most of eastern Massachussetts airspace closed in July

[Christopher C. Stacy]

The Democratic National Convention is coming to Boston in July.

The Boston Globe today reported that the FAA is going to restrict
all air traffic within 30 nm of Boston: no private aircraft will
be allowed to operate in the airspace. The main thrust of the
story was that this restriction included all the helicopters
used by the traffic reporting services and television news.

You see, ground traffic is being restricted into Boston as well,
including all the major roads and highways being closed in all
directions for dozens of miles around, the public transit system
being shut down in many places, and the mayor and other officials
basically saying, "Boston is closed this week, all businesses
should shut down and everyone please just stay out of the city."
They even have some stupid advertising slogan about it.
It's something of a scandal. I don't want to get into the truly
amazing political and other implications of them effectively
closing down all business and normal life in the whole metro area,
but mention this here only for background because it's relevent to
the airspace story. Nothing like this has ever been done here,
and all the road closings and traffic re-routing to go around Boston
is going to be a terrible mess. In particular, the airborne traffic
reporters are upset that they won't be able to view either the city
or even the highway (Route 128, our beltway on the western side of
the suburbs) because it's inside the restricted airspace.
This highway is how people will drive in order to bypass the Boston area,
and it's way far away from the city, near the 30 nm limit.
But with these flight restrictions, there will be nobody in the
air even to do traffic reports, and this is going to maximize the
difficulty and confusion of the insane ground transportation situation.

The news stations of course are upset that they won't be allowed
to take pictures of the convention from the air, for example
protesters outside the convention hall. (Hopefully there won't
be any other important news happening anywhere in the Boston
metro area that week, either.)

(The article implied that scheduled passenger airliners would still
be operating into BOS. Good luck to the poor travelers once they
get on the ground. But like I said, that's another story.)

While the FAA has not finalized the airspace restrictions, the state
government and convention organizers have already said they don't
think they will be able to make any exemptions for the news and
traffic copters.

Obviously they fear a terrorist air attack on Boston during the
convention, delivered by a small aircraft. (I don't imagine they're
afraid of someone crashing a helicopter into a building or anything
trivial like that. The problem would be a bio or dirty weapon on a
small plane, which they would be unable to effectively intercept.)

One could wonder about a lot of elements and aspects of these flight
restrictions. I am sure a lot of the answers would boil down to a
lack of security resources that might enable more flexible solutions.
We could also speculate and fear how these kinds of restructions could
represent a harbinger of the destruction of our country and freedom.
But let's leave all that alone.

I'll just confine myself to asking: Why for heaven's sake do you
suppose they can't make an exemption and let those helicopters in?
There are only three or four such helicopters for the whole city,
and it's not like we don't know them. These particular aircraft,
which clearly serve the public interest in this situation, could
easily be secured and inspected before each takeoff.

It seems overboard, over-paranoid, and counterproductive.

[Teacherjh]

>>
I'll just confine myself to asking: Why for heaven's sake do you suppose they
can't make an exemption and let those [traffic and news] helicopters in?
<<

I for one hope that they do not. It is the only way the general public will
see the damage that is being done by airspace restrictions. Make exceptions
like this and we will see TFRs become routine, because the public simply won't
notice and won't care.

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
(Christopher C. Stacy) wrote:

[snip]
> The news stations of course are upset that they won't be allowed
> to take pictures of the convention from the air, for example
> protesters outside the convention hall. (Hopefully there won't
> be any other important news happening anywhere in the Boston
> metro area that week, either.)

the convention isn't important news.

