Proposed Atlanta Class B airspace changes!

[tdager]

There are preliminary discusses underway in regards to proposed changes to the class B airspace around Atlanta.

It is a mega-change, with a serious loss of airspace and a compression of the prodigious VFR traffic into a much smaller space.

All concerned pilots, especially Georgians, should be aware.

I am tracking the issue on the Georgia Pilots Association forum and will keep everyone up-to-date as I find out more.

Attached is the presentation given by the FAA.

-Tom Dager
President, Georgia Pilots Association

 

[flyersfan31]

Interesting presentation. Keeping in mind that I've never flown the airspace, so I'm not familiar with the intricacies of operating, esp VFR, in the region, I'd say it seems like a reasonable proposal.

I know you can probably show that it ends up being a major PIA for the little guy.

 

[BillTIZ]

I can not understand why the current Class B has a 10K MSL shelf for an outer ring? Is it only one altitude?? and extends beyond the 30nm Mode C Veil? Never saw (read "flew near") one designed like that before.

I see where they are lowering the floor in a lot of areas and reducing the overall top to 9000MSL instead of 10K?

For all of you non transponder equipped aircraft out there (gliders, balloons, J-3 Cubs and Champs.. Keep in mind 14CFR91.215. Within the associated Mode C Veil around a Class B airspace, you cannot fly above the cieling of the Class B or 10,000MSL which ever is LOWER.

Wait... That Class B went out to 35nm.. ModeC is 30nm, and it looks like the new design is going to keep that 9000MSL out to 30nm as part of the Class B. Guess it does not matter.

Take a look at what happened in PHX Class B changes in regards to 91.215.

 

[KennyFlys]

I wanted to look at more detail of the changes and it became a pain to "pluck it out" from the Powerpoint presentation as shown so I decided to "steal" the images from the presentation and break them out for a little better review.

In the arguments for the expansion, I can see the need from both a safety perspective as well as efficiency. It will narrow the surface area on the northside a bit which any would have been welcome while I flew a traffic plane there though this change is very tiny. The reason for that is likely to have a straight line and no interruption by Fulton County's Class D surface area.

Over Tom's place at Mallard's Landing as well as Peachtree City, Griffin and Tara Field, they'll lose 2,000 feet from a lowered shelf. With an average ground elevation around a thousand feet in the region, that still leaves 5,000 feet AGL. That's not quite that bad.

Berry Hill loses five hundred feet. It's off to the Southeast by the corner at 12 DME. That's not a busy airport at all but it's fun to play in.

To the north between downtown and Peachtree Dekalb, a thousand foot loss will make transition tighter over the top of PDK's Class D. But then, folks in New York and LA have been dealing with worse for years.

It will be a change to deal with but I don't think it's going to make things that tough as some may fear. Folks threw a fit when they lowered two small sectors between 20 and 25 DME from 6,000 down to 5,000 back in 2006. In the end, it had little effect on everyone else flying below those areas.

That's my valuable penny's worth.

Current Atlanta Class Bravo:

Proposed Atlanta Class Bravo:

Combination of Current and Proposed Atlanta Class Bravo:

 

[KennyFlys]

I can not understand why the current Class B has a 10K MSL shelf for an outer ring? Is it only one altitude?? and extends beyond the 30nm Mode C Veil? Never saw (read "flew near") one designed like that before.

Atlanta's ceiling goes to 12,500. To my knowledge, it's the highest Class Bravo in the country but it's also the busiest Class Bravo primary airport. Oddly, with JFK, LGA and ERW close together and putting out a good bit of traffic, that Bravo goes only to 7,000 feet. Per the AIM, it's tailored to the needs of traffic.

If you want to see something wierd... take a look at a Houston TAC or on Skyvector for it. I wonder how many can figure out why the Mode C veil does not coordinate with the 30 DME shelf on the north side?

 

[jmaynard]

If you want to see something wierd... take a look at a Houston TAC or on Skyvector for it. I wonder how many can figure out why the Mode C veil does not coordinate with the 30 DME shelf on the north side?

Oh, that's easy. The class B is centered (on that side) on the IAH VORTAC, at the southwest corner of the airport; the 30 NM mode C veil is based on the center of the airport itself, and that's a little ways away from the VORTAC.

