EXECUTIVE PRODUCER:

Rear Admiral Gene LaRocque (USN, Ret.)

Pres., Center for Defense Information

HOST:

Rear Admiral Eugene Carroll, Jr. (USN, Ret.)

Deputy Director, Center for Defense Information

DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH:

David T. Johnson

DIRECTOR of TELEVISION:

Mark Sugg

SENIOR PRODUCER:

Ira Shorr

NARRATOR:

Marguerite Arnold

PRODUCERS:

Marguerite Arnold

Glenn Baker

Daniel Sagalyn

Stephen Sapienza

PRINCIPAL ANALYST & SCRIPTWRITER:

Marguerite Arnold

SEGMENT PRODUCER:

Marguerite Arnold

VIDEO GRAPHICS:

Adam Luther

ORIGINATION:

Washington, D.C.

PROGRAM NO.:

801

INITIAL BROADCAST:

18 September 1994

CONDITION OF USE: Credit "AMERICA'S DEFENSE MONITOR"

(Center for Defense Information).

(C) Copyright 1994, Center for Defense Information. All Rights Reserved.

Videotapes also available.

Features commentary from:

MELISSA BAILEY

Airline Operators and Pilots Association Pilot

PAT BOUTILIER

Local Activist

GRACE BUKOWSKI

Rural Alliance for Military Accountability

MARY ANNE FLOOD

Local Activist

MARY JAGOW

Horse Breeder, Custer City Colorado

RAY KOCH

Former Aerospace Engineer, Martin Marietta

BOB SENDERHAUF

Custer County Action Association

ED THORNTON

Custer County, Colorado

BRUCE VENTO, (D-MN)

Chairman, House National Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands

STEVE WOLF

Public Affairs Officer, Air National Guard

AIR WARS

NARRATOR: This is one of the most deadly warplanes in the world. It's an F-16 flown by the US military. And depending on where you live, you might be seeing a lot more of them soon.

["AMERICA'S DEFENSE MONITOR" program introduction.]

NARRATOR: In the aftermath of the Cold War, there is no clearly definable enemy, many allies are now unwilling to bear the burden of training American troops, either on their soil or in the sky above their heads.

GRACE BUKOWSKI: Now the jets are coming home.

NARRATOR: Grace Bukowski, of the Rural Alliance for Military Accountability, has led grassroots opposition to military expansions across the United States for over ten years.

Ms. BUKOWSKI: Low level flights in Germany have been banned. The German people rose up in protest of those over-flights for a number of reasons. One is they knew what the impacts of the noise was and the roar of jets. The second was there were some major crashes where substantial numbers of civilians were killed.

NARRATOR: While the US military is being faced with fewer places to train pilots abroad, it is becoming increasingly reliant on air power. During the Gulf War, American military planes dominated the skies over Iraq with deadly effect. And with increased reliance on fighting wars from the air, the Department of Defense has embarked on a program of acquiring additional airspace across the US to train for the battles of tomorrow.

Proposals to expand domestic military airspace are on the table in Alaska, Hawaii, Utah, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, Pennsylvania and North Carolina.

But low level training in this country is no less intrusive and dangerous than it is anywhere else. And for the same reasons the German citizens rose up against this kind of training, Americans across the country are contesting these acquisition attempts.

Because in addition to the problems posed by this type of training, the military already controls large amounts of air- space in this country.

Rep. BRUCE VENTO (D-MN): At least 30 percent of the air-space is occupied by military, and probably more.

NARRATOR: Congressman Bruce Vento is chairman of the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, Forest and Public Lands. He has introduced a bill to better regulate over-sight of military airspace acquisition and management.

Rep. VENTO: I think that we need to have a better review and an assessment of what is withdrawn and what is proposed to be withdrawn.

INTERVIEWER: Is there now an accurate inventory at any of the government agencies?

Rep. VENTO: I don't believe so. I think there are bits and pieces of it, and that's probably one of the more non-controversial aspects of this legislation is to get an accurate inventory so that we can make an assessment of what is being used and how it's being used and have it used efficiently.

NARRATOR: Estimates of the airspace in use by the military range from one-third to one-half of all the airspace in the country. The military itself has no idea of how much airspace it currently controls because no intra-service, comprehensive inventory of military airspace has ever been conducted.

The Federal Aviation Administration, the agency responsible for oversight of airspace management, has been, some critics say, too ready to give the military the airspace it needs without thorough review.

Rep. VENTO: The FAA obviously has been, as I said, very liberal in giving these spaces.

MELISSA BAILEY: The FAA has taken some strides in recent years to try and effectively deal with special use airspace.

NARRATOR: Melissa Bailey follows airspace regulation for the Airline Operators and Pilots Association.

Ms. BAILEY: But they really haven't gone far enough. They have not set up any kind of coordinated, nationally coordinated area or clearinghouse where we can take a look at airspace proposals and determine whether they're really needed or not.

NARRATOR: Airspace is a finite resource. The air above us is as carefully charted as a road map. Routes through the air tell private, commercial and military pilots where they may and may not fly. Airspace used by the military is marked as special use airspace, primarily for safety reasons.

This tape was produced by the Air National Guard to explain what military airspace is and how it is used.

ANG Tape Narrator: "A military training route, or MTR, is basically a long, low altitude corridor that serves as a flight path to a particular destination. The corridor may be ten miles wide, 70 to 100 miles long, and may range from 500 to 1500 feet above ground level.

"An MTR often ends at a restricted area, usually reserved for weapons training. The area is restricted to ensure the safety of non-participating aircraft."

"The third type of military airspace is called a military operations area, or MOA. A MOA is a large expanse of airspace designed to accommodate a wide variety of military training maneuvers."

NARRATOR: Many non-military pilots are concerned about the extent of airspace designated for military use.

Ms. BAILEY: Special use airspace can act as a barrier to transportation, especially in small aircraft. It causes us to go out of our way in order to get from point A to point B.

NARRATOR: Most prudent general aviation pilots tend to fly around these specially marked area.

Ms. BAILEY: Although by definition, a lot of special use airspace isn't restrictive -- in other words, we can fly through it if we want to -- most private pilots choose not to just to increase the level of safety.

NARRATOR: But aside from pilots, who else cares about airspace?

ANG Tape Narrator: "All airspace is designed to be sensi-tive to local environmental and social concerns, and the Guard makes a special effort to bypass noise-sensitive areas on routine training missions."

NARRATOR: Despite the impressive claims made by the Air National Guard and the graphics showing how neatly military planes bypass people, cities, and critical environmental areas, in reality the only place where the environment and people are not affected by overflights is on this tape.

For many rural residents, the effects of military over-flights are all too obvious.

ED THORNTON: The military owns a little over 50 percent of the airspace over the continental United States already. The original settlers that came to this valley, Marguerite, were escaping German militarism before World War I. Their descendants are still here.

NARRATOR: This is Westcliffe, Colorado, a rural community in Custer County, about 50 miles west of Pueblo. Small shops compete for the dollars of tourists who are drawn here by the stunning scenery, the friendly small town life, and the peace and quiet.

Locals gather to gossip at sunset. And the big news that everyone seems to be talking about here is the proposed military airspace expansion called the Colorado Airspace Initiative. The plan proposed by the Colorado Air National Guard will impact Custer and 26 other surrounding counties, affect 1.3 million people and involve 25 percent of the airspace in Colorado.

STEVE WOLF: As we have been drawing down our forces from active duty locations and overseas, the Guard has been receiving that equipment. And in a consequence of force reduction, the Guard is experiencing a thing called "force modernization."

NARRATOR: Steve Wolf, a public affairs officer for the Air National Guard on this issue, explains why receiving new planes requires a new kind of training and new space to do it in.

