Reading the article, they say that there would be training needs unmet if the areas/limits weren't expanded.
Is that a way of saying they have never had those training needs met? or possibly there are new training needs?
Also, the writing leaves something to be desired (as does mine).
Was anyone else put off by starting to read the list of alternatives, and then have to re-read the whole thing since they appeared to jump to the fourth alternative?
"Three alternatives to be studied would change flight restrictions in areas northwest of Phoenix, west and southwest of Tucson and in parts of southeastern and east-central Arizona extending in western New Mexico. A fourth alternative on the table would leave the flight areas as they are now “and training requirements would remain unmet,” the Air Force said in a statement."
so alternative
1. Change flight restrictions in areas northwest of Phoenix,
2, West and Southwes of Tuscan and in parts of southeastern and east-central Arizona extending in western New Mexico.
3. ???
4 . Leave the flight areas as they are now.
Thanks
Joel