Changes to SFO Class Bravo

Discussion in 'Flight Following' started by Dav8or, Nov 16, 2016.

  1. Dav8or

    Dav8or En-Route

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Messages:
    4,699
    Location:
    Discovery Bay, CA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Dave
    I was just notified that there are to be meetings open to the public to discuss proposed changes to the SFO Class Bravo airspace. Any changes I have assume is to expand the Bravo. The meetings are on January 30th in Burlingame, January 31st in San Jose and February 1st in Oakland.

    I have no idea what they are going to propose. Anybody know? Anybody planning on attending? I guess you can contact this guy for information-

    Rick CoteĢ, FAA Support Specialist, Northern California TRACON, 11365 Douglas Road, Mather, CA 95655, (916) 366-4001
     
  2. Shawn

    Shawn En-Route

    Joined:
    May 6, 2013
    Messages:
    3,050
    Location:
    Santa Cruz, CA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Shawn
    Heard that it was mostly expansion of the upper rings to get SFO arrivals into Bravo sooner with the updated NextGen approaches.

    Right now NIMBYS in Santa Cruz area are screaming bloody murder cuz FAA changed the SFO arrival from over the Monterey Bay to be lower and further south to get them into the Bravo sooner and these changes are supposed to allow them to keep arrivals higher for longer.
     
  3. MAKG1

    MAKG1 Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    Messages:
    13,409
    Location:
    California central coast
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    MAKG
    Unfortunately, I think the issue is with the B FLOOR related to the SERFR arrival. If you've ever heard a clearance, they always are cleared to fly the arrival, except maintain 8000. The relevant segment is 6000, and it's below the B.

    Once they enter the B on an instrument procedure, they are supposed to stay in it.

    And FYI, the NIMBYs are in Redwood Estates. Opposition is in SLV, where the NIMBYs want to send the traffic. Santa Cruz couldn't care less. Palo Alto probably will if they figure it out (or maybe they'll just blame it on San Carlos like their neighbors to the north), as the altitudes are much lower.
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2016
  4. Palmpilot

    Palmpilot Touchdown! Greaser! PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2007
    Messages:
    13,881
    Location:
    PUDBY
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Richard Palm
    What's "SLV"?
     
  5. MAKG1

    MAKG1 Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    Messages:
    13,409
    Location:
    California central coast
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    MAKG
    Essentially, the Big Sur arrival.
     
  6. luvflyin

    luvflyin En-Route PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    May 8, 2015
    Messages:
    3,780
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Luvflyin
    SFO's is basically one of the basic concentric rings upside down wedding cake types. With a little luck, while they're adding a little to contain the procedures mentioned above they'll take a little away and free up some non B airspace like they did at Seattle and San Diego.
     
  7. Palmpilot

    Palmpilot Touchdown! Greaser! PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2007
    Messages:
    13,881
    Location:
    PUDBY
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Richard Palm
    That covers a lot of ground. I was trying to find out what town or neighborhood you were referring to as the source of the opposition.
     
  8. Palmpilot

    Palmpilot Touchdown! Greaser! PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2007
    Messages:
    13,881
    Location:
    PUDBY
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Richard Palm
    That appears to be the case. (See the especially the second file at the following link.)

    https://www.dropbox.com/sh/czoep6ricjjl1yk/AAATEfphNqFaXURGiiWFNGkca?dl=0
     
  9. Shawn

    Shawn En-Route

    Joined:
    May 6, 2013
    Messages:
    3,050
    Location:
    Santa Cruz, CA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Shawn
    Could not be more wrong. They are one of the more vocal current opposition groups to the recent changes that already have been made. NIMBY's are not exclusive to the valley.
     
  10. Dav8or

    Dav8or En-Route

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Messages:
    4,699
    Location:
    Discovery Bay, CA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Dave
    It seems clear to me that this change is much bigger than just addressing the concerns of Santa Cruz NIMBYs. There are a whole lot of changes that have nothing to do with Santa Cruz.
     
  11. Shawn

    Shawn En-Route

    Joined:
    May 6, 2013
    Messages:
    3,050
    Location:
    Santa Cruz, CA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Shawn
    Absolutely...that was in response to MAKG's comment that Santa Cruz couldn't care less...when in reality there is a group over here currently active and already very vocal about the changes that have already occurred and they are trying to get FAA to revise the arrival again in conjunction with the Bravo changes.

