This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.
dyna'
tfl1
m*c
illS*
sse*'
sions of the neighbors of Moffett Field about
v4u
fuP'
enormous growing demand for all phases of avia this area.
Explosive population growth provokes demand for expanded social services. In rapidly growing areas, the three major problems a local government faces are to match the rate of growth of services to increasing demand, to keep these services in balance with one another (for example, to keep sewer, construction in pace with new housing starts), and to pay the ensuing bills.
The San Francisco Bay area—Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and San Francisco counties— has experienced extraordinary population growth. For instance, the population of Santa Clara, the fastest growing of the five counties, will increase more than five times in 40 years, from 291,000 in 1950 to an estimated 1.5 million in 1990. The combined population of all five counties has grown from more than 2.3 million in 1950 to more than 4.3 million in 1980. A reasonable estimate for the region’s population in 1990 is 4.75 million, a growth of just more than 100% in two generations.
The Bay area’s population growth, vigorous industry, and its role as one of America’s principal gateways to the Far East have stimulated demand for and growth of air travel. In addition, the area’s relative affluence, beautiful flying weather, and congested highways encourage private plane ownership and use.
Today, the Bay area is served by numerous airports: major international airports in San Francisco and Oakland, a large municipal airport with international aspirations in San Jose, and six small, busy general aviation fields in several bayside communities. Naval Air Station (NAS) Moffett Field and NAS Alameda also share San Francisco Bay area airspace.
Consequently, the area has a high air traffic density. In August 1980, Moffett Field was identified by the Naval Aviation Safety Center as the Navy’s prime potential midair accident area. Last year, San Francisco International (22 air miles northwest from Moffett) had 317,000 aircraft operations; Oakland (23 miles north) had 378,000; and San Jose Municipal (eight miles southeast) had 318,000. In 1982, NAS Moffett Field supported just under 100,000 arrivals and departures, an artifically low number constrained by community relations considerations. In good weather, military, air carrier, and general aviation aircraft are joined by hot air balloonists, ultra-light enthusiasts, and sailplane pilots in an aerial spectacle choreographed by Oakland Center and Bay Terminal Radar Control. These hard-pressed air traffic control agencies have been relatively successful in maintaining traffic separation. There were only four local midair accidents last year (all involving general aviation aircraft). About one near miss a week was reported during the same period in the vicinity of Moffett Field.
Moffett Field has always attracted attention from its
A P-3 Orion, preceding page, soars over historic Hangar One at Naval Air Station Moffett Field, California. Because of the soaring numbers of civilian aircraft active in the San Francisco Bay Area, the city of San Jose, its airport management, and others would prefer to have that read Naval/ Civilian Air Station Moffett Field.
neighbors and the area’s aviation-minded citizens to number of reasons. In the 1950s, surrounding commu ties pressured to have the station—then a master J base—closed. Anxious citizens in the adjoining cities Sunnyvale and Mountain View were alarmed by the ten air wing’s safety record and exasperated by the noise the station’s Demons, Skyrays, Tigers, and Crusade The Navy’s response to these pressures was to cons NAS Lemoore in California’s Central Valley farmlan^ The move of jets to Lemoore in 1961 was balanced by arrival in 1963 of turboprop P-3s at Moffett Field. 1° ^ ensuing 20 years, Moffett has become the Pacific Fie master maritime patrol station and the home of L mander Patrol Wings, Pacific, the patrol squadrons ( functional wing commander. In addition to supP0/1 J seven fleet squadrons of Patrol Wing Ten, the station , the California Air National Guard’s 129th Rescue as Recovery Squadron and some 20 aircraft of NA „ neighboring Ames Research Center. Moffett’s “air'vl (
also includes approximately 20 P-3s of the tenant replacement squadron, VP-31. ^
Recently, community relations have been more quil—thanks to the relatively quiet and safe Lock , built Orion and to determined cooperation on both sid ^ the station’s fences. The fact that the station has not a serious P-3 accident in a decade, since the midair col of an Orion on final approach with a NASA Convair has also contributed to sustained good relations. ,
But now, a new issue has appeared to cast the ^ character of NAS Moffett Field in doubt: joint civil'11 tary use. £jVe
Advocates of joint use of the station do not all PefC civil use of Moffett Field in the same way. ^
► Some believe the NAS will become the South ^ international airport. The clearest expression of this ^ is found in a long “guest column’’ published on - .
