R1/R4 AIRSPACE CLOSEOUT
Salt Lake City, October 19th, 2000
The meeting was hosted by Eastern Great Basin Coordination Center.
Objective: An opportunity for airspace coordinators,
dispatchers and aviation managers to review airspace coordination for
fire season 2000. The purpose was to identify lessons learned,
strengths and weaknesses that will prepare us for future airspace
Welcome/Introductions: Julie Stewart welcomed everyone and
introduced guests from the FAA and DoD. Special thanks were offered to
the FAA and DoD for their assistance during last season. The impact on
both the FAA and DoD was phenomenal and far reaching.
There is a need to identify the assistance received from both the
FAA and DoD for a formal thank you from our wild land fire agencies.
Our agencies need to be briefed on the FAA and DOD's assistance.
Preliminary statistics from the FAA identifies more than 300 FAA
personnel involved in fire season. We need to also include assistance
from FSDO, FAA Frequency coordinators, and contract towers (Ogden and
Facts and statistics: At one point this summer there was
more than 70 fire TFR's in existence. 85% of the TFR's was in Salt Lake
ARTCC's airspace (Idaho, Montana and Utah). This created an astonishing
workload for Salt Lake ARTCC and for the FAA FSS who documented that
they were giving pilot briefings from 39 pages of NOTAMS.
Who was involved in airspace coordination? Julie Stewart was based
in Salt Lake City and had a staff of 14 Field Airspace Coordinators
based in Missoula, Hamilton, Salmon, Grangeville and Salt Lake City.
This was the first time a field-based airspace coordinator was used to
facilitate airspace coordination between Dispatch, IMT's, Area Command,
FAA and local Aviation interests. They were extremely successful.
Airspace Coordination efforts involved Dispatchers at the
local level and GACCS, FAA ARTCC, FSS, FSDO, NFDC and Regional and
National Headquarters, Air Operations, Air Support, Air Attack,
Helibase Mgrs, Local Airport Managers, Unit Aviation Officers, DoD
Scheduling Activities and AFREPs, NAVREPS and DARRS, Agency Frequency
Coordinators and FAA Frequency Coordinators.
TFR Lessons Learned:The FAA protects the nation's
airspace and allows airspace use to the fullest extent. The TFR's
largest impact is on the VFR pilots. The FAA fields many complaints.
They will give us what we need for TFR's but no more. Often they need
to negotiate for the least impact by a TFR.
Issue: Latitudes and Longitudes versus VOR/DME.Reviews from
FAA FSS indicate that they would like to see TFRs issued in both
Lat/Long and VOR/DME. This is no problem for the simple TFR in a circle
format (NOTAM lists both Lat/Long and VOR/DME.) However, the larger
complicated TFR's is often only in Lat/Longs. FAA will check with NFDC
to see if publishing both is possible within the NOTAM.
Issue: Typos within NOTAM
There were many cases of NOTAMS needing to be reissued due to typo's.
This was noted by Seattle, Salt Lake and Oakland Centers. FAA would
need more documentation to determine where the problem lies. NOTAM's
with typos require re-issuance. The DoD Website for NOTAMS was an
outstanding asset for dispatchers and airspace coordinators to verify
Issue: TFR Review Process during IssuanceOne step that could
prevent typos would be a review process for the originator to review
the NOTAM prior to issuance. At this time, many FAA facilities do not
have access to e-mail or the Internet. NFDC prefers faxing as a method
of receiving TFR requests from ARTCC.
Both the FAA and Land Mgt agencies can foresee a time when TFR
requests are e-mailed to the FAA and forwarded within their agency for
issuance. An ideal situation would involve a computer application where
a TFR requestor could plot and visualize the TFR request on a sectional
prior to forwarding this request to the FAA. The TFR process could be
similar to the SAFECOM process where the information is "guarded" until
published. We need to work with FAA and NFDC to verify the NOTAM data
before it is published.