Mr. WOLF: And what's happened is, for example, the airspace in Colorado was designed for an older generation of aircraft, particularly the A-7s that the Colorado Guard used to fly. With the F-16, the capabilities of that aircraft require our pilots to get a little bit different type of training in the airspace. And with the weapons and the avionics, they are able to -- they need more airspace laterally to be able to use their equipment effectively.

NARRATOR: Despite the fact that military special use airspace has been charted in the area for over 40 years, the Colorado Airspace Initiative has met with fierce local opposition.

BOB SENDERHAUF: They have been flying in an existing MOA, which is a military operations area.

NARRATOR: Bob Senderhauf, a 23-year resident of Custer County, is the owner of a realty company and a former county commissioner.

Mr. SENDERHAUF: The people of this valley and the other valley in back of me in the San Louis Valley, I don't think we really have too much problem with that. What we are concerned about is what is proposed. And what is proposed is a totally different story than what's being put out on the table today. It's a lot more than what we presently have.

NARRATOR: The Colorado Airspace Initiative proposal will reconfigure, some say expand, the military airspace in this region, including an existing military operations area called La Veta MOA. Steve Wolf defines it the following way.

INTERVIEWER: Is there going to be an expansion of airspace in La Veta MOA?

Mr. WOLF: It -- It -- It depends how you look at it. Okay? Now as far as actual land area that's overflown, La Veta MOA is reducing in land area affected. At the same time, we are lowering the existing floors of La Veta down to 500 feet.

As people relate to airspace, expansion means what area you encompass. Well, we are reducing the area we are encompass-ing. So, you know, how do you really define expansion, you know? We're not affecting more land, we are basically flying lower where we've already been flying low.

NARRATOR: Despite Mr. Wolf's reluctance to call the proposal an expansion, a tape produced by the Air National Guard itself says that airspace is measured in both the horizontal land area it covers, as well as the vertical distance it extends above the ground. Many citizens here believe that the new airspace designation will have greater impact on their lives because the planes will be flying much lower, and there will be more of them.

Ray Koch retired several years ago from his job at Martin Marietta, where he was a military aerospace engineer.

RAY KOCH: We are talking about aircraft flights that will be right down, going from the current level, minimum level of 13,000 feet above sea level down to the 300 to 500-foot level, right down across the decks of the valley.

Mr. SENDERHAUF: We're looking at somewhere in the neighborhood of around, if we use their numbers, at 5-, 6000 sorties, our numbers at 9000 sorties. So, I think it's an accumulation of all of this and its cumulative effect, negative effect that we're really concerned about.

NARRATOR: Flying high speeds at low altitudes is a dangerous procedure. If something goes wrong this close to the ground, the pilot has only a split second to correct the error. In addition, F-16s have a history of accidents and crashes caused by everything from engine failure to bird impacts.

The Guard has tried to allay these fears and stresses that safety is one of its biggest concerns.

Mr. WOLF: Safety issues and, you know, aircraft mishaps have been a very key issue. And one of the things that we have done in other areas that certainly we can work with here is to work with the local emergency response stations and give them some training to help them react to these situations.

INTERVIEWER: How equipped are the local communities here to deal with potential emergencies or crashes, should they occur?

Mr. SENDERHAUF: If a crash would occur, and we hope and pray that that doesn't happen, but if it should, right now our people are not prepared in any way to fight a fuel fire of that caliber. And the hydrazine that is in these canisters that the pilots use if their engines go out -- they give it a quick shot of this hydrazine fuel to get the engines going again. And if these canisters are broken or are severed in some way, they give out a very toxic odor and it can be fatal to animals, wildlife and certainly humans.

NARRATOR: Bob Senderhauf has reason to be concerned. Three days before this interview, an F-16 out of Buckley Air Force Base in Denver crashed and burned. Cleanup crews could not find the hydrazine canister.

Ms. BUKOWSKI: Believe me, if you have an F-16 come over your house at a hundred feet above ground level, you know that something's happened.