--
Bob Noel

[Gary Drescher]

"Christopher C. Stacy" > wrote in message
...
> The Democratic National Convention is coming to Boston in July.
>
> The Boston Globe today reported that the FAA is going to restrict
> all air traffic within 30 nm of Boston: no private aircraft will
> be allowed to operate in the airspace. The main thrust of the
> story was that this restriction included all the helicopters
> used by the traffic reporting services and television news.
>
> You see, ground traffic is being restricted into Boston as well,
> including all the major roads and highways being closed in all
> directions for dozens of miles around,

On the bright side, at least they're not ignoring our oft-stated objection
that ground traffic constitutes as much of a threat as GA traffic. :)

--Gary

[William W. Plummer]

"Christopher C. Stacy" > wrote in message
...
> The Democratic National Convention is coming to Boston in July.
>
> The Boston Globe today reported that the FAA is going to restrict
> all air traffic within 30 nm of Boston: no private aircraft will
> be allowed to operate in the airspace. The main thrust of the
> story was that this restriction included all the helicopters
> used by the traffic reporting services and television news.
>
> You see, ground traffic is being restricted into Boston as well,
> including all the major roads and highways being closed in all
> directions for dozens of miles around, the public transit system
> being shut down in many places, and the mayor and other officials
> basically saying, "Boston is closed this week, all businesses
> should shut down and everyone please just stay out of the city."
> They even have some stupid advertising slogan about it.
> It's something of a scandal. I don't want to get into the truly
> amazing political and other implications of them effectively
> closing down all business and normal life in the whole metro area,
> but mention this here only for background because it's relevent to
> the airspace story. Nothing like this has ever been done here,
> and all the road closings and traffic re-routing to go around Boston
> is going to be a terrible mess. In particular, the airborne traffic
> reporters are upset that they won't be able to view either the city
> or even the highway (Route 128, our beltway on the western side of
> the suburbs) because it's inside the restricted airspace.
> This highway is how people will drive in order to bypass the Boston area,
> and it's way far away from the city, near the 30 nm limit.
> But with these flight restrictions, there will be nobody in the
> air even to do traffic reports, and this is going to maximize the
> difficulty and confusion of the insane ground transportation situation.
>
> The news stations of course are upset that they won't be allowed
> to take pictures of the convention from the air, for example
> protesters outside the convention hall. (Hopefully there won't
> be any other important news happening anywhere in the Boston
> metro area that week, either.)
>
> (The article implied that scheduled passenger airliners would still
> be operating into BOS. Good luck to the poor travelers once they
> get on the ground. But like I said, that's another story.)
>
> While the FAA has not finalized the airspace restrictions, the state
> government and convention organizers have already said they don't
> think they will be able to make any exemptions for the news and
> traffic copters.
>
> Obviously they fear a terrorist air attack on Boston during the
> convention, delivered by a small aircraft. (I don't imagine they're
> afraid of someone crashing a helicopter into a building or anything
> trivial like that. The problem would be a bio or dirty weapon on a
> small plane, which they would be unable to effectively intercept.)
>
> One could wonder about a lot of elements and aspects of these flight
> restrictions. I am sure a lot of the answers would boil down to a
> lack of security resources that might enable more flexible solutions.
> We could also speculate and fear how these kinds of restructions could
> represent a harbinger of the destruction of our country and freedom.
> But let's leave all that alone.
>
> I'll just confine myself to asking: Why for heaven's sake do you
> suppose they can't make an exemption and let those helicopters in?
> There are only three or four such helicopters for the whole city,
> and it's not like we don't know them. These particular aircraft,
> which clearly serve the public interest in this situation, could
> easily be secured and inspected before each takeoff.
>
> It seems overboard, over-paranoid, and counterproductive.

It's a "forest and trees" problem. The terrorist have been successful --
they have (or will) gum up our traffic, cause untold inconvenience,
financial damage, shut down general aviation, etc. What were seeing is a
PSYOP attack that plays on our fears and worst nightmares.

[Peter R.]

Christopher C. Stacy ) wrote:

> The Boston Globe today reported that the FAA is going to restrict
> all air traffic within 30 nm of Boston: no private aircraft will
> be allowed to operate in the airspace.
<snip>

This will shut down all Angel Flights into and out of Boston's Logan
Airport, a very common destination for children with severe burns, cancer
survivors, and organ transplant recipients.

