N.Y. on high alert? Pilot buzzes Statue of Liberty

[Cecil E. Chapman]

Argh...


http://www.suntimes.com/output/terror/cst-nws-tnyc30.html
--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures complete with pictures and text at:
www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -

[Chris Hoffmann]

"Peter Pan Bus Lines". That's kind of frightening...

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:32:23 GMT, "Cecil E. Chapman"
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>Argh...
>
>
>http://www.suntimes.com/output/terror/cst-nws-tnyc30.html
>--

It's hard to believe that an instrument rated pilot got lost and
circled the Statue of Liberty:

Pilots Database Search Result
------------------------------------------------------
Name : LANGONE, RICHARD MICHAEL
Pilot's Address : XXXX BAY BLVD
ATLANTIC BEACH, NY, 11509-1648
FAA Region : Eastern
Date of Medical : Jul, 2002
Class of Medical : 3
Expiration : Jul, 2004
Pilot Certificates : Private Pilot
Airplane Single Engine Land
Instrument Airplane

[Andrew Gideon]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> It's hard to believe that an instrument rated pilot got lost and
> circled the Statue of Liberty:

Well...no, not really. Rather: the IA rating isn't really relevant. If
anything, taking the rating actually reduced my pilotage skill for a while.
But not by so much that I'd be confused about Manhattan Island.

And he wasn't lost when he circled the statue. I'm not sure that this is
relevant, mind you. But he did find the statue. So...was he really
"lost"? Or did he misread the TAC?

- Andrew

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:03:12 -0500, Andrew Gideon >
wrote in Message-Id:
e.com>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>> It's hard to believe that an instrument rated pilot got lost and
>> circled the Statue of Liberty:
>
>Well...no, not really. Rather: the IA rating isn't really relevant.

Personally, I believe that an instrument rated pilot is more
experienced, professional, and careful than a pilot lacking an
instrument rating. I would generally expect the competence of an
instrument rated pilot to exceed that of a pilot without without an
instrument rating, thus the reason for my comment.

>If anything, taking the rating actually reduced my pilotage skill for a while.

That is understandable, given that the charts employed for instrument
flight lack topographic and landmark detail.

>But not by so much that I'd be confused about Manhattan Island.

Precisely.

>And he wasn't lost when he circled the statue. I'm not sure that this is
>relevant, mind you. But he did find the statue. So...was he really
>"lost"? Or did he misread the TAC?

We all have bad days, I suppose.

[Andrew Gideon]

Larry Dighera wrote:

>>Well...no, not really. Rather: the IA rating isn't really relevant.
>
> Personally, I believe that an instrument rated pilot is more
> experienced, professional, and careful than a pilot lacking an
> instrument rating. I would generally expect the competence of an
> instrument rated pilot to exceed that of a pilot without without an
> instrument rating, thus the reason for my comment.

<Laugh> I used to think that. Then I got the rating. If *I* could get
it...

More seriously: the skills acquired for the IA rating aren't generally
applicable to what this fellow was doing. Perhaps he could hold altitude
or heading more tightly than a newly minted PPL, but that's about all.

Ah...perhaps one more item. Depending upon where he did his PPL, the IA
might also bring with it more comfort in dealing with TRACON, Center, and
such. But assuming he did his PPL around here (I'm also in the Newark
Metro area), he'd already have to be comfortable with ATC.

[...]
>>And he wasn't lost when he circled the statue. I'm not sure that this is
>>relevant, mind you. But he did find the statue. So...was he really
>>"lost"? Or did he misread the TAC?
>
> We all have bad days, I suppose.

Well...if he were unfamiliar with the area, I'd agree. But if he's been
flying out of Republic for any length of time, "bad day" really doesn't
cover it. I mean, it's not like he misread a 1100' floor for a 1500'
floor, or something "small" like that.

[Then again, perhaps that is what occurred.]

Yes, of course people do make mistakes. And it's nice that this one didn't
kill anyone, which isn't always the case in this business. But I'm most
put out by the response to this "mistake" by some public officials.

- Andrew

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Michael Nouak" > wrote in message
...
>
> Please note that the posting of personal beliefs is not allowed according
to
> the charter of this NG.
>

Is that what you believe? Then you shouldn't have posted it.

[Ron Natalie]

"Michael Nouak" > wrote in message ...
>
> "Larry Dighera" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> ...
> > snip
> > Personally, I believe
>
> Please note that the posting of personal beliefs is not allowed according to
> the charter of this NG.