NARRATOR: Grace Bukowski should know. It happened to her in her home in Nevada, a state where the military controls 70 percent of the available airspace. Colorado residents who have experienced this type of training have similar stories.

MARY JAGOW: Every day you wait and wonder if you're going to get the flyovers. You don't want to go in the corral and start working with a colt or some dangerous situation. You sweat it about your horses out on the pasture; are they going to be spooked into the fence. And it is just kind of a daily dread factor.

NARRATOR: Mary Jagow is a horse breeder in Custer County. She describes her experiences with military overflights of her ranch.

Ms. JAGOW: The little seven-year old neighbor girl was up here and when this one plane went over, she just grabbed her ears and started ducking and dodging and running like she was being bombed. And she told me later, she said, 'I wasn't afraid,' she said, 'I couldn't stand the noise.' She was trying to escape this noise.

NARRATOR: As part of the process the Air National Guard must complete for any new airspace request, noise is a factor which must be studied.

This is footage from the Air National Guard's noise monitoring tests done in late June 1994 in Colorado. This is what an F-16 sounds like at 500 feet. Keep in mind that because of broadcast standards, we have toned the noise down.

The Colorado Air National Guard has placed noise monitoring equipment throughout the area to be affected by the new proposal. But many people question the methodology of the tests.

Mr. KOCH: In evaluating all the environmental impact studies that were done for the Air Force, we have yet to see one where noise became a problem.

NARRATOR: To ensure the credibility of the tests, the Air National Guard was not supposed to know where this equipment was placed.

However, now they know about this site. Steve Wolf, the Air National Guard spokesperson, accompanied us to this one.

This area of Colorado is known for its peacefulness, its many national forests and wilderness area, it's beauty. Mary Ann Flood is a recent emigree to Colorado. Like many people, she looked for a more peaceful and traditional way of life.

MARY ANNE FLOOD: Many of the values of rural communities are part of what people are longing for in terms of having genuine integrity and sanity.

PAT BOUTILIER: My family and I moved here from northern New York State in the Adirondack Park area because of military, increased military activity.

NARRATOR: Pat Boutilier moved to this area to raise her family.

Ms. BOUTILIER: We spent about three years researching our move and finding a place where we felt we would be able to carry on a real simple, tranquil, rural lifestyle where we could raise our kids and have animals.

And it was like a nightmare when we found out that this proposal would directly affect us and turn our area into what, and I quote, would be a "simulated wartime scenario," an area where they would just carry on unlimited military activity, low level training.

NARRATOR: In addition to its impact on people, jet noise has been shown to be harmful to animals.

Ms. JAGOW: These loud noises like this, they can kill unhatched fowl when it's still in the egg. I mean, it will just stop. A lot of times the mothers will abandon the nests, just go off and leave their clutches. Does will leave their fawns.

NARRATOR: The Colorado Air National Guard's response to these concerns was to conduct a study, documented here on tape, of the effect of F-16 overflights on bison. This tape, however, is misleading for a number of reasons.

First, this test was conducted in a wide valley. The jets, while loud, don't pop up from behind a ridge, causing what is known as the startle effect. Secondly, bison and other domestic bovine livestock usually do not have the same outward reaction to this type of noise as do other species, like antelope or birds. These bison don't seem too affected, although notice a few of the bison begin to fight in the lower left hand side of your screen.

But many studies on the effect of overflights show that even if people and animals are not startled by this type of noise, their bodies will still react. Symptoms like high blood pressure and increased heart rates are common.

While no one questions the necessity of training military pilots, critics argue that reliance on low level training is excessive and militarily unjustified.

Admiral Eugene Carroll is the deputy director of the Center for Defense Information and a retired naval aviator.