Issue: Latitude and Longitude
Latitude and Longitude have several methods of being displayed. This
results in great disparity for the FAA. Often the Lat/Long and the
VOR/DME given to the FAA for a TFR do not match. LAT/LONG must be
standardized within our agencies. The FAA requirement is
Degrees/Minutes/Seconds. Some land mgt units have agreed to
degree/Decimals/Minutes. Others are using Degrees/Minutes/Seconds and
even Degrees and Tenths. The further your site is from the VOR, the
larger the possibility is for error.
There are also many ways of displaying Lat/Longs. In order for an
automated system to work (such as a program that would download TFR's
directly from the NOTAM website onto sectionals), Lat/Long display
printing would have to be standardized. This would be a key factor at
the input level to NFDC into the NOTAM process. NFDC needs to
standardize their Lat/Long display within an NOTAM.
Issue: IAMS Conversion Factor There are further
applications beyond TFR's that is affected by the Lat/Long issue. The
conversion factor in IAMS can introduce error into the data. We need to
identify a primary standard for Lat/Long that is in agreement with the
FAA. We need to remove the conversion options on IAMS (or educate the
IAMS users that other applications of Lat/Long conversion may not be in
compliance with the FAA Standard). Need to discuss with IAMS
coordinator Larry Mahaffey.
Best solution for the future would be a TFR program that stands
alone with one entry level for the TFR. The FAA will still plot and
verify. The TFR program would be automated so the users could display
the TFR prior to issuance.
Many commercial phone numbers in the AP1/B are missing. We do not have
access to DSN. In some cases the DSN number is the same as the
commercial number. Julie Stewart will contact the DoD FLIP Committee
and see if commercial phone numbers can be reinstated in the AP1/B.
This is a crucial contact for our coordination with DoD and affects our
Issue: Standardized TFR FormPresently, there are several TFR
forms in use (Regional Forms, the original TFR form from the 1991
Airspace Guide, a proposed revision from 1994, an IAMS form and a form
for ROSS.) A Standardized form could assist in stabilizing input into
NFDC which would result in improved output (TFR Formatting). A Draft
standardized form was prepared in August 2000. It will implement a
standardized format (including Lat/Longs). It is presently under
Issue: Information on TFR formPhone number on TFR must be a
24-hour contact number (not an expanded dispatch number that goes
away). Point of contact needs to be the person that the FAA contacts
when they have questions regarding the TFR. In the FAA perspective -
"person ordering" is not the air ops - it is the dispatcher placing the
request with the FAA.
Issue: Frequency on TFR NOTAM The FAA publishes a frequency
in the TFR NOTAM and provides this to the public during a pilot
briefing. There are many reasons for the publication of the TFR
frequency (ie - media contact, disaster relief aircraft, other aircraft
seeking entry during an emergency situation). The frequency must be
kept accurate and updated on the TFR NOTAM. Often the frequency listed
is the outdated original initial attack frequency. After the arrival of
an Incident Management Team (IMT), the frequency for air to air could
change. The TFR NOTAM must list the current frequency and will result
in the issuance of a new NOTAM if a frequency change is made.
Issue: Coordination with Agency Frequency CoordinatorsAgency
Frequency coordinators are an integral part of airspace coordination.
They need to be kept in the loop as to what frequencies are in use for
TFR coordination. Presently TFR frequencies are published in three
locations: the TFR NOTAM (via NOTAM website), GACC Intelligence reports
and the R-6 Airspace Website. All three sites need to have current
Issue: TFR Cancellation Some times the TFR cancellation was
not processed all the way through ARTCC to NFDC. In many cases,
Dispatch issued an E-mail throughout the Region stating the TFR was
canceled when it remained on the books (as noticed through the US NOTAM
website). Dispatch should verify the TFR is canceled through channels
before issuing an e-mail notice throughout the agency.
Issue: Ordering of radio equipmentSome fires were ordering
equipment (#4370) and using as a Temporary Tower without FAA
involvement. There is no specification within the Mob Guide or Cache
catalog that determines when this kind of equipment may be ordered.
Radios shortages affected the ability to set up Temporary Towers and
TFR Advisory Units.
