Re: How did KPHX Class B get so screwed up?

[Mxsmanic]

Shirl writes:

> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > What is happening to the FAA? The new Class B airspace
> > at KPHX drives another few nails into the GA coffin.
>
> How so?

It seems to be designed around the assumption that everyone has a moving-map
GPS to show the boundaries of the various sectors. Anyone who doesn't have
this is going to have a devil of a time figuring out whether or not he's
drifting into Class B. Since GA aircraft often don't have a moving-map GPS,
they are being strongly encouraged to stay away by the difficulty inherent in
finding the sector boundaries using just navaids, radials, landmarks, etc.

I know that GA groups were strongly opposed to this new scheme, and I can see
why. The overall impression created is that Phoenix doesn't want any GA
traffic.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Shirl writes:
>
>> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> > What is happening to the FAA? The new Class B airspace
>> > at KPHX drives another few nails into the GA coffin.
>>
>> How so?
>
> It seems to be designed around the assumption that everyone has a
> moving-map GPS to show the boundaries of the various sectors. Anyone
> who doesn't have this is going to have a devil of a time figuring out
> whether or not he's drifting into Class B. Since GA aircraft often
> don't have a moving-map GPS, they are being strongly encouraged to
> stay away by the difficulty inherent in finding the sector boundaries
> using just navaids, radials, landmarks, etc.
>
> I know that GA groups were strongly opposed to this new scheme, and I
> can see why. The overall impression created is that Phoenix doesn't
> want any GA traffic.
>

You are an idiot.


Bertie

[JB]

On Jan 31, 7:44*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Shirl writes:
> > Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > > What is happening to the FAA? *The new Class B airspace
> > > at KPHX drives another few nails into the GA coffin.
>
> > How so?
>
> It seems to be designed around the assumption that everyone has a moving-map
> GPS to show the boundaries of the various sectors. *Anyone who doesn't have
> this is going to have a devil of a time figuring out whether or not he's
> drifting into Class B. *Since GA aircraft often don't have a moving-map GPS,
> they are being strongly encouraged to stay away by the difficulty inherent in
> finding the sector boundaries using just navaids, radials, landmarks, etc.
>
> I know that GA groups were strongly opposed to this new scheme, and I can see
> why. *The overall impression created is that Phoenix doesn't want any GA
> traffic.


Anyone with a relatively cheap GPS will be able to navigate this just
fine. This is a non-issue.

--Jeff

[Mxsmanic]

JB writes:

> Anyone with a relatively cheap GPS will be able to navigate this just
> fine. This is a non-issue.

How much does a GPS certified for this type of use cost?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> JB writes:
>
>> Anyone with a relatively cheap GPS will be able to navigate this just
>> fine. This is a non-issue.
>
> How much does a GPS certified for this type of use cost?
>

About a hundred dollars.

How much does a candy bar cost?


Bertie

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> JB writes:
>
>> Anyone with a relatively cheap GPS will be able to navigate this just
>> fine. This is a non-issue.
>
> How much does a GPS certified for this type of use cost?

No certification needed.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 31, 12:33 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > Anyone with a relatively cheap GPS will be able to navigate this just
> > fine. This is a non-issue.
>
> How much does a GPS certified for this type of use cost?

A perfect example of how, if you don't actual flight experience in
FAA's system, the answer won't be obvious and you would ask.
such a dumb question.

F--

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> JB writes:

> > Anyone with a relatively cheap GPS will be able to navigate this just
> > fine. This is a non-issue.

> How much does a GPS certified for this type of use cost?

There is no certification requirement for VFR GPS.

If you really flew, you would know this.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 31, 6:44*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Shirl writes:
> > Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > > What is happening to the FAA? *The new Class B airspace
> > > at KPHX drives another few nails into the GA coffin.
>
> > How so?
>
> It seems to be designed around the assumption that everyone has a moving-map
> GPS to show the boundaries of the various sectors. *Anyone who doesn't have
> this is going to have a devil of a time figuring out whether or not he's
> drifting into Class B. *Since GA aircraft often don't have a moving-map GPS,
> they are being strongly encouraged to stay away by the difficulty inherent in
> finding the sector boundaries using just navaids, radials, landmarks, etc.
>
> I know that GA groups were strongly opposed to this new scheme, and I can see
> why. *The overall impression created is that Phoenix doesn't want any GA
> traffic.

You think aircraft are vectored through class B according to sector
boundaries?

What?

Oh wait ... what was *I* thinking when I started to respond to this?

