Would move the northern boundary of SBD’s Class D a third of a mile north, which I think puts it right through Harrison & McK, no? Didn’t measure it on a map yet, but maybe someone can parse that better than I can. The rest of it seems like a non-issue, but the northern boundary moving further north might impact flights east in addition to landing-out options depending on where the line ends up.
My initial read on it had me looking at the class D shelf over redlands meaning flights to the brewery would have to go a mile or more east or south of the brewery staying above 3700′ msl and then descending to below 2600′ msl and using the last 1000′ agl to go under the class D shelf to the brewery.
But I was then far more interested in the proposed class E extension where they were replacing class G with E to surface. I believe such a designation would make it illegal for part 103 operations.
When I plugged in the points outlining the class E to surface, it showed a large area making flights to the dam or brewery within the surface E airspace.
Someone please double check my interpretation of class E to surface (part 103) and the proposed boundary in the nprm.
For reference, the little black x in the first image is roughly “the dam”. The blue line is the lateral boundary of the surface E. The second image is from part 103.
I wonder too how often the “surface E” would be active. Always?
There are several issues with the proposed expansion of the San Bernardino class D airspace: 1. Air traffic approaching KREI will now have to approach lower, increasing noise and the possibility of increased noise complaints from the community. As we all know increased noise of less to airport closures down the road.
2. Radar coverage does not exist for KSBD. They have a difficult time managing the airspace they have now. Expanding class D with no radar coverage increases the danger for approaching aircraft over populated cities. In NO WAY should D be expanded without radar coverage. As proof – Feel free to contact me regarding the near miss I recently had with a heavy out of KSBD (which has been reported to and verified by the Riverside FISDO).
3. The utility of KREI will be greatly diminished. Ultralight traffic will no longer be able to operate out of KREI. (Also popular paraglider and hang glider soaring routes will be blocked.) In addition the new visibility and cloud clearance requirements as a result of the airspace changes will make it difficult for arriving and departing VFR traffic on days with a marine layer. The marine layer can burn off yet the visibility be below three miles for most of the day in the spring and summer months. This would keep the majority of the aircraft at KREI grounded for possibly weeks at a time.
4. North departing KREI traffic will need to delay climb out. In case of engine failure this puts pilots and people in the ground in more danger because the class D will make a return to KREI impossible in the event of engine failure.
5. The new airspace scheme will invite larger aircraft to make east to west approaches increasing noise, pollution for the Redlands and Highland communities.
6. Putting large aircraft over the top of the KREI traffic pattern will cause wake turbulence endangering the lives of pilots and passengers arriving at KREI. Few if any aircraft are following the UPS approach into KSBD – just look at the pat three years of flight tracks.
KREI has substantially more aircraft movements than does KSBD As a result the opera at KREI should be prioritized over KSBD. Expanding Class D is a will substantially reduce the ability for VFR traffic to operate out of KREI and increasing the danger. The FAA should not be favoring KSBD, a low movement airport in such a way that is substantially harms KREI a higher movement airport.
KSBD traffic should continue to approach from West to East. The San Bernardino area cannot handle more large air traffic and all the noise, pollution, and danger to local air traffic that goes along with it.
KREI wasn’t even aware of the proposed changes until late September yet the memo was signed 7/2/2024. Big thanks to Dan for keeping up with the RAACP and bringing this to everyone’s attention.
On Monday I will attempt to get in touch with the FAA and request an extension of the comment period.
Rules and Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783
Refer to: FAA Order JO 7400.11J
I wonder if this change would also mean that more of the approaches coming in over Billboard would be even lower.
Also, under the “Regulatory Analyses” section near the end, seems like the author was being a bit glib about this proposed change’s impact being “so minimal.” Seems like a “nothing to see here, let’s just pass this thing.”
My guess is that ‘the author’ is more or less a ‘rubber stamp’ and that the real authors are the personnel who run SBD in concert with Amazon, Walmart and other fulfillment centers making room for more on-demand package delivery by air over the coming decades. That is a Prime Air jet making its daily round from 2022. This will probably increase by 20-fold or more over the coming years.
Need to suggest night flights for freight carriers exiting on 6. Landings on 24 should only be when SW surface winds are exceeding 20kts on strong NE days, a policy option they were throwing around couple years back, and daytime exits on 6 during strong NE days.
Given the broad range of potential impacts (‘good’ and ‘bad’) from the FAA proposed alternative, I wonder why this is being treated as a simple FAA ‘regulatory’ local airport matter, all within confines of FAA, versus a regional decision – as the proposal obviously does impact on far more than airspace comings and goings from the one airport? EG, inter-modal transportation mix/changes, recreational aviation, noise, air quality, bird migrations, etc etc. Significant public concerns/controversy and broad range of known impacts (direct, indirect, cumulative) are both triggering criteria for various requirements to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for proposed Federal actions. From my readings of the FAA proposal and the comments already received at FAA; and, as discussed in this forum, seems apparent to me that all of our comments also need to point out the legal /regulatory US code requirements for FAA to prepare an EIS for this proposed action.
Since the proposed change would likely mean additional and lower air traffic over their land, including all of the noise/pollution/visual/etc impacts that go along with that, does anyone have any contacts at San Manuel to ask for their involvement? Might help.
Home › Forums › Events & Projects › NPRM comment period
Search Forums
Forums