Thomas M. Edwards

As a frequent user of the airspace, I have found that many pilots feel the current deminsions are well defined and easy to follow. Removing the "G" airspace and making the Class B smaller will not enhance safety. An MOA does not need permission to fly into, and this one is used only infrequently. More than adequate airspace is permitted between the "G" area and the nearby MOA. Pilots have become used to the area around CVG and have no difficulty in avoiding it. I would hate to think that the only reason the change is proposed is to satisfy the wishes of a small set of pilots who claim that they are hurt economically. This statement is a reflection of the original Class B airspace objection. If indeed the "G" airspace is eliminated, at least follow the original boundary as indicated in the original design. A physical boundary is much safer and easier to follow than radials of a VOR. The original committee charged with the design of the airspace took every factor into consideration and the airspace has served the area well. The area just to thte west of CVG is lightly traveled and few if any aircraft would feel the impact of making the area smaller. Safety has not been conpromised and the new deminisions should not help safety. I believe we should look to the future of traffic growth in the area and not have to revisit this airspace again in the future to compensate for growth. Horizontal limits could stay as they are and not impact safety or economics. The ability to fly over the Class B should be maintained. Enough pilots do this on a regular basis and we should not try to impede their transit through the area. The upper limit could be raised to 8400' with little effect on transiet pilots.