Temporary Towers - Lessons Learned
Eight Temporary Towers were set up in the FAA NW Mountain Region this
summer (Durango, Hamilton, Grangeville, McCall, Kalispell, Atlanta, Id,
Superior County, MT, Darby, MT). Two "TFR Advisory Units" were set up
(Bitterroot and Salmon) and Two contract towers had extended hours
(Ogden and Missoula). How many Temporary Tower facilities does the FAA
NW Mountain Region have? They currently have two mobile facilities and
"tower in a suitcase". The FAA has been inventorying their available
A Temporary Tower request usually results in filling with two air
traffic controllers (with or without radios) and no facility. This
should be coordinated with the FAA prior to the dispatch of the
Issue: Temporary Tower Coordination
The Airport Manager or owner MUST be consulted before a temporary tower
is brought in. Dispatch/Air Ops should coordinate with local FBO or
Airport Mgr PRIOR to the arrival of FAA personnel. This situation
created a negative situation in both Salmon, ID and Kalispell, MT.
Issue: Temporary Tower Form for Ordering
A standardized form for ordering Temporary Towers needs to be
developed. FAA needs more information than what is currently passed via
a resource order. FAA/Stewart are currently working on developing a
form. For example - are the controllers going into a facility that
already has unicom? Are we renting a trailer? Is this a camp or hotel
Issue: Temporary Tower Checklist The checklist in the
Temporary Tower chapter of the Interagency Airspace Guide is working
well. The checklist needs to be altered to include frequency
coordination and pull in the FAA and NIFC frequency coordinators. IMT's
need to be acquainted with the Interagency Airspace Coordination Guide.
A purchasing agent attempted to purchase a "tower" from FAA Air Route
Traffic Control Center. A Temporary Tower (ATC Controllers) was
eventually ordered and sent to the fire. It turns out that the IMT was
actually looking to purchase a metal tower and did not want the Air
Issue: Temporary Tower Frequencies
Temporary Tower frequencies need to be coordinated with our agency
frequency coordinators. FAA has frequencies set aside that NIFC access.
Sometimes the FAA Temporary Tower Coordinator goes to the FAA for a
frequency and this can result in duplication of effort. Frequency
information needs to be specified on the request for a Temp Tower.
Sometimes the FAA controllers order frequencies directly from the FAA.
Agency Frequency Coordinators need to be involved.
Issue: PPE for ControllersOther factors must be considered
when ordering a Temporary Tower. A request for controllers to bring
leather boots is a union issue. If the request is made, FAA Management
would be asked to provide the boots. It is suggested that if a "fam
trip" is required for FAA personnel to look at using a Fixed Wing
Issue: FAA Transition PeriodsDue to scheduling complications
at FAA facilities, the Temporary Tower controllers were on a 5 day
rotation period. This resulted in many difficulties for Incident
Management Teams and Dispatchers working with the towers. Once a
controller is introduced to our operational cycles and systems and is
up and running, their five day rotation is over and we have to brief
and train new controllers. The FAA will look into some kind of overlap
to mitigate this problem.
Issue: Briefing of FAA Personnel
Each controller on assignment had to be briefed on ICS terminology,
aviation operations and the basics of wild land fire operations. In the
past, tower controllers have been handed fire shelters with no
explanation or training. A briefing Book for FAA (and DoD) should be
prepared for transitions and briefings. It was suggested to look at the
DoD briefing package prepared by Helena NF as a potential template.
Issue: Temporary Tower Shut Downs
The FAA requires advance notice of shutting down Temporary Towers. The
FAA has a series of steps they must take in order to shut down and
tower and would like to have 48 hour notifications.
TFR ADVISORY UNITS - Lessons Learned Two TFR's ("Salmon" and
"Bitterroot" a.k.a. "Mega") combined to be an airspace that was 20%
larger than the state of Delaware. The complications of the two TFRs
(that shared a mutual boundary) are that they involved 2 Regions, 4
National Forest, 2 Area Commands, at least 6 Incident Management Teams,
several airports and at least 6 operational areas. Salmon Airport had
eight Victor Routes. There was also an MTR (Military Training Route)
inside the TFR.
