MEM TRACON CTLR REPORTS ISSUES REGARDING NON RADAR IR MIL TRNG RTES AND POTENTIAL DELAYS AND CONFLICTS WITH ACFT AT PMU AND UTA ARPTS.

Narrative

WITHIN MEM APCH AIRSPACE ARE TWO IR TRAINING ROUTES; IR68/91. THESE TWO ROUTES ARE USED BY CBM T-38 AND JAN C-17 ACFT. ALONG OR UNDER THESE ROUTES ARE INSTRUMENT APCHS TO TWO ARPTS. IR68 VS M97/UTA AND IR91 VS PMU. THESE ROUTES ARE SCHEDULED BY CBM AND THE CTLING FACILITY IS ZME ARTCC. ZME MUST GAIN MEM APCH APPROVAL FOR ACFT TO ENTER OR PROCEED WITH THESE IR ROUTES BECAUSE THEY FLY THROUGH OUR AIRSPACE. PROBLEM: WE REALLY ONLY HAVE AN 'EXIT TIME' FOR THE ROUTES. ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS; I HAVE WORKED ACFT THAT HAVE FLOWN OVER OR THROUGH THESE ROUTES WHILE CONDUCTING INSTRUMENT APCHES TO THE LISTED ARPT. WE NEVER ARE SURE EXACTLY WHEN THE ACFT WILL TRANSITION OUR AIRSPACE ENCROACHING ON THE UTA ILS/LOC AND GPS APCHES AND MISSED APCH 'PROTECTED' AIRSPACE. THE SAME APPLIES CONCERNING THE RNAV/GPS APCHES INTO PMU. WE ARE EXPERIENCING INCREASED AIR TFC ESPECIALLY AT UTA. THIS TFC WILL ONLY INCREASE OVER TIME. I HAVE BROUGHT THIS MATTER OF CONFLICTING IR ROUTES AND THE IAP TO UTA AND PMU. I HAVE SUGGESTED SEVERAL MONTHS AGO TO COORDINATE WITH ZME AND CBM TO 'REDRAW' THE ROUTES TO DECONFLICT WITH THESE IAP'S. NO ACTION OR SENSE OF A NEED BY MEM SUPPORT STAFF. THEY DO NOT HAVE A CLUE HOW THESE PROCS CONFLICT AND THE FUTURE VERY REAL POSSIBILITY THAT A PREVENTABLE INCIDENT WILL HAPPEN. I HAVE HAD EXPERIENCE WITH IR AND VR ROUTES THAT HAD TO BE 'REDRAWN' AND IT WAS THE ONLY REAL WAY TO PROVIDE A SOLUTION. NOT ONLY WILL A CTLR AND A PLT FIND THEMSELVES IN A 'TIGHT' SIT WITH THESE IAP'S VS IR ROUTES BUT IFR SERVICE WILL BE DENIED TO EITHER THE IR ROUTE ACFT OR THE IFR ACFT NEEDING TO CONDUCT THE IAP AT UTA OR PMU. THE UTA ARPT WILL HAVE MORE SITS FOR CONFLICT. I ANTICIPATE THAT AN IFR ACFT WILL BE PLACED INTO HOLDING WAITING FOR OVER 30 MINS FOR AN IFR IR ACFT TO 'EXIT' THE CONFLICTING IR ROUTE. OR; MEM APCH HAVING TO CONTACT ZME TO HAVE THE IR ROUTE ACFT 'PULLED OFF THE ROUTE.' THIS LOW ALT IR ROUTE AND LACK OF RADIO COMS IS IMPRACTICABLE. I HAVE ALREADY OBSERVED AN UNCTLED VFR CONDUCTING THESE APCHES NOT IN CONTACT WITH ATC CONFLICT WITH THE IR ROUTE WHICH IS LOW ALT AND HIGH SPD. SOLUTION: DECONFLICT THE IR ROUTES WITH BOTH UTA AND PMU IAP'S AND MAP'S ASAP. I SEE THESE CONFLICTING PROCS AS AN ACCIDENT TRYING TO HAPPEN. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR INDICATED THAT THE CONFLICTING AIRSPACE/PROCS ARE MIL TRNG RTES; FROM COLUMBUS AFB. NON RADAR PROCS ARE USED ON THESE IR RTES. RELEASES ARE OBTAINED BY THE MIL FROM A NUMBER OF ATC SECTORS; BOTH IN ZME AND MEM TRACON AIRSPACE. MEM TRACON DOES NOT ESTABLISH RADAR ID OR COM WITH THE TRNG ACFT. THE TRACON IS GIVEN AS AN 'IN USE' OR 'HOT' TIME PERIOD DURING WHICH OTHER ACFT AND/OR PROCS MUST BE SEPARATED FROM THIS NON RADAR RTE/PROC. THE RPTR INDICATED THE RTES CONFLICT WITH THE APCH PROCS INTO PMU AND UTA. THE RPTR INDICATED THAT TFC UTILIZING THESE ARPTS IS INCREASING AND THAT DELAYS AND CONFLICTS DEVELOP AS A RESULT OF THE IR RTES. THE RPTR SUGGESTED THAT SOME MEM APCH CTLRS ARE UNAWARE THAT CONFLICTS ARE PRESENT BECAUSE NON RADAR PROCS AND REQUIRED AIRSPACE CLRNC ARE NOT FAMILIAR TO THEM. THE AIRSPACE PROTECTION REQUIRED BY THESE FAST MANEUVERING ACFT IS ALSO OF CONCERN TO THE RPTR AND IS NOT PROTECTED. THE RPTR INDICATED THAT THESE CONCERNS WERE ELEVATED TO FAC MGNMT BUT TO NO AVAIL.