I wasn't.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 31, 11:28*am, JB > wrote:
> On Jan 31, 7:44*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Shirl writes:
> > > Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > > > What is happening to the FAA? *The new Class B airspace
> > > > at KPHX drives another few nails into the GA coffin.
>
> > > How so?
>
> > It seems to be designed around the assumption that everyone has a moving-map
> > GPS to show the boundaries of the various sectors. *Anyone who doesn't have
> > this is going to have a devil of a time figuring out whether or not he's
> > drifting into Class B. *Since GA aircraft often don't have a moving-map GPS,
> > they are being strongly encouraged to stay away by the difficulty inherent in
> > finding the sector boundaries using just navaids, radials, landmarks, etc.
>
> > I know that GA groups were strongly opposed to this new scheme, and I can see
> > why. *The overall impression created is that Phoenix doesn't want any GA
> > traffic.
>
> Anyone with a relatively cheap GPS will be able to navigate this just
> fine. *This is a non-issue.
>
> --Jeff- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Or even without!

[Edward A. Falk]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:
>Shirl writes:
>
>> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> > What is happening to the FAA? The new Class B airspace
>> > at KPHX drives another few nails into the GA coffin.
>>
>> How so?
>
>It seems to be designed around the assumption that everyone has a moving-map
>GPS to show the boundaries of the various sectors. Anyone who doesn't have
>this is going to have a devil of a time figuring out whether or not he's
>drifting into Class B. Since GA aircraft often don't have a moving-map GPS,
>they are being strongly encouraged to stay away by the difficulty inherent in
>finding the sector boundaries using just navaids, radials, landmarks, etc.

Oh, if only there were some way to present that information in a way
that didn't need electronics. Perhaps some kind of large piece of paper
that contained both a visual depiction of the airspace *and* landmarks
on the ground.

--
-Ed Falk,
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/

[Marty Shapiro]

(Edward A. Falk) wrote in
:

> In article >,
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>Shirl writes:
>>
>>> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>> > What is happening to the FAA? The new Class B airspace
>>> > at KPHX drives another few nails into the GA coffin.
>>>
>>> How so?
>>
>>It seems to be designed around the assumption that everyone has a
>>moving-map GPS to show the boundaries of the various sectors. Anyone
>>who doesn't have this is going to have a devil of a time figuring out
>>whether or not he's drifting into Class B. Since GA aircraft often
>>don't have a moving-map GPS, they are being strongly encouraged to
>>stay away by the difficulty inherent in finding the sector boundaries
>>using just navaids, radials, landmarks, etc.
>
> Oh, if only there were some way to present that information in a way
> that didn't need electronics. Perhaps some kind of large piece of
> paper that contained both a visual depiction of the airspace *and*
> landmarks on the ground.
>

Like a NACO VFR Terminal Area Chart?

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Edward A. Falk]

In article >,
Marty Shapiro > wrote:

>> Oh, if only there were some way to present that information in a way
>> that didn't need electronics. Perhaps some kind of large piece of
>> paper that contained both a visual depiction of the airspace *and*
>> landmarks on the ground.
>
> Like a NACO VFR Terminal Area Chart?

Yeah exactly. Something like that. That would be really useful.

--
-Ed Falk,
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> You think aircraft are vectored through class B according to sector
> boundaries?

I was thinking of aircraft that are trying to stay outside the Class B.

[Gene Seibel]

On Jan 31, 6:44*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Shirl writes:
> > Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > > What is happening to the FAA? *The new Class B airspace
> > > at KPHX drives another few nails into the GA coffin.
>
> > How so?
>
> It seems to be designed around the assumption that everyone has a moving-map
> GPS to show the boundaries of the various sectors. *Anyone who doesn't have
> this is going to have a devil of a time figuring out whether or not he's
> drifting into Class B. *Since GA aircraft often don't have a moving-map GPS,
> they are being strongly encouraged to stay away by the difficulty inherent in
> finding the sector boundaries using just navaids, radials, landmarks, etc.
>
> I know that GA groups were strongly opposed to this new scheme, and I can see
> why. *The overall impression created is that Phoenix doesn't want any GA
> traffic.

[Gene Seibel]

On Jan 31, 6:44*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> I know that GA groups were strongly opposed to this new scheme, and I can see
> why. *The overall impression created is that Phoenix doesn't want any GA
> traffic.

As always, the important thing is to plan your flight before leaving
the ground.
--
Gene Seibel
Tales of flight - http://pad39a.com/gene/tales.html
Because we fly, we envy no one.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> You think aircraft are vectored through class B according to sector
>> boundaries?
>
> I was thinking of aircraft that are trying to stay outside the Class B.

Why were you thinkig of thse, fjukkwti?

Bertie