I'll bet these individuals and their families will be happy to hear this.

--
Peter














----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[[email protected]]

"Christopher C. Stacy" wrote:


> suppose they can't make an exemption and let those helicopters in?
> There are only three or four such helicopters for the whole city,
> and it's not like we don't know them. These particular aircraft,
> which clearly serve the public interest in this situation, could
> easily be secured and inspected before each takeoff.
>
> It seems overboard, over-paranoid, and counterproductive.

The general principles of airspace and ground restrictions are the result of
an imperfect government trying to protect against a certain future terrorist
attack. We have lost some of our freedoms as a nation because of 911. And,
standby, it will only get worse.

Having said that, I think news helicopters are a hazard to persons and
property on the ground, terrorists aside. They push and shove for advantage
and take risks that police helicopters would never take. The police and
medical helicopters serve the public interest. The newsies create a hazard
using the First Amendment as a shield.

Two summers ago there was a major structural.brush fire near my home. At one
point there where 8, count them, 8 newsie 'copters hovering out of ground
effect, over or near my home. I walked uptown for a beer until the jerks
left.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, (Christopher C. Stacy) said:
>basically saying, "Boston is closed this week, all businesses
>should shut down and everyone please just stay out of the city."

I can't wait to see what having the RNC convention in New York City is
going to do to *that* city's traffic. I bet after this year, cities will
stop competing for who gets to host the conventions, and starts telling
them to hold the conventions in rural Iowa or something.

Hey, Jay, want to host a convention?

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
I think I have a new personal rule: Never watch anything which includes
the author's name in the title, particularly if the author is dead.
-- Andrew Dalgleish

[zatatime]

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 09:25:42 -0400, Peter R.
> wrote:

>Christopher C. Stacy ) wrote:
>
>> The Boston Globe today reported that the FAA is going to restrict
>> all air traffic within 30 nm of Boston: no private aircraft will
>> be allowed to operate in the airspace.
><snip>
>
>This will shut down all Angel Flights into and out of Boston's Logan
>Airport, a very common destination for children with severe burns, cancer
>survivors, and organ transplant recipients.
>
>I'll bet these individuals and their families will be happy to hear this.


I'd rather see an exception for those than a media helicopter any day
of the week!

z

[zatatime]

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 06:44:05 -0700, wrote:

>Two summers ago there was a major structural.brush fire near my home. At one
>point there where 8, count them, 8 newsie 'copters hovering out of ground
>effect, over or near my home. I walked uptown for a beer until the jerks
>left.


Boy you musta got REAL drunk if you waited until they all left!<g>

z

[OtisWinslow]

"William W. Plummer" > wrote in message
news:0VgAc.68849$Sw.11654@attbi_s51...
>
>
> The terrorist have been successful --
>

Yeh. Successful because of crappy security at WHICH airport?

[Jack Cunniff]

(Christopher C. Stacy) writes:

>The Democratic National Convention is coming to Boston in July.

>The Boston Globe today reported that the FAA is going to restrict
>all air traffic within 30 nm of Boston: no private aircraft will
>be allowed to operate in the airspace. The main thrust of the
>story was that this restriction included all the helicopters
>used by the traffic reporting services and television news.

Way too much hand-wringing about this. It's not going to be a 30-mile TFR,
it's a 10-mile one with procedures out to 30 miles.

Logan will be closed to all but commercial traffic, yes. No GA, no
"charters". I believe that certain charters (such as travel wholesalers
who charter entire jets for scheduled service) will still operate.

