TFR announced over New York City

[Owen[_4_]]

TFR over Manhattan!

As a result of a general aviation airplane crash into a tall building on
the East Side of Manhattan, New York County, FAA has issued a TFR
effective for a one nautical mile radius around 6N5 (East 34th St
Heliport) extending to 1,500 ft above the surface.

It is effective until further notice.

[Peter R.]

Owen > wrote:

> As a result of a general aviation airplane crash into a tall building on
> the East Side of Manhattan, New York County, FAA has issued a TFR
> effective for a one nautical mile radius around 6N5 (East 34th St
> Heliport) extending to 1,500 ft above the surface.

Probably to keep the curious away.

--
Peter

[Emily]

Owen wrote:
> TFR over Manhattan!
>
> As a result of a general aviation airplane crash into a tall building on
> the East Side of Manhattan, New York County, FAA has issued a TFR
> effective for a one nautical mile radius around 6N5 (East 34th St
> Heliport) extending to 1,500 ft above the surface.
>
> It is effective until further notice.
>
I'm actually somewhat ok with that. It's really no different than a
restricted area over a disaster sight. Keeps the idiots away. Why this
is more news than any other small airplane crash is beyond me, though.

As long as it doesn't become permanent (DC, anyone?)

[Peter R.]

Emily > wrote:

> Why this
> is more news than any other small airplane crash is beyond me, though.

NY City, which is really still deeply scarred from 9/11, experiences
another aircraft crashing into a building. It is understandable why there
was a sensationalistic reaction.

--
Peter

[Sylvain]

Emily wrote:

> I'm actually somewhat ok with that. It's really no different than a
> restricted area over a disaster sight. Keeps the idiots away. Why this
> is more news than any other small airplane crash is beyond me, though.

why it is more news than any other crash is quite understandable though;
I mean, come on: an airplane crashing into tall buildings in New York.
Even considering the very short memory of the average joe in this country,
it is bound to create an interest. Now you know, like most of us on
this newsgroup, that it shouldn't be as big a deal as made by the media,
but this is unavoidable. And we should be paying attention too, for
a different reason: let's brace ourselves for how this is going to be
spun by our beloved politicians, in particular all these mayors with
ADIZ-envy...

--Sylvain

[Emily]

Peter R. wrote:
> Emily > wrote:
>
>> Why this
>> is more news than any other small airplane crash is beyond me, though.
>
> NY City, which is really still deeply scarred from 9/11, experiences
> another aircraft crashing into a building. It is understandable why there
> was a sensationalistic reaction.
>
I was more speaking about the reaction here. It's all over the news,
everyone at work has been asking me about it. Same thing happened in
Tampa in 2001, and didn't cause this much talk. Whenever the media
publicizes a "celebrity" dying in a small plane crash, it hurts GA.

[Owen[_4_]]

Emily wrote:

> Peter R. wrote:
> > Emily > wrote:
> >
> >> Why this
> >> is more news than any other small airplane crash is beyond me, though.
> >
> > NY City, which is really still deeply scarred from 9/11, experiences
> > another aircraft crashing into a building. It is understandable why there
> > was a sensationalistic reaction.
> >
> I was more speaking about the reaction here. It's all over the news,
> everyone at work has been asking me about it. Same thing happened in
> Tampa in 2001, and didn't cause this much talk. Whenever the media
> publicizes a "celebrity" dying in a small plane crash, it hurts GA.

Tampa is quite a bit different from New York City, particularly with respect to
the 9/11 terrorist attacks, which also involved airplanes crashing into tall
buildings.

[Peter R.]

Emily > wrote:

> Whenever the media
> publicizes a "celebrity" dying in a small plane crash, it hurts GA.

I am in total agreement.

--
Peter

[Dave Stadt]

"Owen" > wrote in message ...
> TFR over Manhattan!
>
> As a result of a general aviation airplane crash into a tall building on
> the East Side of Manhattan, New York County, FAA has issued a TFR
> effective for a one nautical mile radius around 6N5 (East 34th St
> Heliport) extending to 1,500 ft above the surface.
>
> It is effective until further notice.


