Soaring under the Bravo?

[Don Byrer]

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

As you might expect, this is causing major concern among our glider
folks...

One side benefit is the aircraft which were often @ 3K MSL previously
will then be at 5K or above, as AT is required to keep 'em in the
Bravo when possible.

Any comments/suggestions on operating adjacent/under/within a Bravo?

Most of our gliders do not have a transponder; the added weight of a
xponder and larger battery makes it the last the last place we want
to go...not to mention the expense of equipping 5 club gliders...and
we ain't got the $$ for that!

--Don


Don Byrer KJ5KB
Radar Tech & Smilin' Commercial Pilot Guy
Glider & CFI wannabe
kj5kb-at-hotmail.com

"I have slipped the surly bonds of earth; now if I can just land without bending the gear..."
"Watch out for those doves...<smack-smack-smack-smack...>"

[[email protected]]

On Jan 1, 5:03 pm, 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
>
> As you might expect, this is causing major concern among our glider
> folks...
>
> One side benefit is the aircraft which were often @ 3K MSL previously
> will then be at 5K or above, as AT is required to keep 'em in the
> Bravo when possible.
>
> Any comments/suggestions on operating adjacent/under/within a Bravo?
>
> Most of our gliders do not have a transponder; the added weight of a
> xponder and largerht battery makes it the last the last place we want
> to go...not to mention the expense of equipping 5 club gliders...and
> we ain't got the $$ for that!
>
> --Don
>
> Don Byrer KJ5KB
> Radar Tech & Smilin' Commercial Pilot Guy
> Glider & CFI wannabe
> kj5kb-at-hotmail.com
>
> "I have slipped the surly bonds of earth; now if I can just land without bending the gear..."
> "Watch out for those doves...<smack-smack-smack-smack...>"

Start with visiting the relevant approach/departures radar facility
and see what they do and how they operate, this may guide what you
decide to do, in particular if your club ought to prioritize use of
transponders and PCAS equipment.

But as for the comment on weight? Are you serious? At < 2lb for a
Becker transponder and encoder and around 5 to 9 lb for a 7 Ah to 12
Ah battery how can this be an issue? Usual no-transponder excuses
involve space for batteries or panel space, but the real bottom line
comes down to cost. Money will usually solve all the problems you can
think of with new panel layouts, custom battery mounts, solar panels
etc. And upgrading batteries may or may not be necessary depending on
what battery capacity the ships have now and how the club operates/
changes/charges batteries.

Darryl

[Marc Ramsey[_2_]]

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

[BT]

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

[Mike Schumann]

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

[BT]

We soar at the edge of the Class B airspace.. LAS Class B, our airport is
20.5 nm south of LAS, on the edge of the 20nm 80B90MSL ring. The airport
elevation is 2833, so this puts the ring about 5K AGL above us, and yes we
do bump our heads on it with summer thermals and winter ridge lift. We have
a 1500ft tall ridge within 1-3 miles of the airport, jump off the ridge and
right onto the downwind. The altitude drops to 50B90 5 nm north of our
airport.

If they are extending the CLE Class B beyond the 20nm ring, this is unusual
but not unheard of. Do they state the need for 50B80 that far out? Are they
taking it to 25nm or 30nm ring? Do you have a copy online of the proposed
airspace?

Is this a "new development", or has this been in the works for some time and
it is ready for activation?
With soaring being a "seasonal thing" in your area, it will be difficult to
justify protecting the airspace for soaring.

Word of caution, do not soar above 8K MSL while still within the 30nm Mode C
veil and do not count on CLE Approach ATC keeping aircraft within the Class
B. We have experienced that out west. They (ATC) "run them where they need
to" and have vectored airliners right over the airport, outside and below,
inside to outside to back inside the class B as they need to for "radar
final", Rwy 01 and Rwy 07 operations at LAS.

I agree with another responder. Arrange a visit with the managers at CLE
Approach to learn their traffic flows, just what do they see for aircraft in
your area, and to identify your "intense soaring period".. mostly weekends..
spring/summer/fall, altitudes normally attained when outside the 30nm Mode C
veil.