Bull****. This is the charter.
************************************************** *****************
* Information pertinent to pilots of general aviation aircraft
* which would not fall into one of the other non-misc
* rec.aviation groups. Topics include, but are not limited to
* flying skills, interesting sights, destinations, flight
* characteristics of aircraft, unusual situations, handling
* emergencies, working with air traffic control, international
* flights, customs and immigration, experiences with
* ground support facilities, etc.

************************************************** *****************


>
> > snip again
> > That is understandable
>
> Please note that posting what you, or anyone else, may or may not find
> understandable is not allowed according to the charter of this NG.

Bull****. Get a life. It's topical. Personal opinions are NOT precluded
for discussion as long as it is within the categories of discussion allowed.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 18:20:18 +0100, "Michael Nouak"
> wrote in Message-Id: >:

>You also didn't read Larry's recent comments regarding the charter -
>either. FYI he wants to ban hangar talk, because it's not allowed by
>the charter (he says).

You didn't read and comprehend my articles either. I'm suggesting
that a new 'hangar-flying' newsgroup be created just for those
rec.aviation.* participants who wish to indulge in such in an attempt
to restore rec.aviation.piloting to its chartered purpose.

Here's another copy for you. The bit about a new newsgroup is at the
end.

From: Larry Dighera >
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: CHARTER: rec.aviation.piloting
Message-ID: >


The "founder" of this rec.aviation.piloting usenet newsgroup,
Jeoff Peck, seems to have discontinued periodically posting its
charter. In the hope that knowledge of the charter will improve
the newsgroup's ever declining signal-to-noise ratio, I post it
here:

From: Geoff Peck )
Subject: CHARTER: rec.aviation.piloting
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Date: 2002-01-13 00:45:07 PST

The charter of rec.aviation.piloting is:


: ************************************************** *****************
: * Information pertinent to pilots of general aviation aircraft
: * which would not fall into one of the other non-misc
: * rec.aviation groups. Topics include, but are not limited to
: * flying skills, interesting sights, destinations, flight
: * characteristics of aircraft, unusual situations, handling
: * emergencies, working with air traffic control, international
: * flights, customs and immigration, experiences with
: * ground support facilities, etc.
: ************************************************** *****************


If members of the readership of rec.aviation.piloting feel that
the constraints of this duly enacted charter prevent them from
posting articles that might be classified as 'hangar flying'
topics (as opposed to 'piloting' topics) just say the word, and we
can start the process to have rec.aviation.hangar-flying
chartered, or they can post articles on those topics to
rec.aviation.misc.

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/creating-newsgroups/part1/

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Michael Nouak" > wrote in message
...
>
> Didn't read my whole post, did you now? Didn't read any of Larry's other
> recent posts about the group charter either, huh? Would have helped.
>


Just let these things die of their own accord. Being Net Cop has never,
ever helped. It only causes people to dig in their heels further.

[EDR]

In article >, Larry Dighera
> wrote:

Ah, gee, Larry!
Why don't you just create a catchall
rec.aviation.piloting.hangarflying.alcoholics group and be done with
it?

[[email protected]]

In article >, Larry Dighera says...
>
>On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 18:20:18 +0100, "Michael Nouak"
> wrote in Message-Id: >:
>
>>You also didn't read Larry's recent comments regarding the charter -
>>either. FYI he wants to ban hangar talk, because it's not allowed by
>>the charter (he says).
>
>You didn't read and comprehend my articles either. I'm suggesting
>that a new 'hangar-flying' newsgroup be created just for those
>rec.aviation.* participants who wish to indulge in such in an attempt
>to restore rec.aviation.piloting to its chartered purpose.
>
>Here's another copy for you. The bit about a new newsgroup is at the
>end.
>
> From: Larry Dighera >
> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
> Subject: CHARTER: rec.aviation.piloting
> Message-ID: >
>
>
> The "founder" of this rec.aviation.piloting usenet newsgroup,
> Jeoff Peck, seems to have discontinued periodically posting its
> charter. In the hope that knowledge of the charter will improve
> the newsgroup's ever declining signal-to-noise ratio, I post it
> here:
>
> From: Geoff Peck )
> Subject: CHARTER: rec.aviation.piloting
> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
> Date: 2002-01-13 00:45:07 PST
>
> The charter of rec.aviation.piloting is:
>
>
>: ************************************************** *****************
>: * Information pertinent to pilots of general aviation aircraft
>: * which would not fall into one of the other non-misc
>: * rec.aviation groups. Topics include, but are not limited to
>: * flying skills, interesting sights, destinations, flight
>: * characteristics of aircraft, unusual situations, handling
>: * emergencies, working with air traffic control, international
>: * flights, customs and immigration, experiences with
>: * ground support facilities, etc.
>: ************************************************** *****************
>
>
> If members of the readership of rec.aviation.piloting feel that
> the constraints of this duly enacted charter prevent them from
> posting articles that might be classified as 'hangar flying'
> topics (as opposed to 'piloting' topics) just say the word, and we
> can start the process to have rec.aviation.hangar-flying
> chartered, or they can post articles on those topics to
> rec.aviation.misc.
>
> http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/creating-newsgroups/part1/