gust 1981 in the South Bay’s most influential neWsPajrst, the San Jose Mercury, by the then-city manager an while airport director, Francis Fox. Commenting m insufficient long-range planning had led to “somewha otic conditions in transportation,” Fox wrote:
“Air transportation is a vital lifeline to any growing community. San Jose Municipal Airp°rt be developed to its full capacity for handling Pav gers and cargo. In addition, however, the future ^ ^ lation projected for this community will require ^ ^ of much larger airport facilities. To meet this ne ^ look to joint use with the military of Moffett Fiel • is an excellent publicly owned facility and as the ^ ian requirements of this area increase, this 0f should be shared with military users. The adv quiet jet aircraft engines should allay any aPP.rcraft
noise problems of the future. It is apparent tha San Francisco Internationa! Airport reaching hs s tion point and the large percentage of citizens ^ travel from the Silicon Valley area, there wd
*‘JjYj • _
50 year«at*Ve P*ann*n8 f°r aviation needs for the next
k.. .. rs Would inrlirato tkof ___ 1,1____
► R 8 ttle
finally anrvtl, W " KJl piivaiv, am-iau.
Case, with |hCr 8rouP would be content, for now in any t0Uch-and-p°n ^ general aviation access to the station’s ^0rt- That s° ^ttern’ viewing Moffett as a “reliever” air- n°Se °f the UC access would be akin to welcoming the jransp0rtat-^arnei into the tent was confirmed by a county
y s new ai 0 en8*neei\ who supervised drafting the coun- dlrPOrt mastoi- «i„„ n„ • .. _ o ...
oeen
ex
Ly'PresSi()n 0f ¥ oegntive. The most authoritative recent t e Navy’s position was in a December 1981
' years ior aviation neeas ior tne next
handle (. Wou^ indicate that Moffett Field could easily required h transcont‘nentaI and intercontinental flights ^unicin-/.trave^ers an£i shippers in this area. San Jose airljne na»iTlrp0rt cou*^ continue to handle short haul the enor^ tS *ess t^lan i’^00 miles and also handle
continnon^°US demand for general aviation which will <iue to exist.”
^ett Pield3^0^jteS j°int civil-military use believe Mof-
vC*uding the°hU • suPPort general aviation operations, in- "inallv n af’ln8 °f hundreds of private aircraft.
e; with ( ch'and-g<
*■ That s e of thee lsPortati0
’ new air
8et o
, The Navv’int° the cloor ”
Cp” uniformSl resTonse t0 a" three of these proposals has sei— _ y negative. The most authoritative recent
* M Ofnitn • t-v i <
November ,983
letter from Secretary of the Navy John Lehman to a member of Sunnyvale City Council. “We believe it is appropriate to restate our long-standing position on this matter,” the Secretary wrote. “The Navy has been firmly opposed to joint civil and military use of NAS Moffett Field, and we presently foresee no circumstances which would alter this position.”
Why, in the face of such clear opposition, does joint use continue to attract attention and adherents?
These three different views of joint use do not divide the initiative’s supporters or dilute their case. Rather, because so many different definitions exist—none mutually exclusive—a variety of citizens find themselves comfortable together in the pro-joint use camp. They are joined by some government agencies as well.
The General Accounting Office (GAO) report has stated the underlying issue clearly:
“It is the anticipated growth in the Nation’s major metropolitan areas that causes special concern. These metropolitan areas contain the largest concentration of aviation industry consumers, representing about 90 percent of the scheduled air carrier passenger service and 40 percent of all aircraft operations. Because of
83
south—San Jose’s ground facilities and flight pattern being suffocated by the very same growth that comp^ expanded air travel. Land acquisition is prohibitivelye pensive; even so, some property is being bought with eral Airport Aid Development Program funds to s°
terms-
if the argument is cast in purely national security
county-operated airports (Palo Alto, Reid-Hillvie'v>
• .efoeni
Airp01!