This is an extremely rare situation which is similar to the
Yellowstone fires of 1988. The FAA was mobilized to Hamilton, MT and
Salmon, ID to assist us in creating what was known at the TFR Advisory
Units. FAA Air Traffic Controllers were set up to provide advisories
and to assist incident traffic as they traversed from one operational
area to another. Assistance was also provided for agency traffic not
assigned to a particular incident. The Advisory Units also provided
advisories for General Aviation and worked them around the TFR's and
prevented many intrusions. The FAA is not allowed to "control" aircraft
in this situation and we are not authorized to use them in an ATC
Issue: Why did it take so long (7 days) to implement the Advisory Units?
The Advisory Units were extremely complicated to implement. First an
infrastructure had to be developed to support the units prior to going
operational. Frequency coordination was critical in establishing two
frequencies for both units that had massive geographical coverage.
Repeaters had to be moved into place.
Buy-in and support had to be negotiated with the FAA, Area
Commands, Forests, Forest Dispatch, Unit Aviation Officers and Incident
Management Teams. Initial fear and resistance to change caused delays.
An attitude of "Don't' fix it if it ain't broke" counter played against
an attitude of "preparing for the worst case situation". Fear of
creating confusion or chaos was a large factor and the development was
driven by complications such as the Continental Divide complicated
An operational plan had to be prepared that outlined roles and
responsibilities, operations and coordination. A 10-step implementation
plan had to be completed prior to going operational. Initially, the
Salmon NF IMT opted to not participate with FAA controllers. The Forest
overrode the team's decision and the Salmon NF had to scramble to
implement the frequency to support the TFR advisory structure. Radio
failures resulted in further delays.
The Continental Divide provided further difficulties in
setting up communication between the two Advisory Units. It was finally
agreed that the Northern half of the TFR advisory unit (known as
"Bitterroot") could go operational and the Southern half ("Salmon")
followed within days.
Field Airspace Coordinators prepared the Operational Plan, FAA
Briefing packages, pilot briefings and fulfilled the necessary steps of
the Implementation plan.
Once implemented, the IMT's and Area Command were delighted
with the results and the additional safety provided by the FAA. It has
been identified that this needs to be an additional chapter to the
Interagency Airspace Coordination Guide. It is hoped that the lessons
learned in the implementation of the Advisory Units will smooth the way
for the future. The Operational Plan and the Implementation Plan could
be used as a template. It was a good decision to not go operational
until the infrastructure was in place to support the Advisory Unit. It
was good that we didn't force it operational until we were ready.
Issue: Co-location Identified by the IMT's involved, the
TFR Advisory Units must be co-located with either the helibase radio
operations or the temporary tower. They should not be located as a
separate entity. Co-location improves the coordination for all
Issue: Role of Dispatch
Dispatch plays a crucial role in the set up and operations of the TFR
advisory Unit. They should be involved from the initial onset and as a
liaison to the Advisory Unit. They play a key role in FAA transitions.
Issue: Frequency Coordination
NIFC Frequency Coordinators will review TFR chapter and Temp Tower
chapter from Draft Interagency Airspace Coordination Guide and see if
there are any revisions or changes that could be added to improve
coordination with frequency coordinators. Need to identify When/How/Who
do we get and need to obtain frequencies for Temporary Towers.
Information about TFR Advisory units needs to get to the pilots especially Agency pilots.
Issue: 5 Day Transition Periods by FAA/FAA Briefing Package5
Day transition periods of FAA personnel are difficult for Land Mgt
Agencies to cope with. We need to build an FAA Briefing Package to
improve continuity. The more transitions - the more "things" get
Airspace Education/Training Discussion:
Issue: Determining the need for a TFRThe group expressed the
need to know when to ask for a TFR. Discussed the Interagency Airspace
Coordination Guide provides guidance for various factors that could
influence the need for a TFR. TFR's can be ordered by the
Field/Dispatch/or Aviation Mgt. It is difficult to be more specific in
the Airspace guide because each fire is unique. We cannot create a
complete list of when or when not to order a TFR as it is a judgmental
call for the requesting unit.
Issue: Need more direction on TFR Shapes. The Interagency
Airspace Coordination Guide provides a list of factors that can
influence the size and shape of the TFR. Again, it is a judgmental call
of the requesting unit.
