"-mRTMENTOF 

U.S. Dept. of Transportation • \NSPORTATION 

M-30 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE ' ^-1" OPERATIONS 

West Building Ground Floor Room W12-140 

Washington, D.C. 20590-0001 ';:'! JAN 28 ^ h 28 

FAA Docket No. FAA-2010-1146 And Airspace Docket No. lO-ASO-25 

Sir, 

I am concerned about the proposed new restricted area and the constraints it would put on 

the homeowners and pilots of our airpark Eagles Nest Aerodrome (FD44). Our history 

with the restricted areas and the MOA overhead is more than 30 years. Occasionally we 

see F-18s maneuvering high overhead or hear ordnance going off at the Pine Castle 

range, but it has been years since we last saw Orion P3s or Viking S3s using R2907A or 

anyone ever using R2906. The most military activity we see is low level helicopters 

using VR1041 or VRIOIO. Because of these observations we view the NPRM with 

concern; the bureaucracy is overreaching what is actually needed. 

First, the inclusion of airspace into the new R2907B cuts off our normal and often used 

east/west route over Ocala National Forest to Ocala (KOFC) and points west to south 

west. Having a base of 500 e^, while this may seem to allow passage under the 

restricted area while it's active, has some real safety concerns. 

1. Low altitude over heavy forested terrain. 

2. No VHF contact for flight advisories, AW AS, or VOR navigation. 

3. Forces transiting aircraft below 1,800 feet which is the minimum VHF 

reception and ATC vector altitude for this area. 

4. There are vertical obstructions (towers) that exceed 300 feet agl. 

5. Forces aircraft to fly below 1,000' agl over the Little Lake George 

Wilderness area which is in violation of FARs. 

Second, the inclusion of airspace into the new R2910D would do the same as far as 

vertical obstructions (some nearing 300') but, in addition, require any aircraft transiting 

fit)m Deland (KDED) to the NW to descend below 500 agl before entering. That would 

bring them into violation of altitude constraints (i.e. 1,000 agl) required over the 

Alexander Springs Wilderness, and the Juniper Prairie WUdemess areas. 

Third, while we do not normally get concerned about the new proposed top altitude of 

FL230, we can assume that this would affect ATC for KMCO, KSFB, and KORL. This 

we assumed fix)m the proposed top altitudes in new R2910B & C at 6,000 agl. 

Forth, our property values will be affected. The airspace around airparks in affects the 

general ambiance of what prospective buyers will accept. Too close to restricted airspace 

adversely affects sales of homes/hangars to an already small market of buyers. 

Expanding the restricted area aroimd our airpark will adversely affect our property 

values. That seems very unfair to us after many years of maintaining runways, taxiways. 
homes and hangars at some expense on, what is to most of us owners, our major 

investment. This is a particular concern to us. 

We propose the following: 

One. The floor of the new R2910D plus R2907A & B be raised to the floor of Palatka 1 

& 2 MOA (i.e. 3,000 agl.). If this is not possible, then 2,000 feet agl would be absolute 

minimum for the above safety reasons. 

Two. Lop off or trim the new proposed R2910B & C, leaving the 29' N latitude as the 

south boimdary for R2910A 

In essence, this would have the new R2910A restricted from the surface to FL230. While 

the new areas R2910D and R2907A&B would be restricted from 3,000 agl to FL230. 

I can't stress enough how much the restricted airspace around our airpark affects the 

flight operations of ovir membership. To put us under even more constraints by 

increasing the size of the restricted area with it's low 500 foot base is not only a 

detriment to the safety of our flying here but adversely affect the value of our property. 

We cannot survive those new constraints as an airpark. 

I do not want to deprive the armed services of training space as it is a consideration of 

national defense. However, my understanding of the constraints of Laser targeting and 

bombing is that it does not require stand-off altitudes of 500 feet some 25 miles from a 

target. 

It is with those operational concerns that I protest the NPRM as written. 

Respectfully, 

James E. Goolsby 

Resident 

Eagles Nest Aerodrome Homeowners Association 

1717 CR 308 

Crescent City, FL. 32112