MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: Proceedings – Air Force Central Great Lakes Airspace/Range Council – Management Session
GENERAL – The Air Force Central Great Lakes Region Airspace/Range Council (CGL ARC) Management
Session convened at 1:00 pm, 26 May 2010 at Volk Field, Camp Douglas, WI.
MANAGEMENT SESSION PROCEEDINGS FOR 26 MAY 2010
A. Welcoming Remarks - Colonel Gunther Neumann (Co-Chairman CGL Airspace/Range Council)
thanked everyone for attending the annual Central Great Lakes Region Airspace/Range Council at Volk Field. He
informed the council that he recently retired and would turn over the co-chairmanship to Brig. General Mark
Johnson at the conclusion of this day’s meeting. He asked who were able to get on the KC-135 air-refueling
mission and airspace orientation. Those that flew thanked Colonel Neumann for setting up such an informative
flight opportunity. This is the tactical meeting to discuss issues. In the fall, we meet in Fort Worth, TX for the
FAA Central Service Area for an executive council meeting with the Southwest Region and the FAA personnel.
1. History: The Air National Guard Airspace / Range Councils began almost 20 years ago and then
transitioned to the Air Force Council. The management session is to be open for discussion during the
meeting, breaks and after the meeting. It is important that everyone bring issues to the council to improve
access to the National Airspace System and mitigate conflicts.
2. Lt Col George Bacik (Excutive Assistant to CGL Chariman - Volk Field Combat Readiness
Training Center (CRTC)) covered administrative items concerning conference fees, accommodations and
local facilities.
3. Volk Field CRTC Commander Colonel Gary Ebben – Volk Field CRTC is thrilled to host the council
because we manage all of the Wisconsin airspace and Hardwood Range. Significant changes at the CRTC:
Mr. Brendan Smith has retired effective June 1 and he is working here at the CRTC as the Community Plans
and Liaison Office (CPLO). Lt Col Steve Dunai is the new Director of Operations with 20 years of military
service, ten years in the Navy and ten years with the Wisconsin ANG. Lt Col Dunai is current in RC-26
counter drug operations.
4. Colonel Todd Lancaster (AF/A3O-BR & Co-Chairman of the CGL ARC) has replaced Colonel Ed
Chupein and learned a lot from Ed over the past few weeks. Our two major themes are encroachment and
long term range planning. Encroachment has many forms including the EMI (Electromagnetic Interference)
from renewable energy windmills and community encroachment on bases and training airspace. The Air
Force needs to develop long-term range plans that describe what is required to meet training requirement in
20 years. Today’s meeting will concentrate on encroachment issues.
5. Brig General Mark Johnson (JFHQ-MN CoS-Air & Co-Chairman CGL ARC) the new CoChairman welcomed everyone to the CGL council meeting and thanked Gunther for making these meetings
run smoothly. Gen Johnson worked for the FAA for a short time and learned some of the airspace issues from
an FAA perspective.
B. National Overview - Brig Gen Rice (JFHQ MA ANG / ATAG – National Co-Chair)
1. With the initial charting of military airspace the relationship was us verse them (military against the
FAA). In the seventies, the realization was that the Air Force and other services must all work together with
the FAA to solve training issues.
 How do we change airspace to make it viable for the future – airspace actions were projected to take
as long as 15 years to complete complicated airspace.
 The first airspace/range council in the Northeast was very contentious. We now have five regional
councils – this one is the best for engagement to get people together from diverse backgrounds. There are
no more us vs. them environments. There are many bureaucracies and we must get them together to make
them equal partners in solving issues.
 To make a change is a painful process
Central – Great Lake Region Airspace / Range Management Council: May 26-27, 2010
1
 Energy Issues – How do we accommodate renewable energy and make it work with our training
requirements?
 Electronic environment is now a signification factor – how do we training against potential
enemy electronic environment without affecting civilian systems?
 At times, the military must have a pristine operating area for testing.
 We need to work on fostering the attitude of: “we need what we need when we need it but at
other times we don’t need it and it can be released back to those other users of the NAS.
 How do we take the lessons that we have learned from Kandahar to Miami? Both airports have four
hundred operations per day. Kandahar is a completely integrated environment with UAS, Fighters,
Tankers and other platforms.
 Current airspace cannot handle future military training requirements.
2. NextGen is the other topic that we are focusing on to help the FAA implement its’ new systems within the
bureaucracy that they have to work. People make the process and the bureaucracies work for change. We
stand here on 100 years of air operations that have brought us to the safe see and avoid concept, it will take a
bit to move us to a sense and avoid system.
C. Action Item Status - Mr. Rose
1. GARS
 BACKGROUND: Global Area Reference System (GARS) has been developed to easily identify area
locations for activities such as air refueling orbits, combat air patrol orbits, and initial contact points for
operations with ground units. Ranges need to adapt this worldwide system to their local environment and
set up scenarios that utilize the system by overlaying existing airspace on the GARS grid for real world
training.
 ACTION ITEM: Implement GARS to identify/define airspace and ranges.
 OPR: AF/A3O-BR
OCR: MAJCOMS, Units, Ranges
 Status: AF/A3O-BR identifying ranges greater than 60NM on any side. Will task owning
MAJCOMs to create Falcon View overlays utilizing GARS. Units will update range documents to reflect
GARS
2. Continuation Training Airspace Requirements for Predator
 BACKGROUND: How do we establish airspace for the Predator UAS since continuation training
airspace requirements for the Predator UAV have not been identified? (Some Flight Training Unit (FTU)
requirements exist but are not deemed adequate for continuation training.) Training requirements will be
heaviest on the sensor operator and currently Restricted Airspace is required to accomplish training. New
Restricted Airspace will be contested by other users of the National Airspace System (NAS).
 ACTION ITEM: Identify continuation training airspace requirements for the Predator UAV.
 OPR: HQ ACC/A3Y
OCR: HQ USAF/A3O-BR
 Status: Airspace reqmts included in the T/TSNS for Grand Forks, although no clearly defined
requirement has been established. RAND Study identifies minimum UAS airspace requirement (15 NM
x 15 NM for Predator).
 CGL ARC TASK: General Rice asked Mr. Elliot Sanders (HQ ACC / A3AA) to query A3Y to see
where we are concerning Predator training requirements. [Include General Rice and General Johnson in
the message traffic]
3. Environmental CATEX (Categorical Exclusion)
 BACKGROUND: CATEXs in 32 CFR Part 989 – discussion suggested that the FAA regulation
should be changed to accept DoD CATEXs.
 ACTION ITEM: Address FAA-acceptable environmental CATEXs.
 OPR: HQ USAF/A3O-BR
 Status: FAA needs to update its NEPA implementing regulation/procedures with CEQ regulations.
A3O-BR to transfer Action to the PBFA
Central – Great Lake Region Airspace / Range Management Council: May 26-27, 2010
2
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
 Key Issue: To support adding new CATEXs, the FAA would have to "adopt“ DoD (or any other
Agency's) NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) documentation as their own, then go through the
above administrative process. However, they probably would not say, "we are incorporating DoD
CATEXs.”
DoD and DHS (Department of Homeland Security) Operations within SUA
 ACTION ITEM: Develop standard for simultaneous DoD and DHS operations within SUA.
 OPR: HQ USAF/A3O-AYI OCR: DHS; Other Services
 Status: IN PROCESS. Agreement is still with DHS. AYI will continue to follow up.
 Current State: MOU is in legal review at DHS. Upon receipt of the signed document from CBP, Lt
Col Militello intends to staff it through the DoD for PBFA signature.
Environmental for Small UAS
 BACKGROUND: Question on whether AFSOC is taking the lead on establishing a “programmatic”
document outlining baseline environmental aspects for UAS operations.
 ACTION ITEM: AFSOC to develop EIS guidelines for smaller UAS.
 OPR: AFSOC
OCR: HQ USAF/A7CI
 Status: Transfer action to the PBFA (Policy Board on Federal Aviation)
 ARC COMMENTS: Mr. Jeff Golliver id not have an update. There is a broad spectrum of UAS that
must be addressed including what are the requirements for hand launched battery operated systems.
AIRSPACE COORDINATION PLAN
 DISCUSSION: Airspace Coordination Plans for States are needed for deconfliction of participating
military aircraft in support of Civil Emergencies
 ACTION ITEM: Regional Co-Chairmen will work with State Aviation Officials and State NG DOs
to finalize Memorandum of Agreement between the State National Guard and HQ 1st Air Force
(AFNORTH).
 OPR: AFNORTH
OCR: AF/A3O-BR
 Status: Changed OPR and OCR to AFNORTH and A3O-BR respectively.
MULTI-DEPARTMENT STUDY GROUP ON PUBLIC LANDS
 DISCUSSION: At NWM Management ARC, March 2009, the discussion concerning potential new
wilderness areas identified the requirement for the development of a multi-department study group to
evaluate these sites and provide recommendations for the establishing legislation. The desired level of
coordination would be a the lowest local or state level similar to the Preliminary Wind Energy sitting
capability.
 ACTION ITEM: Request that the Department of Defense join with the Departments of Agriculture,
Interior, and Energy in forming a joint local study group at the National Forest or BLM District level to
provide recommendations for the establishment of new wilderness areas.
 OPR: HQ USAF/A3O-BR
OCR: AFFSA

Status: We have been focusing on an edit to the Wilderness Language. If we can revise language
into the text preserving our ability to use the airspace as we have, we won’t need to engage on every new
proposal
MTR PLOTTING SOFTWARE ISSUES
 DISCUSSION: At Weatern Pacific (WP) Management ARC, January 2010, point was made that we
have to ensure that Falcon View and other digital mapping software programs accurately plot MTR
boundaries. Mr. King believes that the FAA, OEAAA software has the same plotting error. Mr. Perkins
volunteered to check if OEAAA plots MTR boundaries accurately. For MADE consideration, the
accuracy will affect deconfliction predictions when scheduling crossing or adjacent MTRs.
 ACTION ITEM: Confirm that Falcon View plots MTR boundaries accurately. Confirm that OEAAA
defaults to the same boundaries or plots route boundaries accurately.
