Soaring under the Bravo?

Don Byrer wrote:

I soar at 67D, Reader-Botsford, ~22nm SW of CLE (Cleveland OH), along
the approach to CLE's rwy 06 . Our 67D field is 800'MSL; the 40/80
shelf of CLE's Class Bravo is ~2 nm NE of the field.

In the past we've easily dealt with this by towing to the S and W,
usually to 3K AGL/3800'MSL.m We also have good landmarks for the
Bravo borders and know to limit it to ~3K AGL beyond those areas.

CLE is extending the Class Bravo SW and NE with a 50/80 shelf (floor
5000'MSL) covering our airport about 8 nm to the SE thru NW

CLE can't just extend their Class B airspace without notice, there
should have been a public comment period during which various aviation
constituencies could have registered their concerns with the FAA. If
you look at the San Francisco Class B, for instance, you'll note a large
chunk that was carved out of the east side of the airspace, negotiated
by members of the local gliding community wanting to preserve wave
flying at a mountain that would have been under the shelf in the
originally proposed change.

It may not be too late to raise a ruckus about this...

Marc

me thinks they may have missed the comment period... and did not get AOPA
involved?
BT

"Marc Ramsey" wrote in message
. net...
Don Byrer wrote:

I soar at 67D, Reader-Botsford, ~22nm SW of CLE (Cleveland OH), along
the approach to CLE's rwy 06 . Our 67D field is 800'MSL; the 40/80
shelf of CLE's Class Bravo is ~2 nm NE of the field. In the past we've
easily dealt with this by towing to the S and W,
usually to 3K AGL/3800'MSL.m We also have good landmarks for the
Bravo borders and know to limit it to ~3K AGL beyond those areas. CLE is
extending the Class Bravo SW and NE with a 50/80 shelf (floor
5000'MSL) covering our airport about 8 nm to the SE thru NW

CLE can't just extend their Class B airspace without notice, there should
have been a public comment period during which various aviation
constituencies could have registered their concerns with the FAA. If you
look at the San Francisco Class B, for instance, you'll note a large chunk
that was carved out of the east side of the airspace, negotiated by
members of the local gliding community wanting to preserve wave flying at
a mountain that would have been under the shelf in the originally proposed
change.

It may not be too late to raise a ruckus about this...

Marc

The same thing happened with the MSP Class B. A wedge was carved out of the
southern quadrant to accommodate the glider activity over Stanton field.

Mike Schumann

"Marc Ramsey" wrote in message
. net...
Don Byrer wrote:

I soar at 67D, Reader-Botsford, ~22nm SW of CLE (Cleveland OH), along
the approach to CLE's rwy 06 . Our 67D field is 800'MSL; the 40/80
shelf of CLE's Class Bravo is ~2 nm NE of the field. In the past we've
easily dealt with this by towing to the S and W,
usually to 3K AGL/3800'MSL.m We also have good landmarks for the
Bravo borders and know to limit it to ~3K AGL beyond those areas. CLE is
extending the Class Bravo SW and NE with a 50/80 shelf (floor
5000'MSL) covering our airport about 8 nm to the SE thru NW

CLE can't just extend their Class B airspace without notice, there should
have been a public comment period during which various aviation
constituencies could have registered their concerns with the FAA. If you
look at the San Francisco Class B, for instance, you'll note a large chunk
that was carved out of the east side of the airspace, negotiated by
members of the local gliding community wanting to preserve wave flying at
a mountain that would have been under the shelf in the originally proposed
change.

It may not be too late to raise a ruckus about this...

Marc



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com