South County), and potential construction require11)^. ► In September 1982, in language found in the
irl Air\x/ci\/c [mnrnvpmpnf Act 1 Q89 f1nnPT£iSSd^ , „
Concluding that some level of civilian operations , station was “technically feasible,” the report ^ mended that the county move urgently to obtain °V ^ tional relief” for public airports through civil aviatt , cess to Moffett Field. Although additional aircraft P^^y was seen as the county airport system’s “highest Pr aviation requirement,” the matter of aircraft paf8 Ls. Moffett was left to the reliever airport study to ad
their high population density, increasing resistance to the environmental impacts of airport growth, and the expensive and difficult task of acquiring land to enlarge existing facilities or construct new ones, expansion in these metropolitan areas is nearly impossible. In addition, citizens in the metropolitan areas are usually pressing to limit, not expand, aircraft operations.”
What follows is an analysis of the joint use initiative as it pertains to Moffett Field, but the issue has much broader implications. Eighteen NASs and Air Force bases (AFBs) are currently under study for joint civil-military use. Following congressional consideration currently under way, a number of additional military aviation facilities will almost certainly be opened to civil use on some basis. Because NASs under study include some of the Navy’s principal stations, an understanding of the history and future of this politically powerful initiative is important.
Joint use draws its support from a number of places. Some personnel in the Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) strongly support expanded civil use of military aviation facilities. They believe there will be a cost savings and other benefits from civil access to heretofore closed military facilities.
Many aircraft owners and private pilots and their 260,000-member lobby, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), are also numbered among joint use supporters. Their views were reflected in an article written by Frank Burrham entitled “The Case for Joint Use of Military Airfields,” which appeared in the January 1983 issue of Airport Services Management. Distilled to its essence, the “case” follows:
► “Real estate convenient to both large and small centers of population for airport development has become so expensive that land purchase is out of the question for most communities.”
► “ . . . aviation is continuing to grow, because it is an essential component of major social and economic developments .... In just 10 years, we will have to find parking spaces for another 100,000 general aviation aircraft.”
► “ . . . underutilized military airfields must be opened up for joint use.”
In the South San Francisco Bay, aircraft owners—such as members of the California Aviation Council—are an especially vocal faction of joint use supporters, because of years-long waiting periods to obtain private aircraft parking space at municipal and general aviation airports.
Some San Jose community figures believe that the South Bay’s growth and economic vitality are constrained because access to the national air transportation system by the area’s residents is inconvenient. Many of these same leaders believe that the nation’s 17th largest (and fastest growing, according to the 1980 census) city should not require its citizens to travel to San Francisco or Oakland to make airline connections, as a matter of local pride if nothing else. More important, San Jose Municipal Airport is impacted by two major freeways, urban growth, and suburban sprawl. Lacking the natural buffers Moffett Field enjoys—the San Francisco Bay to the north and a municipal golf course on Navy-owned land to the
noise irritations. Enough land cannot be bought —j to the municipal airport, however, to solve that facih y real estate problems. ^
Finally, as is often the case in local-federal issues, Navy has no natural constituency locally, other than m ^ bers of its retired community, with which to build its
Moffett Field became highly visible in late 1982, * had not been since the 1973 midair collision, because confluence of three coincidental, but related, airport events. jj
► The Santa Clara County Airports Master Plan, bego ^ 1980, was published. The report, an update of a ^ vintage master plan, examined demand forecasts, the ^
and Airways Improvement Act of 1982, Congress c the Comptroller General to evaluate in six months the sibility of making NASs and AFBs available for civl . “to the maximum extent compatible with national de requirements.’’ A follow-up, joint Department of De ^ (DoD)-Department of Transportation (DoT) report °n^ same subject was to be provided to Congress six tn
later- m tlie>f
► The cities of San Jose and Fremont received Iron
contractor the “General Aviation Reliever Airport ^ Feasibility Study,” which had been commissione years before. J
NAS Moffett Field figured prominently in all thre these papers. oft.
The Santa Clara County Airports Master Plan j
after an introduction describing the report’s ehartef making demand and capacity predictions for the Clara Valley, which foresaw a 50% increase in base; „
craft and a 41% increase in operations from 1980 to ^ concluded that “a substantial increase in capacity " ^
required if the year 2000 county-wide demands are met.” Interestingly, these rates of increase fall well the FAA’s national estimates for the same 20 { J\ quoted in 1982 by the GAO as a 116% growth in al^stry operations and a 94% growth in numbers of civil reg^ flf aircraft. Four solutions were identified: expanded u^£lli existing airports, joint use of Moffett Field, develop , of new airports, and not meeting the anticipated de ^
rec°
1982’
The GAO spent six months, from September
March IQS'? • .
