The FAA is proposing changes for the SFO-B airspace as described in the link below:
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Sa ... 436-1.html
The FAA reasoning is for improved fuel-efficiency and noise-reduction, by enabling clean-configuration idle-thrust optimal descents. The departure from DME radial arcs, to the trapezoidal zone, defintions is proposed since all IFR, and most VFR, pilots are flying with GPS instrumentation these days. The proposed changes will have some impact on our flying sites:
1- Mission: Our ceiling around Mission launch, where we are limited to 6000', will remain the same. But, behind Mission and half way to Ed Levin, where we are currently allowed 8000', will mostly be lowered to 6000'.
2- Ed Levin: The commonly flown area where we currently have a ceiling of 8000' will drop to 6000'. For those going XC out of Ed Levin, the ceiling will incrementally rise to 7000' then 8000', again mostly in the area where we currently have 8000' already.
3- Funston: The cut-out along Westlake will rise from 1500' to 1600', and the south end transition to 3000' will move significantly farther north (good). But, the current 2100' ceiling we enjoy between the golf course and westlake is proposed to included in the cut-out section with 1600' ceiling.
There is little we can probably do about Ed Levin and Mission. They are square in the middle of the east originating flight approaches. Fortunately, the days of bumping into those altitudes are quite rare. There is probably very little practical impact to us.
Funston is a different story, and we are trying to negotiate a couple points.
Tom Low is drafting a formal response, on the part of USHPA, with our concerns. His request will have at least 2 specific requests:
a- Revise the apex of the triangular Funston cut-out, to restore our 2100' ceiling to westlake.
b- Revise the east boundary of the cut-out to be Skyline and Hwy-1 (just a few hundred yards inland). Currently, it is defined as shoreline which constrains our movement in the lift band.
Tom and I attended the public FAA meeting in Burlingame, and Karl Almendinger and I attended the one in San Jose. The FAA personel presenting at these meetings were the ones in charge of these proposals, and seemed very open to working with all airspace users (including HG/PG) to define boundaries in the best way possible.