ADM EUGENE CARROLL: In Desert Storm, the vulnerability of low-flying aircraft was horribly demonstrated. The question I ask is why continue low level training at all? I have flown hundreds of hours at low level when it was justified as necessary to penetrate heavily defended Soviet airspace on nuclear delivery missions. The nuclear mission justification is no longer valid. And as long ago as Vietnam, we discovered that low level opera- tions placed attack aircraft in jeopardy from ground fire of all forms.

Mr. KOCH: If you look at the weaponry as it's being developed, we're developing more and more standoff capability. That's the trend. That's the military trend. That's where the technology is going: Unmanned weaponry that can be used with relatively little risk to a flight crew or the soldier on the battlefield. More autonomous weapons are being developed. That's the direction and it clearly is not in the direction of low level penetration activities.

NARRATOR: This assessment by military experts outside of the Pentagon has been reflected within the Pentagon itself. The final Department of Defense Desert Storm report to Congress in April 1992 concluded that: "Despite the strong peacetime emphasis on training for low level delivery tactics...the dangers posed by un-aimed barrage fire to low-flying aircraft drove aircraft to higher altitude delivery tactics."

Where low level training is justified, safer alterna-tives exist, such as flight simulators, already in use to train pilots. Ultimately, many people are asking themselves if there is a need for any new expansions of military airspace.

As part of the environmental impact study process necessary for expansions of military airspace, citizen input is required. In Colorado, public meetings on the issue are packed. Steve Wolf of the Air National Guard thinks this process has been helpful.

Mr. WOLF: I think this process has been very good for the Guard. It's helped us become aware of some past problems that we didn't really know that were there. So, we are very optimistic that through this process and with the direct involvement that we've had with the community groups that we'll have a win-win community solution to this problem.

NARRATOR: Perceptions tend to differ, however, depending on which side of the fence you are on. Many Colorado residents feel that they are shut out of the real decision-making process and that all the facts have not been disclosed, including health and safety issues, noise and other environmental impacts of low level testing.

Mr. KOCH: I guess one fundamental concern of mine throughout the entire process has been one that we feel that the Air Force has not been up front in dealing with us and in terms of providing the data that we think is essential to allow any citizen to make up his mind.

Ms. BUKOWSKI: For us, it's very much an issue of human rights.

NARRATOR: Many people in rural America are being asked to give up a way of life in the name of national security, undefined goals and questionable needs. Some are saying that this is not a good enough justification.

Ms. BUKOWSKI: Why is it okay to fly over the rural ranchers' homes at a hundred feet above ground level? Why is it okay to do to them what you wouldn't do over the Pentagon, over the beltway, over the people of Denver, Colorado?

NARRATOR: In a time of shrinking military forces and budgets, the Pentagon should evaluate the airspace it already has before it asks for more. If it doesn't, the military may find itself confronted by the very citizens it is supposed to protect.

INTERVIEWER: So what will you do if the proposal goes through? Will you move?

Mr. THORNTON: Oh, no. No. Absolutely not. If they roust us out in the middle of the night and in the middle of the day at 300 feet, we will continue to protest by legal means as long as we possibly can.

INTERVIEWER: And what happens after that?

Mr. THORNTON: What happens after that, you know, may be a very interesting question. They asked that to James Otis one time.

INTERVIEWER: Who's James Otis?

Mr. THORNTON: James Otis helped to start the Revolutionary War against the English.

ADM CARROLL: You've heard strongly competing views today. Some want to expand facilities for military training and others want to protect the land and the quality of life. Who is right? It does seem strange that with the military shrinking today, they need more land for training.

Congressman Vento has raised an important issue: The services owe Congress a current inventory of their holdings of land and airspace for training purposes. If they have enough already, do we need pay the price in dollars and quality of life for even more? How much is enough? We will all be affected by the answer to that question.

Until the next time, for "AMERICA'S DEFENSE MONITOR," I'm Eugene Carroll.

CONDITION OF USE: Credit "AMERICA'S DEFENSE MONITOR

(Center for Defense Information)

(C) Copyright 1994. Center for Defense Information. All Rights Reserved.