 

[KennyFlys]

Oh, that's easy. The class B is centered (on that side) on the IAH VORTAC, at the southwest corner of the airport; the 30 NM mode C veil is based on the center of the airport itself, and that's a little ways away from the VORTAC.

Jay, you lived there... and were a pretty active pilot at the time. That's cheating!

 

[jmaynard]

Jay, you lived there... and were a pretty active pilot at the time. That's cheating!

Yeah, but I had to study the chart to come up with the answer. I'd quit flying before the mode C veil became an issue, and every airplane I flew had mode C anyway, so I never paid attention to it..

 

[Lance F]

This will compress a lot of VFR traffic, something ATC doesn't care about. Should this go through (and they usually do) it will be a big pain and safety issue for VFR. It's not good for the little guys going IFR to the outlying airports either. ATC generally keeps us out of Bravo, so we'll be lower sooner and longer and will be vectored further away from what we would like. Dang.

 

[BillTIZ]

Atlanta's ceiling goes to 12,500.

That explains it.. thanx.. the charts were not very clear on that.. I should have looked at skyvector.

So are they keeping the top at 12,500 in the new version?

Funny.. BOSTON is BUSY and goes to 7K MSL from sea level.
Denver is BUSY goes to 12K MSL from 5500 MSL, only 6500ft thick.
PHX is busy and goes to 9K MSL from 1135, less than 8000ft thick.
LAS is busy and only goes to 9K MSL from 2200, only 6800ft thick.
LAX is busy and goes to 10K MSL

and ATL needs to go to 12500? and be 11500 feet thick?

 

[john smith]

That explains it.. thanx.. the charts were not very clear on that.. I should have looked at skyvector.
So are they keeping the top at 12,500 in the new version?
Funny.. BOSTON is BUSY and goes to 7K MSL from sea level.
Denver is BUSY goes to 12K MSL from 5500 MSL, only 6500ft thick.
PHX is busy and goes to 9K MSL from 1135, less than 8000ft thick.
LAS is busy and only goes to 9K MSL from 2200, only 6800ft thick.
LAX is busy and goes to 10K MSL
and ATL needs to go to 12500? and be 11500 feet thick?

Over the past ten years, the FAA has attempted to raise all CBAS tops to 12.5k. It is only the strong outpouring of complaints against it that has kept them down.

 

[SCCutler]

If you want to see the absolute definition of disinterest, go to the public comment meetings, and look at the FAA people there. They are not there to listen and consider, they are there solely to satisfy the motions of soliciting and getting public comment before they do what they have already decided to do.

 

[bullwinkle]

Wow, those 4000ft "wings"on the East & West sides where the ceiling clear of the bravo used to be 8000/10000 are going to be a huge PITA. This is going to suck for those of us that fly from the outlying airports under/near those edges.

 

[KennyFlys]

Wow, those 4000ft "wings"on the East & West sides where the ceiling clear of the bravo used to be 8000/10000 are going to be a huge PITA. This is going to suck for those of us that fly from the outlying airports under/near those edges.

How high have you been flying under those sectors? In all my flying around Atlanta, I never got higher than 5000 around the airspace and 6000 when flying over the top of Hartsfield passing back north. And, the 6000 was TRACON's request.

 

[flyersfan31]

ATC would probably like these airspaces as big as possible to keep away any VFR punks. I myself routinely fly right over the top of NYC at 7500, it's a nice flight, and the Bravo is not a major obstacle. That Atlanta space, going up to 12.5? Now I see why people are upset. Jeez, that's almost as bad as the ADIZ or whatever the f they're calling it now.

 

[kyleb]

After reviewing the presentation linked in the original post, the reasons given for the proposed airspace grab are really bad. One of the claims is that aircraft arriving at Hartsfield sometimes exit the bottom of the current Class B. OK, so why is that? Because they chose to or were vectored that way. We're not talking aircraft performance issues, we're talking pilots or controllers literally cutting through VFR airspace for convenience - to save a minute or two. Guess what - lower the Class B and the same decisions will be made and jets will be busting through the floor of the revised Class B. An even worse example is the claim that heavily loaded aircraft leaving Hartsfield have a hard time remaining in the Class B due to inadequate climb performance. Really? In a multi-engine jet? I'm not buying it. Again, I think this is a decision someone is making to not use full climb power because of cost issues. Guess what? Lower the Class B and the same type of decision making/cost cutting will result in the same heavy aircraft entering the VFR corridor because they will just pull the power back a little more.