That's pretty much SOP for any accident.

[Denny]

The unnoticed action in this accident is the scramble by NORAD, over a
single incident of damage involving 4 windows in an apartment
building... What is next, scrambling when some kid falls off a swing?
How gutless and knee jerk predictable we have become... Any boxer will
tell you that when you can get your opponent to react consistently and
predictably you have the fight won...
The jihadists are winning because we are busily destroying our free
society in response to them - and that is what they are after and
happily watching as we do 'their work'...


denny

[Owen[_4_]]

Denny wrote:

> The unnoticed action in this accident is the scramble by NORAD, over a
> single incident of damage involving 4 windows in an apartment
> building... What is next, scrambling when some kid falls off a swing?
> How gutless and knee jerk predictable we have become... Any boxer will
> tell you that when you can get your opponent to react consistently and
> predictably you have the fight won...
> The jihadists are winning because we are busily destroying our free
> society in response to them - and that is what they are after and
> happily watching as we do 'their work'...

Well that's swell that you can Monday morning quarterback after the
fact. At the time of the scramble it was unknown what the severity of a
plane crashing into a tall building was, so they erred on the side of
caution. Thinking quickly was "gutless and knee jerk" as you put it.
Apparently they were able to get aircraft scrambled quicker than on 9/11,
when it was also initially unknown if the plane crashing into a tall
building was. Amazing what a few minutes might be able to accomplish, but
you apparently would prefer not to do anything until you can do a complete
damage assessment. Great.

So if you were calling the shots, how long would you have waited to call
for air support? Until the 8:03pm that evening? Until you had every one
of the facts at your disposal?

[Denny]

Within minutes we knew that crash was more likely an accident than
not... There was live news coverage within those minutes which showed 4
windows ablaze on a minor building in Manhattan... The spokesman for
NORAD admitted he got his only information from CNN and made his/their
decision to scramble based upon those news reports...

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Denny" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Within minutes we knew that crash was more likely an accident than
> not... There was live news coverage within those minutes which showed 4
> windows ablaze on a minor building in Manhattan... The spokesman for
> NORAD admitted he got his only information from CNN and made his/their
> decision to scramble based upon those news reports...
>

If I'd have been in his shoes I would have launched the alert fighters. It
hurts nothing to scramble the fighters and if they are needed they'll be
there. If nothing else it is good practice for the crews.

[Rick[_1_]]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote in message >...
>
>"Denny" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> Within minutes we knew that crash was more likely an accident than
>> not... There was live news coverage within those minutes which showed 4
>> windows ablaze on a minor building in Manhattan... The spokesman for
>> NORAD admitted he got his only information from CNN and made his/their
>> decision to scramble based upon those news reports...
>>
>
>If I'd have been in his shoes I would have launched the alert fighters. It
>hurts nothing to scramble the fighters and if they are needed they'll be
>there. If nothing else it is good practice for the crews.

Imagine the political fallout if they didn't take action.

- Rick

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Rick" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote in message >...
>>
>>"Denny" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>> Within minutes we knew that crash was more likely an accident than
>>> not... There was live news coverage within those minutes which showed 4
>>> windows ablaze on a minor building in Manhattan... The spokesman for
>>> NORAD admitted he got his only information from CNN and made his/their
>>> decision to scramble based upon those news reports...
>>>
>>
>>If I'd have been in his shoes I would have launched the alert fighters. It
>>hurts nothing to scramble the fighters and if they are needed they'll be
>>there. If nothing else it is good practice for the crews.
>
> Imagine the political fallout if they didn't take action.
>

Exactly, we ought to be launching the fighters at any sign of trouble. I'm
sure the F16 pilots won't mind.

[Emily]

Owen wrote:
<snip>
>
> So if you were calling the shots, how long would you have waited to call
> for air support?