    They are screaming bloody murder that the new arrival path has recently been amended and God forbid, airplanes are flying over houses.
     
  12. arnoha

    arnoha Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2015
    Messages:
    798
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    arnoha
    Looking at the proposal, it seems like an overall good thing for us. Lots of airspace flips over to E without too much extra being taken by the B. What I don't see is whether any of the C airspace over Oakland and San Jose would adjust with this. Some floors drop, but it doesn't seem too onerous.

    The biggest challenge is going to be learning all the new outlines. I've got the current Bravo committed to memory!
     
  13. MAKG1

    MAKG1 Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    Messages:
    13,409
    Location:
    California central coast
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    MAKG
    Well, that's really interesting, as neither of the arrivals overflies the city.

    The "vocal opposition groups" come from further uphill, well outside the city.

    SERFR TWO comes ashore rather close to Capitola Village, but nearly two miles above it. The folks that have been screaming bloody murder are near Summit Rd., where the altitude gets down to 3000 AGL or so. Not that a jet at flight idle is all that loud at that distance, though the locals claim it is.

    Not that the proposed alternative is better; it isn't. Terrain is higher and there are a lot more people. And the NIMBYs will lose for a number of technical reasons, not the least of which is extended flight over dense urban areas on the Peninsula.
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2016
  14. Shawn

    Shawn En-Route

    Joined:
    May 6, 2013
    Messages:
    3,050
    Location:
    Santa Cruz, CA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Shawn
    I know you are the self proclaimed expert on all things Bay Area, but what I quoted above is exactly the current problem. The arrival into SFO used to be a bit further north over the less populated area of Wilder Ranch where they could descend at idle. Now it comes over the Capitol shoreline where the airliners sometimes have to add power to maintain altitude with the current NextGen arrival revision...and at 10,000' that is noticeable to the hyper sensitive.

    Here is a quote from a commercial pilot on another board:

    "As I fly the new arrival often (121 flying), there IS a very small area where you level off (and add thrust) to avoid descending below the outer most bravo shelf, and to provide vertical separation to SJC arrivals on the brixx. A small increase of the bravo, at least on the santa cruz size, would allow for an idling descent all the way down."

    Not sure why you have such a hard time accepting that there is an actual issue that affected by that specify portion of the current Bravo and there is a vocal segment of the community In Santa Cruz over here that is trying to rectify thai issues in conjunction with the proposed SFO Bravo changes. While it is just one small issue related to the overall SFO changes and communities that are impacted, it is indeed one element that is being considered in the decision making process within the big picture.
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2016
  15. MAKG1

    MAKG1 Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    Messages:
    13,409
    Location:
    California central coast
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    MAKG
    Less populated? Damn, you drank the Kool Aid. The alternative proposed -- and the old arrival -- flies over 20,000 residents in SLV, and at a much lower altitude. Just, SLV doesn't have the same money. THAT'S the real issue.

    I have difficulty accepting the arguments because they are BS. And the FAA agrees. You did read the study, right? I did.

    I listened to the old arrival for more than 10 years. While you could hear it from 8000 feet, it was hardly "loud," and all the variables are identical to SERFR. With reduced terrain clearance.
     
  16. Everskyward

    Everskyward Administrator Management Council Member PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2005
    Messages:
    31,268
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Everskyward
    Whenever a routing changes from over "someone else's house" to "over OUR house!!!", there is complaining. I live in a little semi-rural subdivision that never heard airplanes other than students practicing. When Denver International was built, the airspace and arrivals were altered. You should have heard the complaining, not about the airliners, which were routed elsewhere. But since they changed the arrival for the business jets going into Centennial to come right over our neighborhood, people were up in arms. Someone said that she was being affected by "jet fumes". I would not say they were loud, but they were noticeable, flying at about 2,000' AGL. I know because I pointed out my house numerous times. Now they have changed the arrival again and they no longer fly over my neighborhood, but you can bet someone else is complaining.
     
  17. Palmpilot

    Palmpilot Touchdown! Greaser! PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2007
    Messages:
    13,881
    Location:
    PUDBY
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Richard Palm
  18. pdonahue

    pdonahue Pre-Flight

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2009
    Messages:
    42
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    pdonahue
    I went to one of the meetings earlier this year and they said that nothing would be happening until early 2018 or later.

    Airspace changes have to be published in the Federal Register. I watch that and nothing has been published there yet.


    -Paul