army aviation digest - mar 1989

7/28/2019 Army Aviation Digest - Mar 1989

1/48

MARCH 1989

CONTROL

Professional Bulletin 1-89-3Distribution Restriction: This publication approved for public release. Distribution is unlimited.


2/48

I

Air TrafficControl AC":lmmrv

19 PEARL'S20 Aviation Medicine Heat22 Notes: Should the Aviation Warrant

Officer Wear Aviation Branch I n ~ i n n i l : : l ?24 The

45 ATC

The New for of the

of theon

page 2 and discusses its

res,Donsible for the overall

facilities and na'fiQcltionalATC


3/48

Major General Ellis D. ParkerChief, Army Aviation Branch

Air Traffic ControlON 1 OCTOBER 1986, the proponency for ai rtraff ic control (A TC) transferred from Information

Systems Command , Ft . Huachuca, AZ, to U.S.Army Aviation Center, Ft. Rucker, AL, U.S. ArmyTraining and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), Ft.Monroe, VA. The Aviation Center gladly acceptedthe mission and the dedicated men and women ofthe U.S. Army Air Traffic Control Activity(USAATCA) as a part of the aviation team. Thetransfer and relocation of USAATCA to the A viation Center has proven beneficial to the overallAviation Branch mission. By bringing this essential element of aviation in proximity with the otherkey elements, we have established the opportunityfor a synergistic approach to mission accomplishment, greatly accelerating ai r traffic developmentand enhancing operations.Viewing the extensive modernization effort thathas tak n place in the ATC arena within the last 2years, we can see it created serious challenges forcombat trainers and doctrine developers. Thesechallenges were met, allowing us to blueprint andstructure the ATC organizations to conform to theArmy of Excellence force design guidance andexemplify AirLand Battle doctrine. This had beencompleted in concert with the Interim Operationaloncept for Air Traffic Service that was approvedby the Combined Arms Center (CAC) on 4 March1988. This document is the cornerstone for all futuremateriel and force development, doctrine and training for air traffic services. Tomorrow's equipment isin research and development today. As we look tothe future, however, the investment strategy forArmy ATC has to be based on the fiscal reality andthe need for balance in our modernization process.

The USAATCA developed a consolidated masterplan to address ATC requirements for the modernization of equipment for both tactical units andfixed base airfield sites. This is a living, workingdocument that has been submitted to CAC for

u.s. ARMY AVIATION DIGEST

staffing, with ub equent approval by TRADOand Departmentof the Army required. I t ncludes aproperly resourced program addressing ATC personnel and equipment requirements throughoutthe next decade. The master plan i vital in nearan d long-range planning. I t s the vehicle the Armywill use to inform the u er and inter sted agenciesof AT near- and far-term plans and requirements.Upgrading com ba t capability was a key consideration in developing the master plan. Our fixed baseassessment indicates that while many modernization program are ongoing, substantial requirements exist for modernization of existing systems.Funding constraints have hurt us all, but we havenot been without support. TRADOC gave us anadditional $1 million in fiscal year (FY) 19 andcommitted an additional $3.6 million in FY 1989 tohelp defray the cost of fielding new ATC systemsand replacing existing AT programs. I foreseesignificant improvements in ATC equipment.

The soldiers who operate the equipment also areexperiencing changes in the way they are trainedan d managed. The 9:3C ATC course is undergoingsome major revisions. We are revamping th eControl Tower Operator (CT )examination from afive-part to a seven-part t st. This is due to FAArestructur of the eTO . Along with this will come adesign change in the course it elf to enable thetesting of the CTO at the end of the course. The nextmajor change will discontinue the manual approach phase. ince there is a limited amount ofmanual approach facilities being used in the Army,this phase will be reworked to enhance the flightfollowing segment of the course.

The development and modernization of bothcombat support an d fixed base ATC systems arebeing vigorously pursued by the Aviation Center. Ichallenge you to make these initiatives a positivestep for the cohesive development desired for theATC arm of Army Aviation. 4j#C'


4/48

1:EHIEF of Staff of theU.S. Army approved the transferof ai r traffic control (ATC) to theAviation Branch in early 1986.This was accomplished 1 Octo-ber 1986 when the U.S. ArmyAir Traffic Control Activity(USAATCA) moved from Ft.Huachuca, AZ, to Ft. Rucker, AL,to become a part of the U.S. ArmyAviation Center. The mission ofUSAATCA includes functional pro-ponency and integrator for allATC matters, including fixedbase and tactical, for the U.S.Army. USAATCA is responsiblefor overall development, management guidance, standardization,systems evaluation an d develop-ment of the Army's ATC facili-ties and navigational aids(NAVAIDs) worldwide. The

2

activity acts as the Department ofArmy (DA) Deputy Chief of Stafffo r Operat ions and Plans(DC SOPS) executive agent. I tinterfaces with the Federal A via-tion Administrat ion (FAA), Depart-ment of Defense (DOD), Alliednations and counterpart Serviceson airspace and .aeronauticalinformation.

USAATCA is organized withthe following major offices an dfunctions:The ATC Development Officeprovides guidance to establish,modernize, terminate and relo-cate ATC and NAVAIDs equip-ment. The Development Officehas two separate divisions: thePrograms Division and theRequirements Division, the lattersoon to be renamed the Systems

Integration Division. A majorfunction within the DevelopmentOffice is the tabulation of whatfixed based facilities, NAVAIDs,systems and equipment are in useto support aviation throughoutthe world. A condition level isapplied to each to begin theprocess of iden tifying anydeficiencies. This is followed by acomparison of existing plans an dprograms with identified defi-ciencies. The results of thisassessment assisted in priori-tizing future resources to resolvedeficiencies.The Programs Division broughtwith it 44 ATC projects to theAviat ion Center from Ft.Huachuca. The Programs Divi-sion monitors and provides recom-mendations to the engineering,acquisition and installationphases of ATC systems designedto satisfy both current an d futurerequirements. The Programs Divi-sion coordinates and justifies,through channels to the DA an dDOD level, funding to meetcurrent an d future Army ATCfixed base requirements. It alsofunctions as the user representa-tive for major Army commands(MACOMs) worldwide and coor-dinates project implementation offixed base ATC equipment. Pro-jects are implemented throughcoordination with the ProgramManager-Transmission System,

MARCH 1989


5/48

OPERATIONS ANDPROCUREMENTDIVISION

RESOURCESDIVISION

FAA AERONAUTICALCENTER REPRESENTATIVE

U.S. Army Information SystemsCommand, to update userrequirements.The ATC Requirements Divi-sion develops, coordinates an dprovides equipment an d systemsconfiguration standards forArmy ATC systems worldwide.The Requirements Division devel-ops th e ATC master plan incoordination with MACOMs,DA, DOD and other governmentagencies. This divi ion preparesthe ATC portion of the AviationModernization Plan.Thi divi-sion determines configuration ofthe National Airspace SystemPlan (NASP) in accordance withDOD and DA directives, policiesand mandates. This includes

U.S. ARMY AV IATION DIGEST

COMMANDERUSAAVNC

NATIONAL AIRSPACEPROGRAMS REOUIREMENTS

OFFICE

SYSTEMS INTEGRATOR

REOUIREMENTSDIVISION

AERONAUTICALSERVICES DETACHMENT.

EUROPESYSTEMSEVALUATIONDIVISION

PROGRAMSDIVISION

AERONAUTICALINFORMATIONDIVISION

JOINT PROGRAMSCOORDINATIONSOFFICE

SYSTEMSMAINTENANCE DIVISION(AMSF)

AEROSPACESUPPORTDIVISION

NORTHEASTFIELD

REPRESENTATIVE

1. . . -_- . . , ....__ ...1 EUROPEANFIELD

REPRESENTATIVE

al l components of th e NASP.Some of the components includethe advanced automation sys-tem, NAV AIDs, communications,weather and military ai r pace.This division also provides for thecoordination of ATC develop-ments and integration of fixedand tactical systems.

Also assigned to the Develop-ment Office are three field repre-sen tati ves. The first is th eEuropean field representativ lo-cated at Heidelberg, FederalRepublic of Germany. This r pre-sentative serves as an AT func-tional area advisor to thecommander, U.S. Army Informa-tion Systems Engineering Com-mand, Europe. The representative

reviews engineering an d instal-lation plans, and interfaces withhost governments and U.S.Army, Europe. The field repre-sen tati ve also conducts fieldvisits and site surveys.The Northeast field representa-tive, located at Ft. Monmouth,NJ, advises the commander, U.S.Army Information SystemsManagement Activity, and inter-faces with commanders at theU.S. Army ommunication-Electronics ommand an d thU.S. Army Aviation Researchand D velopment Activity onAT equipment matters. Thisrepresentative also reviews depotoverhauls of ATC equipment,ensure interface with the