Period .r’ PrePanng its report to Congress. During this already &U ll<^S V*s'tec* s'x facilities where joint use was ttilitarv f • ant^ 12 others. These were among 50 c°uld o lC tieS tbe FAA had suggested where joint use Nations S ?U^ bc 'mplemented. Navy and Marine Corps hers Po'T k Cd among the 12 visited were: NASs Barlow Qr MemPhis> Miramar, Moffett Field, and Wil- Kaneohe°VR 3nd Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Ford lei , y' Naval Auxiliary Landing Field (NALF) ™d MCAS Yuma, among the 10% of our 233 also obie T* *tary a“Cields currently under joint use, were
The f CtS tbe analysis-
one, at ]laisbec* reP°rt (GAO/RCED 83-98) was a balanced that the ” !!-t0 tbe eyes some in uniform who had feared
views wi 1V°rS bac* arr've(f on site for preliminary interfound that' •*r conc^us'ons firmly in mind. The GAO s°me ;ns^ ,l°lnt use was, in fact, operating successfully at exPansio & fd°ns ^or a variety of special reasons and that ble evfl n l tbe concePt to other installations was feasi-
Faa ^ough the huge cost savings forecast by the aPPearpH°re tban billion of a $13.5 billion total bill) NASMUSpeCt'.
amonn th °^ett Field was the most visible candidate site Cause 0fVeVeral l^e CAO visited, possibly in part be- Pages of th Pr°ximity to a CAO regional office. Four concerns 6 ^’.Pa8e report addressed Moffett. Station *MilitarvW?r.e fairly rePresented, but largely discounted: impacts o ° ec.t'ons t0 J0*nt use based on general adverse have bee ” m.btary mission, operations, and/or security report 01^1 Sflt^s^actorrly addressed in other cases.” The tors did f ..Mile Beach AFB as an example. The audi- c°mniand^JCate tbat otber considerations raised by the t'°n. and airsPace crowding, local municipal opposing i0: . rea estate limitations—could prohibit establish- The -GUSe at Moffett.
Study” t eaera' Aviation Reliever Airport Site Feasibility 'ng'~$4o°^n a^out two years to complete. Federal fund- eral letter’ f ^ Was Prov>ded by the FAA, despite sev- s'°n, Nav- |r°m tbe comman(lmg officer of Western Divi- hirector o^h Pac*^bes Engineering Command, to the Public fund^6 Western Region, which argued that
•natter wh'S>Were being expended needlessly ‘‘to study a Phshinent ” t **as no reasonable expectation of accom- Prec>pitated • 6 stuc^ was published in October 1982 and This was n 'mme^'ate and extensive local discussion. station’s f°bably ^be most heated public discussion of the During th”16 S'nce lbe late 1950s and early 1960s. °PPortunit 6 stUtty's gustation period, the Navy missed no deed, eve V° make its views known and understood. Invaliding a” ■ C^ore lbe study began, the Navy was already Chief of j^ase against joint use. In July 1979, the Deputy Wrote a leu ^ °Perations for Air Warfare (ADCNO) lbe Navy’ 6f t0 ^enator Alan Cranston (D-CA) describing Bay. tu s resPonse to joint use initiatives in the South (i Position was clear:
Actia,,^Vy *S °PP°sed to the proposal (by San Jose’s general lrector °f Aviation) . . . .The transference of pal a: aviat*°n training flights from San Jose Munici- shiftjn ^ t0 Moffett Field would merely be & he problem . . . from one congested area to
another and, in so doing, would be likely to cause a
significant degradation of air safety . . . .”
The letter continued, citing the station’s runway configuration, traffic pattern airspeeds, base loading, and community relations considerations as arguments against joint use. In the penultimate paragraph, the ADCNO suggested further development of South County Airport (then only 10-20% developed) was a solution to the problem perceived by municipal airport management.
