Changes to SFO Class Bravo

Dav8or

Dav8or

Final Approach
Joined
Jan 6, 2007
Messages
5,174
Location
Discovery Bay, CA
Display Name
Display name:
Dave
I was just notified that there are to be meetings open to the public to discuss proposed changes to the SFO Class Bravo airspace. Any changes I have assume is to expand the Bravo. The meetings are on January 30th in Burlingame, January 31st in San Jose and February 1st in Oakland.

I have no idea what they are going to propose. Anybody know? Anybody planning on attending? I guess you can contact this guy for information-

Rick Coté, FAA Support Specialist, Northern California TRACON, 11365 Douglas Road, Mather, CA 95655, (916) 366-4001
 
Heard that it was mostly expansion of the upper rings to get SFO arrivals into Bravo sooner with the updated NextGen approaches.

Right now NIMBYS in Santa Cruz area are screaming bloody murder cuz FAA changed the SFO arrival from over the Monterey Bay to be lower and further south to get them into the Bravo sooner and these changes are supposed to allow them to keep arrivals higher for longer.
 
Unfortunately, I think the issue is with the B FLOOR related to the SERFR arrival. If you've ever heard a clearance, they always are cleared to fly the arrival, except maintain 8000. The relevant segment is 6000, and it's below the B.

Once they enter the B on an instrument procedure, they are supposed to stay in it.

And FYI, the NIMBYs are in Redwood Estates. Opposition is in SLV, where the NIMBYs want to send the traffic. Santa Cruz couldn't care less. Palo Alto probably will if they figure it out (or maybe they'll just blame it on San Carlos like their neighbors to the north), as the altitudes are much lower.
 
Last edited:
SFO's is basically one of the basic concentric rings upside down wedding cake types. With a little luck, while they're adding a little to contain the procedures mentioned above they'll take a little away and free up some non B airspace like they did at Seattle and San Diego.
 
MAKG1 said:
Essentially, the Big Sur arrival.
Click to expand...
That covers a lot of ground. I was trying to find out what town or neighborhood you were referring to as the source of the opposition.
 
MAKG1 said:
Santa Cruz couldn't care less.
Click to expand...

Could not be more wrong. They are one of the more vocal current opposition groups to the recent changes that already have been made. NIMBY's are not exclusive to the valley.
 
It seems clear to me that this change is much bigger than just addressing the concerns of Santa Cruz NIMBYs. There are a whole lot of changes that have nothing to do with Santa Cruz.
 
Dav8or said:
It seems clear to me that this change is much bigger than just addressing the concerns of Santa Cruz NIMBYs. There are a whole lot of changes that have nothing to do with Santa Cruz.
Click to expand...

Absolutely...that was in response to MAKG's comment that Santa Cruz couldn't care less...when in reality there is a group over here currently active and already very vocal about the changes that have already occurred and they are trying to get FAA to revise the arrival again in conjunction with the Bravo changes.

They are screaming bloody murder that the new arrival path has recently been amended and God forbid, airplanes are flying over houses.
 
Looking at the proposal, it seems like an overall good thing for us. Lots of airspace flips over to E without too much extra being taken by the B. What I don't see is whether any of the C airspace over Oakland and San Jose would adjust with this. Some floors drop, but it doesn't seem too onerous.

The biggest challenge is going to be learning all the new outlines. I've got the current Bravo committed to memory!
 
Shawn said:
Could not be more wrong. They are one of the more vocal current opposition groups to the recent changes that already have been made. NIMBY's are not exclusive to the valley.
Click to expand...
Well, that's really interesting, as neither of the arrivals overflies the city.

The "vocal opposition groups" come from further uphill, well outside the city.

SERFR TWO comes ashore rather close to Capitola Village, but nearly two miles above it. The folks that have been screaming bloody murder are near Summit Rd., where the altitude gets down to 3000 AGL or so. Not that a jet at flight idle is all that loud at that distance, though the locals claim it is.

Not that the proposed alternative is better; it isn't. Terrain is higher and there are a lot more people. And the NIMBYs will lose for a number of technical reasons, not the least of which is extended flight over dense urban areas on the Peninsula.
 
Last edited:
MAKG1 said:
SERFR TWO comes ashore rather close to Capitola Village, but nearly two miles above it.
Click to expand...

I know you are the self proclaimed expert on all things Bay Area, but what I quoted above is exactly the current problem. The arrival into SFO used to be a bit further north over the less populated area of Wilder Ranch where they could descend at idle. Now it comes over the Capitol shoreline where the airliners sometimes have to add power to maintain altitude with the current NextGen arrival revision...and at 10,000' that is noticeable to the hyper sensitive.

Here is a quote from a commercial pilot on another board:

"As I fly the new arrival often (121 flying), there IS a very small area where you level off (and add thrust) to avoid descending below the outer most bravo shelf, and to provide vertical separation to SJC arrivals on the brixx. A small increase of the bravo, at least on the santa cruz size, would allow for an idling descent all the way down."