3


6/48


7/48

teams and flightin accordance with OA PStates StandardInspection Manual, sec-Flight inspection crewsand technicians) must,the Airspaceat theA Academy. These valuableces ensure that navigationd landing aids can be evalu-and efficiently. TheMaintenance Divi-is comprised of an areasupport facility thats already located at the A via-This function wasto the Systems Evalua-and Maintenance Office,TCA, in the ATC transfer.e mobile maintenance contactprovides technical assist-nce, advice, formal an d informal

at ATC facilities throughout con-inental United States, Alaska,

U.S. ARMY AVIATION DIGEST

Panama, Hawaii and selectedsites in Korea. The RepairableExchange Maintenance Branchoperates a repairable facility formodules and components ofselected ATC equipment.The U.S. Army AeronauticalServices Office (USAASO) locatedat Cameron Station, Alexandria,VA, serves as executor and theDA staff office for DCSOPS onmatters pertaining to the N AS.This office also represents DA atthe national and internationallevel on the use of airspace; airtraffic regulation, control andprocedures; joint use of Army air-fields by other than DO D aircraft;violation of Federal AviationRegulations by Army personnel;flight procedures; aeronautical infor-mation; and aeromedical carto-graphic requirements. I t managesthat airspace within the NAS asdelegated to the Army by FAAand provides DA representationto the FAA regional headquartersby assigning DA regional represen-tatives to the various FA Aregions. I t validates Army A via-tion requirements for flight infor-mation publications (FLIPs) andcharts worldwide. I t also estab-lishes criteria and policy for thedevelopment of terminal and enroute instrument procedures.USAASO is the approving au-thority for Army procedurespublished in DOD FLIPs.USAATCA has a full-timeArmy aviator representative whoserves on the staff of the DODNAS Plan Requirements Office inWashington, DC. This office wasestablished because of the long-standing need to have the mili-tary services more involved withthe FAA's NASP.Also located in Washington,with DA DCSOPS Aviation, is anATC liaison officer (LO) who func-tions as a systems integrator forai r traffic management (ATM)/ATC. The LO provides DA staff

technical and policy advice indetermining ATM systems re-quirements, operation and sup-port. The LO also prepares ATMbudget documents, justificationsand plans to reflect an execut-able program. The LO alsorecommends acquisition prioritiesfor ATM systems, equipment,research an d development, an dproduct improvement programs.Air traffic services is anessential combat multiplier inaviation. Success on the modernbattlefield will depend on thebasic tenets of AirLand Battledoctrine. Army ATC personneland equipment provide essentialservices for tactical operationsworldwide. ATC personnel assistfriendly aircraft perform theirmission through positive an d pro-cedural control methods. Thewartime role of ATC is influencedby Army airspace command andcontrol efforts to synchronize allusers of the battlefield airspace.USAATCA has established acohesive set of objectives, policiesand programs to standardize theATC facility training program.The central theme for this stan-dardization includes the tasks,conditions and standards thatdrive our ATC training program.Some of these are equipmentdriven, bu t most are derived fromFAA and Army guidance on theconduct of ATC in the NAS.Competency is particularlyimportant to the air traffic con-troller and is attained through thefacility training program.Verification of this competency isassured through a variety ofevaluations by both FAA an dArmy agencies. Feedback fromthese evaluations is used tocontinuously refine the facilitytraining program that enablesArmy air traffic controllers toattain that exceptional expertisethat makes them truly "Abovethe Best." . . ,

5


8/48

a NOW, ALMOST everyone in AnnyA viation at least has heard of the National Airspace System (N AS) Plan of the Federal AviationAdministration (FAA). In case some confusionmight exist as to what the plan really is or how itmay affect us, an overview of the N AS plan follows.

6

First, a few things the plan is. I t is a plan tomodernize an aging air traffic control (ATe) systemand hardware, both military an d civilian, whiletaking immediate measures to enhance aviationsafety an d security. I t is a plan to focus on meetinguser needs, addressing human concerns and pro-

MARCH 1989


9/48

viding a road map to the 21st century NAB. I t s theresult of examining present operational, technicaland human requirements for the transition period.I t is a plan to allow for expansion of services asopposed to the system now in place that somewhatlimits growth.

Second, a few things that the plan is not. I t s no tclosed-ended with an exact date attached indicating when it will be completed. As a living, breathing, expandable document that allows for growthin technology, the plan will continue well into thenext century. I t is not a piecemeal effort tomodernize a band-aid approach to our problems buta systems approach that uses new technical opportunities, addresses operational concerns, improvessafety productivity, an d above all, is flexible.

In December 1981, the FAA chartered what theycalled a comprehensive NAS Plan to modernizeand improve ATC an d airway facilities servicesthrough the year 2000. Now 71/2 years later, the planis in high gear with more than 90 projects and 90percent of these are under contract. About 5,000pieces of equipment are working today withhundreds more coming online every month. Animportant factor in the plan is that, while someprograms necessarily had to be deleted because oftechnology breakthroughs, additional programshave been added. According to Mr. JosephDelBalzo, executive director of systems development, FAA, these programs make this the largestcivilian project since the Apollo astronauts landedon the moon.

The plan is designed to accommodate futuretraffic growth by using new technologies. I t is safeto predict that th e NAS Plan will never be afinished package of the ATC system, but a series ofinterrelated steps that constantly respond to thechanging demands of our air transportation system.

An abbreviated walk through the NAS Planwould reveal that the basic foundation of the planwill be a multibillion dollar computer system, calledthe Advanced Automation System, which will startgoing online in 1991. This system is the heart andsoul of the NAS Plan and will make almost everyother improvement possible. Major improvements


in communications, weather, surveillance, navigation and traffic management are included. I t willput all of the primary traffic facilities into anintegrated, highly automated system, giving usspeed, capacity and flexibility to handle ourincreasing traffic loads well into the next century.

A further walk through the NAS Plan revealsthat, today, we rely on very high frequency an dultra high frequency radio communications for ourATC. As the NAS Plan evolves, much ATC communication will use digital data link techniques topermit high efficiency in information flow viaautomation. Voice capabilities will continue tosatisfy certain air-to-ground communications functional needs such as around terminal areas.Operational needs and budgetary limitationswill dictate the degree to which the Department ofDefense will modernize in data linking, as well asan y of the 90 projects.

Present navigation systems will continue to beused with very high frequency omnidirectionalrange, distance measuring equipment, tactical airnavigation, nondirectional beacon, direction finder,and long-range navigation C series as well as thosebased in the aircraft. Future navigation (post-NAS)will be based largely on the highly reliable, accura teU.S. global positioning system (GPS), which hashigh integrity. The microwave landing system andpossibly, to some extent, the GPS will provide theprecision approach service.

The NAS Plan continues to provide a blueprintfor the future while changing to incorporate newtechnology. A day may come when aircraft thatwill not be on any controller's primary en routeradar, but vice versa, will occupy the nationalairspace. The aircraft will provide the controller, bydata link, his exact position as determined automatically from GPS. That day may not be so farinto the long-range future as we want to believe.

The impact on the Army from these modernization projects will certainly be minimal for thevast majority of our aviation assets. For those whofly in the NAS and those who provide ATC servicesto those aviators, th e time to consider buying aticket for this "train" ride is now. :... ,

7


10/48

8

AVIATIONSYSTEMCONCEPTSfor the 21 st Century

Mr. J. Lynn HelmsInternational Consultant

Westport. CT

Advanced automation system, a joint project of the FAA and theDOD to upgrade the National Airspace System Plan, showing thecommon console prototype being developed by IBM.

THIS ARTICLE treats threeseparate elements: a method-ology to ana lyze system-atically air traffic control(ATC) operational scenariosand options pertinent to each,together with identifying needsof supporting research; selection, by th e author, of one ortwo specific exampIes of researchapplication and possible results;and from the foregoing, and otherexamples, construct a systemconcept that can be varied according to human judgment.A long-range strategic plan hasthree parts: defining a baseline;creating a methodology to evaluate options and fallout; andinstitutionalizing a system tomonitor performance againsttime, with inclusive means tomake corrections, to meet established objectives. This article

MARCH 1989


11/48

treats a selected portion of thestrategic planning process.A methodology for analyzingA TC operational effortsWe should take advan age nowof the new technology that is

available in computer speed an dcapacity, software, telecommunications and simulators. Usingthis new technology, we shouldstudy the components an d interfaces of the ATC system, withemphasis on the terminal area.We should undertake a nationaleffort to create a dynamic simulation of major ai r traffic centers,starting with New York City.Next in all probability we shouldsimulate Los Angeles, Chicagoan d Atlanta. When a physicaland personnel plant is installed,computer software can accommodate any center in the world.However, we should work out the


problems first in the New Yorkarea since that area is a composite of many problems.First, we should create adynamic simulation of the NewYork City aviation area with ai rroutes, airfields, equipment typesand locations, an d present trafficpatterns. Then we should load thesystem with regular traffic, as isbeing flown today, including ai rcarriers, helicopters, the Concord,general aviation (GA) (commercial), military aviation an d theEast River float planes. Once wehave absorbed that data, then wecan simulate changes in the flightpattern, equipment types andlocations. We can give the equipment new features and try theequipment out before writing aspecification to procure it. Afterabsorbing this phase, with it wellunderway, we should move to thesecond phase.In the second phase, we shouldcreate a "mini New York approach control," with actualFederal Aviation Administrationcontrollers, or private equivalents,to work the system an d test newroutes, equipment varia tions, possible new airfield locations andall aspects and portions of thesimulation area. For example,apparently we are close to adecision for an aerospace plane,th e so-called Orient Express;however, I don't know of anyindepth work being done to seehow we are going to get the planeon and off the ground or handleits traffic pattern. The question is,"Is there a way to handle thisplane at John F. Kennedy Airportor do we have to mandate takeover of the southern tip of NewJersey?"More important, an d even morelikely, the vertical lift machinewith twin rotors and a cruisecapability of some 300 knots, orbetter, will offer viable near-citycenter to near-city center capability. A stretch of more than 2miles on the east side of the

Hudson River is filled with oldrotten pilings. With the precisionand curved approach capabilityof the microwave landing system,coupled with the capability of thetwin-rotor machine, what wouldbe the benefits of such a downtown facility? How would such amachine depart Chicago Meigsairport, stop at Detroit, stop atCleveland Lakefront and landalongside Manhattan? Is itfeasible from an ATC viewpoint?Could the machine truly handle 5flights an hour or 10 or 20 from afacility of only 3,000 feet, 4,000feet and 5,000 feet in length? TheNew Jersey side railroad piers arestill very solid. They are locatedaway from the taller buildings ofManhattan, hence New Jerseymay be an even more attractivepossibility. Why not simulate theNew Jersey airport an d find out?