Issue: TFR Ordering
Some people think that a TFR is an automatic order when using aircraft.
The Interagency Airspace Coordination Guide is a good reference point
for determining the need for a TFR. It is not a requirement but a
safety tool to reduce the risk of a mid air collision.
Some Air Tacticals expect an automatic TFR. We need to look at what
is being taught regarding TFR's in their curriculum. TFR's are not
automatic and should be considered if needed. Some Air Tacticals demand
a "1A" TFR (we believe they are referring to an (a)1 TFR). The FAA
issues TFR's under the paragraph (a)2 of 91.137 for wildfires.
Issue: Information SharingThe FAA expressed that we need
to manage our TFR's and close them in a timely manner. The FAA also
expressed interest in being invited to various workshops and training
(ie Regional Dispatchers Workshop) where they could interact with
Dispatchers and develop a more understanding relationship with our land
GIS SUPPORT - INFORMATION SHARING
Jack Sheffie, Utah BLM GIS Fire Support
Jack provided GIS support for Utah during the first half of fire
season. He has developed Flight Hazard Maps based on the Joint
Operational Graphics (NIMA Maps). They are used for hazard maps in both
an office and flight setting. They have excellent clarity in
highlighting hazards. They do not have the various classes of airspace
and would not work for TFR work ups. They are now on their 3rd edition,
are extremely popular and easy to use. Unfortunately, they are limited
to Utah. Jack provides an excellent product and is a valuable resource.
Issue: Standardization of Flight Hazard Maps
There is a group working on standard symbols for Flight Hazard Maps. We need to standardize our efforts.
Bob Roth, Lolo NF - Briefing on TFR Mapping project
Roth presented a program on the TFR Mapping project that he and Neil
Flagg developed this summer. This program has the capability of taking
TFRs from the US NOTAM site and downloading them onto Sectionals for
display on the Internet. This unique program was a saving grace this
fire season as it allowed many people to see an exact replication of
our TFR's for pilot briefings, verification and airspace coordination.
Unfortunately, due to lack of standards regarding Lat/Long and
VOR/DME, the TFR Mapping project was not automatic and each TFR had to
be loaded onto the sectional. This was accomplished through a
partnership between our airspace coordination specialists and the Lolo
GeoMac is a GIS specialist unit in Denver, CO and they would
like to be involved in TFR mapping. They could continue the program
developed this year by the Lolo NF of mapping TFRs on Sectionals. We
currently need to work out which TFR goes on which sectional,
projection issues and printing challenges for poster size maps.
Any map (either TFR or Flight Hazard) MUST post a disclaimer as per the
FAA that contains the following "Not to be used for navigational
purposes - Pilots must contact the FAA FSS for current NOTAM
information). This includes depictions on websites. It is also
imperative that maps carry the Date and Time.
Flight Service Station Review: Rick Ernenwein and Mike
Ebersole (NPS) surveyed FAA personnel at Great Falls, Boise and Cedar
City Flight Service Stations regarding the impact of this fire season
and our TFRs. The FAA provided valuable feedback regarding the TFR
process. This information was primarily focused on in-house FAA
procedures and the information will be provided to the FAA for review.
Salt Lake ARTCC Support/Meeting: Stewart and several
Airspace Coordinators visited the Salt Lake ARTCC several times during
fire season. Feedback was provided by FAA personnel and will be
distributed as an attachment to this document. ARTCC personnel wanted
to highlight that they found our agency personnel very pleasant to work
with throughout this difficult fire season.
DOD Requests: Put DoD requests (for Field Airspace
coordinators, etc) in early as they take time to process. For DoD
support requests, clearly identify "requirements" and not equipment.
Cross "Training": Consider inviting DoD and FAA to Regional
Dispatcher Workshops, Aviation Meetings and various training sessions
where DoD and FAA could get more acquainted with our operations and
Dispatch/Air Ops/Area Command Perspectives
Area Command Perspective:
Temporary Towers worked well. It was a good decision especially for
Superior County (in the ILS to Missoula). A good example of other ways
to do business besides using a TFR. TFR maps were great. Need to think
of user eg.: people at incident. Distribution mechanism needs to be
looked at. Some people had printing problems with the TFR map.