 OPR: For OE/AAA – Mr. Perkins For Falcon View - TBD
 Status: New
Central – Great Lake Region Airspace / Range Management Council: May 26-27, 2010
3
9. Dry Tortugas National Park Sonic Booms
 BACKGROUND: At the SO-SW ARC in Feb 2010, the National Park Service expressed concerns
about sonic boom effects on Fort Jefferson structure at Dry Tortugas National Park.
 ACTION ITEM: Coordination required with PBFA/Service representatives to determine effects of
sonic booms on Fort Jefferson National Monument.
 OPR: AF/A3O-BR
 Status: New
 COMMENTS: The US Navy has a 30-mile separation rule for supersonic operations. The Air Force
uses 10,000 feet over water or 30,000 feet over land for public areas. There needs to be a consistent
supersonic operations policy.
10. Tours of FAA Facilities
 BACKGROUND: At the SO-SW ARC in Feb 2010, Colonel Chupein suggested FAA tours should be
offered to unit leadership at FAA Air Route Traffic Control Centers.
 ACTION ITEM: During Airspace/Range Council Executive Sessions, tours of FAA ARTCCs should
be offered to unit commanders to better understand FAA operations and open lines of communication.
 OPR: AF/A3O-BR and Brig Gen Mitchell
 Status: New
 CGL ARC TASK: Mr. Joe Yadouga (FAA Central Service Area (CSA)) extended an offer for all
attendees to the CSA Executive Council to visit Fort Worth Center, DFW ATCT/TRACOM.
11. MTR AVOIDANCE POINT IDENTIFICATION
 BACKGROUND: NWM ARC, March 2010 -- AP1B identification of points along MTRs must
include the coordinates of the point and the avoidance distance and altitude. Government Land Managers
such as the National Parks should identify significant sites within MTR boundaries that would be
adversely affected by overflights.
 ACTION ITEM: Request that the Department of Defense work with the FAA to insure that all points
to be avoided within MTR corridors include the latitude, longitude, distance and altitude required to avoid
a particular site.
 OPR: AFFSA
OCR: HQ USAF/A3O-AR
 Status: New
12. TASK LIST TO BE INCLUDED IN ARC ACTION ITEMS
 BACKGROUND: NWM ARC, March 2010 -- Brig Gen Rice suggested that Tasks to be
accomplished as recommended during Airspace and Range Council Meetings should be maintained with
Action Items for tracking and accomplishment.
 ACTION ITEM: Ensure that a Task List is maintained with the ARC Action Item list.
 OPR: QinetiQ-NA
OCR: HQ USAF/A3O-BR
 Status: New
13. INVITE REPRESENTATIVES OF RENEWABLE ENERGY ASSOCIATIONS TO ARC
 BACKGROUND: NWM ARC, March 2010 -- We need to look forward and try to protect present
and future resources for Doppler Radar training and testing. F-35 capabilities briefing is a starting point to
ensure our Operating Space is adequate. We need to know future requirements and limit surprises.
Windmills will affect training - even those located outside SUA or MTR boundaries (within up to 40
miles for current generation Doppler Radar). Renewable Energy associations are not unlike the Airline
Transport Association in their representing the many renewable energy businesses before the government
and the public. They provide the national public outreach for wind and solar.
 ACTION ITEM: Identify national renewable energy organizations and invite representatives to
regional Airspace/Range Councils.
 OPR: HQ USAF/A3O-BR
 Status: New
14. RENEWABLE ENERGY SITING APPLICATIONS
Central – Great Lake Region Airspace / Range Management Council: May 26-27, 2010
4
 BACKGROUND: NWM ARC, March 2010 -- How do we get renewable energy developers to reach
out to DoD to determine testing and training impacts prior to major expenditures on potential projects?
MAJCOMs must be able to ensure units receive information concerning proposed developments. The
coordination with developers must be consistent. An tool should be developed to ensure all proposals and
government responses are tracked.
 ACTION ITEM: Build an outreach guide for the energy industry. (Example: SF-299 Grant
Authorization, etc.) The TAGs and MAJCOMs should be empowered to use appropriate guidelines to
approve or object to renewable energy projects.
 OPR: HQ USAF/A3O-BR
 Status: New
15. HISTORY AND PURPOSE OF THE AIRPACE/RANGE COUNCILS
 BACKGROUND: NWM ARC, March 2010 -- Ms. Stewart included a very informative history and
reasons for the creation and continuation of the Regional Airspace/Range Management Councils. Ms.
Stewart suggested that this information be compiled and available to future Management Councils to
ensure they are aware of the importance of these meetings, the cooperative solutions to past problems, and
continued potential future challengers.
 ACTION ITEM: Develop a document or briefing on the history and value of the Airspace/Range
Councils
 OPR: HQ USAF/A3O-BR and NGB/A3A
 Status: New
16. NWM ARC – MARCH 2010 TASKS
 TASK 1 - Oregon ANG/A3 coordinate with Mt Home on airspace issues:
 DISCUSSION: There is a concern that additional airspace proposals in the Oregon and Nevada
area bordering Idaho may be detrimental to a success outcome of the existing Paradise MOA
expansion airspace proposal.
 TASK: Oregon A3 will insure that future airspace actions have been coordinated with Mt. Home
to maximize the potential for positive outcomes for airspace actions.
 TASK 2 - Include safety considerations when developing training requirements for 5th Gen
Fighters
 DISCUSSION: In the development of Training Space requirements for 5th Generation Fighters,
safety of flight must be included. The F-35 will have a full spectrum of fighter operations. Only
preliminary training requirements are currently available.
 TASK: A3AO will include safety of flight issues in airspace determinations.
 TASK 3 - Regional ARC Chairs will ensure widest dissemination of upcoming conference
notices in their regions. An aggressive outreach should include Army SAAOs and Navy Representatives
as well as Air Force representatives.
 DISCUSSION: We have a few Army people and Navy representatives at these meetings. Some
states the Army in very involved is airspace coordination. Army is involved with UAS but they are
behind us in coordination. It is time to name these meeting as a Joint ARC by formally invite Army.
Why are not invite all services to these meetings, the issues are across all service. We should be
working together.
 TASK: Find all Army Aviation within each State and other military services.
 TASK 4 - Colonel Wedan requested Lt Col Rousseau draft formal letter to the FAA requesting
changes to the OE/AAA process with respect to the effects of windmill farms.
 DISCUSSION:
a. FAA question, what form of coordination are you looking for from OE/AAA, would this be
part of an EIS on a wind farm?
b. Mr. Sample said that right now the radar impacts are only looked at if it is right on an airfield
or part of the JSS system. There is no process for the developer to apply to DoD for a
determination.
Central – Great Lake Region Airspace / Range Management Council: May 26-27, 2010
5
17. CGL TASK: Colonel Craig Wallace (178 FW/CV, Ohio) proposed that the Ohio ANG work with the Air
Force Research Laboratory to investigate and develop airspace requirements for RPA (Remotely Piloted
Aircraft).
D. FAA Topic of Interest - Special Activity Airspace - Mr. Fulmer
1. Current Drivers (why this initiative now)
 Fuel Forum Initiatives: “Provide Greater use of Military Airspace”
 JPDO (Joint Planning and Development Office) operational improvements
 Enterprise Architecture Operational Improvement: Improved Management of Airspace for Special Use
 RTCA Airspace Working Groups: Improved information sharing, real-time management, dynamic use
of SUA and improved access for all stakeholders identified in the group’s charter
 RTCA Task Force 5 on NextGen: More efficient management and use of SAA identified as a unique
capability area
 Numerous FAA policies, procedures, programs, and organizations that speak to SAA: NextGen, SWIM,
FAA Flight Plan
2. Special Activity Airspace
 Any airspace with defined dimensions within the National Airspace System wherein limitations may be
imposed upon aircraft operations
 This airspace may be restricted areas, prohibited areas, military operations areas, ATC assigned
airspace, and any other designated airspace areas as well as future airspace created for future
requirements.
 Types: Special Use Airspace (SUA), Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs), Altitude Reservations
(ALTRVs), Military Training routes (MTRs), and future airspace users that may create a new type of
airspace potentially for UAS, Aerobatics and Parachute Jumping
3. Cooperation - The PBFA, FAA, and RTCA are at the same table for the first time and will answer the
requirements with a single voice.
4. Rules of Engagement – Focus Areas
 Looking at national level issues – not asking for anything from the military just looking at how to
improve airspace management.
 To identify those policies, technologies, and metrics that deal specifically with SAA scheduling,
planning, status, and utilization.
 Enable electronic scheduling of SAA and broadcast those schedules and updates to Air Navigation
Service Providers and NAS users
 Create capabilities to populate this data across existing and future airspace planning/analysis systems to
better manage SAA in the NAS
 Establish an electronic means of gathering real time utilization of all SAA and develop a more accurate
utilization reporting system
5. Expected Benefits
 Consideration of all operator’s needs
 Enabling the military to train as they fight
 Allowing governmental activities while mitigating impact to other operators
 Make military airspace schedules available to the public - the current numbers do not give us good
information about real time management.
 Reduced flight time and distance for civilian and military operators who leverage enhanced awareness
of SAA status to opt for more efficient routes
 Enroute navigation will gradually migrate from the existing ground based navigation to GPS based
navigation.
Central – Great Lake Region Airspace / Range Management Council: May 26-27, 2010
6
 New capability will allow multiple flight plans to be available for selection just prior to the time of
departure to enable the selection of the optimum route considering weather and special activity airspace
planned utilization.
 ICAO is working on the handbook for civil – military operations
 Dynamic Airspace, the relocation of special activity airspace is being evaluated at nine ATCAAs
6. Consequences of inaction?…We are stuck with the status quo
 Dysfunctional strategic and tactical planning
 Under-utilized airspace
 Loss of NAS capacity
 Loss of predictability
 Loss of flexibility
 Increased costs and delays
 A squandered opportunity to influence the future of NAS operations
7. Progress to Date
 Initial Oversight Committee meeting held in January 2010
 Two combined Oversight and Subcommittee meetings held in February and March 2010; next
meeting scheduled for April 27-29, 2010
 Four additional meetings scheduled for FY10
 NSAAP CONOPS version 3 published on April 16
 Draft Functional Requirements Document in coordination
8. Project deliverables
 Due by September 30, 2010
 CONOPS for SAA
 Initial Functional Requirements Document (FRD) driven from CONOPS
 Initial Benefits Analysis
 Due by April 1, 2011- Final FRD driven from CONOPS
 Due FY 11 (date TBD) In Depth Benefits Analysis on CONOPS with FRD
9. Bottom Line: It is not an airspace take away – Airlines will have the information about when the airspace
will be available.