During the second phase wealso would simulate weather andbe able to study the results ofsudden and dramatic weatherchanges. We could equally studythe effect of new technology andequipment to accommodate theimpact of such weather.

The third phase would includethe dynamic sim ulation of actualflight deck crews. Both this, andearlier phases, would overlapsomewhat. Since all the airlinecarriers require their crews to gothrough periodic simulator training, why not connect them to thedynamic simulation and let them"fly their schedule" into thesimulation area? The telecommunications technology of todayeasily and routinely can connectEastern Airline simulators, inMiami; American Airline, inDallas; United Airline, in Denver;U.S. Airline, in Pittsburgh; an dothers to the dynamic simulation.As fa r as the crews are concerned, they would be flying theirairplane on an actual flight.Accordingly, we would have theflight deck crew, the controllers,and the ATC systems engineers

9


12/48

and designers working a commonproblem, at a common time andevaluating new solutions.Further, by using the simulationwe could consider changes in theweather, equipment, routes, airplanes, locations, training, emergencies, schedules and airports.We could effectively simulate theentire scenario and make decisions that could save billions ofdollars over the next quarter of acentury. Would we not stronglywant to have such a capability inLos Angeles now with some 10percent of the nation's entire GAfleet in Southern California? Howwould a Mode S capability and aMode C transponder mandateaffect the abil ity to control? What

are the other uses of traffic alertand collision avoidance system(TCAS) and in what environment? The possibilities are endless. A good dynamic simulationof a terminal facility is the onlyfeasible way to project the futureand to shape the operationalusage and benefits of new subsystems such as Mode S data link.History has shown unmis-takenly that, as unexpectedproblems arise in new developments, so do new an d unforeseenbenefits an d new uses. No doubtTCAS II, certainly TCAS III, willresult in changes in the NorthAtlantic routes so that those withTCAS aboard can fly at 1,000 feetseparation, and on offtrack pro-

A tower position console mockup for the advanced automation system.

10

files can "fly the weather," doingso with better safety than existstoday. The ability to have suchflexibility will save more than$100 million a year in fuel cost onthe North Atlantic run alone!The flight deck crew usingTCAS probably can perform"station keeping" of the terminalarea, bu t ALWAYS with a groundcontroller watching to make sure.We haven't started to uncover allth e possibilities of the individualsubsystems that were conceivedas part of the National AirspaceSystem Plan. However, it is timeto look beyond, and this time do itright. A national dynamic simulation program will give us that capability. I t will identify the areasneeding additional research andpotential applications. Considerone or two of these applications.Selected technologyapplicationsProgress in super conductingmaterial (SCM) is acceleratingaround the world; the popularconsideration is with trains!However, we who have lived ourlives with technology knowdifferently. New technologyalways begins application ofselected technology at the highestcost. When production technologymakes such application possible,that application is reduced toinsertion at the minimum unit toreduce the unit cost of the endproduct. SCM undoubtedly willbe a candidate for early insertionin avionics an d some other specialty electronics. "Delta" cost perunit volume versus performanceand end product price make SCMa natural.With a major reduction inpower budgets, the weight of theselected subsystem will decrease.Not only true flat plate displays,bu t with a fold up of SCM towallet size, a display could becarried from one GA airplane toanother, and be attached assimply as today's pilot carries hisor her own headset with throat or

MARCH 1989


13/48

lip microphone. A "portable glasscockpit" will result. GA airplaneswill then be wired for such aninstallation, together with antenna installation. Thus, smallGA airplanes will have the samecapability for flight deckinformation as the airliners of theday, albeit in reduced format.To match such usage in airborne, spaceborne and surfaceinstallations, a second area oftechnology advancement will beavailable. The tandem solar cellwill deliver conversion factors ofmore than 50-percent solar powerinto electricity. Combine thegallium arsenide to absorb theblue end of the spectrum, an dsilicone to absorb the red end ofthe spectrum. By doing so, plasticlenses will increase the lightconcentration by some five ordersof magnitude. With a reducedpower budget, and a vastimprovement in solar energyconversion available, the designparameter will become reliabilityso that systems can be built,placed in location and left alonefor 20 years! Thus, the technicalcapability to build and powerremote subsystems for ATC navigation, communication, surveillance, precision approach an deven social needs of the passengers, will be availab le to meetthe ATC system needs. Thus, theATC system of the future starts totake a visible form.ATe system concept for mid-21st centuryHaving exercised the dynamicsimulation facility for more thana decade, we will have outlinedfar more quantitatively theneeded system architecture thanever before; we will haveidentified areas, and priorities, ofresearch needed. We will haveapplied other new technology indesigning the system concept,completing a systems engineering design.That ATC system will be basedon a global electronic information


grid. Using satellite an d groundfacilities, and with aircrafthaving infrared pointing andtracking systems for the sun,moon an d selected stars as abackup, the density and productof the system will be as selectedby each geopolitical element; i.e.,each country or each region ofcountries acting together. Certainly the United States, Canadaand Mexico will have reachedsuch an accord. Most likely, thesystem will parallel one selectedby Western Europe, and whoknows, maybe Eastern Europe.Use of the term "density" refersmore to the information availableat a specific latitude and longitude. Probably, it is less likely fordetailed surface weather over thesands of the Sahara than theequatorial area of South Americaan d the Far East with their giantthunderstorms. Mid-latitudeevents of seasonal change andfron tal activi ty , m aj or topography impact such as in Alaska,the Soviet Union an d CentralAfrica, will all have unique localrequirements. In the UnitedStates we will have constant realtime weather data-even the controller's view of the weather radartracking a line of thunderstormsinstantly available in the cockpit.Our information grid will be quitedense.The ten megabyte chip willhave been long in production sothat the cost for that capacity, i fneeded, will be relatively low.Routinely available will be the"S" EPROM, which is theauthor 's designation fo r afactory-induced signature foreach chip produced that isimbedded for life and that selfdestructs if alterat ion isattempted. Hence, every aircraftflying will then have an electronicidentifier, as firm as the certification number painted on the sideand far less easy to alter. Whenthe ai r vehicle leaves the ground,or before in most instrument

flight rules cases, the system willbe activated, perform an automatic "handshake" with the grid,and be both constantly trackedby and in constant communication with the ATe system; i.e.,through the grid. If the pilot hasfulfilled his "biannual flightcheck," or equivalent, he willinsert this card into a slot next tothe starting system, start the airplane and go on his way. Ifhe hasnot done so, his card will be"zapped," and will not start his, orany other airplane, until he meetsthe established qualifications,and "gets his card punched"; i.e.,unzapped!But, when "you dance you haveto pay the fiddler." The globalgrid will have the option of selective mandatory handshake or noservice. With proper equipmentinstalled by a country, this meansthat every time the pilot uses anavigation facility or precisionapproach (but, hopefully, notweather!), his electronic identifierwill be recorded. At the end of themon th he will ge t a bill for"services rendered!" The capability for recording accurately,summing and billing for "userfees" will be in-hand; and, in theUnited States, it will probablyhappen!This audience, made up ofaviation and other experts andrespected figures, literally fromaround the world, is a good groupto consider the validity of such afar-reaching prognostication. Isubmit, th e danger is no t that Ihave overreached, but rather thatI have underreached. Th e year2050 is some 61 years ahead, witha constantly increasing technology curve. How many of youwould have been with the WrightBrothers and accepted a forecastof where we are today?

Our challenge then, is, by slow,methodical and well-reasonedanalysis, to take on the yearlyand biyearly study to make itunfold. Someone will. 9&1 ,11


14/48

12

SINCE THE Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) firstpublished the National AirspaceSystem (N AS) Plan, the Department of Defense (DOD), throughits individual Services, haswrestled with th e question ofwhat its involvement should beand how to achieve these goals.The DOD and FAA have reachedan agreement on what this jointarchitecture should look like andhave started the process of determining the details for implementation. The military senior leadershave reviewed the plan.They support it and recognize the impor-

MARCH 1989


15/48

tance of staying abreast of theFAA's modernization process. Theydo not want to hinder the operational effectiveness of the NAS.The scope of change for theway the military will performtheir air traffic control (ATC)mission is significant. The FAAis charged with effectivelymanaging the nation's airspace.However, the military must retainsufficient facilities to ensure controllers are trained for their wartime missions and have airfieldsthat will support both intensemilitary operations and an overseas rotational assignmentprocess.The planned modernization pro-cess will reduce the number ofDOD radar approach controlsfrom 56 to 43. This is not simply areduction of military facilities butan exchange process with theFAA. The DOD will assume 5facilities from the FAA, while theFAA is responsible for 14. As wemodernize, the net effect will be aleaner military force, modernizedfacilities with lower operationand maintenance costs and anNAS that is transparent to theuser from a service provisionpoint of view.

