OI. The story of the status quo
Hegemony Exts - NextGen key to securitizing airspace
Download 0.82 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Hegemony Exts - Securing NAS good
Hegemony Exts - NextGen key to securitizing airspaceNext Gen coordination with DHS activities key securing US airspaceDillingham 10 (Statement of Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D.¶ Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, “NEXT GENERATION AIR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM¶ Challenges with Partner Agency and FAA Coordination Continue, and Efforts to Integrate Near-, Mid-, and Long-term Activities Are Ongoing”, 4/21/10, AD: 07/10/12, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10649t.pdf | Kushal) Limited funding and staffing to dedicate to NextGen activities. Industry stakeholders and agency officials we spoke to stated that some partner agencies’ ability to coordinate with other agencies was affected by the levels of funding and staff that could be dedicated to NextGen activities. Officials at some partner agencies we spoke with stated that partner agencies allocated little or no budgetary funding specifically for NextGen activities and because of competing priorities for funds, they were limited in the resources they could dedicate to NextGen planning and coordination efforts. With respect to future investments, according to JPDO and DOT data, in fiscal year 2011, among NextGen partner agencies, three—FAA, NASA, and the Department of Commerce’s NOAA—requested some funding for NextGen activities. DOD and DHS did not request funding in their budgets specifically for NextGen activities. OSTP is working with the Office of Management and Budget to improve agency alignment and identification of NextGen-related budgets.¶ •¶ Differences in agency mission. Differences among agencies’ mission priorities, particularly DHS’s and DOD’s, also pose a challenge to coordination efforts. DHS’s diverse set of mission priorities, ranging from aviation security to border protection, affects its level of involvement in NextGen activities. For example, events such as the 2009 Christmas Day terrorism attempt can shift DHS priorities quickly and move the agency away from focusing on issues such as NextGen, which are not as critical at that particular time. Agency officials also stated that although different departments within DHS are involved in related NextGen activities, such as security issues, the fact that NextGen implementation is not a formalized mission in DHS can affect DHS’s level of participation in NextGen activities. Industry stakeholders told us that there are potential¶ consequences if DHS is not involved in long-term NextGen planning, including potentially marginalizing DHS’s NextGen areas, such as aviation security. Industry stakeholders reported that FAA could more effectively engage partner agencies in long-term planning by aligning implementation activities to agency mission priorities and by obtaining agency buy-in for actions required to transform the national airspace system.¶ •¶ Undefined near-term roles and responsibilities of partner agencies. Some stakeholders and agency officials told us that FAA could do more to clearly define each partner agency’s role in key planning documents that guide NextGen implementation efforts, particularly in the near term. Our work has shown that coordinating agencies should work together to define and agree on their respective roles and responsibilities, including how the coordination effort will be led.11 We reported in 2008 that a key intended purpose of these planning documents, according to JPDO officials, is to provide the means for coordinating among the partner agencies and to identify each agency’s role in implementing NextGen capabilities, but that stakeholders said that the planning documents did not provide guidance for their organizational decision making.12 Some stakeholders and agency officials we spoke to more recently told us that the NextGen Implementation Plan, which identifies near- and midterm implementation efforts, still does not specify how partner agencies will be involved or what outcomes are required from them. Another industry stakeholder explained that if partner agencies do not see their roles reflected in key planning documents, projects which depend on inter-agency coordination will not be fully integrated across all partner agencies. One area in particular where coordination is important is related to how FAA, DOD, and DHS information networks will share information in the future to allow for a shared awareness of the national airspace. Information sharing across agencies is necessary for such things as advanced capabilities related to optimizing the use of certain airspace by the diverse set of users under the auspices of these agencies (e.g. military aircraft, commercial aircraft, general aviation, unmanned aerial vehicles, etc.). Protocols and requirements for inter-agency information sharing have yet to be determined. Limited agency participation in near-term coordination efforts, including establishing protocols on information sharing across agencies, could hamper coordination over the long term. Hegemony Exts - Securing NAS goodSecurity of national airspace key to deterrenceSIRRA 05 (Sustainable Installations Regional Resource Assessment, “Proximity to Military Training Routes, Fighter Range”, 2005, AD: 07/13/13, http://datacenter.leamgroup.com/sirra/indicator-tabular-data/airspace/mtrf.html | Kushal) National security depends largely on the deterrent effect of our airborne military forces. To be proficient, the military services must train in a wide range of airborne tactics. One phase of this training involves "low level" combat tactics. The required maneuvers and high speeds are such that they may occasionally make the avoid aspect of flight more difficult without increased vigilance in areas containing such operations. In an effort to ensure the greatest practical level of safety for all flight operations, the Military Training Route (MTR) was conceived. The MTR program is a joint venture by the Federal Aviation Administration and the Department of Defense. MTRs are mutually developed for use by the military for the purpose of conducting low-altitude, high-speed training. Generally, MTRs are established below 10,000 feet (mean sea level) for operations at speeds in excess of 250 knots (Air Force, 2005). However, route segments may be defined at higher altitudes for purposes of route continuity. For example, route segments may be defined for descent, climb-out, and mountainous terrain. This indicator provides a measurement of MTR airspace available to fighter aircraft. Availability is measured by the aircrafts un-refueling range as defined by the U.S. Air Force (Air Force, 2005). Having available airspace is typically a necessity for military training. Inadequate access is a strong indicator of limitations on military development and missions. This would then place the military installation in a vulnerable state, affecting the type and intensity of training that could take place on the installation. It is important to note that although this indicator describes availability of fighter aircraft MTRs, not all installations make use of training airspace. Ideally, installations are prepared for transformations to any mission. However, it may not be realistic. It is important to use local knowledge of an installation’s current and future mission requirements when interpreting this indicator. Replicable: This indicator could be replicated annually based on information updated in the DAFIF System (DAFIF, 2005). Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 0.82 Mb. Share with your friends:
|