The IMPORTANT INFO that seemed to be missing from other postings, and from
the Globe story was this link from the FAA, talking about how GA IFR
flights were going to operate from airports within the 30-mile ring.

http://www.faa.gov/NTAP/NTAP04JUN10/SP04023.htm

It says:

The Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Control System Command
Center (ATCSCC), will utilize a Special Traffic Management Program (STMP)
for this event. Slot reservations will be required for all domestic,
non-scheduled IFR arrivals to the following airports during the date and
times indicated:

Laurence G. Hanscom Fld.
BED

Beverly Muni
BVY

Lawrence Muni
LWM

Norwood Mem
OWD

My opinion? The process will likely be very similar to what happened
during the G8 Summit in Georgia.

See http://www.faa.gov/Newsroom/AirspaceRestrictions.cfm?content=Affected

for what the FAA said about operations during the G8.

I imagine VFR ops at these four airports will be much like how things
happened when the Boston airspace opened back up for VFR operations just
after 9/11.

One thing - because GA is excluded from Logan, these four airports are
going to be much more crowded, as they're the new destinations for all the
traffic banned from Logan.

So - don't sweat it TOO MUCH if you're based within the 30-mile ring.

-Jack Cunniff
(at OWD)

[Jeremy Lew]

That FAA link specifically says that the special IFR arrival procedures are
due to the higher than normal anticipated volume of flights, it has nothing
to do with security.

"Jack Cunniff" > wrote in message
...
> (Christopher C. Stacy) writes:
>
> >The Democratic National Convention is coming to Boston in July.
>
> >The Boston Globe today reported that the FAA is going to restrict
> >all air traffic within 30 nm of Boston: no private aircraft will
> >be allowed to operate in the airspace. The main thrust of the
> >story was that this restriction included all the helicopters
> >used by the traffic reporting services and television news.
>
> Way too much hand-wringing about this. It's not going to be a 30-mile TFR,
> it's a 10-mile one with procedures out to 30 miles.
>
> Logan will be closed to all but commercial traffic, yes. No GA, no
> "charters". I believe that certain charters (such as travel wholesalers
> who charter entire jets for scheduled service) will still operate.
>
> The IMPORTANT INFO that seemed to be missing from other postings, and from
> the Globe story was this link from the FAA, talking about how GA IFR
> flights were going to operate from airports within the 30-mile ring.
>
> http://www.faa.gov/NTAP/NTAP04JUN10/SP04023.htm
>
> It says:
>
> The Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Control System Command
> Center (ATCSCC), will utilize a Special Traffic Management Program (STMP)
> for this event. Slot reservations will be required for all domestic,
> non-scheduled IFR arrivals to the following airports during the date and
> times indicated:
>
> Laurence G. Hanscom Fld.
> BED
>
> Beverly Muni
> BVY
>
> Lawrence Muni
> LWM
>
> Norwood Mem
> OWD
>
> My opinion? The process will likely be very similar to what happened
> during the G8 Summit in Georgia.
>
> See http://www.faa.gov/Newsroom/AirspaceRestrictions.cfm?content=Affected
>
> for what the FAA said about operations during the G8.
>
> I imagine VFR ops at these four airports will be much like how things
> happened when the Boston airspace opened back up for VFR operations just
> after 9/11.
>
> One thing - because GA is excluded from Logan, these four airports are
> going to be much more crowded, as they're the new destinations for all the
> traffic banned from Logan.
>
> So - don't sweat it TOO MUCH if you're based within the 30-mile ring.
>
> -Jack Cunniff
> (at OWD)
>
>

[[email protected]]

zatatime wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 06:44:05 -0700, wrote:
>
> >Two summers ago there was a major structural.brush fire near my home. At one
> >point there where 8, count them, 8 newsie 'copters hovering out of ground
> >effect, over or near my home. I walked uptown for a beer until the jerks
> >left.
>
> Boy you musta got REAL drunk if you waited until they all left!<g>
>
> z

Naw. They all left once the building were gone, and resumed their coverage of
freeway pursuits. ;-)

[[email protected]]

Paul Tomblin wrote:

> In a previous article, (Christopher C. Stacy) said:
> >basically saying, "Boston is closed this week, all businesses
> >should shut down and everyone please just stay out of the city."
>
> I can't wait to see what having the RNC convention in New York City is
> going to do to *that* city's traffic. I bet after this year, cities will
> stop competing for who gets to host the conventions, and starts telling
> them to hold the conventions in rural Iowa or something.
>

As to "or something," how about somewhere in Iraq?