The DOD is approaching thismodernization process withrenewed resolve to joint procurement. The perception is that A TCand landing systems do not dropbombs or shoot bullets. Becauseof this perception, funding support in the budget process fre-quently has been less than desired.Also, a lead Service has notalways been appointed and, while


one Service may have been adequately funded, another might slip,which results in equipment incompatibility or other problems. Tominimize these problems, theAssistant Secretary of Defensefor Acquisition has established aNational Airspace System DefenseAcquisition Panel (NASDAP)and a program element code inthe DOD budget to replace orsupport the individual Service'sbudget lines. Through the newprocess, a single Service isappointed as the lead acquisitionagent for each particular line itemand will acquire that line item forall the Services. In addition, theNASDAP has established a jointprogram coordinations office(JPCO) that is physically locatedwith the FAA. The JPCO willcoordinate acquisition activitiesbetween the FAA and the leadService to ensure funding andprocurement timing are adequate.The DOD's NAS program requirements office will continue to coordinate DOD NAS requirements.Closely related to the NASmodernization process and absolutely essential to military readiness is th e military airspacemanagement system (MAMS).The military conducts training;tactics development; and weaponsystem research, development,test and evaluation within allocated special use airspace (SUA)throughout the United States.Both the FAA and the DOD havebeen charged to ensure effectiveuse of this airspace because it is ascarce national commodity. Manyin the aviation community and

Congress perceive an excess ofSUA. Military commanders arecontinually requesting additionalairspace to train because of higherperformance aircraft and morecapable weapons. The GeneralAccounting Office has called forbetter management oversight bythe FAA and more effective useby the military.

The MAMS requirement wasdeveloped to address these criticisms and better use the availableSUA. The MAMS goal is to enablenear real-time management anduse of SUA so that all militaryorganizations desiring access toan area will know its status andadjust their schedules accordingly. Each block of SUA willhave a manager. Through a distributed network of computerterminals, many organizationswill have access to the block ofSUA and minimize potential conflicts or unused airspace resultingfrom manual scheduling. Civilaviation interests should benefitsince un used airspace will bereadily identifiable and releasedto the FAA when practical. Initialprototyping efforts are underway;a fielded MAMS is expected nolater than the mid-1990s.

Through these efforts andmany more, the DO D senior leadership is both committed to, andinvolved in, the molding of amodernized and more efficientNAS. This improved system willpermit the military operationalrequirements to be met and resultin both manpower reductions andlife-cycle cost savings to theAmerican public. ~

13


16/48

ARMY COMMANDERS,planners and program managers,please heed this article. It shouldapprise you of the fact that Armyrequirements for special use air-space (SUA) within the NationalAirspace System (NAS) can nolonger be met as in the past.Airspace has become a highlycritical national resource.Demands on the NAS are at anall time high and are expected toincrease into the 21st century.Most of the demand for increaseduse will come from commercialand general aviation; however,military airspace requirements

14

also will increase. In response tothis increasing demand on theNAS, the Federal AviationAdrniJIis..tration (FAA) has imposed moreand more control over the lastseveral years. In future years evenmore constra ints will be imposedon theNAS.In the past, little concern hasexisted about Army activity beingconducted within the NAS. TheArmy has enjoyed considerablefreedom and flexibility in plan-ning and conducting i ts activities.Restricted areas have containedthe firing of artillery pieces,mortars, rockets, missiles and

similar weapons. If additionalSUA were needed, the U.S. ArmyAeronautical Services Office(USAASO) easily obtained thespace through the Department ofthe Army (DA) ai r traffic andairspace (ATA) manager and DAregional representatives (DARRs).However, SUA is not easy toobtain now and will become evenmore difficult to obtain in thefuture.In 1958, when Congress firstestablished the FAA, the Armyhad about 110 restricted areas.Some of these had existed sincethe early 1940s. All were sole use,

MARCH 1989


17/48

which means they were activatedall the time, 24 hours a day, 7 daysa week. Since then, because of thedemands for airspace by commercial aviation, general aviationand other users of the N AS, thenumber of Army restricted areashas been reduced to 78. Because ofadditional constraints and controls imposed by the FAA, 72 ofthese have been designated forjoint use, which means that thisairspace is available to the publicwhen the Army is not using it.The remaining restricted areasare used fulltime, or are activatedfulltime for national securitypurposes.Next, the FAA requested theArmy to share its restricted areaswith other N AS users, such as theNavy, Marine Corps an d AirForce, when these users wereconducting activities that werenot considered compatible withnonparticipating aircraft. Armyrestricted areas are now listed forshared use. A program also isongoing to segment all Armyrestricted areas, both verticallyand horizontally, and to activateonly those segments needed toaccommodate the Army requirement. This should increase theavailability of this airspace to thepublic. Letters of agreement(LOAs) have been negotiated be-tween Army users and appropriate FAA controlling agencies.These letters specify how andwhen each restricted area will beactivated and deactivated. Thesemeasures should provide moreefficient use of airspace areasthrough real-time scheduling.Other control measures are inexistence, some of which haveexisted for many years, whileothers were set up during the lastdecade. These control measuresinclude air traffic control assignedairspace (ATCAA), alti tude reservations (ALTRVs), controlled firing areas (C FAs), militaryoperations areas (MOAs), mili-tary training routes (MTRs), the


speed rule and warning areas.(Definitions of the above tennsand acronyms appear at the endof this article.)Another control measureimposed by the FAA, and frequently aggravated by publicinvolvement, is the time involvedin processing new airspace proposals. At present, the FAArequires at least 90 days to process a nonrulemaking proposalonce the FAA has received theproposal from the proponent. Thistime is being extended to 120days. A rulemaking proposalrequires 180 days to process. Thistime is being extended to 235days. This schedule will be metonly if no objection is raised byother users of the NAS or thegeneral public. I f an objection israised, it may take several yearsto process the proposal. Anexample is the restricted area atFt. Devens, MA. Several yearsago Ft. Devens submitted a proposal to the FAA New EnglandRegion. People from the sur-rounding communities opposedthe proposal and held severalpublic meetings. A U.S. congressman became involved. As aresult, the restricted area wasestablished but only after 2 years.Numerous other situationssimilar to this one have occurredin the past and probably willoccur again in the future.One other measure in the offingis the establishment of a centralized scheduling facility ,for allDepartment of Defense (DOD)SUA or the military airspacemanagement system (MAMS).This facility is not being set updirectly at the request of the FAA.The MAMS is needed because ofDOD's increased requirementsfor SUA and the increasing strident demands of commercialaviation, general aviation andthe general public for access toDOD SUA areas. The combination of these requirements plusmodernization of the air traffic

control (ATC) system through theFAA National Airspace SystemPlan (N ASP) places too great aburden on individual schedulingsystems now used by each military department. This burdenmakes the creation of the MAMSa must.The MAMS DOD system willprovide automated support tomilitary airspace managerswithin the NAS. The systemshould make th e release an drequest of airspace from the FAAeasier as well as airspace planning and scheduling, and thereporting of SUA required by theFAA. (Each military departmentwill retain priority for use of itsown SUA when the space is activated according to the LOA.) TheMAMS will communicate elec-tronically with the modernizedFAA system now being developed. The MAMS also will communicate with all DOD users,facilities and systems required toefficiently plan, schedule andadminister military airspace use.The MAMS will provide moreeffective management and moreefficient use ofSUA and the entireNAS.As commanders, planners andprogram managers, you can doseveral things to assist in manag-ing the Army's SUA program.You should become more aware ofyour airspace requirements. Inplanning for the future, such asrelocating units, opening new orbuildjng up existing installations,or developing or employing newweapons systems, you shouldknow your future airspace requirements. If sufficient SUA is notavailable, you should submittimely pro"posals to set up new, ormodify existing, SUA areas asnecessary. You should knowwhere to go and who to talk to forassistance. For example, at thenational level is the DA ATA. manager; at the FAA regionallevel is the DARR; and at themajor Army command and instal-

15


18/48

lation level is the ATA officer.Army Regulation (AR) 95-2, AirTraffic Control, Airspace, Air-fields, Flight Activities, andNavigational Aids, 15 September1988, states that the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans(DC SOPS), Headquarters, Department of the Army, has the overallresponsibility for Army mattersthat impact on the NAS. TheDCSOPS represents DA withother DOD, civil, government,national and internationalagencies. This regulation alsodirects th e director, USAASO, toserve as the executive agent forthe DCSOPS on matters pertaining to the N AS. It further req uiresthe director, USAASO, to appointa DA ATA manager to serve atthe national level by managingthe Army SUA program. Theregulation requires the director,USAASO, to maintain DARRoffices at various FAA regionalheadquar ters. These offices serveas an extension of USAASO inperfonning all assigned functions.Besides the above, AR 95-2requires major Army commanders, major subordinate com-