B


"Don Byrer" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> 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
>
> As you might expect, this is causing major concern among our glider
> folks...
>
> One side benefit is the aircraft which were often @ 3K MSL previously
> will then be at 5K or above, as AT is required to keep 'em in the
> Bravo when possible.
>
> Any comments/suggestions on operating adjacent/under/within a Bravo?
>
> Most of our gliders do not have a transponder; the added weight of a
> xponder and larger battery makes it the last the last place we want
> to go...not to mention the expense of equipping 5 club gliders...and
> we ain't got the $$ for that!
>
> --Don
>
>
> Don Byrer KJ5KB
> Radar Tech & Smilin' Commercial Pilot Guy
> Glider & CFI wannabe
> kj5kb-at-hotmail.com
>
> "I have slipped the surly bonds of earth; now if I can just land without
> bending the gear..."
> "Watch out for those doves...<smack-smack-smack-smack...>"

[aviationnut]

Don,

We had the same problem at TSA when DFW decided to expand the Class B
airspace to 30 miles. We weren't informed and suddenly it was a "done
deal". The first thing we noticed was 737s crossing directly overhead
at 3300 agl and 250kt. We tow higher than that for some of our
training and on most days we get much higher in lift. We called AOPA
and got them involved ASAP. Even though we were late to the party,
they were very helpful. Their rep. for our area was a retired ATC
management type who was involved with designing the first TCA around
DFW, and he was excellent!

We had several meetings with DFW TRACON (Terminal Radar Approach
Control) and the regional office of the FAA. We brought FAA people as
well as controllers to the gliderport to give them a first hand look
at the danger. We had a couple of near misses (one extremely close)
with corporate traffic and filed reports. I can go into much greater
detail but, to make a long story short, we hammered out an agreement
where we inform them when we operate and they permanently cut off a
substantial portion of the southern boundary of the Class B. In
addition, they now route the 737 and corporate traffic far enough to
our North that it's not a factor except when that traffic has to
deviate for weather. No transponders either because, among other
things that you listed, they agreed that several transponders in very
close proximity would be counterproductive on their scopes.

Based on our experience I would say first and foremost, get AOPA
involved. Explain all your hardships with this new Class B
configuration and that you weren't properly notified, if that's the
case. Let them direct you in what to do. Find two or three people in
your club who are knowledgeable in the workings of ATC around CLE.
The best would be pilots who started flying in the local area and are
now into the corporate or airline side of the business. They'll have
a good working knowledge of the local airspace and will probably have
some valuable contacts too. Regard all meetings as negotiations for
the health and longevity of your club. And remember, as we found out,
when it comes to airspace design, ATC doesn't always do things because
they really and truly need them.

Based on our experience, these are just a few of the things I can
advise you of. In the end, it may be a tough sell because of the
runway alignment at CLE but, for your club, you have to try. In our
experience, when ATC finally saw the potential for problems, we were
able to get a deal that's workable for both parties.

Mark

[Dave Newill]

Don - please contact Dave Nuss or myself
[ ] [you know - remove the NO...]
and we can send you the hearing notice- NPRM - we have been asked to
participate, but really need someone impacted to attend.

[Don Byrer]

Thanks for all the great replys...

I'll try to consolidate my comments into one post:

--We knew this was "coming", but no concrete plans had been made. I
got a 'heads up' a few weeks ago from one of the CLE folks.

--There is a proposal out, and an "Ad Hoc" committee mtg 11 Jan. This
is the first of at least 2 or 3 meetings before it happens. Looks like
it will be at least next Winter 'til we see it, maybe quite a bit
longer....so we have time to comment.

--The proposed expansion is 2 50/80 "wings" (segments) one SW, one NE,
along 24/06 centerline, from the existing 40/80 20nm ring out to 30
nm. Space needed for vectoring aircraft onto final; current ATC
regs require that aircraft not exit and re-enter Class Bravo.

--I have the propsal as an attachment...if you'd like a copy, email me
at ...maybe someone would like to post it?

--I work at CLE (I maintain the radars), so 'getting to know them' is
already done. I'm familar with the flow to 24 and 06...and our ATC
folks are aware of our operation, though not as familiar as i'd like.
I tried to get a few of them out for a free ride this year, but it
didn't happen. May try to get some of our glider folks up to the
Tracon to see that side of it.