E. FAA Topic of Interest - Adaptive Airspace - Lt Col William Crowe (FAA/AJR-33)
1. Concerns
 The military has a defined requirement for a volume of airspace; quite often this airspace can be
moved, provided the same volume is still available
 Past perception by some in DoD is if they temporarily give up airspace, it will be taken away
permanently at some point
 Some ATCAAs may be tied to restricted airspace/MOAs, threat emitters, target arrays on the ground,
and/or proximity to a unit’s home base and could limit or prevent any relocation of an associated ATCAA
2. Proof of Concept - The following examples could be pursued for proof of concept:
 Complete relocation of an ATCAA while maintaining the same volume of airspace
 Expansion of an existing ATCAA with associated subdivisions that could be recalled as necessary yet
still provide the same volume of airspace to meet Air Force requirements
3. This is similar to what the military has done in the theaters of operation with mixed military and civilian
air traffic including UAS.
 A grid system utilizing GARS (DOD standard Global Area Reference System) that look at airspace as
a group of boxes of smaller airspace
 A five digit code represents a 30 min by 30 min geographic cell and a seven digit code represents a 5
min by 5 min geographic cell
4. Current limitation: Airspace above FL180 that does not have NEPA requirements
Central – Great Lake Region Airspace / Range Management Council: May 26-27, 2010
7
5. Future challenges
 Expand the adaptive airspace concept below FL180
 Three main concerns
 Properly Address Associated Environmental Issues
 Real-time Awareness of Current Airspace Status by all NAS users
 Real-time Coordination between Airspace Users and Controlling Agencies
6. The test for adaptive airspace will include one ATCAA in the Eastern Service Area and one in the Central
Service Area. Alaska is not sure about providing test airspace.
F. FAA Topic of Interest - Special Activity Airspace (SAA) Automation Update – Mr. Jim Perkins (FAA –
AJR-32) currently 95 to 98 percent of the Air Force and Air National Guard units are using the Military Airspace
Data Entry (MADE) system to input unit training operations into the FAA Special Use Airspace (SUA)
Management System (SAMS)
1. Change to FAA JO7930.2M - 6-1-5 SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE (SUA) AND RELATED
AIRSPACE: A NOTAM must be issued through the SUA Management System (SAMS) to activate special
use airspace if activated by NOTAM only or At other than published times for those SUA that contain a
NOTAM provision in their legal description, under the appropriate ARTCC(s):
 SUA, for the purpose of this manual, includes Restricted Area, Military Operations Area (MOA),
Warning Area, and Alert Area airspace only
 A NOTAM must be issued to activate SUA at other than published times for those areas that
contain a NOTAM provision (for example, “BY NOTAM,” INTERMITTENT BY NOTAM,” or
“OTHER TIMES BY NOTAM”) in their times of use legal description per FAA Order 7400.8, or if
that SUA can only be activated by NOTAM. A NOTAM must not be issued to make other changes to
the charted dimensions or which would exceed the lower or upper published altitude limits.
 NOTAMs issued for SUA activation and cancellation for uncharted and unpublished times must
be Center NOTAMs issued for SUA inclusive areas for accountability locations of SUAE, SUAC,
and SUAW corresponding to the FAA Service Areas East, Central, and West respectively.
 This changed the structure of NOTAMs about Restricted Areas from being tied to a NAVAID or
Airport to being issued as a Center NOTAM to make them visible to all flight plans near the airspace.
 For Adaptive Airspace the NOTAM includes altitude blocks and the vertical limits of the airspace
can be defined and stratified for multiple missions if desired.
 Related airspaces include Military Training Routes (MTR) and Aerial Refueling Tracks and
Anchors The provisions of Para 6-1-5 apply to related airspaces as well as SUA.
 A NOTAM must be issued to activate SUA and related airspaces at other than published or
charted times for those areas that contain a NOTAM provision (i.e., “BY NOTAM,”
“INTERMITTENT BY NOTAM,” or “OTHER TIMES BY NOTAM”) in their times of use legal
description per FAA Order 7400.8, and related Government charting, or if that SUA or related
airspaces can only be activated by NOTAM. A NOTAM must not be issued to make other changes to
the charted dimensions or which would exceed the lower or upper published altitude limits.
 NOTAMs issued for SUA and related airspaces activation and cancellation for uncharted and
unpublished times must be Center NOTAMs issued for SUA inclusive areas for accountability
locations of SUAE, SUAC and SUAW corresponding to the FAA Service Areas East, Central and
West respectively.
 EXAMPLES- !SUAC ZMP AIRSPACE CRYPT NORTH MOA 5000-16000 WEF 09071504000907150600
 One item – Flight Service Stations said that they would not issue a military NOTAM. It has not
been straighten out, call Jim if your unit has a problem.
 MADE will cancel the NOTAM if you use MADE to schedule the airspace.
 Lights Out/Night Vision Goggle (NVG) Operations in MOAs
Central – Great Lake Region Airspace / Range Management Council: May 26-27, 2010
8
 Upon notification of a lights out/NVG operation in an authorized MOA (as listed in FAA
exemption 7960), issue a NOTAM containing the following information:
a. Lights Out/NVG Operations
b. MOA name
c. Altitude
d. Date/time the activity will begin and end.
 EXAMPLE - !SUAW ZLA AIRSPACE LGTS OUT/NVG TRNG DESERT AND REVEILLE
NORTH/SOUTH MOA 9000/BLW AVOIDANCE ADVISED WEF 0912070200-0912070500
 NOTE - NOTAMs for lights out/NVG operations are scheduled times only, identified 48 hours in
advance.
 Lights Out – check the box in MADE and the NOTAM will be issued.
 NOTAM Changes: The changes were not handled very well – the comment is still in the handbook
about calling Flight Service Station.
 Working on cleaning up the left over issues in handbook
 Airspace active by NOTAM 24 hours prior – MADE will not be able to make a change inside this
timing, units will have to call center about change times.
 What are the real requirements for the 24 – 48 hour notification Policy? The FAA must be able to
accept changes.
2. SAMS online “Create Schedules Worksheet” was shown with a direct interface with MADE that will
push unit schedule input into the SAMS system to meet the new NOTAM requirements.
3. MADE online “Airspace Denial/Cap Report Grid” was requested at the Eastern-New England ARC in
2009. It has been included in MADE effective March 2010.
 The airspace schedule is submitted with MADE, if the center denies or CAPs the airspace a pop-up
appears for the center controller and he must input the reason for the cap or denial. On the fly capping
should also be recorded it the same manner. This will be automating in the future; ERAM will allow a bidirectional exchange of data.
 Mr. Perkins also presented a sample report that includes Airspace Name, Type of Denial, Reason and
times. The report will allow tracking of airspace denials or “caps” to see if there is a pattern. The tool can
be used to determine better times of day for the airspace. This is a prototype and he requested feedback to
make it better.
 Lt Col John Steinbicker (ANG A3A) congratulated Mr. Perkins on the implementation of the airspace
denial-tracking tool.
4. History Tracking Function – MADE now maintains a record for individual airspaces to include who
entered the airspace, when entered, who approved, airspace restrictions and when departed. The system will
track actual utilization. The centers input the entry and exit times now. The FAA is working on automatically
taking the squawk and recording the boundary crossing to activate and deactivate the airspace for utilization.
5. MADE/SAMS – DoD Scheduling System Interface Working on Proof of Concept demonstration of
automated interface with DOD scheduling systems.
 Established Web Service interface between the Air Force Central Scheduling Enterprise (CSE) and
MADE/SAMS hosted on SAMS development system.
 Working towards Proof of Concept demonstration Fall 10
6. Airspace Building Tool demo will be presented in May
 DoD unit designs a potential new SAA with digital mapping software and web based submit process.
Working towards end-to-end digitalization of SAA in AIXM format for NextGen
 Affected Control Facility Airspace Specialists will be able to suggest modifications and approve of the
proposal online.
 Service Area Mil Reps and Airspace Specialists will be able to process and forward proposals.FAA HQ
AJR-3 Airspace and Rules will receive the proposal for processing and approval
7. SUA / TFR Website now combines two webs sites into a single SUA/TFR website with graphic display.
It will allow anyone to see airspace schedules. Currently out for public comment
Central – Great Lake Region Airspace / Range Management Council: May 26-27, 2010
9
8. New Contact Info: phone: 202-493-1444, cell: 202-450-0136
G. AFREP FAA Update - Lt Col Harper (FAA Central Service Area – Air Force Rep)
1. Airspace Action
 Grand Forks
 EIS 45 day comment period is over and now responding and moving to ROD
 Airspace proposal modified several times
 CSA reviewed
 Minneapolis ARTCC study
 Non-concur with
 Going to have to go back and redo
 Volk Lightning Temporary MOA
 CRTC
 Activate 14-26 June
 Published
2. Pilot Deviations
 Most deviations come from Air Education Training Command (pilot training)
 The Pilot Deviation Process – notified from Air Traffic Control, from the ROC (Regional Operational Center)
and from the daily bulletin
 Contact the unit and there MAJCOM – want to have the data captured immediately – FAA Comm data is erased
after 14 days. It may be four to six months until the review process is completed.
3. Spill outs
 Trends Buckeye and Hill Top MOA
 8 April incident – near mid-air
 AFI 13-201 Guidance
 AFREP vary in how to handle spill outs
 New guidance – AFREPS are treating them as deviations for processing – notify unit and MAJCOM.
New AFI 13-201 definition and procedures are explained.
 We have used the anti – now the memo from AFREP will go to Wing CC or Ops CC.
 Colonel Wallace (Springfield, OH) – Lesson Learned from the incident with two F-16s in the Buckeye MOA.