16

manders, state adjutants generaland installation commanderswho have requirements or activities that impact on the NAS toappoin an ATA officer. Thisindividual will represent th ecommander on matters pertaining to the NAS.The DA ATA manager and theDARRs, experts in their field, arethere to assist and serve you. Asfor your ATA officer, you shouldappoint the most qualified personavailable and ensure that personis given the chance for the training mentioned in AR 95-2. Despitewhat else you may do, plan aheadas far as possible; contact theDARR or DA ATA manager forassistance; submit timely proposals; be prepared to justify yourproposals; and ' plan the use ofyour assigned SUA in the mostefficient and effective way tobenefit all NAS users.Definitions and explanationsof tenns and acronyms used inthis article follow. ALTRV-altitude reservation. Airspace assigned by theFAA Central Altitude Reservation Facility to provide separation

of certain specified activitiesbeing conducted within that airspace from nonparticipatinginstrument flight rule (IFR) aircraft. ALTRVs are establishedonly in positive controlled airspace (PCA) where only IFR aircraft are pennitted. The FAA hasnot allowed the Army to use anALTRV recently, citing that anALTRV was not designed for thispurpose. ATCAA-ATC assigned airspace. Airspace assigned by ATCto provide separation of certainspecified activities being conducted within that airspace fromnonparticipating IFR aircraft.ATCAAs are se t up an d used bythe Army the same way asALTRV s. The same restrictionsapply to an ATCAA as apply toan ALTRV. Again the FAA hasnot pennitted the Army to use anATCAA recently, citing that anATCAA was not designed for thispurpose. CFA-controlled firing area.A CFA is set up to contain activities that, if not conducted in acontrolled environment, would behazardous to nonparticipatingaircraft. The user provides for thesafety of persons an d property onthe surface and in the air. FAA-Federal AviationAdministration. A Federal administration established by Congress in 1958 to manage the NAS. MOA-military operationsarea. Airspace se t up to separatecertain military aircraft trainingactivities from nonparticipatingaircraft operating according toIFR. When an MOA is active,nonparticipating IFR traffic maybe cleared through the MOA ifIFR separation can be providedby ATC. There is no restriction onnonparticipation visual flightrules (VFR) aircraft. MTR-mil i ta ry trainingroute. Low-level, high-speedtraining routes set up accordingto criteria in FAA Handbook7610.4, Special Military Opera-

MARCH 1989


19/48

A proposed national airspace data interchange network.

tions. Routes may be set upaccording to e i t h ~ r VFR, designated visual routes or IFR anddesignated instrument routes. NAS-N ational AirspaceSystem. The common network ofU.S. navigational aids, equipment, airports or landing areas,aeronautical charts, airways,information, services, rules, procedures, manpower and materiel.Included also are the componentsand facilities shared jointly by themilitary and civilians, and the SUAused by the military.

NASP-National AirspaceSystem Plan; FAA's multibilliondollar modernization program. Nonrulemaking-actions inwhich FAA has authority to takefinal action without issuing arule, regulation or order. PCA-positive controlledairspace. The altitude establishedby FAA, usually 18,000 feet MSL,


at or above which only IF R aircraft are normally permitted. Restricted area-SUA areaswithin which the flights of aircraft, while no t wholly prohibited,are subject to restrictions. Re-stricted areas denote the existenceof unusual, often invisible,hazards to aircraft such as artillery firing, aerial gunnery orflight testing. Penetration ofrestricted areas without authorization from the using or controlling agency violates Federalregulations and may be hazard

ous to the aircraft and itsoccupants. Rulemaking-act ions bywhich FAA issues, amends orrepeals rules, regulations ororders designating airspace or airspace use. SUA-special use airspace.An area that has specific verticaland lateral limitS. These limits

are identified by an area on thesurface of the earth in whichactivities must be confined orwhere aircraft operations, not apart of those activities, may belimited or restricted. Speed rule-aircraft operating below 10,000 feet MSL maynot exceed 250 knots except whenauthorized by ATC or whenoperating in an SUA area thatpermits higher speeds. Warning areas-internationalairspace areas that may containhazardous aircraft not takingpart in area activities. Warningareas are set up beyond the 3-mileU.S. territorial limit. Though activities conducted in these areas maybe hazardous to nonparticipatingaircraft, warning areas may not bedesignated as restricted areassince they are in internationalairspace. The Army exercises verylimited use of warning areas.

17


20/48

US. ARMY~ ~ ~ I ~ I ~Directorate ofEvaluation/Standardization ~

REPORT TO THE FIELD AVIATIONSTANDARDIZATION

Aircrew Training Program Applicabilityto Department of the Army CiviliansCW4 Dick O'ConnellRight Standardization DivisionDirectorate of Evaluation and StandardizationU.S. Army Aviation CenterFort Rucker, AL

PERIODICALLY questions arise as to theapplicabilityof the aircrew training program (ATP)to Department of the Army civilians (DACs). TheATP is designed to standardize training and evaluation and to ensure combat readiness within ArmyAviation with the lowest possible number of flyinghours. The role of DACs within the program isdefined by the individual's job description and isthe key to determining DACs' requirements withinthe ATP. Army Regulation (AR) 95-1, Flight Regula-tions, paragraph 2-1a(2), outlines the requirementsfor civilians to fly Army aircraft. One of therequirements listed is for a DAC to comply withtransition, training, evaluation and currency asestablished by AR 95-1, chapter 4. This referencestates that the ATP applies to all Army aviators inoperational aviation positions and identifies DACrequirements. AR 95-3, General Provisions, Train-ing, Standardization, and Resource Management,paragraph 4-3b, states that DACs will be trained asnecessary to meet the requirements of the jobdescription as specified by the commander. Keeping all this in mind, it becomes apparent that DACshave different requirements within the ATP.The following are aspects of the ATP that DACsdo not share with their military counterparts: DACs do not have a flight activity category(FAC) level or readiness level (RL). F AC levels are

designated for aviation positions based on thecommander's evaluation of its probable employment role. DACs are trained to meet job requirements only and, therefore, do not have an RLdesignation.

DACs are only trained as necessary to meet therequirements of their job as specified by the commander. Task requirements for training and evaluating DACs should be designated in writing andmayor may not be in the same format as acrewmember's task list. As a result, unlessspecified by the commander, a DAC does not haveflying hour, simulator, task or task iteration,nuclear, biological and chemical, or nightrequirements. A DAC's annual proficiency and readiness test(APART) requires that he is responsible only forcompleting designated individual components ofhands-on performance tests in a calendar quarterdesignated by the commander. A DAC need only .complete those questions in the annual writtenexamination that applies to his job as designatedby the commander. DACs that fail to meet designated ATPrequirements are processed in accordance with(lAW) appropriate Federal civil service regulations,whereas military aviators are processed accordingto appropriate Army regulations.

The following are ATP requirements that DACsshare with Army aviators: Aircraft transition training must be lAW theappropriate aircrew training manual (ATM). Task training conducted to meet the job requirements will be lAW the appropriate ATM.

A DAC has the same aircra ft currency requirements as an Army aviator. Although the DAC's APART requirements aredifferent, the required evaluations should be completed and conducted lAW the appropriate ATM.DES welcomes your inquiries and requests to focus attention on an area of major importance. Write to us at: Commander, U.S. ArmyAviation Center, ATTN: ATZQ-ES, Fort Rucker, AL 36362-5208; or call us at AUTOVON 558-3504 or Commercial 205-255-3504. After

duty hours call Ft. Rucker Hotline, AUTOVON 558-6487 or Commercial 205-255-6487and leave a message.

18 MARCH 1989


21/48

PEARI!SPersonal Equipment And Rescue/survival Lowdown

Donning and Boarding Forest PenetratorThe following interim operational guidance is

provided for aircrews wearing the LPU-9/ P automatic life preserver:

Once contact has been made with the forestpenetrator, disconnect one end of the unstowedsafety strap from the bolt that is affixed to the top ofthe penetrator.

Pass the disconnected end of the strap around thetorso underneath the arms and firmly reconnect tothe affixed bolt at the top of the penetrator.

I f necessary, draw all the slack from the safetystrap using the safety strap takeup tab.

Once secured, place the lowered seat between thelegs.

Signal for recovery.Note: Survivor should be aware of the excess

cable connected to the top of the penetrator.Aircrews flying with 'the LPU-9/ P should beaware of and practice the above procedure. Acommand initiated Air Force technical order hasbeen submitted to include these procedures in anupdated technical order. Point of contact is MSGRiley, AUTOVON 574-3063.Open Letter to PEARL'SDear PEARL'S,

I was quite enthused when I read your section illthe Aviation Digest. I realize that you folks havebeen working for some time to make Army A viation life support equipment (ALSE) into a recognized field, an d it's real nice when you let us in thefield know just what is being done.

You have requested some input from us out here,so here is some information you might be able

to use. My ALSE noncommissioned officer (NCO)(yes, I have a full-time NCO) an d I sat down andcame up with a man-hour requirement for properoperation of an ALSE shop. In just 1 month, wehave 498 manhours worth of work to do! Based on a7-hour workday, the results break down as follows:

One person-71.14 days a month Two people-35.57 days a month Three people-25.71 days a month Four people-17.78 days a month

These figures are based on an attack helicopter unitwith 102 flight slots in accordance with commontable of allowance 50-900.

There are about 20 working days in any givenmonth. A shop needs a minimum of 1 ALSEtechnician for every 25 aircrewmembers. I havebeen working with ALSE since December 1976.Here in U.S. Army Europe, we are required by alocal regulation to attend the ALSE course beforewe are considered as qualified to work with ALSE.

The second major problem is the Army supplysystem. No one wants to furnish the requiredmoney. Medical items fall in the same category.

Perhaps ALSE should be considered as a warrant officer "track ." In an y case something must bedone if we are to support our ALSE people out in thefield.SRU-21/P Survival Vest-Two SnapLinks

There are two snap links on a modified SRU-21 / P survival vest that could be used for rescue.These snap links were a special modification andwere not authorized across the board.

If you have a question about personal equipment or rescue/survival gear, write PEARL'S, AMC Product Management Offik,e, ATTN:AMCPM-ALSE, 4300 Goodfellow Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63120-1798 or call AUTOVON 693-3573 or o m m e r c i a I 3 1 4 - 2 6 3 ~ 3 5 7 3 .