The study, jointly chartered by the cities of San Jose and Fremont, was “to assess new airport demand, identify suitable sites, and provide for a generalized plan for airport development through the year 2000.” The authors, Wadell Engineering Corporation of Burlingame, California, got right to the point; Moffett Field was mentioned twice in the three-sentence first paragraph of the quarter- inch-thick report. The study concluded that the solution to the county’s aviation needs through 1999 was to be found in development of an existing small, private airport in the city of Fremont and in joint use of NAS Moffett Field, where “ . . . demand for general aviation activity . . . could be as high as 550 based aircraft ... by the year 2000.” Expansion of the South County Airport (near Gilroy, California) was rejected initially, because it was too far from the metropolitan area and because of ‘ ‘growing local opposition.” In May 1983, the Fremont City Council rejected finally expansion of the existing airport because of catastrophic flooding there during the previous winter. The council proposed, instead, development of a nearby tract into a new airport.
Despite sustained Navy opposition to joint use, Moffett was described as being an opportunity for satisfying growing civil aviation demand “merely by its presence in the South Bay.” Evidently neglected in the calculation were analyses that suggested the population growth rate in the southern half of the county (between 1975 and 1990) would be three times that of the remainder of Santa Clara County, and by 1990, 39% of households—about 500,000 people—would lie in the county’s southern precincts.
In a 12-page appendix concerning NAS Moffett Field, the report graduated from identifying required facility additions (FAA air traffic control, terminal area radar, an instrument landing system for the instrument runway, parking aprons, terminal buildings, and access roads) to deciding where these “improvements”—requiring about 80 acres for construction—could be built. Three areas were identified: the first, on the field’s northwest side, would obstruct the expansion plans of the Ames Research Center, which owned the acreage*; the second, the northeast site, would require, said the report, “ . . . relocation or elimination of all or part of Navy explosive handling areas”; the third, in the station’s southeast comer, was an area identified in the Navy master plan for future NAS supply department warehouse construction.
*Not until this time did Moffett’s neighbor stir itself in opposition to joint use. The Ames Research Center quickly got on board, and—among other things—published an excellent self-defense, “The Effect of Introducing General Aviation to Moffett Field on Land Utilization at the Ames Research Center.” In this matter, as in many others, Moffett and Ames have seen their interest in like terms.
the traffic pattern, and who believe that the station’s n>n ways are underused. The Navy’s rejoinder has been tn any suggestion that joint use elsewhere supports imp^ mentation at Moffett Field is naive and misleading- 4 February 1983 press release stated the following:
“Moffett Field is an operational facility, coming full-time to the support of fleet antisubmarine wartaf ^ surveillance and training missions. . . . [Tjhe Sta supports sensitive and high priority alert aircraft, sponsive to U. S. Third Fleet and national-leveltaS^ Joint use would offer broad access to sensi
leratot’
arily
With a similarly light touch, the study disposed of the joint use criteria in SecNavInst 3770.2 with the facile observation that these criteria (mutual benefit, uncompromised security, unimpaired operations, undegraded safety, etc.) could be satisfied, despite Navy objections.
Aligned in opposition to joint use initiatives has been an unusual alliance in the South Bay. The two federal partners, the station and Ames Research Center, have been joined by their nearest municipal neighbors, Mountain View and Sunnyvale, and by the one county supervisor whose constituency encompasses these two small cities. Local members of California’s congressional delegation have not taken visible positions on the issue, being content to pass constituent letters back and forth to the Navy. These letters express, in roughly equal measures, support or opposition to the initiative. In truth, the issue had not stimulated broad county interest until this fall. Rather, it had remained an intense argument on three levels among specialized factions.