 FAA – The unit has had an excellent relationship with Indianapolis Center.
a. The unit did not know that Buckeye was the number one airspace in spill outs.
b. No one was calling the unit to tell us that we were having these problems.
c. No excuses for going out but we were not getting the information.
d. FAA was being nice but the unit needs to know the problem so we can go to the pilots and
e. The LOA requires a 2.5 NM separation from the lateral boundary.
 Most of the spill outs have been vertical.
a. We have instituted changes that will help eliminate the problem.
b. Most of the spill outs were Dutch Pilots.
c. Blue Ash ANG Radar Unit will now give boundary warnings.
d. The Unit needs real time notification to brief the pilot effectively; if they do not know there is a
problem they cannot fix it.
 Lessons Learned
a. Communication
b. We are losing the F-16s
c. The Dutch will be moving to Tucson.
d. Great working relationship but need the information
 Indy Center – “last week had a tanker spill out – Whiskey Alert first time”
Central – Great Lake Region Airspace / Range Management Council: May 26-27, 2010
10
 Mr. Gravelle (AMC) requested that the information also go to the MAJCOM. It takes six months to get
that information. Harper the FAA has had that feedback and they are working on speeding up the process.
 Military Radar Facilities have two types of function
a. If they are a functioning as a Military Radar Unit, they are responsible for boundary security.
b. If they are only providing the tactical monitoring, they are not responsible for the boundaries. The
pilots in this situation may not be aware that the radar unit does not have that responsibility.
4. CSA AFREP Office: Lt Col Harper is currently running the office and will retire in Jan 2011. Major Jamie
Flanders is deployed through Feb 2011. The office will have minimum staffing for the remainder of the year.
5. Ms. Heidi Williams (AOPA) requested that when making changes to MOAs the circularization is regional and
HQ AOPA would like to have the information distributed on a national basis.
 Col Harper will take a note about that.
H. MAJCOMs—Regional Encroachment/Engagement Issues - ANG – Lt Col Steinbicker (ANG A3A)
1. SUA Training: ANG has an airspace DVD available on the portal and COP. Without the dot mil capability, just
give us your address to receive a copy of the DVD.
2. Encroachment
 Urban Sprawl - around our bases continues until the base is forced to close
 NAS Redesign - RVSM airspace only provides a 1,000 ft separation now. A fighter within SUA, climbing
toward overhead traffic, can create a Resolution Advisory (RA) for the air carrier – that is RVSM encroachment if
it causes a limitation on training within the airspace.
 Wind farms –
 ANG / Adirondack Range accepted a wind farm now they are expanding it and it is creating a greater
problem.
 Cannon Range training wall would have been created
3. Encroachment Data: A recent request for data to quantify what level of encroachment is being experienced has
been made. Make sure you get with the wing commanders and make sure that the right people get the information.
People tend to not think about all of the resources that are needed for training and are impacted by urban sprawl and
non-compatible land use, respond ASAP.
4. Engagement –
 Early, Often, and Sustained contact with external stakeholders - Unit must have an effective community
relations program before there is an incident or a need for new training airspace.
 Wing leadership proactive involvement with community leaders, planners
 Let them champion solutions that satisfy all
 Seek help and resources at both the Bureau and HAF
 Warren Grave had excellent community relations before an incident at the range that caused considerable
private proper loses. Because of the excellent relations, the communities surrounding the range demanded that the
range remain operational.
 The Airspace Range Councils are one of the better forums to maintain the contacts that can help resolve issues
before they become unsolvable.
5. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) studies protect the public’s health, safety, and welfare. To
prevent encroachment from degrading the operational capability of military air installations in meeting mission
requirements. Recommends land uses that will be compatible with noise levels, accident potential, and obstruction
clearance criteria.
6. Joint Land Use Studies (JLUS) Cooperative land use planning effort between affected local government and the
military installation. Recommendations present a rationale and justification to support compatible development to
prevent encroachment and promote public health, safety and welfare.
7. Supporting Agencies, Documents and Tools
 FAA Part 150 studies (civil/military joint use fields); noise
analysis
 Public Affairs (PA) involvement is mandatory to maintain
continuity and standardization conveying
action/impact
Central – Great Lake Region Airspace / Range Management Council: May 26-27, 2010
11
 Risk Communication training highly encouraged when speaking in a civil/public forums or providing interviews
 Develop local engagement tools: tri-folds, DVDs, website, etc, to describe the mission and the necessity of the
space that is required to meet objectives.
 Example: Grand Forks created a web site for all documents to be reviewed by the public,
http://www.grandforksuaseis.com/register_login.aspx
8. AFCEE – Dr Thom Rennie (Air Force Regional Environmental Office) contact info phone: (214) 767-4678
email: thomas.rennie@brooks.af.mil
9. MET towers (Meteorological towers) are the most common means for measuring the wind speed and direction
at a site. They are an indicator that a wind developer is considering a wind farm in that area. They are generally 125 to
160 foot towers that do not require OEAAA filing.
I. MAJCOMs—Regional Encroachment/Engagement Issues – Air Combat Command (ACC) – Mr. Elliot
Sanders (HQ ACC / A3AA)
1. ACC operates major range and airspace complexes
2. Powder River MOA Complex is a big MOA with four states and multiple FAA Centers\
 Just completed scoping
 Public hearings
 Trying to complete EIS by June 2011
 Ellsworth is the user and scheduling agency
3. Encroachment and UAS take up most of our time.
4. Community involvement must include around the base and in the areas where your unit trains.
5. RPA is a big issue. Once the FAA determines their position then ACC will know what to do. The problem is not
the training airspace location or size; it is how we get to the training airspace.
J. MAJCOMs—Regional Encroachment/Engagement Issues – Air Material Command (AMC) - Mr. Gravelle
(AMC A3AA) AMC is the Air Force airlift and air refueling command. There are three AMC bases in the region, Grand
Forks AFB, ND, Scott AFB, MO and McConnell AFB, KS.
1. Grand Forks AFB is the home for an Air Refueling Wing and the location with a lot on the RPA activity by
ACC, the ANG and the Department of Home Land Security. The EIS is on track for completion in November 2010.
K. Scott AFB is the home of two Airlift Wings and an Air Refueling Wing. Scott AFB has been working on off base
planning with a good community outreach program to developed joint use operations.
 The community has agreed to come to the base prior to moving forward with future development plans.
 Scott AFB is very fortunate to be surrounded by communities that are concerned about encroachment and its’
potential negative effect to the base and they want to ensure that their developments are acceptable by the base.
2. Wind Turbines at Travis: In the late 80’s, three companies built wind generators near Travis. Travis’ Radar
Approach Control (RAPCON) noticed degraded capability with numerous lost targets over the wind generators. The
older analog radar used at that time allowed controllers to make some manual changes to the radar presentation to
attempt to mitigate the problems, but they could not eliminate them. The new digital replacement radar improved
some aspects of the problem, but also limited manual changes controllers could make.
 Proposal for additional wind generators was identified as a potential problem for the Travis RAPCON.
 Travis worked with the local community to voice their objections to the additional wind generators and elevated
it to the highest levels of the Air Force. Problem was that the Air Force did not have specific scientific data to
define the affects of wind turbines on ATC radar to support their objections.
 The Air Force entered into a cooperative agreement with the wind energy developers to make an extensive
technical evaluation of existing and forecasted affects on radar.
 The conclusion was that the new radar improved the scope appearance but did not eliminate lost/false targets.
 The study established a baseline probability of detection for the Travis radar, which allowed analysis of the
potential effects of future additional turbines.
 Final determination was that Travis is able to accept the additional generators without a significant increase in
degradation.
Central – Great Lake Region Airspace / Range Management Council: May 26-27, 2010
12
3. High Speed Exemption – McChord initiated the exemption to practice tactical arrivals and departures.
 AFFSA approved waiver to allow high-speed tactical training. The exemption is still in work, once approved it
might serve as a template for other units. Once approved, McChord’s C-17 high-speed training will be
accomplished at a civilian airport at Moses Lake, WA.
 ACC is working on a similar issue. F-16s may be making the same request, as they need to practice strafe in the
pattern due to AOR concerns.
L. MAJCOMs—Regional Encroachment/Engagement Issues – Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC)
- Mr. Golliver (HQ AFSOC/C3OUI USA Integration) – AFSOC is the lead command for all UAS in the USSOCOM
locations. The command has 22 approved COAs.
1. Cannon Class D to MOA COA
 Status: Operating since 9 December 2009 with both day and night operations
 Corridor 12 nm long and needs five ground observers
 Provides access to Melrose airspace
 Issues:
 Two hour no fly windows one hour prior to sunrise and one hour after sunset due to mandatory ground
visual safety observers.
 Way-ahead:
 Wing will deconflict no fly periods through scheduling
 Working with HAF / A3O for an alternative “sense-and-avoid” strategy to eliminate observers
2. Cannon Day Corridor COA – started with the mission requirement and developed the minimum mission
requirement
 Status: Corridor from Cannon to R-5104 (Melrose Range) approved (no flights to date – pending approval and
implementation of observer training program)
 Issues:
 Day ONLY
 Limited to no higher than 3000’ AGL
 Must use observers (minimum 5 ground observers required)
 Way-ahead:
 AFSC tasked to develop safety case for night ops (night corridor COA disapproved by FAA)
 Working with HAF/A3O for an alternative “sense-and-avoid” strategy that would eliminate observers
3. Cannon Large Area COA
 Status: Area west of R-5104 and corridor to White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) approved (no flights to date)
 Issues:
 FAA approved smaller area than what we requested
 10 NMs FL 180-230—15 NMs FL230 & above vs. original requested 25 NMs FL 180 – 230
 110 NM Corridor to WSMR day ONLY
 No written FAA rationale for not approving 25 NMs
 Way-ahead: Wing will fly the smaller area to gather favorable safety data that supports larger (original) request
M. Session Wrap Up - Colonel Neumann we have heard a lot of issues and the stage is set for tomorrow.
N. General Rice added that it is appropriate to thank Gunther Neumann for the many years of work and outreach to the
many communities involved in airspace management. Gunther is the epitome of how to do airspace. His assistance in the
Airspace/Range Councils has been invaluable. General Rice presented a commemorative coin and thanks.