--We are directly in line with the final for rwy 06, and on the
inbound path for 24. Carving out a wedge over us would basically
eliminate the proposed expansion...so THAT ain't gonna happen

--SSA has already been contacted and we are planning to involve AOPA
too.

Thanks, Don

Don Byrer KJ5KB
Radar Tech & Smilin' Commercial Pilot Guy
Glider & CFI wannabe
kj5kb-at-hotmail.com

"I have slipped the surly bonds of earth; now if I can just land without bending the gear..."
"Watch out for those doves...<smack-smack-smack-smack...>"

[BT]

mmm.. I'd be interested to know the reference for "that reg"... cause they
don't pay attention to it around here.

I brought it up at a safety meeting with ATC Radar supervisor in
attendance.. and was told point blank.. we put them where we need to.

I "was around" when the first "Terminal Control Areas", (TCA) now Class B
were designed.. the idea was that airliners and "jets" would enter in the
top and funnel down to the primary airport.. they would also exit out the
top. Does not happen..

The fuel conservation descents start the glide farther out.. instead of
"keep'em high and drop'em in"..
When landing Rwy 1 at LAS, the min Radar Vector Altitude is about 8300 right
over our airport and that's where they want to be. Class B there is 80B90
but they continue the descent down out of the bottom of Class B. Or they
have been vectored from the northeast and exit the Class B only to reenter
at the 20nm fix on final right over the glider airport.

The Glide Slope into LAS Rwy 1 is 3.4 degree, at 361ft per nm, 20 nm = 7220
AGL, LAS elevation is 2181, so that equates to about 9400MSL at the Class B
entry.. but ATC always has them 1000ft lower. And if ATC lets them fly a
"Visual Approach, they get down to 7K MSL.

The CLE Rwy6 ILS is a 3 degree glide slope or 318ft / nm, or at 20nm, 6360
AGL, CLE airport elev is 791MSL or at 20nm on a 3 degree glide path the
airliner would like to be at about 7100ft MSL and at 30nm at 10300MSL... so
why do they need a 50B80 all the way out to 30nm?

BT

"Don Byrer" > wrote in message
...
> Thanks for
>
> --The proposed expansion is 2 50/80 "wings" (segments) one SW, one NE,
> along 24/06 centerline, from the existing 40/80 20nm ring out to 30
> nm. Space needed for vectoring aircraft onto final; current ATC
> regs require that aircraft not exit and re-enter Class Bravo.
>

[Don Byrer]

On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 21:28:16 -0800, "BT" > wrote:

>mmm.. I'd be interested to know the reference for "that reg"... cause they
>don't pay attention to it around here.

You ask, you get:
FAA Order 7110.65R (the ATC 'bible') Section 9 "Class B Service Area,
Terminal", para 7-9-3b. Currently they have to vector aircraft
outside the Class B and back in; with the extension they won't have
to. Please read the NOTE under b...this means they should be keeping
the aircraft at or above 5000'MSL/4200' AGL in our area....actually a
BENEFIT to us.
FYI, a "large turbine aircraft" is over 12,500 lbs...even a Beech 1900
is well over that...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7-9-3. METHODS
a. To the extent practical, clear large turbine
engine-powered airplanes to/from the primary airport
using altitudes and routes that avoid VFR corridors
and airspace below the Class B airspace floor where
VFR aircraft are operating.

NOTE- Pilots operating in accordance with VFR are expected to
advise ATC if compliance with assigned altitudes,
headings, or routes will cause violation of any part of the
CFR.

b. Vector aircraft to remain in Class B airspace
after entry. Inform the aircraft when leaving and
reentering Class B airspace if it becomes necessary to
extend the flight path outside Class B airspace for
spacing.

NOTE-
14 CFR Section 91.131 states that “Unless otherwise
authorized by ATC, each person operating a large turbine
engine-powered airplane to or from a primary airport for
which a Class B airspace area is designated must operate
at or above the designated floors of the Class B airspace
area while within the lateral limits of that area.” Such
authorization should be the exception rather than the rule.
REFERENCE FAAO 7110.65, Deviation Advisories, Para 5-1-10.

c. Aircraft departing controlled airports within
Class B airspace will be provided the same services
as those aircraft departing the primary airport.