If I was calling the shots, I wouldn't call for air support. I don't
believe in shooting down an unarmed civilian airliner simply because it
MIGHT be used as a weapon.

[Emily]

Denny wrote:

>The spokesman for
> NORAD admitted he got his only information from CNN and made his/their
> decision to scramble based upon those news reports...

Does this frighten anyone else?

[Dave Stadt]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Rick" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Gig 601XL Builder wrote in message
>> >...
>>>
>>>"Denny" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>>> Within minutes we knew that crash was more likely an accident than
>>>> not... There was live news coverage within those minutes which showed 4
>>>> windows ablaze on a minor building in Manhattan... The spokesman for
>>>> NORAD admitted he got his only information from CNN and made his/their
>>>> decision to scramble based upon those news reports...
>>>>
>>>
>>>If I'd have been in his shoes I would have launched the alert fighters.
>>>It
>>>hurts nothing to scramble the fighters and if they are needed they'll be
>>>there. If nothing else it is good practice for the crews.
>>
>> Imagine the political fallout if they didn't take action.
>>
>
> Exactly, we ought to be launching the fighters at any sign of trouble. I'm
> sure the F16 pilots won't mind.


Yes, for every automobile accident we should scramble the entire military so
as to spread panic amongst the entire population and show everyone that
'something' is being done. Never mind the fact no one knows what to do
where or why.

[Dave Stadt]

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
> Denny wrote:
>
> >The spokesman for
>> NORAD admitted he got his only information from CNN and made his/their
>> decision to scramble based upon those news reports...
>
> Does this frighten anyone else?

Frightened but certainly not surprised.

[Doug[_1_]]

Last March I was flying the VFR corridor over Denver, in a "flight of
two". No requirement to talk to ATC, we were below Class B. As we
approached downtown we were overflown DIRECTLY ABOVE by a military jet
out of Buckley. I am pretty sure he "shot us down" (dry fire). Well, it
was a training exercise, I mean, what else do they have to do?

[.Blueskies.]

"Denny" > wrote in message oups.com...
: The unnoticed action in this accident is the scramble by NORAD, over a
: single incident of damage involving 4 windows in an apartment
: building... What is next, scrambling when some kid falls off a swing?
: How gutless and knee jerk predictable we have become... Any boxer will
: tell you that when you can get your opponent to react consistently and
: predictably you have the fight won...
: The jihadists are winning because we are busily destroying our free
: society in response to them - and that is what they are after and
: happily watching as we do 'their work'...
:
:
: denny
:

Just like the other 2200 or so other scrambles that NORAD has done since 9/11/01. Agreed, freedoms are being compromised
at every turn, so the murderers seem to be winning, but the constitution is strong. Just look at the ruling going
against the administration on so many fronts...

[Emily]

..Blueskies. wrote:
> "Denny" > wrote in message oups.com...
> : The unnoticed action in this accident is the scramble by NORAD, over a
> : single incident of damage involving 4 windows in an apartment
> : building... What is next, scrambling when some kid falls off a swing?
> : How gutless and knee jerk predictable we have become... Any boxer will
> : tell you that when you can get your opponent to react consistently and
> : predictably you have the fight won...
> : The jihadists are winning because we are busily destroying our free
> : society in response to them - and that is what they are after and
> : happily watching as we do 'their work'...
> :
> :
> : denny
> :
>
> Just like the other 2200 or so other scrambles that NORAD has done since 9/11/01. Agreed, freedoms are being compromised
> at every turn, so the murderers seem to be winning, but the constitution is strong. Just look at the ruling going
> against the administration on so many fronts...

Are the courts actually ruling against the administration? I haven't
heard that.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Emily > wrote:

> >The spokesman for
> > NORAD admitted he got his only information from CNN and made his/their
> > decision to scramble based upon those news reports...
>
> Does this frighten anyone else?

Actually, it doesn't frighten me.