U.S. ARMY AVIATION DIGEST 19


22/48

AVIATION MEDICINE REPORTOffice of the Aviation Medicine Consultant

HEAT STRESSCW3 Robert E. PostAeromedical Physician's AssistantHHT, 1 Squadron, 4th CavalryFort Riley, KS

The views expressed by this author are his own based onindividual research and are not to be construed as being officialviews of the Department of the Army.

HIGH ENVIRONMENTAL temperaturescan rapidly produce detrimental effects on thephysical and mental abilities of aviators. Althoughthere are many guidelines on heat stress, presentlythere are no guidelines that apply to aviationduties.This past summer I observed and encounteredthe effects of heat stress firsthand. From theseexperiences I formed a method for recommendingmodification of crewrest based on heat exposurethat aviators and line commanders can readilyunderstand and implement.

Ft . Riley, KS, sponsored the third ReserveOfficers' Training Corps (ROTC) region. The aviation regiment stationed here supported the ROTCtraining with an airmobile demonstration. Elements of the regiment flew many sorties intemperatures ranging from 38 to 41 degrees Celsiusfor up to 6 hours with hot refuels and lunch breaksonly. There were no accidents, but the pilotsdescribed the effects on their abilities, an d severalswitched out because they felt that they could nolonger :fly safely.After interviewing these pilots, I flew severalsorties as medical observer where the aircraftexternal temperature ranged from 38 to 39 degrees

20

centigrade and the ambient humidity was greaterthan 60 percent. In fact, the measured surfacetemperature at the Manhattan, KS, airport was 104degrees during this flight period. The calculatedheat index was 114 degrees.

The sorties consisted of commander's evaluations of 1.1 hours for two officers, a O.5-hour terrainreconnaissance flight and a I-hour daylight areaorientation flight for a newly assigned aviator. Theflights started at 1100 hours local time, broke forlunch and refueled, broke again for change of crew(pilots) and ended at roughly 1530 hours local time.Crewmembers and the medical observers wereacclimatized to the locale, and were well withinrecommended crewrest requirements, being thefirst flights on a Monday morning following 2nonduty days. The crewmembers did not consumewater during flight.

During" the flights, I noticed an increasingnumber of small errors, such as forgetting to

MARCH 1989


23/48

change radio frequencies, initiating calls on thewrong frequencies and placing calls late or afterbeing reminded by the tower. At one point, the pilotbegan entering a left downwind landing after beingcleared for a right downwind landing. This errorwas recognized immediately and corrected before itendangered the safety of the aircraft. During thenavigation portion of the flight, as the temperatureprogressed, so did errors in identifying landmarks.Even the instructor pilot, knowledgeable in thearea, became disoriented and had to return toaltitude to continue the flight. At the end of theflight, we had difficulty in filling out the DA Form2408-12, transposing numbers and missing blankson the form. The flight crews continued to interactwell, and the errors usually were caught by one ormore members before they became problems. Atbest, though, it was a miserable flight. Other pilots Iinterviewed reported s imilar experiences.

The lack of consumption of water while in-flightprobably was a major contributor to the development of these in-flight errors. These aircrewmembers were at high risk for developingincapacitating heat-related illnesses while in-flightunder these environmental conditions.

I recommend that aircrewmembers consume thefollowing amounts ofwater in-flight as tabulated infigure 1.My flight, factored according to current ArmyRegulation (AR) 95-3, General Provisions, Train-

FIGURE 1: Recommended in-flight water consumption.Water IntakeWet Bulb RequirementsGlobe Temperature Per Hour

78-82 deg rees 0.5 quarts83-85 degrees 1.0 quarts86-88 degrees 1.5 quarts

above 88 degrees 2.0 quarts

ing, Standardization, and Resource Management,15 September 1988, standards, was 4.8 hours long.To standards, we could have continued to fly for 3.2more factored hours. I don't believe we could havecontinued much longer than 20 minutes withoutincident. I believe that, had we continued flying inaccordance with AR 95-3 standards and theabsence of adequate wate r intake, a major threat toaviation safety or an accident would have occurred.After studying the effects on myself and comparing notes with the ROTC support pilots, I feelthat these endurance factors are beyond acceptablesafety standards at these heat categories. In addition to the water requirements listed above, I nowrecommend that the crew endurance factors infigure 2 be applied in the heat categories above"green."

Heat Category Crew EnduranceFactorYellow 85-87 2.1 (N-TR) + normaldegrees endurance factor

Red 87 degrees 2.3 night visionand above goggles + normalendurance factorFIGURE 2: Recommended crew endurance factors.

These factors were derived from averaging thetime the pilots and myself felt fully capable ofsafely controlling the aircraft and comparingthem with the current endurance factors.

Similar use of day instrument factors for temperature ranges of 80 to 85 degrees should beconsidered relative to the situation, such as anonacclimatized aviator. I also recommend themission oriented protection posture training atternperatures of more than 87 degrees be curtailed.I believe that these water consumption recommendations and flight time limitations will prevent errors and reduce the risk for heat injury,which could result in a major threat to aviationsafety, without seriously limiting training ormission accomplishment. ~

The Aviation Medicine Report Isa monthly report from the Aviation Medicine Consultant of TSG. Please forward subject matter of currentaeromedical Importance for editorial cons/delation to U.S. Army Aeromedical Center, ATTN: HSXY ADJ, Ft. Rucker, AL 36362-5333.

U.S. ARMY AVIATION DIGEST 21


24/48

AVIATION PERSONNEL NOTES

Should the Aviation Warrant OfficerWear Aviation Branch Insignia?

22

YESThe aviation warrant

officer (AWO) is andhas always been amember of the Aviation Branch and theWarrant Officer Corps. However, in the past,all warrant officers could not be associatedwith a branch of the Army. Most warrantofficers were assigned in and out ofbranches at the needs of the Army. Today ,all warrant officers are aff i liated with or aremembers of a branch throughout theircareers. AWOs are full -fledged members ofthe Aviation Branch and should be allowedto wear " their branch" i n s ~ g n i a . Wearingbranch insignia will further the branchidentification and give the AWO a closercamaraderie in their daily association withboth commissioned officers and enlistedmembers within their career field. Warrantofficers of other services (Navy, MarineCorps , etc.) wear branch insignia on theircollars without any detriment to theirWarrant Officer Corps. The affiliation ofAWOs with the Aviation Branch does notmean a threat to the management systemthat we now have at the U.S. Total ArmyPersonnel Command (PERSCOM) (formerlyTAPA) . Warrant officer assignmentmanagers could wear branch affiliated brassand still conduct business as usual.

NOTrue, the AWO is a

member of the AviationBranch and the Warrant

Officer Corps. However, for the sake of theWarrant Officer Corps, the AWO should not beallowed to wear the Aviation Branch insigniabut should continue to wear the WarrantOfficer Corps insignia. Wearing branch insigniawill threaten the cohesion of the WarrantOfficer Corps and could mean the end of theWarrant Officer Corps as we know it today. TheWarrant Officer Corps has come a long wayonly because we kept branch affiliation out andtook care of our own. The unity in wearing thewarrant officer eagle gives the Warrant OfficerCorps a sense of distinction and independence.The Warrant Officer Corps always has beenrecognized by the warrant officer distinctiveinsignia. The affiliation of AWOs with theAviation Branch and wearing branch insigniacould lead to the dissolution of the WarrantOfficer Branch at PERSCOM and warrantofficers could end up with a fractionalizedmanagement system.

MARCH 1989


25/48

WHAT'S YOUR OPINION?

VEST NO

S H O U L D A V I A T I O N \N A R R A N T OFFICERS B EA L L O \ N E D T O \ N E A R A V I A T I O N B R A N C HINS IG NIA?

QVES Q N OS H O U L D A L L \N A R R A N T OFFICERS B EA L L O \ N E D T D \ N E A R THEIR B R A N C H INSIGNIA?

QVES Q N OS H O U L D \ N EA R I N G O F B R A N C H INS IGNIA B V\N A R R A N T OFFICERS BE L E F T U P T O T H EB R A N C H CHIEF?

aVES [ l N OS H O U L D T H E \N E A R I N G O F B R A N C H INSIGNIAB E A U T H OR I Z ED FO R \ N E A R B V T H E U N I TC D M M A N D E R ?

aVES lJ N OYOUR OPINION COUNTS TOO!