>I brought it up at a safety meeting with ATC Radar supervisor in
>attendance.. and was told point blank.. we put them where we need to.

That's what what they do NOW, but once they have the extension,
apparently they will be keeping the RJs at 5K MSL overhead vs 3K MSL
(right in with the gliders) now.


>I "was around" when the first "Terminal Control Areas", (TCA) now Class B
>were designed.. the idea was that airliners and "jets" would enter in the
>top and funnel down to the primary airport.. they would also exit out the
>top. Does not happen..

Sounds like they are going back to that idea

>The fuel conservation descents start the glide farther out.. instead of
>"keep'em high and drop'em in"..
>When landing Rwy 1 at LAS, the min Radar Vector Altitude is about 8300 right
>over our airport and that's where they want to be. Class B there is 80B90
>but they continue the descent down out of the bottom of Class B. Or they
>have been vectored from the northeast and exit the Class B only to reenter
>at the 20nm fix on final right over the glider airport.

Another stated reason for the change...they want 'em to enter the
Bravo ONCE and never leave til they take off again. ALPA is pushing
this...they want that extra "protected airspace"

>
>The Glide Slope into LAS Rwy 1 is 3.4 degree, at 361ft per nm, 20 nm = 7220
>AGL, LAS elevation is 2181, so that equates to about 9400MSL at the Class B
>entry.. but ATC always has them 1000ft lower. And if ATC lets them fly a
>"Visual Approach, they get down to 7K MSL.
>
>The CLE Rwy6 ILS is a 3 degree glide slope or 318ft / nm, or at 20nm, 6360
>AGL, CLE airport elev is 791MSL or at 20nm on a 3 degree glide path the
>airliner would like to be at about 7100ft MSL and at 30nm at 10300MSL... so
>why do they need a 50B80 all the way out to 30nm?
>
Considering they are dropping the RJ's down to 3K MSL at 20+ miles out
now, I figure it's for a little extra elbow room during VFR ops, +
room needed to 'set up' for PRM approach or staggered simultaneous ILS
to our close-spaced runways..

--Don
Don Byrer KJ5KB
Radar Tech & Smilin' Commercial Pilot Guy
Glider & CFI wannabe
kj5kb-at-hotmail.com

"I have slipped the surly bonds of earth; now if I can just land without bending the gear..."
"Watch out for those doves...<smack-smack-smack-smack...>"

[BT]

Thanx for digging that out.

Ahh... read the fine print in 7-9-3b... "if it becomes necessary" they can
vector the aircraft out of the ClassB, they just have to tell the pilot
being vectored that they will be exiting the "Class B protection zone", and
of course they don't have to tell the pilot not talking to them that is
already outside of and avoiding the "Class B exclusion zone".

FWIW.. I used to live and die by 7110.65.. but it was a much earlier alpha
suffix.. like "C".. and it has been over 25 years..

We negotiated a waiver to 91.215 for glider operations (climb windows)
within the 30nm ModeC Veil, outside Class B, but above the ceiling of
ClassB, to get above 10,000 MSL