Is CNN a source information or not? Why would you want NORAD
to NOT use a source of information?

Was the aircraft on a flight plan? If not, would you expect NORAD
to know the aircraft's intentions?

What is the downside of scrambling? It's not like they gave any
order to shoot.

Do you expect NORAD to have this magic sensor array where
they know the whereabouts of every single airborne target?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Emily]

Bob Noel wrote:
> In article >,
> Emily > wrote:
>
>> >The spokesman for
>>> NORAD admitted he got his only information from CNN and made his/their
>>> decision to scramble based upon those news reports...
>> Does this frighten anyone else?
>
> Actually, it doesn't frighten me.
>
> Is CNN a source information or not?

I don't think so. Then again, I lived in a city where the papers can't
even get a presidential election winner right.

[Roy Smith]

Bob Noel > wrote:
> Is CNN a source information or not? Why would you want NORAD
> to NOT use a source of information?

It's common in a big NOC (Network Operations Center, i.e. where they
monitor and control big data and phone networks) to have CNN playing all
the time. Traffic spikes in Chicago, and you start trying to figure out
why. CNN shows film of a big fire in Chicago, and you've got your answer.

Look at it this way. You call FSS and get an official briefing which
sounds pretty benign, so you decide to go flying. On your way out to the
ramp, you pass the TV in the FBO that's tuned to CNN and find out that
there's a line of severe thunderstorms heading your way.

It's a no brainer, right? FSS is the official information source, and
CNN's just CNN, right?

[Jim Logajan]

Emily > wrote:
> Then again, I lived in a city where the papers can't
> even get a presidential election winner right.

Shucks, hardly anyone ever gets that right - not the constitution, not the
U.S. Supreme Court, and not the voters.

:-)

[Sylvain]

Emily wrote:

>
> I don't think so. Then again, I lived in a city where the papers can't
> even get a presidential election winner right.

funny, they didn't get it right over here either, :-)

--Sylvain

[Dave Stadt]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Emily > wrote:
>
>> >The spokesman for
>> > NORAD admitted he got his only information from CNN and made his/their
>> > decision to scramble based upon those news reports...
>>
>> Does this frighten anyone else?
>
> Actually, it doesn't frighten me.
>
> Is CNN a source information or not?

Misinformation for the most part.

[Mxsmanic]

Denny writes:

> The spokesman for
> NORAD admitted he got his only information from CNN and made his/their
> decision to scramble based upon those news reports...

I sincerely hope that is not true.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> Exactly, we ought to be launching the fighters at any sign of trouble. I'm
> sure the F16 pilots won't mind.

Have you checked the cost of launching the fighters?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Emily writes:

> Does this frighten anyone else?

Yes. Not only does it mean lots of hysterical false alarms thanks to
CNN, but it also means that the bad guys can do what they want, as
long as they can avoid being on TV.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Bob Noel writes:

> Is CNN a source information or not?

It's not. It's a for-profit corporation. Its objective is to sell
advertising, which it does by broadcasting things that people want to
see. Any information that transpires during the course of this
activity is incidental.

> Why would you want NORAD to NOT use a source of information?

When the source is demonstrably unreliable.

Remember, not too long ago, CNN claimed that a giant meteor was
hurtling towards our planet.

> Was the aircraft on a flight plan? If not, would you expect NORAD
> to know the aircraft's intentions?

Is NORAD supposed to know the intentions of every plane in the sky?

> What is the downside of scrambling?

A hundred million dollars or so.

> It's not like they gave any order to shoot.

It's not like they can fly for free.

> Do you expect NORAD to have this magic sensor array where
> they know the whereabouts of every single airborne target?

I expect them to keep cool heads and exercise good judgement. Making
decisions based on CNN's Breaking News is not in line with those
objectives.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Emily writes:

> If I was calling the shots, I wouldn't call for air support. I don't
> believe in shooting down an unarmed civilian airliner simply because it
> MIGHT be used as a weapon.