[Christopher C. Stacy]

>>>>> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 17:04:45 +0000 (UTC), Jack Cunniff ("Jack") writes:
Jack> Logan will be closed to all but commercial traffic, yes. No GA

I am specifically concerned with the traffic/news helicopter service.

(I'm concerned about the larger issues, but am trying to draw
a boundary around one specific aspect of the restriction that
seems blatantly obviously detrimental to the public interest,
regardless of national security or airman politics or anything.)

>>>>> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 14:22:12 -0400, Jeremy Lew ("Jeremy") writes:
Jeremy> That FAA link specifically says that the special IFR arrival
Jeremy> procedures are due to the higher than normal anticipated
Jeremy> volume of flights, it has nothing to do with security.

I think that's almost certainly bull****. I mean, is is that there
are going to be so many more scheduled airliners coming in all week
that they're going to be unable to avoid a couple of helicopters?
Or is it the onrush of zillions of GA planes coming to fly over the
city in order to view... nothing that's outside? And bear in mind
that in order to begin to create the hypothetical problematic situation,
all these mysterious random aircraft inundating the area from parts
unknown would have to be ignoring the permanent class B Boston airspace.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 09:25:42 -0400, Peter R. >
wrote:

>This will shut down all Angel Flights into and out of Boston's Logan
>Airport, a very common destination for children with severe burns, cancer
>survivors, and organ transplant recipients.

How do you know that?


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Jeremy Lew]

I assumed they meant that they expect a lot delegates to be
arriving/departing on GA flights.

"Christopher C. Stacy" > wrote in message
...
> >>>>> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 17:04:45 +0000 (UTC), Jack Cunniff ("Jack")
writes:
> Jack> Logan will be closed to all but commercial traffic, yes. No GA
>
> I am specifically concerned with the traffic/news helicopter service.
>
> (I'm concerned about the larger issues, but am trying to draw
> a boundary around one specific aspect of the restriction that
> seems blatantly obviously detrimental to the public interest,
> regardless of national security or airman politics or anything.)
>
> >>>>> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 14:22:12 -0400, Jeremy Lew ("Jeremy") writes:
> Jeremy> That FAA link specifically says that the special IFR arrival
> Jeremy> procedures are due to the higher than normal anticipated
> Jeremy> volume of flights, it has nothing to do with security.
>
> I think that's almost certainly bull****. I mean, is is that there
> are going to be so many more scheduled airliners coming in all week
> that they're going to be unable to avoid a couple of helicopters?
> Or is it the onrush of zillions of GA planes coming to fly over the
> city in order to view... nothing that's outside? And bear in mind
> that in order to begin to create the hypothetical problematic situation,
> all these mysterious random aircraft inundating the area from parts
> unknown would have to be ignoring the permanent class B Boston airspace.

[Christopher C. Stacy]

>>>>> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 17:02:14 -0400, Ron Rosenfeld ("Ron") writes:

Ron> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 09:25:42 -0400, Peter R. >
Ron> wrote:

>> This will shut down all Angel Flights into and out of Boston's Logan
>> Airport, a very common destination for children with severe burns, cancer
>> survivors, and organ transplant recipients.

Ron> How do you know that?

Because those are GA flights, which will definitely be banned
from BOS, according to the information we have from the Boston
newspapers and what's been posted here from the FAA web site.

The only real question is whether the poster is correct that there
are lots of Angel flights out the affected airports. Boston is in
fact a national destination for medical care and research hospitals,
so that claim seems plausible on the face of it. The remaining detail
would then be about which Boston airport, and how the TFR will treat
the close-in major reliever airports like BED/OWD/LGA, if the flights
would be using those instead.