Not sure why you have such a hard time accepting that there is an actual issue that affected by that specify portion of the current Bravo and there is a vocal segment of the community In Santa Cruz over here that is trying to rectify thai issues in conjunction with the proposed SFO Bravo changes. While it is just one small issue related to the overall SFO changes and communities that are impacted, it is indeed one element that is being considered in the decision making process within the big picture.
 
Last edited:
Shawn said:
I know you are the self proclaimed expert on all things Bay Area, but what I quoted above is exactly the current problem. The arrival into SFO used to be a bit further north over the less populated area of Wilder Ranch where they could descend at idle. Now it comes over the Capitol shoreline where the airliners sometimes have to add power to maintain altitude with the current NextGen arrival revision...and at 10,000' that is noticeable to the hyper sensitive.

Here is a quote from a commercial pilot on another board:

"As I fly the new arrival often (121 flying), there IS a very small area where you level off (and add thrust) to avoid descending below the outer most bravo shelf, and to provide vertical separation to SJC arrivals on the brixx. A small increase of the bravo, at least on the santa cruz size, would allow for an idling descent all the way down."

Not sure why you have such a hard time accepting that there is an actual issue that affected by that specify portion of the current Bravo and there is a vocal segment of the community In Santa Cruz over here that is trying to rectify thai issues in conjunction with the proposed SFO Bravo changes. While it is just one small issue related to the overall SFO changes and communities that are impacted, it is indeed one element that is being considered in the decision making process within the big picture.
Click to expand...

Less populated? Damn, you drank the Kool Aid. The alternative proposed -- and the old arrival -- flies over 20,000 residents in SLV, and at a much lower altitude. Just, SLV doesn't have the same money. THAT'S the real issue.

I have difficulty accepting the arguments because they are BS. And the FAA agrees. You did read the study, right? I did.

I listened to the old arrival for more than 10 years. While you could hear it from 8000 feet, it was hardly "loud," and all the variables are identical to SERFR. With reduced terrain clearance.
 
Shawn said:
Absolutely...that was in response to MAKG's comment that Santa Cruz couldn't care less...when in reality there is a group over here currently active and already very vocal about the changes that have already occurred and they are trying to get FAA to revise the arrival again in conjunction with the Bravo changes.

They are screaming bloody murder that the new arrival path has recently been amended and God forbid, airplanes are flying over houses.
Click to expand...
Whenever a routing changes from over "someone else's house" to "over OUR house!!!", there is complaining. I live in a little semi-rural subdivision that never heard airplanes other than students practicing. When Denver International was built, the airspace and arrivals were altered. You should have heard the complaining, not about the airliners, which were routed elsewhere. But since they changed the arrival for the business jets going into Centennial to come right over our neighborhood, people were up in arms. Someone said that she was being affected by "jet fumes". I would not say they were loud, but they were noticeable, flying at about 2,000' AGL. I know because I pointed out my house numerous times. Now they have changed the arrival again and they no longer fly over my neighborhood, but you can bet someone else is complaining.
 
I went to one of the meetings earlier this year and they said that nothing would be happening until early 2018 or later.

Airspace changes have to be published in the Federal Register. I watch that and nothing has been published there yet.


-Paul
 
Looks like a possible VFR type corridor along the Peninsula? Looking at areas I and M have floors of 4000' & 8000' respectively. That would be great if true. Slightly difficult to decode the proposed rings without an underlying map.
 
I hope they add an departure procedure to KSQL, the current one takes so long to say my radio cuts out (30 secs) because of stuck mic protection.
 
NordicDave said:
Looks like a possible VFR type corridor along the Peninsula? Looking at areas I and M have floors of 4000' & 8000' respectively. That would be great if true. Slightly difficult to decode the proposed rings without an underlying map.
Click to expand...
The second file at the link in post #8 shows an earlier version of the plan superimposed on a map, so am posting it below, reoriented to approximately true north to match the graphic in the final rule. I have also removed the stretching in the final graphic. There are changes in some of the outlines, but they are similar enough so that it should be possible to figure out the geographic areas covered by comparing the two.

Earlier version:

SFO Class B Proposal.jpg
Final version:

SFO Class B Final Rule.png
 
"SLV" means San Lorenzo Valley which includes Felton, Ben Lomond and Boulder Creek. I live there at 1400' MSL. Nice view of the Monterey Bay BTW.

There was some mention above that planes are at flight idle so why are we complaining. Excuse me, flight idle. I wish. For example: SWA rewarding pilots for on time arrivals means they are carrying all the power than can and are also busting the 250 KIAS maximum to "get there" faster. Even though after all the noise and fuel wasted it is only 5 minutes.