Need to brief our folks - ie Area Command, BAER Teams, MAC
Briefing package for DoD and FAA personnel is important. Maggie Doherty
stated that a briefing package was build for DoD personnel. Need to
look at it as a template for a FAA Briefing Package.
Issue: Area Command Geographic DivisionsWe are not sure
how fires are divided for Area Command purposed but divisions can lead
to airspace difficulties. We need separation via geographical
boundaries (ie a river). A North/South line on a map has no meaning
from the air. It would be better if aviation could provide input on
Air Operations Branch Directors Perspectives:
- Need to determine if we need a TFR
- Need to actively manage a TFR - Do you need all the airspace?
- AOBD tried to downsize a TFR - Dispatch felt size change was insignificant and did not change TFR size.
- Need to consider General Aviation routes, MEA's, etc when
designing TFR - we get this information from a sectional, Most General
Aviation is minimally equipped.
- Need to educate ourselves as users of airspace
- Need to talk with local general aviation - continue use of posters, visit FBO's, use radio announcements to broadcast TFR
- Use courtesy and good airmanship
- Maybe we didn't need as much airspace
Issue: Team Assignments influence TFR Sizes14 day IMT
assignments led to large TFR's with little or no modifications. For
example, an IMT on 2nd week of assignment would postpone changes
because new IMT was coming. IMT on first week of assignment would not
make any changes because they had not "gone operational" yet and were
still assessing needs. Then in week two - would postpone decision until
new IMT arrived - it was a continual loop postponing any decision to
reduce the TFR in size.
Issue: Could TFR's be daylight only? No, at the request of
FAA Washington DC Headquarters. Our TFR's are already difficult to
distribute and there is disparity regarding what constitutes daylight
hours. The FAA Headquarters has made a decision that fire TFR's are in
effect 24 hours a day. We should remove the daylight only question from
the IAMS TFR Form.
Issue: Relationship with Field Airspace CoordinatorTwo keys
to success were identified - Proactive coordination with Air Operations
and identifying TFR changes before they were needed. Outreach to
General Aviation assisted efforts.
Air Tactical Perspective: It was discovered that Air
Tacticals were allowing FBO's to pass through the TFR upon request.
This created a difficult situation when the FBO decided to offer tours
of the wildfires to the general public and were requesting more and
immediate access to the TFR on a daily basis. FBO was cranky when
dispatch couldn't allow aircraft through and Air Tactical was
unavailable for permission.
The situation was resolved when the Forest instructed the IMT to
treat the TFR as a TFR and not allow the FBO through on request. If the
IMT felt it was important for the FBO to come through upon request,
then the IMT could release the TFR.
Things were smooth with tower and FAA. FAA was easy to work with.
McCall had a tower and had to cope with a fly in for 500 aircraft. FAO
would brief temporary tower and was the conduit between the IMT and the
Tower. TFR's weren't bad. Some difficulty when they involved back
country airstrips. Air Ops and Airspace coordinators would talk with
intruders. Some issues with Salmon River Corridor.
The IMT-Dispatch flow of information was good. Area Command add to
complications. Transitions (IMT's, Area Commands, FAA) add to
complexities. We have Boundary Issues. Our airspace complexities
changed daily. Sometimes a pilot might not know where they were or
where they were going. Coordination, Communications and Transitions
became crucial as pieces of information fell through the cracks.
The need is there for Airspace Coordinators. We need a response before we reach level V.
Issue: Airspace TrainingNeed to look at basic training
issues for Dispatchers. Where is the lesson plans for Lat/Longs,
Plotting a bearing and distance, etc. Nevada's Aviation class for
dispatchers is excellent. Need more training.
Issue: TFR Standards
Standards are different throughout each GACC for handling TFR's. Region
1 and Region 5 have their GACC's handle TFR's. Region six and Region 4
have their local units handle TFR's. There is no national standard and
dispatchers must be aware of local procedures when on assignment.