► Local private pilots and aircraft owners for: city councils of Mountain View and Sunnyvale opposed: Council- members tend to see their adversaries as prosperous citizens of other cities pleading for special favors at the expense of their less affluent constituents, who are compelled by circumstance to live beneath the station’s traffic pattern. As early as December 1981, Mountain View’s mayor raised safety, environmental, cost, and quality- of-life concerns respecting joint use initiatives and urged full public discussions on the issue. One year later, Sunnyvale’s mayor mentioned these same matters in a letter to a recently reelected representative. He described the analytical process supporting joint use as “illogical” and “costly.” Both cities oppose joint use not because of concern for Navy operations, security, or because of an indepth understanding of air traffic safety considerations. The two city councils’ opposition is an accurate reflection of their constituents’ fears that civilian use of Moffett Field will increase ground and air traffic, raise noise and atmospheric pollution, and enhance danger to citizens on the ground from an accident in the air. Consequently, city opposition has been couched in terms of obstructing the completion of the environmental review process, which is a necessary adjunct to master planning on this scale. This same delaying tactic can be applied to almost any public policy issue and was a feature of the Navy-Mountain View housing dispute, which occurred two years ago.[1]
► The FAA for: Navy and NASA opposed: NASA’s interest largely arises from fears that Ames real estate will be absorbed by general aircraft basing requirements. The Navy is concerned with preserving the security of VP antisubmarine warfare operations and ensuring continued aviation safety. In addition, it does not want to set an undesirable precedent. These arguments, though convincing to us in uniform, are less so to some civilians, who see joint use working at other military facilities, who witness Moffett’s Navy Flying Club aircraft operating with evident safety in
mg.
areas of the Station by any aircraft owner, op1 passenger or civil pilot. Such access would necessai threaten not only the Station’s aircraft and plant, but also the security of antisubmarine wan avionics and their associated technology, the integ of the Station’s weapons storage and maintena ^ areas, and the integrity of the tenant Wing’s coinman ' control and communication facilities.
“Moffett’s Navy Flying Club is a part of the Stati°a recreational service program. It is a government en operating under the Air Station Commanding Ofm direction and control. Aircraft assigned are owne or leased to the U. S. Government. As opposed to 3 gations by joint use supporters, NAS Flying Club°P ations represent less than 15% of the total logged an ally by the Station.”
► The city of San Jose and its airport management Moffett Field and its neighbors opposed: Moffett has gued that its real estate is fully committed, and its lan . pattern reflects a balance between Navy operational training requirements and community preferences. ^ In mid-1981, the station wrote the Regional AtfP Planning Committee. Part of the letter follows:
“It is sophistry to argue that the current tempo of operations . . . somehow suggests that we have c* , capacity’. . . . The Navy has spent substantial of money in the recent past to acquire modern 1 simulators, and we continue to spend money to snpP^ the outlying airfield at Crows Landing—precise^ that the level of flight operations at the Naval Air tion will at once be sufficient to achieve our and congenial to the communities adjacent to the o Air Station.”
Three months later, San Jose’s aviation directoi ^ told that the station’s weapons storage, maintenance.^, loading facilities in its northeast quadrant were ' a ^ lutely essential to the mission accomplishment of M° jl„ Field’s seven tenant operational patrol squadrons. ^. ,j) velopment or other use of this property is possible.’ development of the southeast quadrant—the site o projected warehouse—was also impossible. ]i\)-
Neither letter received a reply or was reflected in P lished reports.
Interestingly, on 8 August 1983, Bay Terminal Control’s air traffic manager revealed that his faeil'ty not support “development of NAS Moffett Field as a J
86
Proceedings / Noven»her
■U-USONS
Civilian
airports.’
►
aircraft invades Moffett Field—1983
airport ,5 f
the init'. t* ’ . manY of the same reasons Navy opposed
cited iiTth^ ^'8nificant among the reasons for opposition ► “^6 6 memorandum were the following: ation a' S^ee^ differential between [Navy and general avi- c°ntroi W°u*d create an unsatisfactory air traffic
WouldSCrL0f. ^°ffett Field (from outside the Bay Area) area & a'r traffic to an already congested South Bay Alto rat^*er than serve as relief for San Jose and Palo
Fielh w .general aviation aircraft operating at Moffett flight ^ 'r at^d significant delay time to IFR [instrument The CS ^ePartures at Moffett and San Jose airports.” ^ti-joinf311^'^ rnemo’ 'ending powerful support to the ti°n at p ase Position, must have caused some constema- accepta ^ headquarters; it was met with enthusiastic At theCC 'n ^ountain View and Sunnyvale.
Piebiscit Same t*me’ the two city councils were planning a Public b-6]i°n question for November, believing that a °pp0sjt a ot would make clear the depth of their citizens’ ^'d-Au'011 t0 ^°'nt Use' ^he plebiscite was announced in which JyUSu’ dmed deliberately so that other communities, have tim SUPPort the unwelcome initiative, would not e to add the question to their ballots.
