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.

Several of us are flying with the Fairhaven Micro Alti. It has an adjustable vario and basic altimeters, works great.  Available through some PG retailers, xbay, or direct from https://www.altivario.com/ .

Congratulations Bille!

Nice one JD! Beautiful views.