Soaring under the Bravo?

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..."

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

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

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..."

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

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.

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..."

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.