BT
USAF RET
Comm, ASEL, AMEL, Instrument
CFIG

"Don Byrer" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 21:28:16 -0800, "BT" > wrote:
>
>>mmm.. I'd be interested to know the reference for "that reg"... cause they
>>don't pay attention to it around here.
>
> You ask, you get:
> FAA Order 7110.65R (the ATC 'bible') Section 9 "Class B Service Area,
> Terminal", para 7-9-3b. Currently they have to vector aircraft
> outside the Class B and back in; with the extension they won't have
> to. Please read the NOTE under b...this means they should be keeping
> the aircraft at or above 5000'MSL/4200' AGL in our area....actually a
> BENEFIT to us.
> FYI, a "large turbine aircraft" is over 12,500 lbs...even a Beech 1900
> is well over that...
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 7-9-3. METHODS
> a. To the extent practical, clear large turbine
> engine-powered airplanes to/from the primary airport
> using altitudes and routes that avoid VFR corridors
> and airspace below the Class B airspace floor where
> VFR aircraft are operating.
>
> NOTE- Pilots operating in accordance with VFR are expected to
> advise ATC if compliance with assigned altitudes,
> headings, or routes will cause violation of any part of the
> CFR.
>
> b. Vector aircraft to remain in Class B airspace
> after entry. Inform the aircraft when leaving and
> reentering Class B airspace if it becomes necessary to
> extend the flight path outside Class B airspace for
> spacing.
>
> NOTE-
> 14 CFR Section 91.131 states that "Unless otherwise
> authorized by ATC, each person operating a large turbine
> engine-powered airplane to or from a primary airport for
> which a Class B airspace area is designated must operate
> at or above the designated floors of the Class B airspace
> area while within the lateral limits of that area." Such
> authorization should be the exception rather than the rule.
> REFERENCE FAAO 7110.65, Deviation Advisories, Para 5-1-10.
>
> c. Aircraft departing controlled airports within
> Class B airspace will be provided the same services
> as those aircraft departing the primary airport.
>
>
>>I brought it up at a safety meeting with ATC Radar supervisor in
>>attendance.. and was told point blank.. we put them where we need to.
>
> That's what what they do NOW, but once they have the extension,
> apparently they will be keeping the RJs at 5K MSL overhead vs 3K MSL
> (right in with the gliders) now.
>
>
>>I "was around" when the first "Terminal Control Areas", (TCA) now Class B
>>were designed.. the idea was that airliners and "jets" would enter in the
>>top and funnel down to the primary airport.. they would also exit out the
>>top. Does not happen..
>
> Sounds like they are going back to that idea
>
>>The fuel conservation descents start the glide farther out.. instead of
>>"keep'em high and drop'em in"..
>>When landing Rwy 1 at LAS, the min Radar Vector Altitude is about 8300
>>right
>>over our airport and that's where they want to be. Class B there is 80B90
>>but they continue the descent down out of the bottom of Class B. Or they
>>have been vectored from the northeast and exit the Class B only to reenter
>>at the 20nm fix on final right over the glider airport.
>
> Another stated reason for the change...they want 'em to enter the
> Bravo ONCE and never leave til they take off again. ALPA is pushing
> this...they want that extra "protected airspace"
>
>>
>>The Glide Slope into LAS Rwy 1 is 3.4 degree, at 361ft per nm, 20 nm =
>>7220
>>AGL, LAS elevation is 2181, so that equates to about 9400MSL at the Class
>>B
>>entry.. but ATC always has them 1000ft lower. And if ATC lets them fly a
>>"Visual Approach, they get down to 7K MSL.
>>
>>The CLE Rwy6 ILS is a 3 degree glide slope or 318ft / nm, or at 20nm, 6360
>>AGL, CLE airport elev is 791MSL or at 20nm on a 3 degree glide path the
>>airliner would like to be at about 7100ft MSL and at 30nm at 10300MSL...
>>so
>>why do they need a 50B80 all the way out to 30nm?
>>
> Considering they are dropping the RJ's down to 3K MSL at 20+ miles out
> now, I figure it's for a little extra elbow room during VFR ops, +
> room needed to 'set up' for PRM approach or staggered simultaneous ILS
> to our close-spaced runways..
>
> --Don
> Don Byrer KJ5KB
> Radar Tech & Smilin' Commercial Pilot Guy
> Glider & CFI wannabe
> kj5kb-at-hotmail.com
>
> "I have slipped the surly bonds of earth; now if I can just land without
> bending the gear..."
> "Watch out for those doves...<smack-smack-smack-smack...>"

[Herb]

Recreational and business pilots in the Chicago area were recently
informed that the current 20-25 NM radius B-airspace is proposed to be
increased all the way to the 30NM transponder veil. Comments can be
filed until January 12. The 3 area glider clubs will be impacted with
one club being located 28 NM from O'Hare. The floor of the B-airspace
will be at 4,000 MSL if this proposal should pass.

Interestingly, the justifications heard for this change match exactly
the points stated here already. Pilot members of our clubs that are
flying into Chicago City airports regularly report that ATC is
specifically advising them when exiting and re-entering B airspace -
obviously establishing records for having to do so.

