Victor Syracuse

My comments concern the NPRM to change the Class B airspace around Atlanta. This is in response to FAA Docket FAA-2011-1237 and Airspace Docket 08-AWA-1. The airspace as proposed can only be defined with an RNAV quality mapping device. While there may be more of these in General Aviation aircraft than there were previously, they are by no means common due to the tremendous expense to install, certify and maintain both units and the databases they require. This is simply not practical in pleasure aircraft. There has always been a list of required equipment to enter Class B airspace. This proposal requires another even more expensive equipment outlay to even remain outside it. The lateral limits of the airspace are best defined by radials and distances unless landmarks clearly visible in both daylight and darkness can be used. In summary I would like the NPRM to deny the changes to the Atlanta Class B airspace as currently proposed by the FAA. The design if the airspace completed by the Ad Hoc Committee should be considered. Many of the changes proposed are for the convenience of the FAA and that is simply not sufficient reason to lower the level of safety to aircraft flying in the area that are not within the Class B. The floors north and south do not need to be lowered. Consideration should be given to having the jet traffic intercept glideslope at a higher altitude. This is more efficient with regard to fuel with the additional benefit of lowering the noise impact since the traffic is higher. Aircraft excluded from the Class B would not be as compressed into the small remaining airspace. This compression of traffic not only raises the midair collision potential but also keeps them much closer to the ground. This gives less time to deal with any mechanical problems which may occur and also causes a much greater noise impact on the ground below. Overall this proposal decreases safety, increases equipment co