James Tonelli

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. I oppose this proposal. The FAA has indicated the possibility of T routes and flyways, they have done no work in defining them. They do state that a VFR corridor is not to be considered but in many other places say that you can simply request vectors to remain clear of the airspace. It has been my experience living and flying in the area that clearance through the Class B is the exception and certainly not the rule. 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.