O. Mr. Paul Hughes and seven other FAA personnel from the Central Service area and regional centers honored
Gunther Neumann for years or service and the joint work done to further the enhance air traffic. It has been a great
transformation in effective airspace management.
Central – Great Lake Region Airspace / Range Management Council: May 26-27, 2010
13
FIRST DAY’S SESSION ADJOURNED AT 5:00 PM
MANAGEMENT SESSION PROCEEDINGS FOR 27 MAY 2010
A. Welcoming Remarks – Brig General Mark Johnson (Co-Chairman CGL Airspace/Range
B. EMI Encroachment Challenges for Testing & Training Battlespaces – Lt Col Jim Rousseau (AFMC/Nevada)
1. Mission: Provide a relevant, instrumented, and integrated Battlespace encompassing the full-spectrum of conflict
supporting US military services training and combat missions.
2. Electro-Magnetic Inference (EMI) Encroachment: Any structure of significant radar cross section has a
potential to cause undesirable EMI affects to systems on the range. If the structure has moving parts, it will also
impart Doppler issues for systems utilizing this logic.
3. R-2508 Complex – Doppler Issue: The R-2515 Supersonic and Quite Radar Test area has a Wind Resource Area
near the western boundary and a proposed are at the eastern boundary. Doppler propagation from wind turbines
creates imaging problems for modern moving target radars.
4. Relevant Battlespaces: Areas where we can train US & Allied Forces with accurate treat replication
 Relevant, so that it provides the level of realism required for that particular customer—minimize “pretending”
through injects.
 Instrumented, so that it provides accurate feedback—gone are the days of the test or training audience winning
the debrief by grabbing the chalk first or being the loudest.
 Integrated, so that all that is happening on the terrain, with ground parties, targets and threats or in the air and
cyberspace arenas, whether red or blue, are coherent.
5. Two factors – two types of radar – pulsing or continuous radar – the computer processes the information.
6. Doppler Study – the faster the pulsing the more false target are generated.
 FAA can mitigate false targets but they will be missing slow moving targets. The greatest impact is within 35
miles of radar. The false targets slow down the processor, degrading its performance.
 The effects on Doppler Radar are a concern for everyone including weather radar reduced ability to track severe
storms.
7. Radar Cross Section – is the reflective value of a structure or aircraft.
 How big and how far away determines how a radar will see the targets
 Automatic gain control reduces the sensitivity of the radar when the ambient background noise is increased with
wind turbines and weak desired targets are lost with the increased false targets.
 On our ranges we place simulators for enemy systems – need to keep the environment as pristine as possible to
accurately test and evaluation systems.
8. Technical Bottom Line: Critical US Weapons Systems are tested against NTTR assets.
 Certain alternative energy technologies can significantly degrade the performance and execution of NTTR
operations and capabilities
 Some do not impact as severely
 Doppler is an issue for Wind Turbines--i.e. blades
 Mitigation equals changing internal logic and circuitry, changing the system
 Mitigation options are acceptable for FAA and standard military ASR
 Incompatible for NTTR equipment
 Foreign system emulation is not possible
9. DoD does say YES to development of Mission Compatible Renewable Energy
10. New Issue - Stealth Blades - Over the past six months in Britain and other countries, new wind power research
and development (R&D) projects are underway. The R&D projects look at both hardware and software solutions to
eliminating turbine interference with radar.
Central – Great Lake Region Airspace / Range Management Council: May 26-27, 2010
14
 According to the Department of Energy and Climate Change, researchers will first investigate the physical
structure of turbines to see if they can be coated with the same material that allows stealth bombers to operate
without being picked up by radar signals.
 Next, the project's researchers will also try to tune radar software so that it does not pick up signals from wind
turbines.
 Stealth windmill blades do not drop the radar return below the Air Force requirement.
11. Major Ranges Training Space must be maintained for:
 Operational Test and Evaluation
 Tactics development
 Training
 Future technology integration
12. Encroachment Issues: The Air Force is saturated with encroachment issues. The Air Force must protect testing
and training airspace for the Future. In the 70s had we only protected for the systems we had then, we would not be
able to test the F-22 and F-35 today.
 How do unit commanders protect for future capabilities without the capabilities being defined.
 An example is the National Park Service that has set up an arbitrary buffer around parks to halt encroachment.
 If a windmill is within 37 NMs of the training area, it will affect radar capability.
13. Bottom Line: The US must balance between national security needs and the freedom from foreign energy
sources. Military capabilities to support all military actions must not be compromised.
C. The COA Process – Current and Future – Lt Col Tony Harper
1. Technology is out pacing regulation. UAS are integral to National Defense Plans, National Security
Strategies and disaster relief/civil support plans
2. UAS Operations are increasing with DoD having 56 active UAS Certificates of Authorizations (COA)
that represent 40% of all UAS operations.
3. Airspace access will only increase…must prepare now
 Continue working together to increase UAS NAS access; streamline COA process & reduce COA
requirements
 Implement policy & procedure changes that support national requirements; maintain safety of the
NAS
 DoD has recommended COA policy/procedure/process changes to the ExCom for consideration and
action
4. UAS Access to the NAS Today is Special Access
 Certificate of Authorization (COA) provided by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the
only way (outside of Restricted Airspace, Warning Areas and ops covered under current MOA)
 Each operation considered unique and requires individual COA
 Some COAs manpower intensive (i.e. spotters)
 Some COAs equipment intensive (i.e. special ground radar dedicated for aircraft separation)
5. UAS Access to the NAS in the near future should be Routine Access
 Policy, procedures and standards allow access like other unique aerial vehicles
 Access based on accommodations that do not require capital investment (manpower & material
beyond normal operating system)
 COA process used for exceptional operations only
6. EXCOM Directed COA Working Group
 FAA lead a working group to identify top COA issues and develop recommendations for process
improvement
 Total of 16 COA related issues provided to SSG by the member agencies
 Working group classified the agency provided issues into 3 categories: Process: (6), Operational: (5)
and Policy: (5)
Central – Great Lake Region Airspace / Range Management Council: May 26-27, 2010
15
 Focused on “Process” issues first
 Prioritized and assessed implementation difficulty as High, Medium, Low and Easy, Medium, Hard
 New work group established; looking at procedural and operational concerns…study expected to be
completed by mid-May
7. UAS Access to the NAS in the future should be Normalized Access
 Policy, procedures, standards and equipage allow UAS to operate in the NAS with an equivalent level
of safety and the same efficiency as manned aircraft
 A new class of airspace designed for UAV is a possibility.
8. COAs – Tell FAA what you want to do and get a Yes or No. You do not always get detailed feedback on
why it is not approved.
9. The Way Forward
 Involved leadership; AF/A3O is the AF POC for all airspace integration issues; including COA
submissions
 AF/A3O established AF/A3O-BAR headed by an O-6; increased manning from one to four
 Ensure COA concerns are addressed by ExCom COA Workgroup
 Ensure DoD UAS flight operations are in compliance with FAA approved COAs
 Open good lines of communications with the FAA following a UAS incident
 Develop basing templates to standardize operations and reduce individual COAs
 COAs based on like activities
 Continue to be good NAS stewards; conduct UAS operations safely
10. Discussion - UAS Operations
 Ohio wants to build a corridor to restricted airspace; similar to what Cannon AFB is doing with spotters to
clear the flight visually into the restricted airspace at a cost of $1M a year. Will have to have a change in “sense
and avoid” onboard equipment for UAS operations
 Eighty percent of General Aviation aircraft are equipped leaving 10 to 12 % not equipped. Possibly 25% do
not have their transponders on.
 UAS have limitation on the field of view of the camera but at the console for larger UAS, the Pilot can see all
of the traffic that the FAA is displaying.
 Grand Fork AFB want to be able to climb to 14,000 feet into IFF required airspace and then proceed to
training area.
11. Wrap-up of the Discussion Topics - General Rice – We are mixing philosophy and capability. We protect the
right of the individual’s freedom of flight. The minority rules in this instance. The second given is we cannot afford a
single RPA catastrophic accident. Lost Link is the issue; we should have standard procedures to reduce the COA
complexity and provided the controller an assurance that procedures will be followed.
 Given those restrictions – what are the options we have?
 PCA to the ground would have huge implications.
 ADSB on every aircraft in the NAS, the infrastructure is not here today. Northern Canada is all ADSB
and over the oceans as well. The NAS could be ADS-B capable by 2018.
 XCOM is made up of DHS, DoD, NASA and FAA and mandated to move this process forward as swiftly as
possible. The first meeting in was in December at Tyndall AFB hosted by DHS. They are bringing all of the
various pieces together.
 Airworthiness Certificates need to be completed for RPAs. They were not done because the RPAs were
thrown into the theater as soon as they were developed. We are just getting the AWC for the Predator and Reaper
now. That will be a big step forward.
 Standardization of COAs – today everyone is different for different models, different bases, etc. Need to
standardize and normalize so a controller can assume that every RPA will follow standard procedures. Currently a
COA is no more than a waiver to standard procedures. We need to get out of that business. Can we as a military
have a standard lost link procedure for a specific platform? That is the reason that the COAs will all now go
through HAF A3O. We need to manage our operations to make sure that the COAs are followed; right now 25%
Central – Great Lake Region Airspace / Range Management Council: May 26-27, 2010
16
of the COAs are not being followed. Compliance needs to be directed from HAF so that we can begin this move
towards standardization.
 Now we can begin moving the experience of our operations at Kandahar where we do 400 sorties a day with
mixed operations of manned and unmanned aircraft to Miami IAP with the same number of operations per day.
 We cannot afford the RPA and Crop Duster collision. In the end, it will be a sense and avoid system
capability possibly by 2019-2020.
 Is it worth it to push through rule making for Class U Airspace (designated for UAS operation in the NAS)? It
takes 2-7 years to accomplish. That would be 2012-2017 if it was underway now.
 Do we drop the PCA down to the ground?
 NextGen operations has the idea is that anything above 100’ must have an ADS-B transmitter for operations
in Class A, B, C airspace.
12. Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) - Ms. Williams (Senior Director of Airspace for AOPA)
She has been with AOPA for 13 years.
 The FAA released the ADS-B rules the day of the meeting. AOPA has a lot going on internally about the
ADS-B rule.