You may express your views by writing to the Office of PersonnelSystems, Directorate of Aviation Proponency, Ft. Rucker, AL 36362;

or mail the attached questionnaire to the above address ATIN:ATZQ-DAP-PS (CW4 Sweezy) no later than 30 June 1989.

u.s. ARMY AVIATION DIGEST 23


26/48

DATELINE: Sometimeearly in the next century.A flight of four C-17s penetrated the darkness flying towarda busy light infantry divisionairfield in a war-tom southwestAsia nation. Calling it an airfieldwas something of a misnomerbecause it actually was nothing

24

more than a level strip of drylakebed. The strip's location inthe division rear was at the foot ofa key pass through mountainstowering above the airfield. Thismountain range spanned theentire length of the embattlednation, effectively splitting thecountry in half. The invadingenemy to the north was trying to

thrust south through the mountains to the gulf. Thus, themountains were the focal point ofallied efforts to hold off advancing enemy armor.The United States had expended enormous efforts to air-and sea-deploy a single heavydivision and four light divisionsto the area ofconflict. In contrast,

MARCH 1989


27/48

th e enemy simply staged itsforces and motored across its ownborder with up to five tank andcombined arms armies. Each ofour divisions was staring downthe barrels of an enemy armywith four to six divisions. Thegood news was that only a singleenemy division at a time couldsqueeze through the narrowmountain passes and such passeswere few. The bad news was thatthe distance between the mountainous main battle area and theNavy's gulfbound fleet was extensive and road networks in between were inadequate. So, airlines of communication hadproven critical in sustaining andreinforcing front line elements.U.S. Air Force transportersbore the primary burden of airmovement forward. U.S. MarineCorps V-22 tilt rotor aircraft alsoproved invaluable, allowingMarines defending shorelinecities, ports and airfields toreinforce rapidly critical forwardareas. The distance from gulf tomountains was too great for U.S.Army aircraft from both a flyinghour an d fuel-conservation standpoint. Therefore, Army aviatorsconcentrated on air transportwithin the vicinity of the mountainous combat zone. Even so, thequantity of Army aircraft andtheir critical mission required anenormous throughput of JP-8 fuelto the mountains. Engineersworked to construct and maintain assault pipelines over thedesert terrain leading to zones ofconflict. Pipeline sabotage efforts,however, made it necessary tocontinue air transporting bulkfuel using Air Force aircraft. TheC-l7's ability to wet-wing defuelinto ground bladders and tankertransports had proven invaluable. They had turned everyaircraft delivering to the divisionairfield into a fuel source forArmy aircraft an d the mechanized task force. The decision inthe late 1980s to convert to a


single common fuel was nowshowing its worth.The C-I7s now inbound to thedesert airfield each carried asingle MIA3 tank and two155 mm towed howitzers withterminally guided, armor-killingmunitions and crews. This wasthe third flight ofC-17s to deliversuch reinforcements during thepast 4 hours. Once these aircraftwere offloaded, a tank companyand an artillery battalion wouldbe combat-ready to augment amech-heavy task force alreadynear the airfield.The reinforcements were neededto stop a tank division that hadbypassed infantry chokepoints inthe pass. This occurred becausethe two light infantry brigadesdefending the pass became fixedin a prolonged engagement withthe enemy's lead motorized rifledivision. That division frequentlyhad attacked while dismounted,trying to seize overwatchingterrain with the aid of extensiveartillery and ai r support. Thisendeavor had failed, and thedivision ultimately was destroyed. However, in the processour forces in the pass had runcritically low on ammunition,allowing the following tank division to slip by largely intact.The corps commander orderedaerial reinforcement to containthe escaping tank division andaerial resupply for the lightbrigades in the pass to halt thelead division of the Army'sapproaching second echelon. Healso allocated some of his scarceArmy tactical missile assets, airinterdiction, corps attack helicopters and Marine V-22 assaultassets to the task of wearingdown the fourth, still distant,division on th e Army axis ofadvance. The division commander was confident that hisresupplied brigades and strengthened mech task force could succeed because much of the enemy'scritical ai r and artillery support

had been stripped away in earlieractions. The division's two ai rreconnaissance troops, using theirlight helicopter experimental(LHX) aircraft, had located anddestroyed the enemy's 280 mmrocket launcher regiment andarmy artillery group. This significantly reduced the threat to thedistant division airfield an d thel ight troops defending thepass. The "Air Cav" and th esingle division attack helicopterbattalion, LHX-equipped, hadalso worn down most of theenemy's attack helicopters.The division flight coordination center (FCC) had aided thislatter effort. The FCC hadmatched enhanced position locating and reporting system(EPLRS) flight-following data onfriendly aircraft to forward areaair defense (FAAD) command,control and information (C2I)radar data on enemy rotorcraft.This permitted early warning ofthe proximity of enemy helicopters, as well as the vectoringofour aircraf t to help avoid or findthe enemy first, thereby gainingan advantage in the event of ai rcombat. When friendly aircraftwere hit and downed by enemyair and ground fire, EPLRSflight-following position datacould be used by the FCC to callfor medical evacuation support orsearch-and-rescue aircraft identified from aviation brigade UH-60Black Hawk assets. Precise gridcoordinates were provided of lastknown positions. The FCC alsovectored searching aircraft tocrash sites as needed.

Meanwhile, at the divisionairfield, ai r traffic control (ATC)soldiers were at work in theirsmall tower in the back of a highmobility, multipurpose wheeledvehicle (HMMWV). The corpsflight operations center (FOC) gotword to the tower to expect theC-17s, so controllers alertedground support crews to expectbusiness. CH 47E Chinooks in

25


28/48

nearby mountain assembly areaswere notified so they could prepare for their slingload mission,carrying the towed howitzers. Abattalion of corps AH-64BApaches, sent forward to engagethe approaching tank division,were altered so that one companycould divert temporarily to provide security for the airfield. Thetower also checked with ai r de-fenders in the area to ensure they. already knew about the inboundC-17s, Chinooks and Apaches sothat they would not get triggerhappy.The C-17 flight leader, whoannounced the flight's proximityan d inbound approach for landing, interrupted coordinatingactivities. The tower respondedon secure radio, and issued the

26

COMBAT ATC

landing threshold grid coordinateand landing direction. The flightleader read back the data to verifyits correctness and entered thenumbers into the aircraft's globalpositioning system (GPS). Withthe flip of a switch, the data wereautomatically transmitted to theother aircraft GPS systems topermit automatic GPS approachesto be executed. The flight continued i n b o ~ n d 2 minutes apartwith station-keeping functionsintact to assure safe separation inthe darkness. The lead aircraftcontinued on automatic pilottoward the point on the groundthat would require a 90-degreetum and a descent to landing.The landing would be performed automatically. I t wascritical, because of the bomb-

cratered surface of the lakebed, tohit the right touchdown point andlanding azimuth. Many enemyair and missile attacks hadpocked some of the previouslanding surfaces badly. A failed,regimental-level, airborne attackagainst the airfield also leftmultiple BMDs (Soviet airbornecombat vehicles) and otherdestroyed enemy vehicles littering the lakebed. These proved nomatch for the mechanized taskforce that was close by both todefend the exit of the pass and toprovide rear operations supportagainst such level II I attacks. I thad been necessary, however,repeatedly to shift the runwaylaterally and to change landingdirections to find a suitableun cratered landing area. This

MARCH 1989


29/48

had been one of the benefits of thelarge lakebed because engineerrunway repair requirements werereduced. It was easier to continueoperations despite attacks.The tower turned on nightvision goggles (NVG)/ forwardlooking infrared (FLIR) compatible runway and taxiwaylights for final approach andtaxiing to offload points. Theai r traffic navigation, integration and coordination system(ATNAVICS) radar section monitored the approaches to aid pilotpeace of mind by reporting anyapproach discrepancies. Oneafter the other the huge transporters landed and braked to astop in under 3,000 feet. The largedust clouds created by each landing aircraft emphasized the needfor automatic landing becausevisibility for each succeedingaircraft increasingly was reducedto pitch-black conditions. TheC-17s com bat-offloaded the palletized howitzers and ammunitionout the back ramp in areas designated by the tower that wouldnot block other taxiing aircraft.Tower personnel coordinatedChinook movement to these areasfor later slingload operations.The C-17s turned into eachdefueling and offloading pad asper tower instructions. Minuteslater, tanks rumbled out the backof each aircraft, combat ready.While this was occurring, medicswere preparing casualties foronloading. Fuel handlers alsohooked up to under wing fuelports to begin defueling JP-8 intocorps 7,500 gallon tanker trailersor 10,000 gallon fuel bladders.Everybody understood thatspeed was essential because fourC-17s, valued at more than $180million each, represented a ucrative enemy air and missile target.I t was also understood that thegap between the airfield andthe ground enemy was closingrapidly. I t would only be a matterof hours before the airfield was


within artillery range of the tankdivision. Two of the huge C-17sha d already completed their missions and had taken off again.The third aircraft was nearlyfinished onloading and strappingdown a damaged Patriot missilelauncher. The fourth C-17 waswet-wing defueling into a CH-47Ebladder bird that was taking on3,000 gallons of JP-8 internally.The tower's activity was heightened as a message came in fromthe corps FOC on EPLRS. Twoflights of fighter bombers werebelieved to be 7 minutes outboundfrom the airfield location. Towerpersonnel knew the FOC hadobtained this information fromthe airborne warning and controlsystem through the Air Forcecontrol and reporting center, sothat interceptors and air defensehad been notified. The tower'smission was to warn aircraft stillon the ground and to ensureground support personnel wereundercover. The C-17s wereinformed by radio. In less than aminute, the huge aircraft werelumbering away from offloadingpoints in a race toward the end ofthe runway. Simultaneously, theradio warned CH-47s finishinghooking up their loads to get themoff the airfield. The 7,500-gallontankers sped off across the desertfloor toward camouflaged andcovered parking areas.The mech task force waswarned so they could prepare toengage inbound aircraft withcannon and machinegun fire.The pedestal-mounted Stingersystems on the back ofHMMWVsand the Stinger-armed Apachesand LHXs were prepared equallyand were tied by the F AAD C2Isystem into the Patriot battery50 kilometers (km) farther to therear. The Patriots would try to"take out" as many aircraft as possible at extended ranges andwoUld warn the Avengers andApaches when the enemy wasapproaching their range.

Controllers watched as the lastC-17 cleared th e airfield andbanked hard toward the south,staying low. The ATNAVICSground controlled approachsection provided radar vectors tothe departing aircraft so that theycould fly as low as possible without striking a mountain theymight not see in time with theirNVGs. The radar was placed inthe directional mode to a voidaiding the enemy fighter-bombersin finding the airfield in thedarkness. Tower operatorswatched a Patriot missile streaktoward the mountains, whichmeant the enemy was near, sothey jumped out of the tower andinto thei r covered foxholes.