I've observed 747's on approach over my house and they are much quieter than the narrow bodies because they are managing their descents, without carrying power.

I think pilot technique here could go a long way to alleviating the problem.
 
I should have included a heads-up: Most of this thread was posted two years ago.
 
Cruzinchris said:
I think pilot technique here could go a long way to alleviating the problem.
Click to expand...

Once we're in a busy terminal area, our power is dictated more by ATC than anything else. If I'm told to descend a thousand feet, I'm not going to go to flight idle to do it. After safety, my immediate concern is smoothness for the passengers in the back, not my noise footprint.

And yeah, SWA has always had the reputation for going fast, but I'm pretty sure they get paid the same whether they're on time or not. I've been on their jumpseat more times than I can count, and not once have I witnessed them intentionally do more than 250 below 10.
 
luvflyin said:
How do you like it? Is it going to make it much easier to fly around the Bay Area VFR?
Click to expand...
The final rule hasn't been out very long, but I see a steep learning curve in my future, so it's hard to give an objective answer about its long-term effects. So far, I'm only aware of one area, north of Half Moon Bay, where the changes seem advantageous to GA. My first impression is that it's going to make it much harder to avoid bravo busts. How much that will change with familiarity, I don't know.
 
kayoh190 said:
... SWA has always had the reputation for going fast....
Click to expand...

While on flight following recently from Livermore to Salinas, 2 different SWA flights needed repeated instructions to slowdown. Once they did, one of the flights kept asking ATC for clearance to go faster like every 5 mins. He got the option to drop from 200 kts to 180 and he corked it.
 
Disappointing the FAA did not make a VFR corridor along hwy 280 or 101 from San Mateo to Millbrae.
 
NordicDave said:
Disappointing the FAA did not make a VFR corridor along hwy 280 or 101 from San Mateo to Millbrae.
Click to expand...

Assuming SFO is reporting VFR and they are in typical landing pattern I have never been denied Bravo transition up the Peninsula.
 
kayoh190 said:
Once we're in a busy terminal area, our power is dictated more by ATC than anything else. If I'm told to descend a thousand feet, I'm not going to go to flight idle to do it. After safety, my immediate concern is smoothness for the passengers in the back, not my noise footprint.

And yeah, SWA has always had the reputation for going fast, but I'm pretty sure they get paid the same whether they're on time or not. I've been on their jumpseat more times than I can count, and not once have I witnessed them intentionally do more than 250 below 10.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your reply. But, why are the 747's quieter than the 737's then?
 
Cruzinchris said:
I appreciate your reply. But, why are the 747's quieter than the 737's then?
Click to expand...

Good question - your experience is a surprise to me. Really love the area where you live, though - this sounds like a good excuse to head your way on my next layover to hear for myself. With beer, of course! :)
 
NordicDave said:
Disappointing the FAA did not make a VFR corridor along hwy 280 or 101 from San Mateo to Millbrae.
Click to expand...
There are three "VFR Flyways" (transitions) through Bravo; they are "Coastline", "Pacifica", and "Bay Shore". They claim that with the traffic density (three international airports) and terrain issues, "VFR Corridors" without talking to ATC like at LAX are not practical. Using the VFR Flyways does require ATC communications and an assigned altitude.

It sounds like a reasonable compromise to me.
 
Stan Cooper said:
They claim that with the traffic density (three international airports) and terrain issues, "VFR Corridors" without talking to ATC like at LAX are not practical.
Click to expand...
I think one of the issues is that some departing planes need the extra length of Runway 28L or R, which would cut across any corridor that went up the peninsula.
 
Stan Cooper said:
There are three "VFR Flyways" (transitions) through Bravo; they are "Coastline", "Pacifica", and "Bay Shore". They claim that with the traffic density (three international airports) and terrain issues, "VFR Corridors" without talking to ATC like at LAX are not practical. Using the VFR Flyways does require ATC communications and an assigned altitude.

It sounds like a reasonable compromise to me.
Click to expand...

Palmpilot said:
I think one of the issues is that some departing planes need the extra length of Runway 28L or R, which would cut across any corridor that went up the peninsula.
Click to expand...

It is a reasonable solution and reason why. Thanks guys for sharing. Helpful.
 
Palmpilot said:
The final rule hasn't been out very long, but I see a steep learning curve in my future, so it's hard to give an objective answer about its long-term effects. So far, I'm only aware of one area, north of Half Moon Bay, where the changes seem advantageous to GA. My first impression is that it's going to make it much harder to avoid bravo busts. How much that will change with familiarity, I don't know.
Click to expand...

Now that the new terminal area chart is on line, I can see that it actually does free up quite a bit of airspace for general use. My next step is to find out when the new database will be available for my hand-held GPS.
 
I'm not sure how legible this will be, but here goes...

sfo%20class%20b%2093%20eff%2016august2018_zpsda0ct1ib.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top