But that's because you're a pilot. Most people consider aircraft to
be dangerous and potential terrorist weapons except on the rare
occasions when they are riding in an aircraft themselves. GA aircraft
are always suspect because normal people never ride in GA aircraft.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Roy Smith > wrote:

> It's a no brainer, right? FSS is the official information source, and
> CNN's just CNN, right?

Yep. CNN is a source. Obviously stuff reported on CNN needs to
be confirmed. But it's still a source

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[B A R R Y[_1_]]

Rick wrote:
>
> Imagine the political fallout if they didn't take action.
>


Exactly my thought.

[Matt Barrow]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
m...
> Rick wrote:
>>
>> Imagine the political fallout if they didn't take action.
>>
>
>
> Exactly my thought.

Ask any emergency response crew and they'll tell you that even though
they're 98% sure it's a false alarm, they still respond as if it real.

[gatt]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
om...

>> Exactly, we ought to be launching the fighters at any sign of trouble.
>> I'm sure the F16 pilots won't mind.
> Yes, for every automobile accident we should scramble the entire military
> so as to spread panic amongst the entire population and show everyone that
> 'something' is being done. Never mind the fact no one knows what to do
> where or why.

Dave, they actually did that in Portland during the filming of the movie
"The Hunted." Some ultralight pilot in Scapoose made a joke about flying
his kite into a building while he was fueling up, and the attendant decided
to freak out about three hours later. He called the police, who called the
OANG, who scrambled fighters up the river through downtown looking for
something to shoot down....

....nobody told them that they were filming a war scene for The Hunted right
near the industrial section/port about then. Apparently, some of the
background noise in the war scene includes scrambled F-15s wondering WTH had
just blown up.

-c

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
> Owen wrote:
> <snip>
>>
>> So if you were calling the shots, how long would you have waited to call
>> for air support?
>
> If I was calling the shots, I wouldn't call for air support. I don't
> believe in shooting down an unarmed civilian airliner simply because it
> MIGHT be used as a weapon.

Just because the fighters are there doesn't mean they are going to shoot
someone down.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> Exactly, we ought to be launching the fighters at any sign of trouble.
>> I'm
>> sure the F16 pilots won't mind.
>
> Have you checked the cost of launching the fighters?
>

On the job training.

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> ...nobody told them that they were filming a war scene for The Hunted right
> near the industrial section/port about then. Apparently, some of the
> background noise in the war scene includes scrambled F-15s wondering WTH had
> just blown up.

The movie producers should have informed CNN, the official information
source for NORAD.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> On the job training.

Were you told in on-the-job training how much it costs to launch the
fighters?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Emily]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> "Emily" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Owen wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> So if you were calling the shots, how long would you have waited to call
>>> for air support?
>> If I was calling the shots, I wouldn't call for air support. I don't
>> believe in shooting down an unarmed civilian airliner simply because it
>> MIGHT be used as a weapon.
>
> Just because the fighters are there doesn't mean they are going to shoot
> someone down.
>
>
What else are they going to do? They've already admitted they
considered shooting down the governor of KY.

[Denny]

When the only tool you have is a hammer, the world looks like a nail...

denny

Emily wrote:
> What else are they going to do? They've already admitted they
> considered shooting down the governor of KY.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> On the job training.
>
> Were you told in on-the-job training how much it costs to launch the
> fighters?
>


I meant it should be charged off to on-the-job training.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>> "Emily" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> Owen wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>> So if you were calling the shots, how long would you have waited to
>>>> call
>>>> for air support?
>>> If I was calling the shots, I wouldn't call for air support. I don't
>>> believe in shooting down an unarmed civilian airliner simply because it
>>> MIGHT be used as a weapon.
>>
>> Just because the fighters are there doesn't mean they are going to shoot
>> someone down.
> What else are they going to do? They've already admitted they considered
> shooting down the governor of KY.


There is a difference between carrying a gun, pulling one out of the holster
and shooing someone.