Seattle Class B changes?

[Tuno]

I have a report that recent changes in Seattle's Class B are not
reflected in published airspace data (including justsoar.com).

The only evidence I can find of a recent change is in the Federal
Register which mentions an effective date of Dec 15th:

http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/10/25/2011-27367/modification-of-class-b-airspace-seattle-wa

Does anyone know more about this? Is the Federal Register ahead of the
FAA's charting office?

ted/2NO

[Tuno]

Kindly disregard -- operator can't read a calendar.

[Wayne Paul]

Ted,

I received my new Seattle Sectional in yesterday's mail. The Seattle B on
the chart matches the Federal Register.

This change seems to solidify the idea that the FAA considers VOR/DME
navigation obsolete.

Wayne
http://www.soaridaho.com/




"Tuno" wrote in message
...

I have a report that recent changes in Seattle's Class B are not
reflected in published airspace data (including justsoar.com).

The only evidence I can find of a recent change is in the Federal
Register which mentions an effective date of Dec 15th:

http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/10/25/2011-27367/modification-of-class-b-airspace-seattle-wa

Does anyone know more about this? Is the Federal Register ahead of the
FAA's charting office?

ted/2NO

[BruceGreeff]

Why is the world full of these?
Rhetorical question...



On 2011/12/19 11:12 AM, Flusmayodolom wrote:
> Hi. Neat article. There is a problem with your website in internet
> explorer, and you might want to check this... The browser is the
> marketplace chief and a huge part of other folks will omit your
> fantastic writing because of this problem.
>
> http://ejactrol.com/
>
> <a href=http://ejactrol.com>buy ejacutrol</a>
>
>
>
>

--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 17:13:43 +0200, BruceGreeff wrote:

> Why is the world full of these?
> Rhetorical question...
>
>
>
> On 2011/12/19 11:12 AM, Flusmayodolom wrote:
>> Hi. Neat article. There is a problem with your website in internet
>> explorer, and you might want to check this... The browser is the
>> marketplace chief and a huge part of other folks will omit your
>> fantastic writing because of this problem.
>>
>> http://ejactrol.com/
>>
>> <a href=http://ejactrol.com>buy ejacutrol</a>
>>
I have a simple (and cheap) solution, since most current versions of IE
from 6.0 onwards seem to be able to handle standards-compliant HTML:

1) Get a book on HTML - I like Elizabeth Castro's "HTML for the World
Wide Web". Its not only an excellent tutorial and is very well indexed,
so serves equally well as a reference.

2) Download a copy of HTML-Tidy, which is free and available for most
common OSes - and use it to check every page and fix anything it spots
before publishing the page. Get it here: http://tidy.sourceforge.net/

3) If you're using an HTML authoring tool that creates pages that can't
pass an HTML-Tidy check, ditch it immediately and find something better.
Some of the authoring tools generate catastrophically awful HTML. One of
the worst offenders was MS Office, though it may be better now: I haven't
used it for over 6 years.

4) Word processors generally aren't suitable for writing web pages since
they are WYSIWG tools and HTML is not and was never designed to be
WYSIWYG. If a web browser doesn't support a particular HTML tag or
attribute the spec says it can simply ignore it and, on top of that, it
is expected to reformat a page to fit the screen width. You can't get
much further from WTSIWYG than that. All word processors scroll sideways
if the page is wider than the screen: a web browser never does that
unless the page contains a fixed width table or image.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |