200 billion in cuts to the federal budget—including $100 billion in the defense budget. One proposed cut is to the V-22 Osprey models used by the military.
According to a May 2009 report from the General Accounting Office of Congress, the Osprey program has been plagued with problems:
• Although the Defense Department had concluded the Osprey was “operationally effective, but not operationally suitable”—due in part to reliability concerns—the program continued. Then, following two fatal crashes that caused 23 deaths in 2000, the Osprey was grounded. The Defense Department ordered more research and continued low-rate production. Modifications and test design changes occurred and, in 2005, the Defense Acquisition Board approved the Osprey for military use and full-rate production.
• As used in Iraq, the Osprey has not demonstrated its ability to operate in a spectrum of high-threat combat situations as it was intended. Problems include maneuvering limits and the inability to carry a full combat load of 24 Marines if equipped with intended cargo. Efforts to deploy the Osprey aboard Navy ships have also presented challenges: Larger than the helicopters they are replacing, the Ospreys cannot use all of a ship’s landing decks. Their “large inventory of repair parts” also constrain necessary hangar space, and their downwash is significantly greater than that of the helicopters. In one case, a second sailor had to be assigned to physically hold down the person acting as the landing guide.
• Costs related to research, development and production have all exceeded initial projections and are expected to rise. There are currently 450 more Ospreys on order.
• Within the Osprey program, an MV-22’s cost is $64 million and a CV-22’s is $76 million. Their operating cost is $11,000 per flying hour.
I am very disappointed in the SF Ciy Council with their current 'pass the buck' stance on this issue. The observation that its not our problem because the flights re not over us should not excuse us from taking a stand to support the quality of life elsewhere in NM. Moreover the validity of these training excercises looks to be very questionable; why practice flying aircraft that are likely to be pulled from the lineup because of dismal safety records and high expense? To send them to a war in Afganistan we are trying to get OUT of as soon as possible? Additionally, I think we ALL should oppose the flights simply because they add HUGE amounts of CO2 and HUGE operational expense to the war machine. At $11,000 per hour, flying an hour up and back just to GET to the training area 3x day, or about 700 missions per year per the article, would cost us an extra $15.4 MILLION dollar, plus tons of CO2 just to get to training space!
I think we need to fight this just on the environmental impact. Perhaps by making a statement that we really DON'T support this type of expendature, the Mission will change?!
Santa Fe - where are you? Organize! Did the Council really represent the majority when they issued their opinion? Start a Peaceful Skies chapter; don't let political maneuvering drown out your voices!
This article seems to be pretty one-sided and full of inaccuracies. I'm a pilot for the Air Force, and I fly C-130s. In fact I'm flying through New Mexico in a few days. Here are a few things I have issue with:
You stated that military aircraft that fly at 500 feet scatter livestock. Keep in mind it is perfectly legal to fly ANY aircraft, civil or military, at 500 feet. You can rent an airplane and fly at 500 feet and no one will bat an eye. In fact, civilian aircraft often fly at lower altitude for a variety of reasons.
You also stated that B-1 bombers performing air refueling startle people. Every air refueling track I've seen is at a high altitude, like 20,000 feet or higher. I don't see how that could "startle" people, especially since the bombers are not in after burner (when they are the loudest) while taking on fuel.
You also raised an eyebrow about C-130s practicing approaches at Taos Regional Airport. Again, Taos is a public use airport and it's perfectly legal for non-combat aircraft (ie those that do not employ weapons) to perform touch-and-go approaches at civilian airfields. We often go to civilian airfields to practice approaches because they offer types of instrument approaches we cannot fly at our home base, and they offer less congestion (which allows for more landings and thus more practice).
You say "they practice their moves repeatedly". This isn't to annoy residents. It's due to the old adage "practice makes perfect". Unless you want Air Force pilots to crash multi-million dollar aircraft on a regular basis, they need to practice how to fly the aircraft. Flying an airplane like the C-130 is not like riding your bicycle. It's a very complicated task and requires regular practice to be proficient at doing it. This isn't just a military thing, it's an aviation thing.
You stated that at Kirtland AFB, military aircraft "startle pets and young children". You made no distinction to mention that Kirtland AFB shares the same airfield with Albuquerque International Sunport. Civilian jet traffic in and out of that airfield far exceeds any military traffic. Jet airliners are just as noisy if not louder than a C-130. As far as the helicopters go, military helicopters aren't the only ones operating there...there are a variety of civilian and military operators flying out of ABQ. The departures and arrivals are controlled by the civilian air traffic control tower. The military can't just come and go from the airfield as they see fit.