Fifty km to the north, a pair ofcorps attack helicopter companies were beginning to weardown the enemy tank divisionthat earlier had escaped ourinfantry. The Apache and LHXmixes had been using a forwardarming and refueling point(FARP) near the division airfield.This simplified the battalion'sresupply efforts because theFARP was tied directly into thesupply source. I t also permittedthe battalion to perform itssecondary airfield security mission by having one of the threecom panies usually in the vicinity.This company had made initialcontact while another of the companies badly needed to rearm andrefuel. The commander of thatcompany weighed his sustainment options and decided torequest resupply at the divisionaviation brigade consolidatedFARP farther north.After telling battalion of hisintentions and getting a greenlight, he called the division FCCto relay his request to the otherend. The division airfield towerhad already informed the FCCthat a Chinook bladder bird andanother loaded with ammunitionwere inbound to the brigadeF ARP. The FCC contacted the

27


30/48

ATC tactical air traffic control(TAC) team supporting thatFARP and told them of he attackcompany's problem, the inboundsupplies, and asked the team tocontact the aviation brigade S4.Permission was granted. TheFCC relayed this back to theApaches along with a se t ofcoordinates for the FARP and anoffer to vector. Knowing that theFCC had a F AAD C2I interfacegiving locations of suspectingenemy aircraft, the companycommander agreed to the EPLRSlow-level vectoring. He figuredwith low fuel and ammunition,the last thing he needed was to

'run into a flight of Hokums.The brigade FARP sat in avalley, 30 km southwest of thepass, where the two light infantrybrigades were fighting. Onevalley over from the FARP was asmall, 1,500-foot airstrip andsegments of the two infantrybrigade support areas. On theridgeline overlooking both was afour-man ATC TAC team. Theteam's HMMWV-mounted, tactical terminal control systemshelter was remotely linked to itsantennas nearly 2 km away. Thisprovided a degree of safety to thecontrollersand the FARP airstripif the enemy targeted the radioemissions. I t also permittedantennas to be placed for maximum directional line-of-sight(LOS), hopefully to precludeenemy interception.The brigade airstrip frequentlywas used by Air Force advancedtactical transports (A TT) thatwould airland, airdrop or LAPES(low altitude parachute extractionsystem) supplies forward. Theseenhanced survivability cargo aircraft could land in half th edistance of the larger C-17 orC-130 Hercules they graduallywere replacing. The TAC teamhad communications with A TTs,Anny aircraft, the division FCC

28

COMBATATC

and the infantry and aviationbrigade S4 elements. Teammembers not only controlled airtraffic but, in many cases, coordinated and orchestrated airmovements for the 84s. Air ForceATTs would receive GPS landingcoordinates and runway directions from the team, or airdropcoordinates based on the prevailing winds. The team temporarily could remotely activate lowpower beacons in the valley belowso that homing parafoils couldglide to their relative vicinity.Controllers also relayed destination grid coordinates from S4elements to UH-60Cs andCH-47Es transporting supplies.If S4s needed informationregarding the progress of aerialresupply missions, they couldcommunicate with the FCCthrough the TAC team. Non-LOSEPLRS position locating capabilities simplified the FCC's abilityto flight follow and monitor ai rmovements. The FCC's locationmidway between the division andbrigade airfields was ideal alsofor relaying administrative orlogistical communications to andfrom th e rear. The FCC alsowarned aircraft when they wereapproaching the vicinity offriendly artillery, air defense, andremotely piloted vehicle launch/recovery areas because locationsof these systems also were displayed by EPLRS. Warnings wereprovided to Anny aircraft transversing hfgher speed corridors inopposite directions so that midaircollisions could be avoided.Back at" the division airfield,the air attack was over. Patriotmissiles had destroyed twofighter-bombers as they silhouetted themselves to radarcoming over the mountains. I ttook 30 seconds for the remainingenemy fighters to cover the last10 km to the airfield. That wasenough time for Stinger operators

in HMMWVsand Anny aircraftto spot the fighters through thei rFURs and launch a salvo thattook out another two aircraft.'During the final few km to theairfield, the sky lit up with 25 mmtracers from the Bradleys andtank .50-caliber rounds. This wallof fire was disrupting enough thatmost enemy pilots missed theirtargets entirely.The fighters disappeared in thedarkness, but everyone knew thatthey were setting up for anotherattack. The ATNAVICS sectionactivated their radar from theirremoted bunker position andbegan a 360-degree sweep nowthat there was no doubt that theenemy had found the airfield.Using a portable video consolefiber-optically linked to theHMMWV-mounted ATNA VICSradar 500 meters away, controllers identified the low-flyingenemy coming in from a different direction. U sing a remotedradio headset, the radar controller announced a precoordinated brevity code and anazimuth. Numerous weapon systems reacted by directing theirturrets or hover-turning towardthe announced direction. Over asmall bluff 5km away, the enemyreappeared allowing severalseconds to lockon with Stingers,letting loose another salvo.Tumbling in flames, one morefighter fell to earth. A momentlater still another aircraftexploded, this time a casualty ofan Apache's invisible but no lessdeadly 30 mm fire.

Later it was learned that intercepting Navy fighters hadfinished off the remaining twoenemy aircraft as they attemptedto return to home base. In twopasses not a single combatvehicle or Anny aircraft was hit.However, the "runway" had beenbroken up by multiple crateringsubmunitions, and one of the

MARCH 1989


31/48

lO,OOO-gallon fuel bladders wasaflame. Fortunately, fuel handlershad been able to pump away themajority of the precious JP-8 to acovered and concealed bladderclose to the airfield FARP beforethe bombs had started falling.Some ammunition on the groundat airfield offload points had beenhit, but the policy of extractingsupplies immediately as soon asthey arrived, using Army aircraft,had paid off on the whole. Theenemy had learned from pastattacks that its losses would behigh and its immediate gains lowfrom such airstrikes. As a result,this time they had brought alongan additional payload, consistingof chemical munitions, to closethe field once and for all. Themech task force had anticipatedthis and had positioned itselfupwind. After the attack it simplymotored away farther upwind tocheck for and clean of f anycontamination.The ATNAVICS radar sectionalso had been damaged, but itsmodular construction would simplify repair. The HMMWV carrying the "fragged" radar wasstill drivable; therefore, sectionmembers jumped inside it in fullmission oriented protection pos-


ture (MOPP) to go check the runway and pre-identified alternatesto see which would still be usablefor the next expected Air Forceflights. Caution had to be takenbecause controllers knew thatdelayed munitions scatteredabout the lakebed would continueto go off.Tower personnel were pleasedthat their equipment was stillintact. The HMMWV had beenparked inside a crater made by anearlier attack; it was well sandbagged and camouflaged. Controllers checked the area forcontamination and delayed munitions; they discovered that apersistent liquid nerve agent wasscattered in a low density in thearea. The crew dug up a thin layerof contaminated surface sand surrounding the tower and moved itdownwind. They marked the contaminated sand area that hadbeen decontaminated. The section troops then pulled out thetent vestibule that was built intothe HMMWV's tower entry door.The tower's climate-control andnuclear, biological and chemicalfiltering system slowly beganinflating the sealed tent vestibule.Meanwhile, a pair of controllersat a time doffed their MOPP suits

and entered the small tent airlockleading into the main tent andtower. Inside the airlock, th ebuddy team scrubbed their hood,masks and gloves and waitedseveral minutes for the air to befiltered and recirculated. Then,unmasked, they took off theirgloves and waited several moreminutes before entering the maintent connected to the tower. Onceinside, the A TC soldiers radioedthe corps FOC and the divisionFCC to relay the airfield's statusto using units. Controllers weretold that another flight of C-17swas inbound so they coordinatedwith the ATNAVICS section tosee which "runway" would beused this time. The enemyeffort to close the airfield hadfailed. It would soon be back inbusiness albeit under more controlled conditions to limit thespread of contamination ...

Because ATC is such anecessary peacetime mission, weoften lose sight of wartime missions and realities. TraditionalATC functions supporting Armyaircraft largely disappear with

29


32/48

the outbreak of hostilities. Ver-tical helicopter instrument re-covery procedures for inadvertentinstrument meteorological condi-tions may be viable during fieldtraining exercises; however, weshould no t deceive aviators flyingnear th e forward line of ow ntroops (FLOT) into thinking thatpulling pitch in the fog will solvetheir woes in real wars. Perhapspilots of newer aircraft should bepracticing a sort of reverseinstrument takeoff procedure.Stabilized hover features andincreased crashworthiness maytake a slow, controlled instrumentdescent to breakout; or they maymake the trees a more attractivealternative than a missile-

30

COMBAT ATC

induced, uncontrolled fall fromaltitude.Tactical instrument flight ha sbeen deemphasized for a reason.Threat radar air defenses are justtoo good, as are the enemy'scapabilities to find emitt ing non-directional beacons. Current ATCradios and radars also are un-secure emitters that many com-manders do not want around.Flight following would be alegitimate combat mission, butcurrent equipment does not workat wartime flying altitudes, norare position updates sufficientlyfrequent to be of much use. Isthere then a viable combat mis-sion for Army ai r traffic con-trollers in the future?

Some say no. They argue thatArmy aircraft fly low and rela-ti vely slow, basically watchingout for themselves. This argu-ment carried to the extreme wouldultimately result in civilianiza-tion of all Army A TC slots to fillArmy needs in another mil

army aviation digest - mar 1989

Documents