Our course of action will most likely be a petition to carve out a
sector over the affected glider port or/and to request for the floor
of the outside ring to be raised to 5,000'. In any case, we will
loose quite a few of the current Northern Illinois turnpoints.
Question: Anyone knows how ATC reacts to requests to briefly
transition B-airspace on the outside border (transponder equipped
glider)? Many of our local gliders fly with transponders.

Herb Kilian, J7

[Don Byrer]

On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 09:20:15 -0800, "BT" > wrote:

>Thanx for digging that out.

Quite welcome...I'm sure others would like to see it anyway.

>Ahh... read the fine print in 7-9-3b... "if it becomes necessary" they can
>vector the aircraft out of the ClassB, they just have to tell the pilot
>being vectored that they will be exiting the "Class B protection zone", and
>of course they don't have to tell the pilot not talking to them that is
>already outside of and avoiding the "Class B exclusion zone".

Yes....and that's what I'm told they are trying to avoid. That's two
extra exchanges btwn pilot and controller they'd like to eliminate.

>We negotiated a waiver to 91.215 for glider operations (climb windows)
>within the 30nm ModeC Veil, outside Class B, but above the ceiling of
>ClassB, to get above 10,000 MSL

This isnt a big 'climb' area :) here in the flatlands...
Also, many of the guys around here that are serious soarers have their
own glider with synthesized radio, and a few have xponders.

For now, I'm a 'fun flyer' til I get my ticket...and even then I
suspect I will be happy with 1 hour flights in the club gliders; at
least in this area...my butt is only rated for 60 minutes in a blanik
L13.

--Don
Don Byrer KJ5KB
Radar Tech & Smilin' Commercial Pilot Guy
Glider & CFI wannabe
kj5kb-at-hotmail.com

"I have slipped the surly bonds of earth; now if I can just land without bending the gear..."
"Watch out for those doves...<smack-smack-smack-smack...>"

[Don Byrer]

On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 10:06:21 -0800 (PST), Herb >
wrote:

>Recreational and business pilots in the Chicago area were recently
>informed that the current 20-25 NM radius B-airspace is proposed to be
>increased all the way to the 30NM transponder veil. Comments can be
>filed until January 12. The 3 area glider clubs will be impacted with
>one club being located 28 NM from O'Hare. The floor of the B-airspace
>will be at 4,000 MSL if this proposal should pass.

ouch...

>Interestingly, the justifications heard for this change match exactly
>the points stated here already. Pilot members of our clubs that are
>flying into Chicago City airports regularly report that ATC is
>specifically advising them when exiting and re-entering B airspace -
>obviously establishing records for having to do so.

They REALLY want to decrease workload and frequency congestion...I do
understand and agree with that.

>Question: Anyone knows how ATC reacts to requests to briefly
>transition B-airspace on the outside border (transponder equipped
>glider)? Many of our local gliders fly with transponders.

I would think it to be the same as transitioning it in any slow small
power plane. You have a radio and a transponder...if "UNABLE " they
will tell ya. Will also depend on where you are in relation to
traffic flow too. I can probably get cleared to buzz around all day
at 3K MSL NW of CLE, as the primary traffic flow is NE/SW...

Around here (CLE), in a C172, if you call up for flight following
they'll usually clear you into the Bravo, and vector you clear of
traffic.

--Don
Don Byrer KJ5KB
Radar Tech & Smilin' Commercial Pilot Guy
Glider & CFI wannabe
kj5kb-at-hotmail.com

"I have slipped the surly bonds of earth; now if I can just land without bending the gear..."
"Watch out for those doves...<smack-smack-smack-smack...>"

[CindyB]

On Jan 4, 4:27*pm, Don Byrer > wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 10:06:21 -0800 (PST), Herb >
> wrote:
>
> >Recreational and business pilots in the Chicago area were recently
> >informed that the current 20-25 NM radius B-airspace is proposed to be
> >increased all the way to the 30NM transponder veil. *

Don -
SSA got the notice on December 31, to invite glider folks to the
meetings.
It was passed to local folks in a matter of hours.

