Share This Page

Training at Iwo Jima a hazard for U.S. pilots

| Saturday, June 8, 2013, 8:42 p.m.
A U.S. Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet takes off with Mt. Suribachi in the background during training in Iwo Jima, Japan, Friday, June 7, 2013. Though the U.S. Navy regularly conducts carrier landing training on Iwo Jima, now known in Japan as Ioto, officials say the island is not up to Navy safety standards, and that a new site is needed.
Rusting remains of WWII ships protrude from the coastal waters of Iwo Jima, now known officially as Ioto, Japan, on Friday, June 7, 2013. The rugged volcanic crag is one of the most iconic battlegrounds of World War II and is so isolated and barren it has almost never been inhabited by anyone other than military troops.

IOTO, Japan — Iwo Jima is a training site like no other. The rugged volcanic crag was one of the most iconic battlegrounds of World War II, and is so isolated and barren it has almost never been inhabited by anyone other than military forces. But from the perspective of U.S. Navy fighter pilots who regularly train on the island's one functioning airstrip, it is unique in another way.

If a plane finds itself in serious trouble and for some reason that lone airstrip on the island isn't viable, the only alternative is to eject and ditch in the Pacific. It's a problem that the U.S. Navy, which is now conducting training on the island to prepare pilots for deployment to the USS George Washington aircraft carrier, has been trying to fix for nearly 25 years.

But, so far, Japan has failed to find a more suitable site.

Briefing reporters on the tiny island Friday, Capt. Dennis Mikeska, the assistant chief of staff for operations, planning and operations for the U.S. Naval Forces, Japan, said Iwo Jima is the only place in the world where the Navy conducts crucial carrier landing practice without an emergency “divert” — an alternate location where a plane can go in an emergency.

He said the Navy hasn't lost a plane on Iwo Jima yet, but added, “That's not to say there haven't been any close calls.”

Mikeska was quick to note that although the site is not so critically dangerous as to be unusable, it does not meet Navy safety standards and must be replaced as soon as possible.

Japan is responsible for providing locations for all U.S. bases within Japanese territory that both countries agree are necessary. The Navy's plea has run up against the classic dilemma that faces all U.S. forces in Japan. Though the Japanese government is one of Washington's staunchest and most reliable allies, it is virtually impossible to find a city, town or village that will quietly accept having U.S. troops based near it.

For the Japanese leadership — who are rarely willing to risk such controversy — Iwo Jima is the perfect place to put the noisy U.S. fighters.

Now officially called Ioto in Japan, the island is inhabited full-time only by a few hundred Japanese troops. It is about 750 miles south of Naval Air Facility Atsugi, the base on Japan's main island where the George Washington aircraft carrier's air wing — the units that train on Iwo Jima — is stationed when not at sea.

Iwo Jima has its advantages. Because there is no local population to worry about, fighters can fly at low altitudes and at all hours of the night. But according to the Navy, the nearest place a pilot can “divert,” or make an emergency landing, is 600 miles away, or about six times farther than the 100 miles that is considered safe.

“We need a special waiver every time we train out there,” said Jon Nylander, a spokesman for the U.S. Navy in Japan. “Moving it is a high priority for us.”

Tokyo has acknowledged Iwo Jima is only a temporary solution.

Japan has suggested the Iwo Jima flight training be conducted on Mageshima, an island in Japan's southwest where Tokyo plans to build a military base to bolster its southern defenses and its preparedness for natural disasters.

No progress has been announced on moving to that island, however.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.