More Information From The Subic Chamber On Field-Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) at Subic Airport

Comment from Prof Danny Piano, President of the Subic Bay Chamber of Commerce

As mentioned in the June 29 email of the Subic Chamber, we said that we will look further into the possibility of conducting FCLPs in Subic as suggested by one of your readers. We did. Unfortunately, the idea is not feasible.

First, FCLPs are normally carried out on land, preferably close to where the aircraft carrier is. Why? Before any naval aviator, no matter how senior, goes to the boat, he must complete several FCLP periods at the field. A new pilot might need 12 to 16 FCLP periods before going to the boat, where a more senior pilot might only need four FCLP periods, but all pilots do them [1].

The US would need, therefore, to make a permanent base in the Subic Airport not only for regular FCLPs but for logistical support as well since Subic is about 2,500 kilometers from Japan where the aircraft carrier fleet is still based. Since the September 13, 1991 rejection by the Philippine Senate to extend the RP-US Military Bases Treaty [2], a permanent US base cannot be an option even if another country, like Japan, would be paying for it.

Second, in the email by your reader, it was stated that "Japan reaffirmed its commitment to the U.S. to identify a permanent facility for these exercises some place else than Iwo Jima." Your reader's assumption from this is that Japan is considering the transfer of the temporary FCLP facility in Iwo Jima to some other location, of which Subic is an option.

This, with all due respect, I think, is a wrong assumption.

The referred document of which a link was given is from Chapter 2. Leaning back for a broader view, one would find that this is only but part of a large publication called "Defense of Japan 2008" [3]. Earlier versions, 2005-2007, are also available.

One of the basis of these publications is Japan's National Defense Program formulated in December 2004 with the primary objective of preventing any threats from reaching Japan. It also discussed cooperative efforts with the US and the realignment of the US forces in Japan (including the transfers of personnel from base to base, e.g., Yokosuka, Atsugi, Iwakuni, Okinawa, Guam). In short, the publication is primarily about, well, as the title suggests, the defense of Japan.

Transferring any of the facilities to another country outside of the US-Japan Alliance was not even mentioned and not given consideration (at least none that I saw).

But why is Japan trying to find a more permanent site for FCLPs in the first place?

Is it because Iwo Jima is unsuitable for FCLPs because of the changeability of the weather and the lack of other divert airfields within 600 miles? Possibly. These conditions cannot be that bad, though. The US has been doing FCLPs at Iwo Jima for 36 years now! When CVW-5 arrived at Atsugi in 1973, the local community quickly reached its limit of tolerance for the noise created by carrier landing practice. Community opposition resulted in a 1973 agreement to move CVW-5 FCLP to Iwo Jima, where it is conducted until today. The Japanese government provides funding and C-130 transportation to move people and equipment between Iwo Jima and Atsugi [4]. As an aside, should we assume that the Subic community can tolerate the noise?

Would Subic be a better place in terms of weather and availability of divert airfields? Possibly. But what is it that the US and Japan want, in terms of location, for FCLP training of the Carrier Wing Five?

The US actually requested for a FCLP site within a radius of 180 kilometers from the U.S. Marine Corps' Iwakuni Air Station in Yamaguchi Prefecture. Tokyo turned down the request. The Japanese government had considered Okurokamishima Island in Hiroshima Prefecture, Mageshima Island in Kagoshima Prefecture, and the vicinity of the city of Sukumo in Kochi Prefecture as candidate sites (See a pattern here? These are all in Japan.) But the plans were aborted after strong protests. FCLP activities after all, including night landing practices, cause serious noise pollution [5].

In short, even if we want to accommodate a FCLP facility here at Subic (pros and cons aside), and even if it will be allowed by the Philippine government, it still will not happen… the Japanese has no plans of transferring it outside of Japan.

The Subic Chamber, however, appreciates the reader's suggestion. I am also personally inviting him to the SBMA/SBFCC Marketing and Promotion Working Group.

Thanks.
Prof. Danny Piano President, SBFCC

PS: For those who still do not know, we already have an airline based in the SBIA – Pacific Pearl Airways. Unfortunately, there are not enough passengers to have regularly scheduled flights. Other airlines are also interested to come in if we can have enough passengers to make their operation viable. The Chamber is now helping SBIA in conducting surveys so that they can focus on flights that will have sufficient number of passengers. The survey form is available here: http://subicchamber.org/downloads/SBIA_Flights_Survey_Form.pdf and you can email or fax your reply to the Chamber office. We are encouraging everybody to fill out the forms. We all want the Subic Airport to stay open; now here’s a chance to contribute. We can make it happen!

References:
[1] http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=2096
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Naval_Base_Subic_Bay
[3] http://www.mod.go.jp/e/publ/w_paper/index.html
[4] http://www.amdo.org/Westpac.html
[5] http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D993M1A00&show_article=1

[The Subic Bulletin] Thanks Danny for the effort in putting this together, we are pleased to see some real thought is going into this, although I must admit the moderator team lost a lot of interest in FCLP when you said "should we assume that the Subic community can tolerate the noise?".