And regarding Mr. Bain's comments, he's not speaking for a position of experience. He is correct, you don't need special permission to fly at 500 feet above the ground, and this can be found in not only the military rules but also in the Federal Aviation Regulations, specifically FAR Part 91 which states aircraft flying over non-congested areas (ie, rural) cannot fly below 500 feet, and in no case can they fly closer than 500 feet to any person or structure. In congested areas (ie, cities and towns) aircraft must maintain an altitude of 1,000 feet within 2,000 feet horizontally of the aircraft. Again, military rules mirror this FAA requirement.
The military has in place several low level routes, where the FAA has specifically authorized the Dept of Defense the ability to fly below the 500 foot restriction. This does not remove the restriction from flying within 500 feet of people or buildings, however. Even if you are flying on a route that has been cleared for 200 feet, you must still remain clear of buildings and people by 500 feet.
And Mr. Bain continues by stating he's seen fighters aiming at people's homes. I seriously doubt that. There is too much going on for us to purposely try and harass people on the ground. We are up there training, not going for a joyride. More than likely the aircraft was simply flying the route, and it happened to go over someone's house.
The thing people need to consider isn't whether you should support military training because you do or don't support a particular war or political entity. Regardless of whether we are in Iraq or anywhere else, we will likely have a military. Even if we were to draw back to a purely defensive military, we'd still have a military. And the pilots would still have to train.
Military aircrews are very professional. They take their jobs seriously because, if nothing else, it means the difference between having an accident and being safe.
Empirical data in my website, militaryeconomy.com, refute partially Carol Miller’s assertion that military spending has no economic impact in the state.
Conservative estimates are that military spending in New Mexico equals $7 billion in jobs annually, and Los Alamos National Laboratory pays $65 million annually in state gross receipts taxes.
These are the jobs and cash that peace and sustainable-growth advocates need to replace before we can call for their elimination.
i was glad to see that i am not the only one who has a problem with nuisance military aircraft. contact your senators and reps, let them know how you feel.
these various aircraft shake our home, give me heart palpitations and pains and scare our livestock.
i think its strange that the council is ok with this, after first opposing it. perhaps, if the manuevers were over their homes they would feel differently. no one should use the term war, especially not a councilman. we are not involved in any legal wars. councilman chris calvert and the others, do not realize they are committing treason against the people and our country by breaking their oath to uphold the constitution by supporting an illegal and unlawful invasion. obviously, we need people in office who are going to uphold their oath, not perjure it. ideally, it doesnt matter who is elected to office, all must uphold the constitution and not allow their ideas to violate their oath.
we have become like rome in the final days of their collapse. our vociferous hunger to invade, conquer and pillage various parts of the world has destroyed our economy, our intelligence, our chance for a viable future. we have sacrificed our well being to keep alive a myth that needs to be retired, all for the benefit of a few.
as in rome, we have almost completely stopped producing anything of value, and we are only creating death and destruction, foolishly thinking we are exempt? as you can see, we are not exempt from the destruction. as we destroy homes and lives in other countries, so too are we losing our homes and lives to the same ruthless predators who manufacture these invasions and use terms such as "burned out houses" to describe the plight of many people. yet these same people who are being used and thrown away, oftentimes defend the very system that is destroying them, and its perpetrators.
have we become a country of self loathing, that we no longer are capable of rational thought, and solutions? is it that hard to admit the past if over, and there are better ways of thinking, feeling and doing?
the real war is going on right under our noses. its a war that was officially declared as early as the 80's by the "elites" against the people. to direct money and commerce upwards. they have been successful, havent they? (see commondreams.org for more info)
so stop saying foolish things like thats the way it is, or what can i do? lets put our energy into turning america back into the beautiful republic it was destined to be. do you really want to prove the "elites" right and continue fighting each other over useless labels and sound bites, while they take off with what is yours? why should they care about the people, if the people do not care about themselves?
we must get past the disassociative disorder that has taken away our compassion and caring for ourselves and each other. our country is ill, and we must make some changes in order to get different results.
as the planes fly over our homes and destroy our peace and safety, we should think of the people who are actually being murdered and wounded in other places by these vehicles of destruction and strengthen our resolve to ground them all. knowing there are predator drones flying around doesnt make me feel safer.
we can begin thinking of ways to give the military members new positions that actually contribute to our future in a positive manner. there is so much good we can do for ourselves, for the world, for our grandchildren's future. wouldnt we feel so much better if we could say this is so?
do you believe in the inherent goodness of humanity? would you rather be "right" or happy? have you given up your rights- your unalienable god given rights for a lie? remember that your answers say more about who you are, then about the world.
this issue regarding aircraft is much bigger than it appears, we should take this opportunity to focus on real solutions, not just repeat the same tired words that have created the mess we are in.