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.
James Tonelli
This is comment on Proposed Rule
Proposed Modification of Class B Airspace Area: Atlanta, GA
View Comment
Related Comments
View AllPublic Submission Posted: 02/09/2012 ID: FAA-2011-1237-0002
Apr 03,2012 11:59 PM ET
Public Submission Posted: 02/14/2012 ID: FAA-2011-1237-0003
Apr 03,2012 11:59 PM ET
Public Submission Posted: 02/15/2012 ID: FAA-2011-1237-0004
Apr 03,2012 11:59 PM ET
Public Submission Posted: 02/16/2012 ID: FAA-2011-1237-0005
Apr 03,2012 11:59 PM ET
Public Submission Posted: 02/21/2012 ID: FAA-2011-1237-0007
Apr 03,2012 11:59 PM ET