SafeCom Review - It is impossible to know how many fires the
Smokey Bear campaign has prevented. Likewise, it is impossible to know
how many intrusions or mid air collisions our airspace program has
prevented. Our Airspace Coordinators did an outstanding job of
spreading the word about our TFR's, briefing pilots, coordinating TFR
maps, investigating intrusions and coordinating with both DoD and FAA.
And despite their heroic efforts, our Safecoms still reflect that we
have an agency issue for TFR intrusions and Near mid Air collisions.
Airspace Coordinator Kits - Each person who went out as
a Field Airspace Coordinator had to scramble for equipment and
supplies. We have prepared a list based on this summers experience of
items that would assist an Airspace Coordinator. There will not be kits
in the cache. Items are a suggestion for each person to place in their
"go" bags. Cell Phones were critical as were e-mail profiles, laptops
Interagency Airspace Coordination Guide Update - The
response period was completed this spring. Julie Stewart is now in the
process of reviewing the responses and preparing edits. Fire season
2000 interfered with the completion of the guide and has also resulted
in some editing for the TFR and Temporary Tower chapters. The Guide
should be completed prior to 2001.
Preparing for the future - Airspace Coordinators fall
under "Technical Specialists" in the Redcard system (TESP). If
interested in being an Airspace Coordinator, please contact Julie
Stewart at 503-808-6728.
Thank yous - as a sign of her appreciation for their
outstanding work as Field Airspace Coordinators, Julie Stewart
presented Smokey Bear wings to Paul Klawitter and Gary Jewett.
|Dan Mawhorter ||FAA Reg Hqtrs, Seattle, WAfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Jim Hayes ||FAA Reg Hqtrs, Seattle, WAemail@example.com|
|LTC Rich VanAllman ||DARR/FAA Liaison, Seattle, WAfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|John Moulder || NIFC, Communications, Boise, IDemail@example.com|
|Kary Mavencamp ||NIFC, Communications, Boise, ID ||firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Mark Hilton ||NIFC, Communications, Boise, ID ||email@example.com|
|Julie Stewart ||PNW Region, Portland, ORfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Cliff Chetwin || NPS, Denver ||email@example.com |
|Barry Hicks ||RAO MSOfirstname.lastname@example.org |
|Jim Beck || No Rockies Coord Ctr, MSOemail@example.com |
|Kim Thomas ||No Rockies Coord Ctr, MSOfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Paul Klawitter || Field Airspace Coordinator, MSOemail@example.com|
|Nancy Gibson || Bitterroot NF ||Nlgibson@fs.fed.us|
|Maggie Doherty ||Helena NF ||firstname.lastname@example.org |
|Aaron Madson || Bitterroot NF||Amadsen@fs.fed.us |
|Bob Cunningham ||MSO (Area Command) ||Rhcunningham@fs.fed.us |
|Dick Hulla || USFS, AFD MSOemail@example.com|
|Eddy Ward ||USFS, AFD, MSOfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Everett Weniger ||USFS, AFD, MSOemail@example.com|
|Collin Holstein || Kootenai NF ||Cholstein@fs.fed.us |
|Bob Roth ||Lolo NF ||Rroth@fs.fed.us |
|Paul Linse ||Flathead NF ||Plinse@fs.fed.us |
|Charlie Elliott || Lochsa/Clear Nez NFfirstname.lastname@example.org |
|Gary Boyd ||Idaho Panhandle NFemail@example.com|
|Chris Shelton || Lewiston Field Office, BLMfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Randy Hart ||Eastern Great Basin Coordination Ctr ||email@example.com|
|Mindy Stevenson || Eastern Great Basin Coordination Ctrfirstname.lastname@example.org |
|Trish Harvey ||SLIFC, Salt Lake, UTemail@example.com|
|L. Gary Jewett || Ashley NF, UT ||Ljewett@fs.fed.us|
|Gary Murphy ||Payette NF, McCall, IDfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Vince Welbaum ||Payette NF, McCall, ID ||email@example.com |
|Jim Morrison || RASO, USFS, Ogden, UT ||firstname.lastname@example.org |
|Jack Sheffey || Utah BLM GIS Supportemail@example.com|
|Pat Simpson ||Sawtooth NF ||Psimpson@fs.fed.us|