The Botsford club Pres. has had a conversation with me on Friday,
and he has a pile of information to share at the Saturday club meeting
on various items to do and how to collect data to help thwart the
shelf.

You will be quite a resource to Bruce, there. The best way to get
the outcome you want is to bash them with their own protocols.

Cleveland may be a pile of work,and it may not get a perfect outcome,
but it seems
I am having to type a lot on Airspace issues for SSA members this
month.
Cleveland and Chicago have a Class B change,, and a MOA in Nevada,
and the ADS-B NPRM.

I will post more on RAS later to get the keyboardists in line to file
comments as needed.

Thanks,

Cindy B

[Mike Schumann]

Who is Cindy B???

Mike Schumann

"CindyB" > wrote in message
...
On Jan 4, 4:27 pm, Don Byrer > wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 10:06:21 -0800 (PST), Herb >
> wrote:
>
> >Recreational and business pilots in the Chicago area were recently
> >informed that the current 20-25 NM radius B-airspace is proposed to be
> >increased all the way to the 30NM transponder veil.

Don -
SSA got the notice on December 31, to invite glider folks to the
meetings.
It was passed to local folks in a matter of hours.

The Botsford club Pres. has had a conversation with me on Friday,
and he has a pile of information to share at the Saturday club meeting
on various items to do and how to collect data to help thwart the
shelf.

You will be quite a resource to Bruce, there. The best way to get
the outcome you want is to bash them with their own protocols.

Cleveland may be a pile of work,and it may not get a perfect outcome,
but it seems
I am having to type a lot on Airspace issues for SSA members this
month.
Cleveland and Chicago have a Class B change,, and a MOA in Nevada,
and the ADS-B NPRM.

I will post more on RAS later to get the keyboardists in line to file
comments as needed.

Thanks,

Cindy B





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

[aviationnut]

Cindy Brickner from Cal City.


On Jan 5, 3:04*pm, "Mike Schumann" >
wrote:
> Who is Cindy B???

[Marc Ramsey[_2_]]

aviationnut wrote:
> Cindy Brickner from Cal City.
>
>
> On Jan 5, 3:04 pm, "Mike Schumann" >
> wrote:
>> Who is Cindy B???

Cindy Brickner is also the member of the SSA Government Liaison
Committee responsible for airspace matters...

Marc

[MickiMinner]

>
> > On Jan 5, 3:04 pm, "Mike Schumann" >
> > wrote:
> >> Who is Cindy B???
>
> Cindy Brickner is also the member of the SSA Government Liaison
> Committee responsible for airspace matters...
>
> Marc

Hey, don't forget that Cindy is also a regional director on the board
of the SSA and has been for a long time, she also was a speaker at
many conventions, and at least year's convention, to celebrate the
75th anniversary of the SSA, she hosted a very well attended session
on "generations" in soaring. She's the Bomb in Soaring! (isn't that
what the kids say, when someone or something is really really cool?)

[Mike Schumann]

What is the SSA's position on the ADS-B NPRM?

Mike Schumann

"CindyB" > wrote in message
...
On Jan 4, 4:27 pm, Don Byrer > wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 10:06:21 -0800 (PST), Herb >
> wrote:
>
> >Recreational and business pilots in the Chicago area were recently
> >informed that the current 20-25 NM radius B-airspace is proposed to be
> >increased all the way to the 30NM transponder veil.

Don -
SSA got the notice on December 31, to invite glider folks to the
meetings.
It was passed to local folks in a matter of hours.

The Botsford club Pres. has had a conversation with me on Friday,
and he has a pile of information to share at the Saturday club meeting
on various items to do and how to collect data to help thwart the
shelf.

You will be quite a resource to Bruce, there. The best way to get
the outcome you want is to bash them with their own protocols.

Cleveland may be a pile of work,and it may not get a perfect outcome,
but it seems
I am having to type a lot on Airspace issues for SSA members this
month.
Cleveland and Chicago have a Class B change,, and a MOA in Nevada,
and the ADS-B NPRM.

I will post more on RAS later to get the keyboardists in line to file
comments as needed.

Thanks,

Cindy B





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