 AOPA now has over 400,000 members and has been representing General Aviation for 71 years. Two thirds
of all US Pilots are AOPA members.
 Ms. Williams thanked the attendees for performing their mission so everyone in our country can enjoy the
freedom of flight.
 We have had the same president for 18 years, we changed last year and have gone through a year of
transition. GA Serving America is a current program. Star support, congressional caucus input. Participating in
NSAAP, for the last decade every comment we have put out there in EA/EIS is the lack of real time data…we
need to know what the actual open to closed information is. They are often told what is scheduled or charted, not
what is reality. Real time data is what we need for the most efficient use of the NAS.
 Thanks for having AOPA as a part of this council. Volk is a great venue.
D. Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) - Mr. Randy Hansen (EAA Government Relations Director)
1. EAA has 250,000 members that include recreational pilots and owners of restored, homebuilt and experimental
aircraft. EAA collaborates with AOPA on issues that affect our membership.
2. AirVenture Highlights – July 26-August 1 are the AirVenture dates.
 Veteran’s parade and group photo on Saturday July 31.
 Celebrating the 75th Anniversary of the DC-3, with over 60 DC-3s attending. Monday July 26 will be the
mass arrival. Aircraft include modified aircraft with turbo-props.
 Electric aircraft symposium and Flight Showcase EPA is looking at eliminating lead from avgas. Aviation
Fuel must be ethanol free since ethanol attracts moisture to fuel systems.
 75th Anniversary of B-17 (First Flight July 28, 1935)
 Cluster ballooning, there are two new certificate holders of the FAA certified lawn chair.
 Last year CBP had a COA for a CBP Predator B to fly into OSH five days before and depart five days after
the show. During the air show, EAA has a waiver for special activity in the airspace but cannot get approval for
UAS operations during the show. There will always be a public issue with UAS aircraft until they can see it fly
and understand it operation.
 The Federal Pavilion will have a full size USAF Predator MQ-1 mock up. The WI ANG will bring a Shadow.
Global Hawk is on EA’s most wanted list for 2011. The Federal Pavilion is dedicated to providing outreach to the
public.
 NextGen, our vision of that is the Next Generation of pilots – we all need to work together in exposing
America’s youth to all aspects of aviation – because they are the future of aviation. Would like to thank team
Volk for assisting this effort
3. Thanks for doing what you do.
E. National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) - Mr. Robert Lamond, Jr. (Director of Air Traffic Services)
Central – Great Lake Region Airspace / Range Management Council: May 26-27, 2010
17
1. Thanks for the meeting. NBAA member companies have many pilots with military experiences. NBAA members
are generally companies with flight departments who use aviation as a tool in pursuit of their core business.
WALMART for example operates a fleet of dozens of turboprops used to reach their store locations, and suppliers in
communities that are not served by airlines. Over Ninety percent of Fortune 500 companies use business aircraft.
2. The number of pilots being produced in the U.S. has been alarmingly low over the past few years. There is much
less experience than we have had in the past.
3. Everyone in the room has a background for aviation need to pass along the passion.
4. Prior to retiring, from military Mr. Lamond had no idea what business aviation was.
 Business aviation is the flight department Part 91 and/or 135 – companies that utilize aircraft to promote their
business – corporate flights
5. We are all part of the aviation family. Aviation contributes a significant amount of money to the US economy.
6. The family gets into many feuds. The mentality in DC is to get what you can – many other companies are happy
to see the aviation industry fight among them.
7. RTCA – Structure and Airspace Working Group
 Been around since 1930s
 Federal Advisory Committee – an official non-government, collective voice of the aviation community, to the
government through the FAA
 RTCA mission is to enhancing the state of air transportation by forging community-wide consensus
recommendations to government in the areas of Policy and Investment Recommendations or Minimum Aviation
System Performance Standards.
 RTCA is a volunteer organization with 412 members that receive insight into future operational requirements.
 Airspace Working Group since late 90s
 Mr. Lamond chairs the group along with a representative from Southwest Airlines.
 Working closely with Mr. Fulmer on the NSAAP initiative.
F. Wisconsin DOT – Mr. Gary Dikkers
1. Wind Turbines create low altitude turbulence. The blade tip vortices are created that flow downwind affecting
helicopters and crop dusters. Emergency services can be impacted.
2. Wind farms and crop dusters are incompatible. They will not operate in a wind farm area. Wisconsin is the third
largest producer of potatoes in the US. Wind Farm development will limit the ability to flexibly take action in
response to insect infestations.
3. Turbulence affects private airports. There are no rules to protect them. Wisconsin has an airport that is frequently
shut down when wind direction and velocity creates turbulence at the airport from the nearby wind farm.
4. Towers under 200 feet including the met towers for wind energy siting do not require FAA notification. The Arial
Application Association and Emergency Medical Providers are working on requirements for mandatory lighting and
ground markings surrounding Tower and not allowing farming in the area below the tower.
5. The State of Minnesota is trying to mandate notification of smaller towers being constructed. They are working to
develop a database of where all towers are located. The goal is to share that information to all the users of the NAS.
The Jeppesen Company is attempting to provide helicopter operators accurate tower locations including tower less
than 200 feet in height.
6. Air Traffic Radar coverage in Minnesota and Wisconsin has areas that are not covered sufficiently at low
altitudes, including Camp Ripley that is not covered below 10,000 feet. Wide Area Multilateration using ground
antennas that will provide location information is a potential solution to close this gap. Wisconsin has money they are
interesting in spending to provide this coverage. The FAA does not want the state to do that as it is a federal mission
and they state that the cost benefit ratio is not there to provide this coverage.
7. How will the military comply with ADSB? At this time, we expect that aircraft modifications are going to cost
$15,000 per airframe.
G. NAV Canada Update (Windsor – Toronto – Montreal Airspace & Services Review) - Mr. Eric St-Denis recently
retired and is now working of special projects
Central – Great Lake Region Airspace / Range Management Council: May 26-27, 2010
18
1. Performance-based Navigation (PBN)
 New technologies allow aircraft to fly flexible, accurate, three-dimensional flight paths using onboard
equipment and capabilities.
 PBN frees aircraft from reliance on fixed, ground-based radio-navigation aids and creates economic,
environmental, safety and access benefits.
 Performance-based navigation (PBN) represents a shift from sensor-based to performance-based
navigation.
 PBN offers a number of advantages over the sensor-specific method of developing airspace
 reduces the need to maintain sensor-specific routes and procedures, and their costs
 avoids the need for developing sensor-specific operations with each new evolution of navigation
systems
 Allows for more efficient use of airspace (route placement, fuel efficiency and noise mitigation)
 Clarifies how RNAV systems are used
 Facilitates the operational approval process for civil aviation authorities by providing a limited set
of navigation specifications intended for global use.
 Reduces required lateral separation to five nm for the entire route
2. Ontario Airspace from central Michigan to Vermont depicts the large volume of airspace unusable to air traffic
control due to Special Use Airspace and the national boundary
 Over 2,000 aircraft per day from Chicago and Detroit to Europe and from Chicago to eastern U.S. use
Canadian Airspace.
 The Toronto airports have 1,200 movements every day.
3. Lake Erie and Lake Ontario Airspace - Last year we talked about the problems and we have had meetings and
have establish a basis for what the military wants. We have met with MN Center and other centers and Military.
 The Misty Thunder to Adirondack Airspace with associated Canadian Airspace used by the U.S. and
Canadian military is difficult to transit.
 They are working on a low tunnel over SYR either over or under military airspace for Ottawa
 Misty One working with Cleveland Center on Toronto arrivals and departures we have creating a turbo prop
tunnel now we do not have to have holding airspace.
 This is a Big deal we can flush the Toronto Airport in 1/3 the time we have in the past with in trail spacing
requirements.
4. Alpena Airspace - Talked with Alpena about changes and concessions
 NavCanada does not want to take away anything but must have some access through the Steelhead Airspace.
 Need to create routes through the south part of Steelhead to support Chicago routes and through the north to
support route to the western U.S.
 Alpena wants to use Steelhead FL 260 and above, the new routes would be activated through Playbook daily
schedules. An option is to extend the PIKE airspace into Canada.
5. Boston Center Success: Lt. Col Steinbicker added that last year we did not have all of the big view need to
work on solution. With four US Centers working together, we had an overwhelming success in Boston. Canada has
gotten what they wanted to improve their air traffic flow. Now we want to have the real time information on airspace
operations. The good news is Boston Center. It is more complicated in the West with Restricted Areas where weapons
are released. We need to preserve this valuable airspace.
6. Future Requirements: Mr. St-Denis said that they are talking about incorporating F-22 and F-35 requirements
into airspace plan. The desire is to provide the military as much as they want while improving commercial operations.
7. NavCanada would like to be invited back next year for another update.
H. Round Table Discussion – All
1. Lt Col George Bacik highlighted the FAA Special Use Airspace & Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace
website (http://sua.faa.gov/sua/Welcome.do) as a way for General Aviation to find out when MOAs are active. Units
working on airspace proposal or issues should copy General Johnson and Lt Col Bacik in emails so we can support
Central – Great Lake Region Airspace / Range Management Council: May 26-27, 2010
19
you. We have made a time of use change to the Wisconsin Airspace. The airspace is now scheduled as it is to be used,
that is what the airlines, and centers want.
2. Mr. Paul Hughes, Minneapolis Center has funding to add gap filler radars such as the Volk Field Radar. It will
take some time to get the radar feeds into the center. ERAM is in progress and work on extra requirements will take
longer. It will take a year to a year and a half to complete. Originally, ADS-B was going to cover this area but the
ADS-B equipment employment is intended to equal current radar coverage, not provide improved coverage.
3. The center wanted to thank Volk and Alpena on their excellent community outreach programs. Minneapolis
Center wanted to say it is essential to work with the center when you start an airspace proposal. The center is working
with Duluth on a CAS concept. Units are encouraged to engage the centers and facilities that will be impacted early to
develop cooperative and workable plans.
4. Mr. Jim Perkins If you do have a temp MOA or change to an ATCAA get the information to the Military
Operations help desk so the system can be updated ASAP. This is a good crosscheck procedure to ensure the data is
uploaded. The centers should be sending the information too. The SAMS/MADE Help Desk is now available 24
hours.
5. General Johnson – Spill outs are being addressed from NGB so the message is carried to all of the units. Part of
the problem has been inconsistent procedures at Centers; the AFREPS will work to eliminate the communication
problem.
6. Minneapolis Center would like MRUs with hot lines to the center to give Whiskey Alerts for spill outs they see.
7. General Johnson thanked everyone for taking the time to participate in this forum, all military and civilian
participants, and especially Lt Col George Bacik, SMSgt Reynolds, Colonel Gary Ebben and the entire Volk group.
General Johnson did not get a chance to get out to all the Centers before this meeting, but he will be visiting all of the
ARTCCs in the region and would like to attend any other meetings in the area.
I. Session Wrap Up/Adjourn - Gen Johnson thanked everyone for excellent briefings and participation and the
support from the Volk Field personnel. He will be getting up to speed on all of the national issues. He will be getting with
George and visit all of the centers and other organizations that have meetings that would like to have us attend.
J. NEXT MEETING – An Executive Council meeting with the Southwest Region at the FAA Central Service Area will
be held September 15-16 2010 in Fort Worth, TX. The next meeting of the Central-Great Lake Airspace/Range
Management Council will be next year Wednesday and Thursday June 1st and 2nd, 2011, at Volk Field.
MANAGEMENT SESSION ADJOURNED – The session adjourned at 2:30 PM.
APPROVED
// Signed //
MARK JOHNSON, Brig General, USAF
Minnesota- JFHQ CoS-Air
Co-Chairman, Central-Great Lakes Region
Airspace/Range Council
// Signed //
TODD LANCASTER, Colonel, USAF
HQ Air Force / A3O-BR
Co-Chairman, Central-Great Lakes Region
Airspace/Range Council
Attachments
1. Agenda
2. List of Attendees
Central – Great Lake Region Airspace / Range Management Council: May 26-27, 2010
20
AGENDA
Air Force Central-Great Lakes Region
Airspace/Range Council
Volk Field, WI
26-27 May 2010
26 May
Management Session
1:00
Welcoming Remarks
Colonel Neumann
Colonel Lancaster
1:20
National Overview
Brig Gen Rice
1:35
Action Item Status
Mr. Rose
1:45
FAA Topic of Interest
- Special Activity Airspace
- SAMS/MADE
FAA
Mr. Fulmer
Mr. Perkins
2:45
AFREP FAA Update
- Proposals/Issues
- Trends (Spillouts, Capping, Denials)
Lt Col Harper
3:00
Break
3:30
MAJCOMs—Regional Encroachment/Engagement Issues
MAJCOMs introduce issues from their units
- ANG
- ACC
- AFSOC
- AMC
- Discussion
Lt Col Steinbicker
Mr. Sanders
Mr. Golliver
Mr. Gravelle
All
Session Wrap Up
Colonel Neumann
5:00
Central – Great Lake Region Airspace / Range Management Council: May 26-27, 2010
Atch 1 - 1
AGENDA
Air Force Central-Great Lakes Region
Airspace/Range Council
Volk Field, WI
26-27 May 2010
27 May
Management Session
8:00
Opening Remarks
Brig Gen Johnson
8:15
RPA Ops in NAS Update
Lt Col Harper
8:45
NAS Users Review
State Aviation
AOPA
EAA
NBAA
Air Transportation Assoc (ATA)
Ms. Williams
Mr. Hansen
Mr. Lamond
9:40
NAV Canada Update
Mr. St-Denis
10:00
Break
10:20
Round Table Discussion
All
Issues, Concerns, Solutions
Moderator to keep discussion on track and prevent monopolizing discussions.
Air Traffic – Enroute, Terminal
Overflight, Coordination, Environmental
Test/Training Airspace – Location, Design, Use
Air Transport Operations
11:45
Action Item Recap
Mr. Rose
11:50
Session Wrap Up/Adjourn
Brig Gen Johnson
Central – Great Lake Region Airspace / Range Management Council: May 26-27, 2010
Atch 1 - 2
ATENDEE LIST
Major Andrew Apsey
Grayling Range
MI
DSN: 273-4663
Comm: (586) 239-5055
Cell: (586) 612-4381
E-mail: andrew.apsey@ang.af.mil
Lt Col George Bacik
Volk Field CRTC
100 Independence Ave
Camp Douglas, WI
DSN: 871-1502
Comm: (608) 427-1502
Cell: (262) 844-9360
E-mail: george.bacik@ang.af.mil
Mr. Mike Benson
Minneapolis ARTCC - Acting TMO
512 Division St.
Farmington, MN 55024-
DSN:
Comm: (651) 463-5785
Cell: (612) 202-5125
E-mail: mike.benson@faa.gov
Captain Jeff Bodwell
552 OSS, AWACS
Tinker AFB, OK
DSN: 884-7414
Comm: (405) 734-7414
Cell:
E-mail: jeffrey.bodwell@tinker.af.mil
Mr. Rick Braunig
Minnesota Aeronautics
222 East Plato Boulevard
St. Paul, MN 55107-
DSN:
Comm: (651) 234-7230
Cell: (651) 226-2043
E-mail: rick.braunig@state.mn.us
Patrick Bridges
122 FW
DSN: 7783202
Comm: (260) 478-3202
Cell:
E-mail: patrick.bridges.2@ang.af.mil
Mr, Dan Brown
Toronto Air Traffic Center
6055 Midfield Rd
Mississauga, ONT LYW2P7,
DSN:
Comm: (905) 676-4596
Cell: (905) 570-5857
E-mail: browdan@navcanada.ca
Lt Col William Crowe
FAA/AJR-33
800 Independence Ave, SW Ste 423
Washington, DC
DSN:
Comm: (202) 493-4050
Cell:
E-mail: william.p.crowe@faa.gov
Mr. Michael Day
Minneapolis ARTCC (ZMP)
DSN: 939-1160
Comm: (651) 463-5545
Cell:
E-mail: michael.j.day@faa.gov
Central – Great Lake Region Airspace / Range Management Council: May 26-27, 2010
Atch 2 - 1
ATENDEE LIST
Mr. Gary Dikkers
Wisconsin Bureau of Aeronautics
4802 Sheboygan Ave., Rm 701
Madison, WI 53707-
DSN:
Comm: (608) 267-5018
Cell:
E-mail: gary.dikkers@dot.wi.gov
Lt Col Steve Dunai
Volk Field DO
100 Independence Blvd
Camp Douglas, WI
DSN: 871-1201
Comm: (608) 427-1201
Cell:
E-mail:
Mr. Thomas Dury
FAA - Indy Center
1850 S Sigsbee St
Indianapolis, IN 46241-
DSN:
Comm: (317) 247-2516
Cell: (317) 414-2510
E-mail: thomas.g.fury@faa.gov
Lt Col Dean Eckmann
119 WG / 178 RS
1400 32nd Ave North
Fargo, ND 58102-
DSN: 382-8300
Comm: (701) 451-2300
Cell:
E-mail: dean.eckmann@ang.af.mil
Mr. Dean Fulmer
HQ FAA - National SAA Project Mgr
DSN:
Comm:
Cell: (763) 229-0734
E-mail: dean.fulmer@faa.gov
Colonel Don Furland
JFHQ-MI/DO
3411 N. Martin Luther King Jr.
Lansing, MI 48906-2834
DSN:
Comm: (269) 375-8674
Cell: (269) 330-1449
E-mail: donald.furland@ang.af.mil;
d.furland@att.net
Mr. Jeffrey Golliver
HQ AFSOC / A3OUI
304 Terry Ave, Bldg 90137
Hurlburt Field, FL 32544-5434
DSN: 579-4064
Comm: (850) 884-4064
Cell: (850) 902-7041
E-mail: jeffrey.golliver@hurlburt.af.mil
SGT Lucas Gordon
1420 Wright St.
Madison, WI 53704-
DSN:
Comm: (608) 427-7492
Cell: (920) 737-7554
E-mail: lucas.w.gordon@us.army.mil
Central – Great Lake Region Airspace / Range Management Council: May 26-27, 2010
Atch 2 - 2
ATENDEE LIST
Mr. Timothy Gravelle
HQ AMC/A3AA
402 Scott Drive, Unit 3A1
Scott AFB, IL 62225-5302
DSN: 779-4557
Comm: (618) 229-4557
Cell:
E-mail: timothy.gravelle@scott.af.mil
Mr. Randy Hansen
EAA
3000 Poberezny Rd
Oshkosh, WI 54902-
DSN:
Comm: (920) 426-6103
Cell: (920) 639-6996
E-mail: rhansen@eaa.org
Lt Col Tony Harper
AFREP, CSA, ASW-910
2601 Meacham Blvd.
Ft Worth, TX 76137-
DSN: 477-5913
Comm: (817) 222-5913
Cell:
E-mail: tony.harper@faa.gov
Captain Tony Hart
Volk Field ACTS
Camp Douglas, WI
DSN: 871-1419
Comm: (608) 427-1419
Cell:
E-mail: antony.hart@ang.af.mil
Mr. Thor Hebner
QinetiQ North America
284 Evergreen Drive
Plymouth, IN 46563-
DSN:
Comm: (574) 274-1280
Cell: (574) 274-1280
E-mail: thorulf69@comcast.net
Captain Weston Hoeper
100 Independence Blvd
Attn: Hardwood Range
Camp Douglas, WI
DSN: 871-1821
Comm: (608) 427-1821
Cell: (608) 477-0894
E-mail: weston.hoeper@ang.af.mil
Mr. Lowell Hought
FAA - MSP ARTCC
512 Division St
Farmington, MN 55024-
DSN:
Comm: (651) 463-5608
Cell:
E-mail: lowell.hought@faa.gov
Mr. Paul Hughes
Minneapolis ARTCC - MOS
512 Division St.
Farmington, MN 55024-
DSN:
Comm: (651) 463-5536
Cell:
E-mail: Paul.Hughes@faa.gov
Brig Gen Mark Johnson
JFHQ-MN CoS-Air
20 12th St. West
St. Paul, MN 55155
DSN: 743-7600 Ext 144
Comm: (651) 268-8980
Cell: (612) 859-5144
E-mail: mark.johnson@ang.af.mil
Central – Great Lake Region Airspace / Range Management Council: May 26-27, 2010
Atch 2 - 3
ATENDEE LIST
Major Todd Kavouras
Smoky Hill Range
8424 W. Farrelly Rd
Salina, KS 67456-
DSN: 743-7600 Ext 144
Comm: (785) 827-9611
Cell: (785) 822-6406
E-mail: todd.kavouras@ang.af.mil
Major Nathan Kazek
133 AW
641 Spitfire Rd
St. Paul, MN 55111-
DSN: 783-2488
Comm: (612) 713-2488
Cell: (651) 592-3465
E-mail: nathan.kazek@ang.af.mil
SPC Jacob Kazmierski
1420 Wright St.
Madison, WI 53704-
DSN:
Comm: (608) 427-7494
Cell: (262) 441-8836
E-mail: jacob.kazmierski@us.army.mil
Lt Col William Krueger
WADS/ADO
Bldg 852 Lincoln Bldg
Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA 98335-
DSN: 382-4601
Comm: (253) 982-4601
Cell: (253) 310-1252
E-mail: william.krueger.1@us.af.mil
CW2 Lisa Kutschera
WIAR-AVN
Madison, WI
DSN:
Comm: (608) 242-3141
Cell: (949) 735-2876
E-mail: lisa.kutschera@us.army.mil
Mr. Robert Lamond, Jr.
