Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
spacecadet wrote:that area above the Class B is still controlled airspace all the way up to 60,000 ft.
spacecadet wrote:Airspace around the country is under constant analysis. If NYC's class B is still at 7,000, then there is some continuing reason for it.
Looking at the two areas, I think the main thing is that NYC and the surrounding area is pretty much blanketed by Class E airspace down to 700 ft AGL, so that area above the Class B is still controlled airspace all the way up to 60,000 ft.![]()
In ATL, there are a lot of gaps in the Class E airspace, so there's actually *less* controlled airspace even though the Class B tops are higher. The B tops have to be higher for that reason - otherwise that airspace would be totally uncontrolled.
There's also about a 1,000 ft. difference in the elevation of the airport and surrounding terrain, so you'd expect ATL to have slightly higher tops even without the gaps in E airspace. But most of it I think is explained by the Class E.
The real question is why is so much airspace around ATL uncontrolled.
N1120A wrote:As was said, airspace is constantly being evaluated and gets redesigned. The San Francisco Class B just got massively realigned about a year ago. A look at the design of the Los Angeles and San Diego Class Bs will tell you that the upside down cake design isn't a catch all. My guess is that the difference in altitudes has everything to do with the way the departures and arrivals work in the airspace, and also the way the airports are located. Terrain is certainly a factor in Denver and Salt Lake, but the difference between NYC and ATL can't be explained that way.
zuckie13 wrote:Isn't it just the fact that in NYC you have all those airports so close together that they transition from the airport to NY TRACON in order to manage that? It's still highly controlled airspace, just not with the tower at the airport anymore?