The proposed airspace would be a huge hassle for me. I'm based at VPC, which is at about 10 O'clock on the outer ring of the current airspace. When I head south, I can go due South (or even slightly SouthEast) at 3,500' and stay below the Class B and above the big towers that exist in the Newnan area (which is at 8 o'clock on the Class B dial). That's my typical route to Florida or anywhere south of Atlanta.

With the new airspace I (and anyone else deviating around Atlanta) will have to go much farther west, or fly lower through antenna crowded airspace. And the point about airspace crowding is extremely valid. There is a LOT of VFR traffic (both local and transient) that has to work around the Atlanta airpace. Atlanta is right in the center of the N/S path between the midwest and Florida, which is a common destination. Further funneling the traffic into a tighter space ain't a good idea for GA.

 

[KennyFlys]

After reviewing the presentation linked in the original post, the reasons given for the proposed airspace grab are really bad. One of the claims is that aircraft arriving at Hartsfield sometimes exit the bottom of the current Class B. OK, so why is that? Because they chose to or were vectored that way. We're not talking aircraft performance issues, we're talking pilots or controllers literally cutting through VFR airspace for convenience - to save a minute or two. Guess what - lower the Class B and the same decisions will be made and jets will be busting through the floor of the revised Class B. An even worse example is the claim that heavily loaded aircraft leaving Hartsfield have a hard time remaining in the Class B due to inadequate climb performance. Really? In a multi-engine jet? I'm not buying it. Again, I think this is a decision someone is making to not use full climb power because of cost issues. Guess what? Lower the Class B and the same type of decision making/cost cutting will result in the same heavy aircraft entering the VFR corridor because they will just pull the power back a little more.

The problem is providing separation along with keeping those aircraft inside the Bravo. During higher traffic times, it's much more difficult.

As to your gripe about heavy cargo aircraft not having as much performance... just how well does your aircraft perform year round? Yes, they have the power to climb as does your aircraft. But, like all aircraft they won't perform as well particularly during the summer months. I promise ya the pilots are going to use what it takes to get a safe climb rate. That exceeds fuel savings and noise abatement issues.

The proposed airspace would be a huge hassle for me. I'm based at VPC, which is at about 10 O'clock on the outer ring of the current airspace. When I head south, I can go due South (or even slightly SouthEast) at 3,500' and stay below the Class B and above the big towers that exist in the Newnan area (which is at 8 o'clock on the Class B dial). That's my typical route to Florida or anywhere south of Atlanta.

If you look closer, the 4,000 shelf will be cut from a rounded edge to straight. Your current path via Newnan won't change at all. Look closer at the combined graphic of both current and proposed airspace.

With the new airspace I (and anyone else deviating around Atlanta) will have to go much farther west, or fly lower through antenna crowded airspace. And the point about airspace crowding is extremely valid. There is a LOT of VFR traffic (both local and transient) that has to work around the Atlanta airpace. Atlanta is right in the center of the N/S path between the midwest and Florida, which is a common destination. Further funneling the traffic into a tighter space ain't a good idea for GA.

As I said before, I don't think it's going to be as much of a hassle for GA as folks seem to claim. I don't see a reason for the Chicken Little effect.

 

[kyleb]

The problem is providing separation along with keeping those aircraft inside the Bravo. During higher traffic times, it's much more difficult.

As I said, lower the Class B airspace, then the airlines will just bust the new floor. The reason given will be "It is difficult to manage during high traffic times."

As to your gripe about heavy cargo aircraft not having as much performance... just how well does your aircraft perform year round? Yes, they have the power to climb as does your aircraft. But, like all aircraft they won't perform as well particularly during the summer months. I promise ya the pilots are going to use what it takes to get a safe climb rate. That exceeds fuel savings and noise abatement issues.