Discussion of the creation of new newsgroups is not allowed by the charter of
rec.aviation.piloting. Also, criticizing postings for being off topic is not
allowed by the charter of rec.aviation.piloting.

[noah]

Really now, what is and isn't hanger flying? I sure has !@#$ don't
know.

Here's the charter posted earlier:
: * Information pertinent to pilots of general aviation
aircraft
=====> how is a pilot violating airspace & the story around it not
pertinent?

: * which would not fall into one of the other non-misc
: * rec.aviation groups. Topics include, but are not limited
to
: * flying skills, interesting sights, destinations, flight
=====> the statue of liberty is definitely an intersting sight or
destination.

: * characteristics of aircraft, unusual situations, handling
: * emergencies, working with air traffic control,
international
=====> did the story not involve:
(a) an unusual situation ?
(b) working with ATC ?
: * flights, customs and immigration, experiences with
: * ground support facilities, etc.


I really have to wonder - how many of my past posts to r.a.* have been
perfectly on topic? I try to (prior to this post) keep my comments
related to:
Stuff that matters to pilots of GA, and interested students etc...

I think the original article post was certainly on-topic for GA
pilots. It serves as a warning to others not to make the same mistake.
I don't want to have r.a.p split up into groups with less traffic and
less people to help someone when they have a serious question etc...

[Martin Hotze]

On 31 Dec 2003 11:45:31 -0800, wrote:

>Discussion of the creation of new newsgroups is not allowed by the charter of
>rec.aviation.piloting. Also, criticizing postings for being off topic is not
>allowed by the charter of rec.aviation.piloting.

anonymous idiot. go away! NOW!

#m
--
harsh regulations in North Korea (read below link after reading the story):
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/04/open-mikulan.php
oooops ... sorry ... it happened in the USA, ya know: the land of the free.

[Martin Hotze]

On 31 Dec 2003 14:22:40 -0800, noah wrote:

>I think the original article post was certainly on-topic for GA
>pilots. It serves as a warning to others not to make the same mistake.
>I don't want to have r.a.p split up into groups with less traffic and
>less people to help someone when they have a serious question etc...

rec.aviation.misc exists. as long as there is no better fitting group it
belongs into the .misc group.

#m

--
harsh regulations in North Korea (read below link after reading the story):
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/04/open-mikulan.php
oooops ... sorry ... it happened in the USA, ya know: the land of the free.

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 19:44:50 GMT, EDR > wrote:

>In article >, Larry Dighera
> wrote:
>
>Ah, gee, Larry!
>Why don't you just create a catchall
>rec.aviation.piloting.hangarflying.alcoholics group and be done with
>it?

I've reread some of the followup articles in the threads related to
this subject, and it appears that what some folks really want is a
place to informally fraternize with other aviation-knowledgable peers
in a freeform social setting not unlike the conversations that might
occur in a public tavern or a hangar. Perhaps the name
rec.aviation.misc lacks the right nuance to attract those seeking such
intercourse.

A more fitting name for such a social newsgroup might be
rec.aviation.social, rec.aviation.public-house or rec.aviation.people.
Somehow, none of those names seems just right, but may be more
descriptive of the new newsgroup's intended content than
'hangar-flying'.


Here's a start at a Charter Draft:

rec.aviation.chatter

The rec.aviation.chatter newsgroup is for the purpose of polite
conversation among aviation knowledgable folks. The topics of the
subjects of articles posted to rec.aviation.chatter shall include
any topic not covered in the other rec.aviation.* newsgroups, and
shall particularly include, without being limited to, kibitzing,
coffee-klatch, rumor, speculation, computer-related support,
politics, religion, Boy Scouts, ... Profanity, vulgar remarks
and stories, flame fests, and like content shall be considered
unbecoming an Airman, and inappropriate for rec.aviation.chatter
as it is in all the rec.aviation.* newsgroups.


It's rough, but it is a start.