NBAA
1200 18th St NW, Ste 400
Washington, DC 20036-
DSN:
Comm: (202) 783-9255
Cell:
E-mail: rlamond@nbaa.org
Colonel Todd Lancaster
AF/A3O-BR
DSN: 425-0581
Comm:
Cell:
E-mail: todd.lancaster@pentagon.af.mil
Mr. Glen Landry
CNA - Analysis & Solutions
DSN:
Comm: (202) 580-7485
Cell:
E-mail: glen.ctr.landry@faa.gov
SMSgt Bruce Lee
114 FW/OSF Airfield Manager
1201 W. Algonquin St.
Sioux Falls, SD 59104-
DSN: 798-7742
Comm: (605) 988-5742
Cell:
E-mail: bruce.lee@ang.af.mil
Central – Great Lake Region Airspace / Range Management Council: May 26-27, 2010
Atch 2 - 4
ATENDEE LIST
Lt Col Russ Limke
114 OSF
1201 W. Algonquin Ave.
Sioux Falls, SD 57104-
DSN: 798-7418
Comm: (605) 988-5418
Cell: (605) 261-8565
E-mail: russell.limke@ang.af.mil
Mr. Todd Mariani
FAA - KC Center
250 S. Rogers Rd.
Olathe, KS 66062-
DSN:
Comm: (923) 254-8513
Cell: (913) 593-4513
E-mail: atmariani@yahoo.com
Captain Dennis Mishler
934 AW
DSN: 783-1709
Comm: (612) 713-1709
Cell: (612) 423-5877
E-mail: dennis.mishler@minneapolis.af.mil
Major Bryan Moore
123 ACS
Blue Ash, OH
DSN: 340-2952
Comm: (513) 936-2952
Cell: (614) 254-3816
E-mail: bryan.moore@ang.af.mil
Mr. Scott Moore
FAA - KC Center
DSN:
Comm: (913) 254-8513
Cell:
E-mail: scott.t.moore@faa.gov
Colonel Gunther Neumann
DSN:
Comm:
Cell: (443) 540-4966
E-mail: gunther.h.neumann@gmail.com
Mr. Patrick "Don" Noonan
Marstel-Day, LLC
DSN:
Comm:
Cell: (571) 435-1714
E-mail: dnoonan@marstel-day.com
Mr. Mike O'Brien
FAA - Chicago ARTCC TMO
619 Indian Trail
Aurora, IL 60506-
DSN:
Comm: (847) 294-7565
Cell: (630) 200-0954
E-mail: michael.o'brien@faa.gov
Lt Col Geary Padden
178 RS
Fargo, ND
DSN:
Comm:
Cell: (218) 340-4458
E-mail: geary.padden@ang.af.mil
Central – Great Lake Region Airspace / Range Management Council: May 26-27, 2010
Atch 2 - 5
ATENDEE LIST
Mr. Jim Perkins
HQ FAA/AJR-32
800 Independence Ave.
Washington, DC 20171-
DSN:
Comm: (202) 493-1444
Cell: (202) 450-0136
E-mail: jim.perkins@faa.gov
Brig Gen L. Scott Rice
JFHQ MA ANG / ATAG
50 Maple Street
Milford, MA 01757-3604
DSN: 256-6546
Comm: (508) 233-6546
Cell: (413) 627-0821
E-mail: leon.rice@ang.af.mil
Mr. Greg Riddlemoser
Marstel-Day
DSN:
Comm:
Cell: (703) 677-5107
E-mail: griddlemoser@marstel-day.com
Mr. Michael Rizzo
FAA - CSA ATREP
2601 Meacham Blvd.
Fort Worth, TX 76193-0910
DSN:
Comm: (817) 321-7733
Cell:
E-mail: michael.rizzo@faa.gov
Colonel Dave Romuald
WI JFHQ - A3
2400 Wright St.
Madison, WI 53704-2572
DSN:
Comm:
Cell: (608) 469-9004
E-mail: david.romuald@ang.af.mil
Mr. Gary Rose
QinetiQ North America
7370 N. Catalina Ridge Dr
Tucson, AZ 85718-1369
DSN:
Comm:
Cell: (520) 360-5225
E-mail: gary.rose@qinetiq-na.com
Lt Col James 'Inspector' Rousseau
AFMC/Nevada
NV
DSN: 525-8400 ex55057
Comm: (661) 275-8400
Cell: (702) 358-4753
E-mail: james.rousseau@oln-afmc.af.mil;
jimboltc1@cox.net
Mr. Steven Sample
HQ USAF/A3O-AR
1500 Wilson Blve, 6th Floor
Arlington, VA 22209-
DSN: 425-2026
Comm: (703) 588-2026
Cell:
E-mail: steven.sample@pentagon.af.mil
Central – Great Lake Region Airspace / Range Management Council: May 26-27, 2010
Atch 2 - 6
ATENDEE LIST
Mr. Elliott Sanders
HQ ACC / A3AA
205 Dodd Blvd., Suite 105
Langley AFB, VA 23665-2789
DSN: 574-6002
Comm: (757) 764-7552
Cell: (757) 344-5891
E-mail: elliott.sanders@langley.af.mil;
andersej@cox.net
Mr. Brendan Smith
Volk Field ATO / CPLO
100 Independence Dr.
Camp Douglas, WI 54618-5001
DSN: 871-1177
Comm: (608) 427-1177
Cell: (608) 343-4938
E-mail: brendan.smith@ang.af.mil
Mr. Eric St-Denis
YYZ Special Project
6055 Midfield Rd
Mississauga, Ont L2W2P7,
DSN:
Comm: (905) 612-5598
Cell: (647) 292-2488
E-mail: stdenie@navcanada.ca
Lt Col John Steinbicker
NGB/A3AA
1411 Jefferson Davis Hwy
Arlington, VA 22202-3233
DSN: 327-0725
Comm: (703) 607-0725
Cell:
E-mail: john.steinbicker@ang.af.mil
Mr. Larry Tighe
FAA - MSP ARTCC (ZMP)
512 Division St.
Farmington, MN 55412-
DSN:
Comm: (651) 463-5554
Cell:
E-mail: larry.tighe@faa.gov
MSgt Jerome Torres
Alpena
DSN: 741-6509
Comm: (989) 354-6509
Cell:
E-mail: jerome.torres@ang.af.mil
Major Bart Van Roo
115 FW/ADO
DSN: 724-8694
Comm: (608) 245-4694
Cell: (608) 217-5027
E-mail: bart.vanroo@ang.af.mil
Ms. Kathy Vesely
MN DOT Aeronautics
222 E. Plato Blvd.
St. Paul, MN 55107-
DSN:
Comm: (651) 234-7193
Cell:
E-mail: kathy.vesely@state.mn.us
Central – Great Lake Region Airspace / Range Management Council: May 26-27, 2010
Atch 2 - 7
ATENDEE LIST
Colonel Craig Wallace
178 FW/CV
801 "A" Avenue
Springfield-Beckley MAP, OH 45502
DSN: 346-2155
Comm: (937) 327-2155
Cell: (937) 605-4298
E-mail: craig.wallace@ang.af.mil
Mr. Patrick Welch
NGB/A3A
1411 Jefferson Davis Hwy
Arlington, VA 22202-3231
DSN: 327-2114
Comm: (703) 607-2114
Cell:
E-mail: pat.welch@ang.af.mil
Colonel Jeff Wiegand
115 OG/CC
DSN: 724-8513
Comm: (608) 245-4513
Cell:
E-mail: jeffrey.wiegand@ang.af.mil
Ms. Heidi Williams
AOPA
421 Aviation Way
Frederick, MD 21701-
DSN:
Comm: (301) 695-2227
Cell:
E-mail: heidi.williams@aopa.org
Mr. James Wilson
Wilson Defense Solutions
7329 Laurel Creek Ct
Springfield, VA 22150-
DSN:
Comm: (703) 455-5116
Cell: (703) 867-4376
E-mail: jamesr.wilson@cox.net
Mr. Ronald Wood
FAA - Cleveland ARTCC Airspace Manager
DSN:
Comm: (440) 774-0319
Cell:
E-mail: ronald.wood@faa.gov
Mr. Joe Yadouga
FAA Central Service Area
3501 Meacham Blvd
Ft. Worth, TX 76137-
DSN:
Comm: (817) 321-7734
Cell:
E-mail: joe.yadouga@faa.gov
WO1 Curtis Zoller
1-34 BCT, Minnesota NG
3300 Meacham Blvd
Bloomington, MN 55431-
DSN:
Comm: (651) 282-4413
Cell: (612) 600-6020
E-mail: curtis.jl.soller@us.army.mil
Central – Great Lake Region Airspace / Range Management Council: May 26-27, 2010
Atch 2 - 8