Do you have some reason to believe that it's not true?

[Christopher C. Stacy]

>>>>> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 17:11:24 -0400, Jeremy Lew ("Jeremy") writes:
Jeremy> I assumed they meant that they expect a lot delegates to be
Jeremy> arriving/departing on GA flights.

So many that ATC and all the areas airports can't seperate them
from exactly four helicopter aircraft within 30 nm of Boston?
Besides, it seems more likely that most conventioneers will be
arriving on scheduled airliners. (If they were going to use GA
flights, they won't be able to do that now under the proposed TFR,
so that makes no sense in addressing the motivation.)

It's bull****, I tell you.

[Gary Drescher]

"Christopher C. Stacy" > wrote in message
...
> >>>>> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 17:02:14 -0400, Ron Rosenfeld ("Ron") writes:
>
> Ron> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 09:25:42 -0400, Peter R.
>
> Ron> wrote:
>
> >> This will shut down all Angel Flights into and out of Boston's Logan
> >> Airport, a very common destination for children with severe burns,
cancer
> >> survivors, and organ transplant recipients.
>
> Ron> How do you know that?
>
> Because those are GA flights, which will definitely be banned
> from BOS, according to the information we have from the Boston
> newspapers and what's been posted here from the FAA web site.
>
> The only real question is whether the poster is correct that there
> are lots of Angel flights out the affected airports.

There are typically a handful of Angel Flights per month to or from BOS, a
smaller number to or from BED, and seldom any to or from the other nearby
airports. (The flights are listed on the Angel Flight web site, but the list
is only accessible to Angel Flight members.)

--Gary

[Christopher C. Stacy]

>>>>> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 22:05:10 GMT, Gary Drescher ("Gary") writes:

Gary> "Christopher C. Stacy" > wrote in message
Gary> ...
>> >>>>> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 17:02:14 -0400, Ron Rosenfeld ("Ron") writes:
>>
Ron> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 09:25:42 -0400, Peter R.
Gary> >
Ron> wrote:
>>
>> >> This will shut down all Angel Flights into and out of Boston's Logan
>> >> Airport, a very common destination for children with severe burns,
Gary> cancer
>> >> survivors, and organ transplant recipients.
>>
Ron> How do you know that?
>>
>> Because those are GA flights, which will definitely be banned
>> from BOS, according to the information we have from the Boston
>> newspapers and what's been posted here from the FAA web site.
>>
>> The only real question is whether the poster is correct that there
>> are lots of Angel flights out the affected airports.

Gary> There are typically a handful of Angel Flights per month to or from BOS, a
Gary> smaller number to or from BED, and seldom any to or from the other nearby
Gary> airports. (The flights are listed on the Angel Flight web site, but the list
Gary> is only accessible to Angel Flight members.)

So the original poster would seem to be entirely correct,
not even considering other similar organization's flights.

[Peter R.]

Christopher C. Stacy wrote:

> The only real question is whether the poster is correct that there
> are lots of Angel flights out the affected airports.

I am a very active pilot of Angel Flight Northeast. During any given
week there are about 25 to 30 flights into and out of Boston's Logan.

--
Peter







----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 21:46:18 GMT, (Christopher C.
Stacy) wrote:

>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 17:02:14 -0400, Ron Rosenfeld ("Ron") writes:
>
> Ron> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 09:25:42 -0400, Peter R. >
> Ron> wrote:
>
> >> This will shut down all Angel Flights into and out of Boston's Logan
> >> Airport, a very common destination for children with severe burns, cancer
> >> survivors, and organ transplant recipients.
>
> Ron> How do you know that?
>
>Because those are GA flights, which will definitely be banned
>from BOS, according to the information we have from the Boston
>newspapers and what's been posted here from the FAA web site.
>
>The only real question is whether the poster is correct that there
>are lots of Angel flights out the affected airports. Boston is in
>fact a national destination for medical care and research hospitals,
>so that claim seems plausible on the face of it. The remaining detail
>would then be about which Boston airport, and how the TFR will treat
>the close-in major reliever airports like BED/OWD/LGA, if the flights
>would be using those instead.
>
>Do you have some reason to believe that it's not true?