97-248SjeC°n<^ two studies mandated by Public Law contract t n?W unc*er way- In March 1983, analysts under ing infor ^ toured NASs on the West Coast, seek-
tr'bution^at'°n ^°r rePort- This was the DoT’s con-
WhiCh w ° cabinet-level study of the issue,
^Pten^ ?resented to Congress by the DoT and DoD in HH Aer^ ^u'f1 report of the DoT’s contractor,
FAa des'S^a)Ce ^es'8n’ dated 15 April, revealed that the eral aviat' Moffett Field to support 267,000 gen-
niany as ^ °Perations (touch and gos) in 1984, and as niated at $iq *n 1990. The price tag for this was esti- hghtinp 'h to cover the costs of runway paint and
to the abil'tan^eS ^ not mahe any judgments as
dinary .o'/ofthe station’s pattern to sustain this extraor- dayhght fi ■ more than one event a minute during prime uP°n MofT111,8 *lours> every day of the year), the impact ■ l^e ubilitv 6f S suPPort °f Navy and NASA operations, or Pattern J° ^a^ area airspace beyond the station’s traffic The is ,encomPass safely this level of additional traffic. Tield hasSUC °* ^°'nt civ'l"mihtary use of NAS Moffett and diScun°w ^een revived and moved from local debate be made tK°n *° Washington, where decisions may well son* 0f at wjh substantially change the character of challenge0^ av'at'on shore establishment. The Navy’s ls to ensure that the decisions reached reflect a full understanding of the issues involved. To accomplish this, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, congressional staff members, and members of Congress (especially those who sit on the House and Senate Armed Services committees, who are most likely to be sympathetic to the security implications of essentially unrestricted access to military aviation installations) must understand the pressures for joint use and wisely balance those pressures against military necessity.
To ensure that expanded joint use is not accomplished at the expense of overarching national security considerations, the following conceptual framework for the decision is proposed.
► Joint use decisions must be made one at a time, after careful consideration of the individual installation’s unique character. Simply because joint use has been implemented, for example, at Dover AFB, a large Military Airlift Command terminal, the concept should not automatically be applied to another, dissimilar military aviation facility.
► The conclusion to implement joint civilian-military use should be reached only with the full participation and acquiescence of the service concerned. Whether or not to implement joint use at a given NAS or AFB is as much a ‘‘national security” decision as it is a “transportation” decision. An NAS or AFB is not the same thing as an airport, a distinction that is hard to explain to an uninformed or disinterested observer. NAS Moffett Field’s investment in personnel support, antisubmarine training, and aircraft maintenance facilities is not recognized by civilians driving by the station on Highway 101.
► More than one solution to a problem may be possible. For example, if there truly is a touch-and-go landing “deficit” in the Santa Clara Valley, the answer might be to explore some civilian use of NALF Crows Landing in nearby Patterson, California. This auxiliary landing field, superficially at least, appears to be a better place for general aviation pilots to try their wings than busy Moffett Field. Also it is only a short flight away from the saturated airspace of the Bay area.
► Finally, does society have an affirmative obligation to find space on the ground and space in the air for everyone who wishes to own an aircraft? In view of the very substantial costs, perhaps we must treat private aircraft ownership not as a necessity—such as auto ownership—but as a luxury—such as horse and yacht ownership. In that way, ground and airspace would be put on a pay-for- yourself basis. The day for that decision in many urban and suburban areas is not far away.
*See A.C.A. Jampoler, "The Navy as Neighbor,” Proceedings, September 1982, pp. 50-56.
Captain Jampoler received his bachelor’s and master's degrees from Columbia University and was commissioned in 1962 through the NROTC program. In 1976, he served as executive, then commanding officer of VP-19 at Moffett Field, CA. He commanded NAS Moffett Field from 1981 until this past summer. In addition to his antisubmarine warfare specialty, he is a subspecialist in politico-military strategic planning. He has been awarded the Defense Superior Service Medal. Captain Jampoler won Second Honorable Mention in the 1983 General Prize Essay Contest with his article, “Reviewing the Conventional Wisdom," which was published in the July 1983 Proceedings. He is currently a Fellow of the Strategic Studies Group at the Naval War College.