There is no doubt that weight and temperature influence performance, but the "heavy cargo A/C" that can't reach 3,500' (that's about 2,500' AGL) twelve miles from the end of the runway doesn't exist today.

If you look closer, the 4,000 shelf will be cut from a rounded edge to straight. Your current path via Newnan won't change at all. Look closer at the combined graphic of both current and proposed airspace.


As I said before, I don't think it's going to be as much of a hassle for GA as folks seem to claim. I don't see a reason for the Chicken Little effect.

Check out the towers just N. of Newnan. Today I can fly over them at 3,500', although realistically, I use 3,000' to maintain separation from the Class B airspace. With the proposed changes I'm pushed down below 3,000' - maybe to 2,500 or 2,800', which is getting a bit close to the towers for comfort. Also, did you note any consideration in the presentation as to what the impact of the new airspace would be on GA? Naah.

 

[BillTIZ]

Over the past ten years, the FAA has attempted to raise all CBAS tops to 12.5k. It is only the strong outpouring of complaints against it that has kept them down.

Interestingly the PHX redesign last year lowered the top of the Class B from 10K to 9K MSL. This caused some concerns among those not required to carry a Mode C transponder. Read 91.215 real careful.

As a result there is a Letter of Agreement or Waiver to 91.215 for the soaring communitity to get between 9-10K MSL within the Mode C veil.

The LAS Class B only goes to 9K MSL so we have a waiver to 91.215 here too.

 

[BillTIZ]

If you want to see the absolute definition of disinterest, go to the public comment meetings, and look at the FAA people there. They are not there to listen and consider, they are there solely to satisfy the motions of soliciting and getting public comment before they do what they have already decided to do.

Same thing happening at the hearings for the TSA proposal with aircraft weighing in at more that 12,500#. Totally bland faces with no emotions.

 

[KennyFlys]

Check out the towers just N. of Newnan. Today I can fly over them at 3,500', although realistically, I use 3,000' to maintain separation from the Class B airspace. With the proposed changes I'm pushed down below 3,000' - maybe to 2,500 or 2,800', which is getting a bit close to the towers for comfort. Also, did you note any consideration in the presentation as to what the impact of the new airspace would be on GA? Naah.

The purpose is to explain what the change would be and explain why. If you'll note, it's still a proposal.

 

[tdager]

Sorry Ken...but the airspace is for more than the airlines and traffic watch.

While the loss of 2K above me is not a big deal, taking the floor to 4k all the way to the edge of the 30nm ring is ridiculous.

You were here, you know we have some HUGE towers, 2.5K ones, that dot the west side of Atlanta.

Also, I routinely would be at 6.5K when coming from the east to west and slowly lower as I went under the shelves. This would force me to at least 3.5K (to give me a 500' safety buffer under the Bravo) a LONG way out, me and everyone else, and create a serious "compression" effect that places a LOT of VFR traffic in a MUCH smaller space.

Sorry, but even those "in the biz" that do traffic control in the area for a living say this is a huge over-reach of airspace.

 

[KennyFlys]

The best thing to do is get going with folks making feedback and fight the proposal. Start calls to legislators and various FAA officials. Find the FAA link for receiving questions on the proposal.

I looked for something on the FAA site but couldn't find it. Where did you get the PP presentation?

 

[bullwinkle]

How high have you been flying under those sectors? In all my flying around Atlanta, I never got higher than 5000 around the airspace and 6000 when flying over the top of Hartsfield passing back north. And, the 6000 was TRACON's request.

We often fly at 4500ft to do training.

 

[KennyFlys]

Wow, those 4000ft "wings"on the East & West sides where the ceiling clear of the bravo used to be 8000/10000 are going to be a huge PITA. This is going to suck for those of us that fly from the outlying airports under/near those edges.

We often fly at 4500ft to do training.

You'd still have it much better than those folks training out of PDK. It was a 25-30 mile flight before we could even begin to think about maneuvers.

Here in Austin, getting out twenty miles for one of the outlying airports. A bit more and you've practically gone too far. Make it to 35 miles and you'll be outside of Austin TRACON's area. Yep, this area has spoiled me on ever moving to a big city again.