1. Emergency medical flights are not included in the restriction.
2. Angel Flight is presently negotiating with Homeland Security.

So while what you post "may" come to pass, I don't see it as necessarily
set in stone as yet.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Peter R.]

Ron Rosenfeld ) wrote:

> 2. Angel Flight is presently negotiating with Homeland Security.

Interesting. I was thinking about this last night and it seems to me that
it would be rather easy for the Angel Flight office to provide mission
information well ahead of time to pass some type of verification process.
Hopefully, das Homeland Security will also arrive at the same conclusion.


--
Peter














----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Jon Parmet]

(Christopher C. Stacy) wrote in message >...
> The Democratic National Convention is coming to Boston in July.
>
> The Boston Globe today reported that the FAA is going to restrict
> all air traffic within 30 nm of Boston: no private aircraft will
> be allowed to operate in the airspace. The main thrust of the
> story was that this restriction included all the helicopters
> used by the traffic reporting services and television news.
>
> You see, ground traffic is being restricted into Boston as well,
> including all the major roads and highways being closed in all
> directions for dozens of miles around, the public transit system
> being shut down in many places, and the mayor and other officials
> basically saying, "Boston is closed this week, all businesses
> should shut down and everyone please just stay out of the city."

Tell me about it! I work in Cambridge and use public transportation
through cities like Malden,Medford,Somerville which as you know are
just outside the DMZ (Democractic Mess Zone). Those areas are already
clusterf*cks every weekday during rush hour; I don't want to even
imagine all those thousands of additional cars being pre-empted off
93.

Of course, the local town officials are getting into it now, saying
they'll shut down their local roads if they don't get assistance
(additional police, etc.). Everyone's just getting way to caught up in
the 'process' and 'turf' and 'wagging their authority' and over what?
Basically, a party is all it is...

Oh, then there's the probability of having to take a shuttle from BOS
to DCA or IAD for a meeting?!!??? I guess the last nail in the coffin
would be some weather that week as well, as if the choke points aren't
enough already.

> Nothing like this has ever been done here,

Gee, I wonder why. What's the old saying? Just because you can doesn't
mean you should....

> and all the road closings and traffic re-routing to go around Boston
> is going to be a terrible mess.

I think it's time to just WALK up to NH that week. I don't wanna be
anywhere near this...

[Christopher C. Stacy]

>>>>> On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 06:55:34 -0400, Ron Rosenfeld ("Ron") writes:

Ron> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 21:46:18 GMT, (Christopher C.
Ron> Stacy) wrote:

>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 17:02:14 -0400, Ron Rosenfeld ("Ron") writes:
>>
Ron> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 09:25:42 -0400, Peter R. >
Ron> wrote:
>>
>> >> This will shut down all Angel Flights into and out of Boston's Logan
>> >> Airport, a very common destination for children with severe burns, cancer
>> >> survivors, and organ transplant recipients.
>>
Ron> How do you know that?
>>
>> Because those are GA flights,

Ron> 1. Emergency medical flights are not included in the restriction.
Ron> 2. Angel Flight is presently negotiating with Homeland Security.

Ron> So while what you post "may" come to pass,
Ron> I don't see it as necessarily set in stone as yet.

By the way, where are you getting your inside information about the
negotiations for the Angel Flights from? The other person who wrote
about it is one of their active pilots, and he wasn't aware.

Nobody raised the issue of "emergency medical flights" until you did
just now. Does it say that in the TFR? Last I heard on the day I
posted, the FAA was still writing the TFR and it had not been published.
Angel Flights are not usually emergency "Lifeguard" flights are they?
If you mean to suggest that since emergency medical flights will be
allowed, perhaps Angel Flight (hospital transport charity services)
will be able to negotiate an exception also, that certainly does
sound reasonable to me.

But the whole point here is that the government doesn't seem to be
behaving in a generallg reasonable manner in this situation, so far.
I have to wonder why they would allow those Angel Flights, and yet not
allow the three news/traffic helicopter flights, which also seem quite
reasonable. The helicopter flights represent a much more secure situation
than the Angel Flights: the pilots and aircraft are more well known, the
traffic flight schedules are known in advance, and the aircraft can be
secured and inspected more easily. According to the news reports,
these news/traffic guys have also been negotiating for permission to fly,
but they didn't think there was any chance of them winning.
And since it is clearly in the public interest for them to fly,
that's specifically what I was writing about.

[Peter R.]

Christopher C. Stacy ) wrote:

> Angel Flights are not usually emergency "Lifeguard" flights are they?

Not a normal Angel Flight, no, but Angel Flight Northeast does coordinate
Lifeguard missions. These are typically are organ transplant recipients
and their exact departure dates are unknown.

As pilots, we receive a request from AFNE that an individual is on the list
of recipients and the request states the departure and arrival cities. The
request also specifies a travel time limit, usually four to six hours.

We then calculate how long it will take us to arrive and prep the aircraft,
fly to the patient, then fly the patient to the destination city.

AFNE will compile the list and send it the patient. When the patient is
notified of an available organ, s/he starts at the top of the list and
calls for a flight.

Interestingly, at this time there are a few outstanding organ transplant
flights to Boston. I would certainly hope that if an organ becomes
available during this convention, the GA aircraft will have no trouble
transporting the patient to Logan Airport.

--
Peter














----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Andrew Gideon]

Jeremy Lew wrote:

> That FAA link specifically says that the special IFR arrival procedures
> are due to the higher than normal anticipated volume of flights, it has
> nothing to do with security.

The URL

http://www.faa.gov/NTAP/NTAP04JUN10/SP04023.htm

indicates that special rules are in effect for IFR traffic. It says nothing
about VFR traffic, as far as I can tell. That is, the information at that
URL has no bearing on traffic reporting as such. Presumably, any VFR
restrictions are described elsewhere.

- Andrew

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 19:06:20 GMT, (Christopher C.
Stacy) wrote:

>By the way, where are you getting your inside information about the
>negotiations for the Angel Flights from?
>

Email from AFNE. I would assume that goes to all AFNE members.

>
>Nobody raised the issue of "emergency medical flights" until you did
>just now. Does it say that in the TFR?

The actual TFR has not been issued yet. But I am on a mailing list from
representing the FAA New England Safety
Program and what I quoted was in the preliminary wording. There is a
caveat that the TFR is not official until it has been actually published.
Here is the relevant quote from that message:

================================
Additional Restrictions within a 10NMR of BOS:

All aircraft operations are prohibited except for:

1. Law enforcement, military aircraft directly supporting the United
States Secret Service (USSS), emergency medical flights and regularly
scheduled 14 CFR Part 121, 125 and 129 commercial passenger and cargo
aircraft that meet or exceed the Transportation Security Administration’s
(TSA’S) Domestic Security Inspection Program (DSIP) Standards and are
arriving or departing General Edward Lawrence Logan International Airport
(BOS).


UNTIL ACTUAL TFR NOTAM IS ISSUED, RESTRICTIONS, DATES/TIMES, ETC ARE
SUBJECT TO CHANGE
===================================

>Last I heard on the day I
>posted, the FAA was still writing the TFR and it had not been published.
>Angel Flights are not usually emergency "Lifeguard" flights are they?
>If you mean to suggest that since emergency medical flights will be
>allowed, perhaps Angel Flight (hospital transport charity services)
>will be able to negotiate an exception also, that certainly does
>sound reasonable to me.



Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)